EVAN SAID:
"So how do you know that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't one of the false Christs warned about in the Epistle of John?"
And how do you know that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a Martian with retractable antennae? After all, Loftus informs us that he only has to suggest several alternatives scenarios.
Only Ray Walston knows for sure.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this a good place to do this, but I had a question about your book which I started reading yesterday. You were making reference to the apologetic school typified by Craig, Moreland, and Habermas (among others), and you said this: "I’ve never been a signatory to the idea that we should limit our database to Mk 16:1-8 & 1 Cor 15:3-8. This was never more than a tactical concession to the unbeliever, under the assumption that what’s earlier is more reliable. Obviously the NT does not restrict itself to these two testimonies, so neither should we" (26).
You then give four sub-points to show that ealier sources are not necessarily more reliable, but is based on the character of the source itself (which I agree with), and then you say, "I’ve never been of the opinion that the Bible is more believable if you dissect it and take little snippets out of context and throw the rest away and paste the remaining slips of parchment into a papier-mâché outline of what “really” happened. This
is yet another mindless tradition shared by the apologist and the liberal alike. I don’t see anyone applying the same technique to Josephus or Tacitus or Thucydides."
I've always taken the value of the general approach used here by this school of apologetics to be in defeating any skeptical argument based on a theory of legendary accretion. While any realistic dating of the Gospels still makes legendary accretion fantastically implausible, 1 Cor. 15:3-8 drives the proverbial nail in the coffin in my opinion. It clearly has the form of an early church creed, and so must have been very early, possibly from the late 30s. This isn't to prove that it's more reliable, just that it's early, and that therefore the Resurrection was being proclaimed by the churches no later than a few years after Jesus' death. This obliterates any legendary accretion theory, and leaves the skpetic with a host of very implausible and discredited scenarios to explain the evidence (things like the swoon theory, hallucination theory, lost tomb theory, conspiracy theory, etc.). When skeptics are allowed to vaguely raise suspicions about legendary development by late-dating the source material, they can throw out whatever fanciful speculation they want (and they do). But when that option is removed, they're suddenly obliged to muck about in the details of the argument, and they don't fare nearly so well.
So to me, the value of this "piecemeal" approach is not to say that whatever is earlier is more reliable, but to say that whatever is earlier is not later (a bit of a tautology I realize).
I do understand that you were addressing the properties of the glorified body in this context, and since I haven't read Cavin's book I may have misconstrued your comments somewhat (and I haven't read very far in your book yet, either). But it seemed like you were making some general statements about this approach to historical apologetics that may have missed or downplayed the role it can play in an overall evidential argument.
I'm proud that a three sentence blog comment of mine has turned into a week-long obsession with me on this blog.
ReplyDeleteYou guys know how to make someone feel important.
Clearly I've touched a nerve here.
But to be honest ... how do you know that proto-orthodoxy wasn't a false Christianity in the mind of the writer of 1st John?
There certainly was no Christian canon extant until the Marcionite canon and most scholars date 1 John prior to the formation of that canon.
It's fine for you to make jokes (although I would stay away from Bill Bixby ... you wouldn't like him when he's angry), but I have never had a satisfactory answer to that question. If you guys are gonna obsess over me so much I'd love to hear a reasoned explanation and if it makes sense I could stop asking the question.
The name Jesus Christ simply means the anointed savior. It's not really gonna get you very far to tell me that there's only one anointed savior since 1st John specifically warns against extant false anointed saviors in the text.
His only way to know what was true in the text itself was to be covered in oil:
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
According to 1st John, if someone coats you in oil, the oil teaches you stuff.
Yet most Christians today don't anoint themselves at all ... and this seems to me to be evidence that we have a different, possibly false Christ, compared to the one discussed in 1st John.
Now perhaps some of the commenters on this blog have been given the omniscience of viscosity and can enlighten me.
I hope your arguments will be shiny and well-lubricated.
I don't think I've met anyone as dense as Evan is when it comes to Christianity. Between the "Moses didn't remember being put in the river, therefore it's a myth" argument to the "You learn stuff by oil" argument now, you gotta wonder just what Evan actually believed when he was pretending to be a Christian.
ReplyDeleteI think this demonstrates even more that Atheists = backwoods fundies in disguise. But hey, I suppose it's easier for Evan to be an atheist if he pretends Christians are backwoods fundies. Far be it for him to actually deal with the intellectual arguments presented.
BTW, Evan said:
---
If you guys are gonna obsess over me so much I'd love to hear a reasoned explanation and if it makes sense I could stop asking the question.
---
Given that you haven't listened to a single thing stated yet, I don't believe you when you say "I'd love to hear a reasoned explanation." You want nothing of the sort. The last thing you want is a reasoned explanation, which is why you run screaming from every single one provided to you.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteAre you now saying that the author of 1 John didn’t think Jesus Christ was Jesus of Nazareth? Again, as with Paul, the prima facie case is quite clear. All four Gospel writers assign the title “Christ” to Jesus of Nazareth. All four evangelists use the formula “Jesus Christ.” In case anyone misses it, in Acts 4:10 Luke records Peter as saying “let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead -- by this name this man stands here before you in good health.” As I’ve already shown on the other thread, Paul clearly shows that by “Jesus Christ” he means Jesus of Nazareth with the early church creed in 1 Cor. 15. Jason added some additional evidence to that.
So when the writer of 1 John uses “Jesus Christ,” and uses other formulae that are found in the Gospels like “only begotten son” (1Jn 4:9) and “Son of God” 1Jn. 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12, 5:13, 5:20 (a formula also used in all four gospels), along with talk of the significance of his blood (1Jn. 1:7) and the connection between his blood and the forgiveness of sins (again, a theme that recurs in all four Gospels and Paul’s letters) the presumptive case that he means Jesus of Nazareth is pretty obvious. If you’re suggesting that all of these appellations and themes were predicated of someone else named Jesus who was not Jesus of Nazareth, you’re clearly the one with the burden of proof. To my knowledge you have offered not one shred of evidence to support the idea. You’re just raising a mere suspicion.
I’m new to this blog, so I’m not really sure why these guys are making posts about your arguments either. They have absolutely no substance to them (your arguments, that is). From other comments, I gather that you don’t really respond to evidence and arguments too well. Probably these other guys have better things to do than waste their time with silly arguments like this. Being new to the blog, I’m willing (for now) to humor your nonsense.
Hi John,
ReplyDelete1.My problem with this apologetic approach is, in part, that it’s very one-sided, and once it becomes standardized and popularized, people get locked into that one-sided approach.
I don’t mind appealing to the Gospel of Mark or 1 Cor 15. I do mind restricting ourselves to that line of evidence.
2.I don’t object to answering the unbeliever on his own grounds. However, we must also be prepared to challenge the unbeliever’s unreasonable assumptions and standards. So we should operate on both fronts. We need more than one strategy.
3.My criticism of how they construe the glorified body is not a criticism of historical apologetics, per se. That’s coincidental. It’s just that this interpretation has become a fixture of historical apologetics. It’s an adventitious association. There’s nothing which precludes historical apologetics from offering a different (and better) interpretation of the glorified body. Since I think that interpretation is a misinterpretation, it needs to be corrected before it becomes too tradition-bound.
No Evan it's not obsession. These guys are just very thorough and willing to actually discuss and engage the arguments, rather than duck and run and then change the subject and then tell themselves that they've "won" and congratulate themselves for being "awesome". That is all that you have demonstrated no matter what you tell yourself. And everyone who is watching this can see it--heck even Stevie Wonder could see it.....no nerves are being struck, (please get over your imaginary importance.) these guys are willing to interact but after the song and dance from you it gets old, and they eventually run out of patience. This happens right around the same time that you become irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteSorry but 1 Cor 15 really doesn't accomplish much.
ReplyDeleteDying and rising messiah appeared to Cephas ... where is that in the gospels? Is that in John when Simon sees some linen? Or is that in John when he appears to 3 (not one or 12) disciples and has them catch fish? Or where he appears to Mary? Or where he appears to 11 (not 12) apostles and has Thomas stick his hands into his flesh? I certainly don't see anything in John where Jesus of Nazareth appears first to Cephas, then to 12 people, then to 500 people ... it's just not there.
How about in Matthew? Nope, in Matthew he appears to women, then to eleven in Galilee and then he's spent.
So Matthew's story can't be what Paul is talking about.
Mark just has women finding an empty tomb with a young man in it fleeing in fear, so it can't be Mark Paul is talking about.
That leaves us with Luke. Luke has women finding the empty tomb, running to tell eleven people (not twelve) then Peter with the linen again, then 2 dudes on a street who then claim he showed himself to Simon ... but no actual appearance to Simon being mentioned (and there are at least two Simons mentioned in the Gospel so the name Simon is not identical with the name Cephas), then Jesus appears again to the eleven ... not twelve.
So if you wanna use 1 Cor, which I suppose is OK ... it's evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels is a false Christ.
The Jesus of the Gospels at no point appears in sequence to Cephas, then to the 12, and then to 500. It's just not there.
evan said...
ReplyDelete“You guys know how to make someone feel important.”
Were you feeling unimportant? Do you suffer from low self-esteem? Atheism can have that effect on you. It’s depressing to think that you’re just a temporary piece of protoplasm.
“But to be honest ... how do you know that proto-orthodoxy wasn't a false Christianity in the mind of the writer of 1st John?”
To go no further, the author of 1 John also authored the Gospel of John. If we had nothing more to go on than 1 John and the Forth Gospel, that would be more than enough to establish “proto-orthodoxy.”
And it’s not as if the other gospels or NT letters reflect a higher Christology.
“There certainly was no Christian canon extant until the Marcionite canon and most scholars date 1 John prior to the formation of that canon.”
Wrong. The early church rejected the Marcionite canon because his canon was in conflict with the preexisting canon.
And we don’t have to canonize every book of the NT to canonize 1 John or the Fourth Gospel. You’re confusing the whole with the parts.
“The name Jesus Christ simply means the anointed savior. It's not really gonna get you very far to tell me that there's only one anointed savior since 1st John specifically warns against extant false anointed saviors in the text.”
You’re confusing the etymology of a word with its meaning. Meaning derives from usage, not etymology.
The “messiah” is a theological construct. Many OT motifs feed into this emerging picture.
“According to 1st John, if someone coats you in oil, the oil teaches you stuff.”
You don’t know a metaphor when you see it.
Evan said:
ReplyDelete"The Jesus of the Gospels at no point appears in sequence to Cephas, then to the 12, and then to 500. It's just not there."
For some odd reason, you're assuming that unless two or more historical accounts name all the same individuals, then the names they do share in common don't denote the same individuals. That's utterly irrational.
One would never apply that to two more more news reports. If one news report mentions Bill and Hillary Clinton, while another report only mentions Bill, is it a different Bill Clinton?
Evan,
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty good argument from ignorance. Too bad that's a well-known logical fallacy, though I've noticed you rely heavily on it in most of your arguments.
I guess you didn't understand what the passage from 1 Cor. 15 was intended to prove. It was intended to prove that Paul was referring to Jesus of Nazareth when he spoke of "Christ," and not some other guy named Jesus. It clearly does show that, unless you're arguing that somebody else named Jesus also rose from the dead and appeared to all those same people (how did they keep them all straight, all these guys named Jesus rising from the dead and appearing to the same people?).
The objection that you've raised is interesting for biblical exegesis, however it is at best a discrepancy in secondary details of the events. The core details are identical, that Jesus died, was buried, rose from the dead, and then appeared to many individuals and groups of people. This issue has been addressed elsewhere, but it's a completely separate argument from whether or not Paul was referring to Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus Christ, which was your assertion.
At least you dropped your nonsensical assertion about the author of 1 John. That's some progress.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteYou might want to look at Luke 24:34, where the two from Emmaus return to Jerusalem where the apostles are gathered, and they are told, "The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon." (Simon and Cephas were both names for Peter in case you didn't know that). So Luke is clearly referring to a separate appearance to Peter by himself BEFORE Jesus appears to the rest of the apostles, even though the event itself is not chronicled. So even your prima facie case against Paul's testimony in 1 Cor. 15 hold no water.
Fraser said...That's a pretty good argument from ignorance. Too bad that's a well-known logical fallacy, though I've noticed you rely heavily on it in most of your arguments.
ReplyDeleteSo, you are an expert in critical thinking, eh? Okay, I guess. I think that we cannot have fallacy free beliefs. Wanna argue that with me sometime?
As far as the argument from silence goes we can still press home those type of arguments regardless, and here's why.
As I've said numerous times here, with critical thinking skills like that no wonder you believe....Sheesh!
As far as your argument about Karl Popper goes in that other thread, the alternatives are not complete skepticism versus complete accuracy with regard to the past. That's a fallacy known by various names but the "Either Or" or the "Black and White" nomenclature will suffice.
John Fraser,
ReplyDeleteDon't you get it yet? If the events aren't the same in different places then they're not talking about the same person. If they are the same, then obviously one copied it from the other. It's so simple!!!!
What's simple, Pike, is that you affirm that if the Bible says it, you believe it and that settles it.
ReplyDeleteI affirm that so far you've given me no reason to doubt the Bible and every reason to doubt your stability.
ReplyDeleteJohn W. Lofus,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"I think that we cannot have fallacy free beliefs. Wanna argue that with me sometime?"
Since that belief is not free of any fallacy, it has no claim upon me. That was quick.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteI missed the part in your post where you actually referenced the mention in Luke of the appearance to Peter (I was in the middle of feeding my three kids lunch, so my bad). But what the heck are you saying now? Even though Luke mentions that Jesus appeared to Simon, and Simon was one of the names for Peter, and Paul says Jesus appeared first to Cephas, and Cephas was one of the names for Peter, Luke was talking about a different Simon? This is beyond stupid. Even an uncharitable reading has to admit that these readings confirm each other. Again, you're simply raising a suspicion with no evidential basis for it.
You said, "then Jesus appears again to the eleven ... not twelve." Actually, Luke says the two from Emmaus found the eleven "and those who were with them" gathered together (Lk. 24:33). So we don't know how many there were, but at least 13 (the eleven plus the two from Emmaus) and unnumbered others. When Paul says "The Twelve" (which was an early title for the apostles as a group) that would include the original eleven plus Matthias who was chosen to replace Judas in Acts 1, and who was said to be among those who accompanied the disciples "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us" (Acts 1:21-22). Thus it's very likely that Matthais was one of the others that was gathered with the eleven when Jesus appeared to them after he had already appeared to Peter. Remember, Paul's statement had the form of an early church creed (which is one of the reasons it uses Peter's Aramaic name). But only the most contrived reading of these passages can suggest that they don't harmonize perfectly well together. And not a shred of evidence supports your argument in any event, which is still an argument from ignorance.
What I mean, I, since you will never once try to truly understand what is meant by someone like me, is that we all have many beliefs which are believed based upon fallacies such that every person bases so much of what he believes on them that the sum total of what he believes is largely due to them. But no, not every belief or argument is fallacious.
ReplyDeleteThis goes to the heart of our attempts to discuss these issues reasonably with you. There is something called the principle of charity whereby one must attribute the best possible interpretation of another person's words lest he ends up arguing against a straw man argument. I find that you guys repeatedly do that with us, and I know why. You do this because the principle of charity does not apply to us. We're wrong. There is therefore no reason to try to attempt to understand in a charitable way what it is we're saying. Okay, I guess.
Keep attacking strawmen then. Other, more reasonable people are reading who see it for what it is, and they are being affected by what we say. Until you actually engage us with the true nature of our arguments you will lose the argument.
Or, then again, maybe the reason you do this because you can't. Your readers are wondering about this. I know I am.
So charity = agree with everything I say.
ReplyDeleteAny attempt at objectivity or disagreement = strawman argument.
Pretty cozy I'd say.
I'm just watching to see what marvelous reasoning you spring on us next.
MDC just provided us with another example.
ReplyDeleteSheesh, with critical thinking skills like that no wonder you guys believe!
Loftus,
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I claimed to be an expert in critical thinking. But I do have two master's degrees in theology and additional grad studies in philosophy, so I'm certainly well versed in the area. I would probably agree that our total system of belief can never be free of fallacies, at least in practice. I imagine it's possible in principle to have a fallacy-free worldview, just that I doubt that anyone has one. But I'm not sure what your point is. I'm more concerned with the truth of specific propositions, especially the Resurrection. I'm not trying to prove that every single belief I hold is true.
As for your take on the Argument from Ignorance, the burden is really on the one making the argument to show that some certain type of evidence should exist, but it does not. It can be done, but it's a heavy burden. The arguments that you linked to are not nearly rigorous enough in my opinion. They don't have enough weight to throw the evidential burden back to Christian apologists as you would like, though you can bluster all you want. I don’t have the time to get into that one with you right now, as I’m leaving on a big trip tomorrow.
I agree with what you said to “I” about the principle of charity, but that principle has been egregiously (and repeatedly) violated by Evan in his reading of the Gospels and the epistles (among other things). He suggests that we read the appearance to Simon mentioned by Luke and the appearance to Cephas mentioned by Paul as appearances to two different people even though Cephas and Simon were both names for Peter. Why? No reason, just because it suits his agenda. What would a charitable (or even a neutral) reading suggest?
Let’s face it, we’re all guilty of violating the principle of charity in arguing against others who are of a contrary opinion. I’m sure you do it also.
Nah. Just tired of the silly emotional games I have seen you pull around here for several years now. The same old patterns. Right about now you are in the hurt puppy phase and this will soon turn into the temper tantrum 4th grader phase where you announce that you are "done" and "finished" and storm out only to return later like an attention starved child with no substantial arguments. Please John....teach me. I'm perfectly willing and need to learn.
ReplyDeletewe all have many beliefs which are believed based upon fallacies such that every person bases so much of what he believes on them that the sum total of what he believes is largely due to them
ReplyDeleteSpeak for yourself, John.
Fraser, while I do think the questions that Evan asks are not as cut and dried as you suppose, your comment to me was charitable. I have more respect for you.
ReplyDeleteGood luck on your trip tomorrow. Maybe we'll clash swords again sometime. Come over and comment at DC all you want to. I think we have the equivalent educational background.
Loftus,
ReplyDeleteWhile I'd like to believe you're just interested in a thoughtful exchange of ideas, I've also heard you state publicly something to the effect that your goal in life is to destroy Christianity. So in spite of your thoughtful words here, that seems to be fundamentally at odds with an over-arching principle of charity. Just my two cents' worth.
Simons in the Gospels:
ReplyDeleteSimon the son of Zebedee (who is called Peter) Mt 10
Simon the Zealot Mt 10
Simon (the brother of Jesus) Mt 13
Simon the Leper Mt 26
Simon of Cyrene Mt 27
Simon Iscariot (Father of Judas) Jn 6
Simon the son of John who is called Cephas (possibly a conflation with Zebedee) Jn 1
There is also Simon the Sorcerer in Acts
There's certainly nothing in the text that identifies the Simon discussed on the road to Emmaus as Simon Peter, more importantly, there is no mention in any of the gospels of Jesus of Nazareth appearing alone to Simon much less someone named Cephas. So one of them is wrong. Which one is it? The gospels or Paul.
I'd be willing to bet that Paul was pretty sure of the order of events, because he'd gotten his information for Jesus Christ himself. So when Paul's info. that came directly from Jesus Christ doesn't match up with Jesus of Nazareth, that seems like prima facie evidence that there is a falsehood somewhere and one of them is a false Christ.
To be honest, of course I think they are both false, but historically it's indsiputable that Christians disputed the orthodoxy of other Christians from the beginning.
The gospels run the gamut from Mark who never mentions any post-tomb appearances of Jesus to Luke who has Jesus peppering the Levant with appearances like Dick Cheney peppered Harry Whittington's face with buckshot.
There's certainly no method I can discern to tell us who the writer of 1 John was decrying (it very well may have been Paul and that is why the Johannine Gospel gives a different post resurrection sequence).
Mr. Loftus,
ReplyDeleteOver the time I have been reading this blog, I have seen everything offered to you. I've seen charity. I've seen respect. I've seen sarcasm and anger. I've seen humor. I've seen disrespect. I've seen patience. I've seen pleadings for repentence. I've seen argumentation both airtight and weak. (mostly mine on the latter :) ) I've seen hope and kindness. I've seen exasperation and loss of hope. You've been given everything philosophically, emotionally, Biblically, logically, psychologically etc etc... Where does it end John? What is it you want? What are you trying to get out of this? What's your motivation? What is the final end?
Evan said:
ReplyDelete---
There's certainly nothing in the text that identifies the Simon discussed on the road to Emmaus as Simon Peter, more importantly, there is no mention in any of the gospels of Jesus of Nazareth appearing alone to Simon much less someone named Cephas. So one of them is wrong.
---
Once again, your logic is amazing.
1) John Elway was a quarterback.
2) John, the quarterback for the Broncos, was the Superbowl MVP in Superbowl XXXIII.
3) John is a popular name.
4) The John mentioned in 1 might not be the John mentioned in 2.
5) Therefore, one of the statements is wrong. Which one is it? 1) or 2)?
What amazing logical skills you shows the world, Evan.
In addition to what I already said, on any conventional solution to the Synoptic problem, whether Markan priority (majority position) or Matthean priority (minority position), two of the Gospels are literarily dependent, in some degree, on the third. So all three Gospels are referring to the very same Jesus.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as Simon Gathercole has recently documented (in The Preexistent Son), the Synoptic Gospels also teach a high Christology. So you can get your “proto-orthodoxy” from the Synoptics as well as John.
Then there’s the little matter of Luke as Paul’s traveling companion. Therefore, the Pauline Jesus is the same person and the Lukan Jesus, who is, in turn, the same person as the Synoptic Jesus generally.
Of course, you can try to challenge the traditional authorship of Luke-Acts, but you have your work cut out for you. Citing Wikipedia articles is no match for Evangelical scholarship.
evan said...
ReplyDelete“I'd be willing to bet that Paul was pretty sure of the order of events, because he'd gotten his information for Jesus Christ himself. So when Paul's info. that came directly from Jesus Christ doesn't match up with Jesus of Nazareth, that seems like prima facie evidence that there is a falsehood somewhere and one of them is a false Christ.”
That’s another ignorant statement based on your ignorant misinterpretation of something Paul said in Galatians.
The gospels run the gamut from Mark who never mentions any post-tomb appearances of Jesus to Luke who has Jesus peppering the Levant with appearances like Dick Cheney peppered Harry Whittington's face with buckshot.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot your conclusion...Therefore, the two works contradict each other.
Hmmm, let's try this out:
Book 1 says Bill Clinton appeared at venue x on day y at 5pm
Book 2 never mentions that appearance.
Therefore, the two books contradict each other.
True or false, Evan?
Notice that Evan never bothers to interact with Evangelical Scholarship - never,ever,not one time. What is Evan afraid of?
There's certainly no method I can discern to tell us who the writer of 1 John was decrying (it very well may have been Paul and that is why the Johannine Gospel gives a different post resurrection sequence).
And exactly how does the text of 1 Corinthians contradict that of John? Evan never attempts to reconcile them - no, not ever.
As to John's "principle of charity:"
1. Shall we thumb through the comment threads here one more time to see how many times you've violated your principles? So much for your moralizing.
2. Why should it matter to you if we're "charitable" or not? We're all just blobs of protoplasm, and in the end, if we follow your worldview, it won't matter at all. So much for your moralizing.
3. We've been over this with you before, John...you're not treated the way you are here for no reason.
a. You're an admitted apostate. You don't just leave the community you left alone, you try to reeinter its doors to drag out as many with you as possible. You get treated the way you do, because of that.
b. You're also disreputable. You constantly repeat the same tired arguments that we've refuted. Not only that, the revolving door of contributors at your blog seems to get ever more incompetent. Take Evan, how many poor arguments can he drum up?
c. Finally, nobody's dragging you into the combox here. If you don't like the way you're treated, find the door and don't come back. Since you repeatedly do so, we can only assume you want to be here, knowing full well the "lack of charity" toward you and your compatriots and somehow enjoy it.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteYou said, “There's certainly nothing in the text that identifies the Simon discussed on the road to Emmaus as Simon Peter, more importantly, there is no mention in any of the gospels of Jesus of Nazareth appearing alone to Simon much less someone named Cephas. So one of them is wrong. Which one is it? The gospels or Paul.”
Huh? First of all, there was NO Simon discussed on the road to Emmaus. It was when the two unidentified disciples from Emmaus returned to Jerusalem and reported that Jesus had appeared to them that they were told that Jesus had appeared to Simon. So you’re statement that “there is no mention in any of the gospels of Jesus of Nazareth appearing alone to Simon” is a flat-out lie. It’s mentioned right here in Luke 24:34. It’s not NARRATED. But it is MENTIONED. It doesn’t have to be narrated for it to be stated as having happened.
But then you say “so one of them is wrong.” Are you being dense, or (as it’s really starting to appear) just disingenuous? Cephas was a name for Peter (see John 1:42). It’s the Aramaic form of the Greek Petros. Now try to follow this. Paul says Jesus appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Luke says Jesus appeared to Simon (another name for Peter, see Luke 5:8 and lots of other verses), then to the eleven plus others who were with them. Those two statements are perfectly consistent. There’s absolutely no reason to suggest that one of them is wrong. They say the same thing in different words. But that, I think, is pretty obvious to anybody.
Loftus,
ReplyDeleteYou still out there? What do you think of Evan's use of the "principle of charity" now? Do you defend this sort of argumentation? This is just flat-out arguing in bad faith and intellectual dishonesty. But I'd like to hear you defend this argument and see if you're a man of your word.
Man you guys sure get your dander up with any discussion at all.
ReplyDeleteSo let me make a very specific point and I will try to ignore all the hooting and catcalls you guys put out.
The author of 1st John is probably the author of John the gospel. That seems widely agreed upon.
Nobody here is arguing (that I can see) that the Gospel of John lists appearances to Cephas, then the 12, then to 500 people. Correct?
So ... the author of the Gospel of John, who is warning about false Christs ... is not reporting the story that is being used by John Fraser to verify that Paul was talking about Jesus of Nazareth.
Paul's story doesn't appear in any of the gospels. If you stretch the truth a bit, it may be Luke is the closest, but again, for a credal formula that Paul is asserting that goes back to the years right after Jesus was nailed to a piece of wood ... it's pretty odd that NONE of the gospels would get that credal formula exactly right, isn't it? It was a credal formula for goodness' sake.
The author of 1 John is specifically warning against false Christs.
So if he has a different resurrection sequence than Paul does, is it not more than possible that he is positing his group's narrative in contradistinction to that of Paul and specifically warning that Paul is wrong?
Therefore, by what criteria can a 21st century dweller know that the author of 1 John and the author of the credal statement in 1 Cor both represent the same group? Isn't it possible that John is proto-orthodox and Paul is gnostic? We know there was schism from the beginning, so it's certainly not prima facie false to suggest an internecine argument that we still have evidence of.
There is a difference between Paul's credal statement (which should be the most accurate if you accept Jesus' historicity) and the later gospel narratives, with greater and greater legendary development of the post-resurrection narrative in the later gospels. It's something that needs explanation and I still don't see a good one.
One explanation that seems wrong is that the omnipotent creator of the universe came to earth in human form and died and was resurrected but didn't have the skill to make sure that the stories written down about him were even congruent much less in agreement. But hey, if you start with the assumption that that's the case, you have to do a lot of twisting.
Paul's story doesn't appear in any of the gospels. If you stretch the truth a bit, it may be Luke is the closest, but again, for a credal formula that Paul is asserting that goes back to the years right after Jesus was nailed to a piece of wood ... it's pretty odd that NONE of the gospels would get that credal formula exactly right, isn't it? It was a credal formula for goodness' sake.
ReplyDeleteNo,it's not odd. Paul is writing in 55 AD. The Gospels,with the possible exception of Mark were written afterward.
The Gospels are also audience specific. Why would they need to get the exact order correct in order for them to be true accounts? You've not offered a supporting argument for that move.
To a certain extent Luke's is offering a historical order, because that's his stated purpose.
But would Mark? Mark is, according to tradition, Peter's stenographer, but Mark, by your own admission doesn't properly end with Resurrection appearances.
This leaves Matthew? Why would Matthew need to repeat the same details to a different audience?
Why would John need to do the same?
the author of the Gospel of John, who is warning about false Christs
You're mixing up 1John and John's Gospel. John's Gospel is written to express the evangelion qua evangelion. 1John is written against (proto)Docetism.
Therefore, by what criteria can a 21st century dweller know that the author of 1 John and the author of the credal statement in 1 Cor both represent the same group? Isn't it possible that John is proto-orthodox and Paul is gnostic?
You're bundling several issues and demonstrating you're confused.
As soon as you start talking about "groups" that the authors represent, as in this case, John, you're committed to a liberal dating scheme and higher criticism. But that move thereby:
1.Excludes John qua John as the author of either the Gospel or 1 John. Take your pick.
2. It also tends to exclude Paul as author of the Pauline Epistles, or at least a number of them.
So, which position are you taking?
If you take Paul as the author of 1 Corinthians, then you need to demonstrate,contra NT Wright to take one example, that Paul is writing about a "spiritual" not a physical resurrection of the dead. That would make him "Gnostic." Where is the supporting argument?
If you take John qua John as the author of either one or both of the books that you are using,this will commit you to a scheme.
But you're saying John represents "proto-orthodoxy" and Paul is Gnostic on the one hand and on the other than what is written later would be a legendary accretion. So, which is it? If John is "proto-Orthodox" then when was it written? If Paul is "Gnostic," then when was it written? Please try to keep track of your own argumentation.
Finally, the Gospels, when dated don't affirm this theory of accretion that you're trying to pass off. To take just one example, Mark's Gospel is generally regarded as the first, but it contains more,not less details about many things than the others. You'd expect the opposite to be true if the Form Critics are correct.
Evan,
ReplyDeleteSo if he has a different resurrection sequence than Paul does, is it not more than possible that he is positing his group's narrative in contradistinction to that of Paul and specifically warning that Paul is wrong?
Is there something contradictory about the Gospel of John's narrative vs. Paul's narrative? The author of the Gospel of John was one of the Twelve (apostles), wasn't he? Is there anything in I John to suggest that its author regarded Paul as a false apostle and Paul's Christ as a false Christ? For I John, the antichrists are those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. But Paul confesses that Jesus Christ came in the flesh!
So where are we left with you nonsense question?
Let's also remember that your initial remark was that I John might be referring to Jesus of Nazareth as a false Christ. But the author of I John and the Gospel of John are the same; and the Gospel of John clearly identifies Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ (Jh. 1:45).
Evan,
ReplyDeleteHaving retreated on your position regarding Paul, now you're suggesting (with another argument from ignorance) that "the author of the Gospel of John, who is warning about false Christs ... is not reporting the story that is being used by John Fraser to verify that Paul was talking about Jesus of Nazareth."
How do you figure? Again, all of the core elements are identical: Jesus died, was buried, rose on the third day, and afterwards appeared to many people. And because John omits reference to an earlier appearance to Peter you conclude he's talking about someone other than Jesus of Nazareth, or that he represents an entirely different Christian tradition? That's a huge leap that is in no way justified by any evidence you've given. How do you get from point A to point B? You're proving to be good at fanciful speculation, but not much else. Don't you ever feel the need to make an actual case for any of your arguments?
In John 1:45 Jesus is explicitly identified as being from Nazareth. So if you admit that the author of the Gospel of John and 1 John are the same person, there's no possible way you can say that he's talking about somebody other than Jesus of Nazareth when he refers to Jesus Christ. He SAYS he is. Get it?
You said, "There is a difference between Paul's credal statement (which should be the most accurate if you accept Jesus' historicity) and the later gospel narratives, with greater and greater legendary development of the post-resurrection narrative in the later gospels. It's something that needs explanation and I still don't see a good one."
Then you haven't looked very hard. Rather than "greater and greater legendary development," what you have are minor discrepancies in the secondary details of the events. It's those differences that actually prove that we have independent sources for the post-resurrection narratives, sources which nevertheless agree on the core details. They didn't just all copy from the same written source. But those secondary details can and have been harmonized with little difficulty. It does, however require application of the principle of charity. So, for example, when John says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, and Matthew says Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb, those don't contradict each other as critics suggest. Both statements can be true, just like if I went golfing with Dan, Bob, and Mark and went home and told my wife I was talking to Bob while we were golfing. If she later found out that I went with Dan, Bob, and Mark, she wouldn't say, "you liar! You must not have gone golfing at all!"
As I've already said, however, this question is of interest for biblical exegesis and questions like the doctrine of inerrancy, perhaps. But no historian would ever look at different sources and say they were talking about two different people just because one ommitted a secondary event that another one included while all the core historical details were exactly the same. That's just sheer nonsense.
At any rate, you have to do some research to get into all the details. If you'd like to bring up specifics, I'd be happy to oblige. I actually teach the alleged discrepencies in apologetics classes just to show how weak the position of skeptics is. However, I am leaving on a trip tommorrow and I don't know how much internet access I'll have.
First of all I have never said that the author of John's gospel or 1 John was John the disciple. I don't think there was a John the disciple. I said I think they are the same person, who could have been named Steve for all I know.
ReplyDeleteSuffice it to say if the author of the gospel and 1 John was aware of Paul's credal statement, he ignored it in toto and created a different post resurrection account that does not agree with the stated creed of Paul.
There's nothing incoherent about believing those two things, so I don't get what all the hue and cry about incoherence comes from.
Secondly we have a plethora of non-canonical gospels which vary to one degree or another from the canonical gospels. Do any of these non-canonical gospels give a sequence of Cephas, then the twelve, then 500? I'm not aware of any. So is it not possible that Paul is referencing a lost document that was later deemed to be heretical, that 1 John is a comment on that heresy and by implication is arguing against Paul himself?
1 Cor certainly says some things that could be considered proto-docetic.
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
Spirit (pneuma) means breath, wind, air and spirit all at the same time (still today in English -- inspiration for example is also breathing in). So here Paul is arguing against a physically resurrected body of earth (flesh). This something the author of John's gospel is markedly against and proves so by the doubting Thomas episode.
Paul continues:
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
Again, the physical soma from earth is set in contradistinction to the spiritual airy body that is the body of the resurrection.
In contrast the author of 1 John says:
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
He emphasizes the flesh. Yet later in 1 Cor Paul says this:
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
So Paul is specifically arguing against a fleshly resurrection and 1 John is arguing for it.
See how that's a problem?
---------------------------------
ReplyDelete“You guys know how to make someone feel important.”
Were you feeling unimportant? Do you suffer from low self-esteem? Atheism can have that effect on you. It’s depressing to think that you’re just a temporary piece of protoplasm.
---------------------------------
What is the chief end of man?
Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.
No, the chief end of man is the head. The servant end is the bottom.
ReplyDeleteEvan's argument about whether different sources are referring to the same Jesus was addressed repeatedly by me and by John Fraser in another thread:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/level-of-argumentation-at-debunking.html
Evan keeps ignoring what he's already been told.
In this thread, he writes:
"There is a difference between Paul's credal statement (which should be the most accurate if you accept Jesus' historicity) and the later gospel narratives, with greater and greater legendary development of the post-resurrection narrative in the later gospels. It's something that needs explanation and I still don't see a good one."
The creed of 1 Corinthians 15 is commonly dated prior to Mark's gospel. Yet, Mark's gospel says less about resurrection appearances, mentions fewer of the people Jesus appeared to, etc. And how does Evan know whether Matthew was written before Luke or the other way around, for example? For a lengthier treatment of the "legendary development" argument, see David Wood's article at:
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-dan-barker/barkers-blunders.html
Regarding Evan's suggestion of disunity among the apostles and other early church leaders (1 John might have been written against Paul, etc.), see the posts in our archives about the unity of the early Christians. For example:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/04/there-were-many-still-remaining-who.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/whether-then-it-was-i-or-they-so-we.html
See also the relevant sections here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/04/did-early-christians-suffer-and-die.html
Evan writes:
"So Paul is specifically arguing against a fleshly resurrection and 1 John is arguing for it."
No, you're mistaken. See Steve Hays' e-book This Joyful Eastertide for a treatment of that subject:
http://www.reformed.plus.com/triablogue/ebooks.html
See also:
http://www.christianorigins.com/resbody.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/did-apostle-paul-believe-in-physical.html
Loftus whines about not being treated charitably, and yet the first thing he'll say on his blog or this combox is some blasphemy against God or insulting Christians. We're just answering the fool according to his folly.
ReplyDeleteAnd as several others have already said, in the future every atheist and every Christian posting comments on this blog will be dead. If atheism is true, then the sun will blow up and none of this will have mattered. As Sartre put it, you can help the old lady across the street or run her over. If atheism is true, then when all is said and done, who cares?
Your level of argument seems to be:
ReplyDeleteRead every blog post we've ever made and that answers your questions.
Sorry ... I'm wasting enough time reading your comments.
If someone else is following the discussion I doubt they'll read a bunch of blog posts beyond this either so it does make me look better, and thanks for that.
When I have an argument, I try to make it. When I don't, I don't try.
At least you know where I'm standing on a given topic.
As for the debate being not important if the atheist is correct, that's where you're really wrong.
See there are plenty of Bible believing inerrantists out there. One of them is the Neumann family in Wisconsin. They believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and it had terrible consequences for them. (Sorry, had to do at least one to keep up with you guys.)
Peter Pike: "I don't think I've met anyone as dense as Evan is when it comes to Christianity. ... you gotta wonder just what Evan actually believed when he was pretending to be a Christian.
ReplyDeleteFar be it for him to actually deal with the intellectual arguments presented."
BTW, Evan said: "If you guys are gonna obsess over me so much I'd love to hear a reasoned explanation and if it makes sense I could stop asking the question."
Given that you haven't listened to a single thing stated yet, I don't believe you when you say "I'd love to hear a reasoned explanation." You want nothing of the sort. The last thing you want is a reasoned explanation, which is why you run screaming from every single one provided to you."
Is there such a thing as polite snickering? I mean, can I snicker ever so mildly that it won't give offense to the one being snickered at?
No offense Evan, but Peter Pike makes me snicker/chuckle/laugh when he shows how your response isn't fully sufficient.
Evan wrote:
ReplyDelete"Your level of argument seems to be: Read every blog post we've ever made and that answers your questions. Sorry ... I'm wasting enough time reading your comments."
No, we haven't suggested that you "read every blog post we've ever made". But why should we reinvent the wheel every time you post another one of your unsupported assertions? I've been posting responses to you primarily for the benefit of other readers. Your interest in reading more about a topic doesn't determine whether I'll post more about it.
Besides, you haven't just been ignoring the links we post to other articles. You've also been ignoring much of the material we post within these threads.
You write:
"When I have an argument, I try to make it. When I don't, I don't try."
You've sometimes posted links in your responses to people, and you do so again at the end of the post I'm now responding to.
You write:
"At least you know where I'm standing on a given topic."
When I tell you that you're wrong about Paul's view of the resurrection, for example, and I link you to two articles documenting that fact, you don't know "where I'm standing on a given topic"?
You write:
"Sorry, had to do at least one to keep up with you guys."
You've posted links in other posts as well. In other words, not only do your comments about the alleged inappropriateness of links not make sense, but those comments are also inconsistent with your own behavior.
Suffice it to say if the author of the gospel and 1 John was aware of Paul's credal statement, he ignored it in toto and created a different post resurrection account that does not agree with the stated creed of Paul.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't argued this at all. You've merely asserted it. You've not shown how they are contradictory.
I'll ask you this again:
The Gospels are also audience specific. Why would they need to get the exact order correct in order for them to be true accounts? You've not offered a supporting argument for that move.
You keep making these assertions, but when we ask you questions, you (a) offer little if any supporting argumentation, and (b) you ignore us, even after we answer you. You're not interacting in good faith. Consider this your first warning; Either shape up or ship out.
Spirit (pneuma) means breath, wind, air and spirit all at the same time (still today in English -- inspiration for example is also breathing in).
Once again, you're confusing the entymology of a word with its meaning and usage.
So here Paul is arguing against a physically resurrected body of earth (flesh). This something the author of John's gospel is markedly against and proves so by the doubting Thomas episode.
&tc...no need to quote the rest.
So, I see you're now arguing along the lines of the Jesus Seminar.
Problem 1: 1 Corinthians predates 1 John by quite a bit. So, now you need to explain how 1 John, the later document is correcting Paul, the earlier document, if John's Gospel is adding material, namely what evidence do you have at hand that the Gnostic position arose before and not after the other position? That would contradict liberal scholarship that says that, when Christ did not return immediately,within the lifetime of the Apostolic Church itself, the position you say Paul espoused arose as a consequence, eg. it is the later development, not the other.
Problem 2: You've glossed right over NT Wright on this subject, even though I specifically pointed you to it. It's easily accessible. Google is your friend.
Problem 3: When Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, he's using it as a descriptor for "corruptibility." The resurrection body is not corruptible and tainted by sin.. It is spiritual. In that context "spiritual" refers not to "non physical" but to "incorruptible." Eg. it cannot die, it is no longer tainted with sin. Rather it is animated by the spirit, it's the body in its glorfied state, united with the spirit in its glorified state.
Indeed, elsewhere Paul argues against Jewish Gnosticism, as in Colossians, so now you need to explain why the contradiction between 1 Corinthians and Colossians. You know, with each passing post, you only dig yourself further into a hole.
There is no conflict between 1 John and 1 Corinthians on this at all, except in your world, where you don't bother to interact with the opposing scholarship. Why not surprise us and do that?
Secondly we have a plethora of non-canonical gospels which vary to one degree or another from the canonical gospels.
Yes, they vary, as products of another religion and not written by the authors to whom they are attributed, we'd expect that.
Which "non canonical gospels" are you referring to? Why should we consider them?
Jason, you said,
ReplyDelete"No, we haven't suggested that you "read every blog post we've ever made". But why should we reinvent the wheel every time you post another one of your unsupported assertions? I've been posting responses to you primarily for the benefit of other readers. Your interest in reading more about a topic doesn't determine whether I'll post more about it.
Besides, you haven't just been ignoring the links we post to other articles. You've also been ignoring much of the material we post within these threads."
Jason, you took the words right out of my mouth! You guys have one of the best Christian apologetic sites on the web. Your arguments are sound, your prose is easy to follow. I only have one problem, your threads are too long. I want to read every word, but I can't because the thing goes on and on with people who don't listen, or can't follow basic logic - like Loftus.
In the future, when someone like Loftus, or that Evan guy come back with some lame argument that you guys have already answered in a previous post, then tell him, and us, that you have already answered that here...here...and here. It would be helpful to us, because we could go and read what you have written on the subject without having to wade through all the nonsense from people who aren't interested in answers.
Moreover, if the guy has nothing new, just more arguing in circles, then shut him down.
As you said, Jason, Evan is not interested in the truth, he just wants to waste your time.
It's your blog and I certainly am not trying to tell you how to run it, but that would be a great help to me. Anyway, God bless you guys!
I've been wondering for a long time how it's possible to help my Christian friends and family see the irrationality of their beliefs. The problem is, the mindset of the religious is such that entertaining such thoughts is anathema to them. There aren't any arguments you can lay out before them that will get past this barrier.
ReplyDeleteI just like to thank you guys here on "Triablogue" for providing me with the perfect alternative. All I have to do is show my Christian friends this site!
Evan has been trying to engage in a reasonable debate, and yet the only thing you guys can throw back at him (apart from more fallacious arguments) is ad hominem and pettiness.
A professor of Biblical studies replies to you, laying out the fallacies of your arguments, and you still don't pay attention! Instead, you start new threads to distract new readers away from the old thread where, let's not mince words, you were pwned!
Your inability to engage in rational debate in a civil manner is a shining example of how the religious mind works. Thank you all!
Baz said:
ReplyDelete"Evan has been trying to engage in a reasonable debate, and yet the only thing you guys can throw back at him (apart from more fallacious arguments) is ad hominem and pettiness."
Did you think it was "reasonable" when Evan said that he doesn't want to provide documentation for his claims, repeatedly posted quotes of historical sources without any documentation, said that he doesn't want to read sources that people link to (even though he sometimes posts links), argued that men like Paul and Josephus might have been referring to some Jesus other than Jesus of Nazareth, twice misidentified Celsus, misdated Minucius Felix by a century and then repeatedly distorted what he said, summarized Steve Hays' position on Exodus as "it's true because I believe it", etc.? That's "trying to engage in a reasonable debate"?
You write:
"A professor of Biblical studies replies to you, laying out the fallacies of your arguments, and you still don't pay attention! Instead, you start new threads to distract new readers away from the old thread where, let's not mince words, you were pwned!"
Hector Avalos' comments were just posted last night, after this and most other threads addressing Evan's arguments had been posted. Your reference to "new threads" is wrong. Only one new thread has been started, by me, and I started it before seeing Avalos' comments. My post had nothing to do with what Avalos said. And his comments only address a small portion of what Evan has asserted in his posts.
We have the ability to delete posts. If we wanted to "distract new readers away from the old thread", we could have deleted the post quoting Hector Avalos or have deleted Evan's posts, if we supposedly didn't want people to see such things. Hector Avalos was responding to two people in particular, Steve Hays and Peter Pike. The comments weren't posted until late last night. Expecting one of them or both of them to have responded by now, or expecting somebody else to get involved by responding for them less than half a day after Avalos' comments went up, doesn't make much sense.
Should we conclude that you've just been "pwned"? Or would you call that "ad hominem and pettiness" if we used your language?
Steve Wilson said:
ReplyDelete"I only have one problem, your threads are too long. I want to read every word, but I can't because the thing goes on and on with people who don't listen, or can't follow basic logic - like Loftus."
Different people have different amounts of time to read. And even if somebody like John Loftus isn't being reasonable, his posts can provide an opportunity to write responses for the benefit of other readers. In the case of Evan, who is one of the most unreasonable posters we've ever had, he keeps changing his arguments and keeps changing the subject from post to post, so there's a lot of potential for addressing a large variety of topics for the benefit of other readers. And when we consider that Evan is on the Debunking Christianity staff, and that John Loftus and others keep encouraging Evan in his efforts, using terms like "awesome" to describe his performance here, we have further reason to let him have more and more rope to hang himself with. I agree that there are other factors to take into account, like those you've mentioned, and it can be difficult to judge just where to draw the line. We'll see what develops. So far, I doubt that many people would agree with Loftus' "awesome" assessment, at least not as he's defining the term.
Thanks for the compliments and the encouragement.
I didn't feel the need to respond to Avalos because A) my argument has always been that Evan is commiting a post hoc fallacy here (just do a "find" for "post hoc" in the Sargon post and you'll see it's always been my focus--Evan is the one trying to change the subject, and he's never dealt with the post hoc fallacy); B) river cultures abandoning children in the river is a more likely reason for the "parallel" than due to copying from the text; C) Steve's pointed out the parallel is actually back to Noah's flood and the ark anyway (although I myself haven't emphasized that point, I do agree with it); D) Avalos's only response to me was based on a question I asked anyway, so he didn't address a single argument I've presented. There's nothing for me to respond to.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion reminds me of the whole thing that happened when Expelled did their Darwin rap video. The atheists all thought it was pro-them and they never saw how they were being pwned left and right. They couldn't catch the sarcasm and the irony in it. They just blinded themselves with their presuppositions and ran full blast off the cliff.
They're doing the same thing here. For some reason, they think Evan's doing such a wonderful job. I can't figure out how it's possible that anyone with a modicrum of intelligence would think Evan's meandering is even slightly relevant--which is great evidence for the veracity of the Bible. I don't expect atheists to get it, of course, but they're serving as a wonderful example of the foolishness you have to believe in order to not believe.
I've been wondering for a long time how it's possible to help my non-Christian friends and family see the irrationality of their beliefs. The problem is, the mindset of the atheist is such that entertaining such thoughts is anathema to them. There aren't any arguments you can lay out before them that will get past this barrier.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to thank the DCers and other atheist/apostate posters here on "Triablogue" for providing me with the perfect alternative. All I have to do is show my non-Christian friends this site!
The Triabloggers have been trying to engage in a reasonable debate, and yet the only thing Evan and Loftus can throw back at them (apart from more fallacious arguments) is ad hominem and pettiness.
Many students and teachers of Biblical studies reply to you, laying out the fallacies of your arguments, and you still don't pay attention! Instead, you post invective comments to distract new readers away from the threads where, let's not mince words, you were pwned!
Your inability to engage in rational debate in a civil manner is a shining example of how the mind of the carnal man works. Thank you all! And a special shout out to all you heathens and tax collectors out there!
"Your level of argument seems to be:
ReplyDeleteRead every blog post we've ever made and that answers your questions.
Sorry ... I'm wasting enough time reading your comments."
Wow, this is rich. Oh no! Not research! That's like...work, and stuff. Yes, heaven forbid you should have an informed opinion of the very thing you're publicly criticizing.
Baz wants to send his Christian friends to this site to demonstrate how "reasonable" atheism is?? Is that a joke?
ReplyDeletePlease do, Baz, send as many people to this site as you can. I want Triablogue to get a huge amount of traffic in the days, months, and years to come. I dare say a few days reading the outstanding arguments put forth by these guys will strengthen the faith of countless Chritians, and, God willing, place enough doubt in the minds of unbelievers that they too might turn to the Christ we love.
These guys patiently (more patience then me for sure) answer every argument put forth against the claims of Christianity in a loving, yet straighforward manner. I personally am tired of you people saying they lack love, use faulty logice, or are evasive. You don't like the answers, ok, but don't say they don't provide you a fair hearing. As a matter of fact, you completely ignore their argument, then post the identical question over and over.
Jason, appreciate your response, it makes sense. I understand what you guys are trying to do - keep up the good work.
"Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, we readily believe." - Demosthenes
ReplyDelete"Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, we readily believe." - Demosthenes
ReplyDeleteDid Demosthenes believe this? If so, did he deceive himself?
---
“We’ll split it. Epimenides the Cretan says all Cretans are liars. It must be true, because he’s a Cretan himself and knows his countrymen well.”
“That’s moronic thinking.”
“Saint Paul. Epistle to Titus. On the other hand, those who call Epimenides a liar have to think all Cretans aren’t, but Cretans don’t trust Cretans, therefore no Cretan calls Epimenides a liar.”
“Isn’t that moronic thinking?”
“You decide. I told you, they are hard to identify. Morons can even win the Nobel prize.”
----
Umberto Eco, Focault's Pendulum
atheists are always playing these little illogical games. "How do you know Jesus wasn't blah blah;" ignrong what we do believe, and why, to offer alternatives without number based upon their inability to commit and them acting like it's Christian ignorance.
ReplyDelete