tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1846012006665904464..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Take A Look At The Thinking Behind The Latest Edition Of John Loftus' BookRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26209877705708965822008-07-17T00:18:00.000-04:002008-07-17T00:18:00.000-04:00I'm afraid I've arrived after the firefight is pre...I'm afraid I've arrived after the firefight is pretty much over! Thanks to Steve, Gene, Jonah, Pastor Wilson, et al for their remarks. <BR/><BR/>And:<BR/><BR/><B>Jonah said</B>: <I>I'm going to politely ask you to shut up with the "homoerotic" talk. If you can't, I'm going to politely suggest that you go away until you can control yourself.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Gene said</B>: <I>Agreed. Consider this, Evan, your second warning. Shape up or ship out.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll "third" the motion: If in the future Evan continues to troll like this, we'll take a vote to ban him.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13287384360404766312008-07-16T22:43:00.000-04:002008-07-16T22:43:00.000-04:00Thank you Jonah, it's about time. Arguing with thi...Thank you Jonah, it's about time. Arguing with this guy Evan is like arguing with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. No matter what evidence you present, no matter how much you batter his fallacies, he comes back with the same argument, but in a different package.Steve Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11914762484513955857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66310749018772995402008-07-16T21:39:00.000-04:002008-07-16T21:39:00.000-04:00OK so you understand rationally that Patrick is ma...<I>OK so you understand rationally that Patrick is making a myth and you react to that emotionally and spiritually.<BR/><BR/>Yet you can't see that the writers of the Greek gospels might have been doing the same thing.<BR/><BR/>I got it.</I><BR/><BR/>You *are* dense Evan, but do you really expect me to believe that you don't know the difference between an <B>analogy</B> and a <B>myth</B>???<BR/><BR/>And Patrick didn't "make" the analogy, he got it from Scripture. Marriage is an analogical relationship picturing Christ's relationship to the Church.<BR/><BR/>Now then, it's obvious that you're just baiting, so I'm going from Proverbs 26:5 to Proverbs 26:4 with you. I'm done.Jonahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13261273762380915910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31921437228615526332008-07-16T20:15:00.000-04:002008-07-16T20:15:00.000-04:00jim said:"What does the Bible really have to say t...jim said:<BR/><BR/>"What does the Bible really have to say that we have missed, Steve? From what source do you think Jonathan Edwards got the following ideas, from Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God?"<BR/><BR/>Punting to Edwards is a stalling tactic. If you're going to attack the Biblical doctrine of hell, you need to exegete the Biblical prooftexts before you're even in a position to attack the Biblical doctrine of hell. Do your homework!stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1469526355765676682008-07-16T20:10:00.000-04:002008-07-16T20:10:00.000-04:00Steve said,"Here's a novel idea for you, ...Steve said,<BR/><BR/>"Here's a novel idea for you, James. Why don't you begin by actually exegeting what the Bible has to say about hell instead of parroting B-movie caricatures."<BR/><BR/>What does the Bible really have to say that we have missed, Steve? From what source do you think Jonathan Edwards got the following ideas, from Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God?:<BR/><BR/>"The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! Oh, how dreadful must that be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them! But it is also "the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." ...Oh! then, what will be the consequence! What will become of the poor worms that shall suffer it! Whose hands can be strong? And whose heart can endure? To what a dreadful, inexpressible, inconceivable depth of misery must the poor creature be sunk who shall be the subject of this!...But when once the day of mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost and thrown away of God, as to any regard to your welfare. God will have no other use to put you to, but to suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel, but to be filled full of wrath. God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only "laugh and mock," Prov. i. 25, 26, &c.<BR/><BR/>...And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you, in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets. "charliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16311936381016892945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66601829556802453672008-07-16T19:56:00.000-04:002008-07-16T19:56:00.000-04:00Just an observer here. So, here's my question: why...<I>Just an observer here. So, here's my question: why did God decide to play peek-a-boo with the universe when He created it? Why must He be so obtuse and hidden in the manner in which He reveals Himself?<BR/><BR/>Here's the world as it is: animals eat each other to survive, humans eat animals (and sometimes each other), the world's geography is mostly hostile towards life, the human body is too flawed from a design perspective and the Bible is filled with both apparent and actual contradictions that require an exegetical tap-dance worthy of Fred Astaire (He DOES tempt people, He DOESN'T tempt people, Ahaziah was 22 when his reign started, no wait it was 42).<BR/><BR/>Further, according to the Bible, this is all a cosmic game where God's using the unelect as mere pawns on a board for amusement: they never had the ability to do anything but be what they were created to be and then get thrown like so much trash into the fire.<BR/><BR/>My complaint is not so much that God exists but that if He does, He's one mean, crazy and spiteful spirit.<BR/><BR/>...So, Steve, as the skin is slowly frying off my bones, blood is oozing out my eyes and my skin erupts in pus-filled boils as your loving God acts out His aggressions on lil ole me, are you going to stand by, watch and laugh while munching some nachos?</I><BR/><BR/>Ever notice how closely atheist objections and Arminian objections to Calvinism parallel each other?<BR/><BR/>1. Divine "hiddenness" is a consequence of man's sin.<BR/><BR/>And God's target group for revealing Himself is the elect, not the reprobate.<BR/><BR/>2. <I>Ahaziah was 22 when his reign started, no wait it was 42</I><BR/><BR/>As if this has no answer. Ever hear of transcription errors. Here's a novel idea, James, try not to chose texts with known variations in them.<BR/><BR/>3. Where does the Bible say that the reprobate are "cosmic pawns for God's amusement?" Chapter and verse will do.<BR/><BR/>4. "Loving God..." How many times do we have to say this: Love is not God's only attribute.<BR/><BR/>And Steve beat me to the rest.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40770812705254711592008-07-16T19:50:00.000-04:002008-07-16T19:50:00.000-04:00BTW, James, why do you get so worked up over the i...BTW, James, why do you get so worked up over the infernal fate of mere bacteria—in Dawkins' charming description of human beings?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24726796900299505792008-07-16T19:28:00.000-04:002008-07-16T19:28:00.000-04:00James said:"So, Steve, as the skin is slowly fryin...James said:<BR/><BR/>"So, Steve, as the skin is slowly frying off my bones, blood is oozing out my eyes and my skin erupts in pus-filled boils as your loving God acts out His aggressions on lil ole me, are you going to stand by, watch and laugh while munching some nachos."<BR/><BR/>Here's a novel idea for you, James. Why don't you begin by actually exegeting what the Bible has to say about hell instead of parroting B-movie caricatures.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77617146649652026412008-07-16T18:56:00.000-04:002008-07-16T18:56:00.000-04:00Steve writes: "And you’re playing your little part...Steve writes: "And you’re playing your little part to perfection, James. Thanks for personally illustrating your observation."<BR/><BR/>So, Steve, as the skin is slowly frying off my bones, blood is oozing out my eyes and my skin erupts in pus-filled boils as your loving God acts out His aggressions on lil ole me, are you going to stand by, watch and laugh while munching some nachos?<BR/><BR/>I bet you will. ;-)<BR/><BR/>The Calvinist Christian vision is SUCH a darned beautiful thing, ain't it?<BR/><BR/>- JamesJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54101783467739363082008-07-16T18:53:00.000-04:002008-07-16T18:53:00.000-04:00EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:“Triablogue has ‘refuted’ ...EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Triablogue has ‘refuted’ Loftus's book?__It's a book featuring questions. You don't ‘refute’ questions.”<BR/><BR/>That’s a dumb statement even by your standards, Ed. Loftus’ book is hardly a series of bare questions. Rather, it’s a compendium of hackneyed objections to the Christian faith. <BR/><BR/>“I think my book demonstrates that people are people, and such moderating and liberalizing changes happen, not just individually, but even within conservative Christian seminaries as a whole.”<BR/><BR/>Seminaries going liberal? What a brilliant discovery, Ed! Who’d a-thunk! Perhaps you’d also like to demonstrate that grass is green.<BR/><BR/>“I was thinking of editing a second collection, LEAVING YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM.”<BR/><BR/>I have a better idea. Why don’t you edit a collection, LEAVING ED BABINSKI.<BR/><BR/> JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Andrew is a stalking blog terrorist who has been banned from DC.”<BR/><BR/>To be banned from DC is a badge of honor. Andrew should put that on his resume.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you know what they say, John—on man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. <BR/><BR/>JAMES SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Further, according to the Bible, this is all a cosmic game where God's using the unelect as mere pawns on a board for amusement.”<BR/><BR/>And you’re playing your little part to perfection, James. Thanks for personally illustrating your observation.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61197222401309836652008-07-16T18:16:00.000-04:002008-07-16T18:16:00.000-04:00Language that by its very nature has to be analogi...<I>Language that by its very nature has to be analogical, because the temporal cannot comprehend the true reality of the eternal. We need temporal analogies which we understand rationally and also react to on an emotional and spiritual level.</I><BR/><BR/>OK so you understand rationally that Patrick is making a myth and you react to that emotionally and spiritually.<BR/><BR/>Yet you can't see that the writers of the Greek gospels might have been doing the same thing.<BR/><BR/>I got it.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55978580349155002292008-07-16T17:01:00.000-04:002008-07-16T17:01:00.000-04:00Just an observer here. So, here's my question: wh...Just an observer here. So, here's my question: why did God decide to play peek-a-boo with the universe when He created it? Why must He be so obtuse and hidden in the manner in which He reveals Himself? <BR/><BR/>Here's the world as it is: animals eat each other to survive, humans eat animals (and sometimes each other), the world's geography is mostly hostile towards life, the human body is too flawed from a design perspective and the Bible is filled with both apparent and actual contradictions that require an exegetical tap-dance worthy of Fred Astaire (He DOES tempt people, He DOESN'T tempt people, Ahaziah was 22 when his reign started, no wait it was 42).<BR/><BR/>Further, according to the Bible, this is all a cosmic game where God's using the unelect as mere pawns on a board for amusement: they never had the ability to do anything but be what they were created to be and then get thrown like so much trash into the fire.<BR/><BR/>My complaint is not so much that God exists but that if He does, He's one mean, crazy and spiteful spirit.<BR/><BR/>- JamesJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05387448864812957107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63783668647540243632008-07-16T16:42:00.000-04:002008-07-16T16:42:00.000-04:00I'm going to politely ask you to shut up with the ...<I>I'm going to politely ask you to shut up with the "homoerotic" talk. If you can't, I'm going to politely suggest that you go away until you can control yourself.</I><BR/><BR/>Agreed. Consider this, Evan, your second warning. Shape up or ship out.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52819492602905241532008-07-16T16:40:00.000-04:002008-07-16T16:40:00.000-04:00I haven't changed a bit. You are saying the gospel...<I>I haven't changed a bit. You are saying the gospels have eyewitness testimony. I'm saying they don't and can't for significant portions of the story.</I><BR/><BR/>They can't? Hmmm, the narrative of the Virgin Birth is in Luke. Luke traveled with Paul. That gave him easy access to the churches of Asia Minor, the churches that the Apostle John adopted as his own concern. Why is it implausible that Luke, in conducting his research, went to Ephesus, the church with which John is most closely associated in church history, and met Mary, by then in her old age and interviewed her about what happened leading up to Christ's birth. Read the narrative in Luke. It contains inner thoughts and musing only she would know. It contains family details, like her visit to Elizabeth and their conversation that only she might know. How, pray tell is this implausible as eyewitness testimony? <BR/><BR/>It's very clear that you are simply assuming that it couldn't have happened and then concluding that either Mary lied or the story was a total fabrication. <BR/><BR/><I>The stories make much more sense as legends and indeed contain virtually every component of a legend.</I><BR/><BR/>No, that's not your claim. You can change your claim, but you don't get to rewrite your history. what this is is a weaker version of your original claim that they are based upon similar stories found in mythology, stories from which the authors borrowed. Well, by all means, which myths contain an actual virgin birth? If Christians were borrowing from these stories, then tell us which stories.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm still waiting to be told why assuming the present is the key to the past is the MOST irrational and arrogant thing you can possibly believe </I><BR/><BR/>The difference is simple: You're committing the Gambler's fallacy, Evan. The disputant assumes that the future will resemble the past or the past resembles the relative present or future. This is the basis of Hume’s probabilistic argument against the occurrence of miracles. Try to keep up, Evan.<BR/><BR/><I>while assuming that the God of the universe inspired a book in Hebrew and Greek is very humble but I guess I can wait.</I><BR/><BR/>We've been over this in our archives a number of times. he secularist has no reason to do that. My worldview allows me to do that quite well. You have to borrow from mine to do it. The real problem isn't mine, it's yours because you have to invoke "natural law," but if you are unable to do it, then you can't justify induction, which is the basis of the covering law.<BR/><BR/>See:http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/induction.htmlGeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47452546424437137012008-07-16T16:17:00.000-04:002008-07-16T16:17:00.000-04:00Evan, your post about "Poe's Law" just shows that ...Evan, your post about "Poe's Law" just shows that you are going out of your way to be offensive. The mods ought to delete it.<BR/><BR/>I think you know very well what is meant by the language in Patrick's devotional. You're just trying to offend us by making a caricature of the language the Bible uses to describe God's/Christ's relationship to His Church. Language that by its very nature has to be analogical, because the temporal cannot comprehend the true reality of the eternal. We need temporal analogies which we understand rationally and also react to on an emotional and spiritual level.<BR/><BR/>With all the Christians in your life, it's a pity that none of them explained this and many other things to you. It reflects poorly upon the Church.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to politely ask you to shut up with the "homoerotic" talk. If you can't, I'm going to politely suggest that you go away until you can control yourself.Jonahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13261273762380915910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6957992997774471672008-07-16T15:46:00.000-04:002008-07-16T15:46:00.000-04:00Andrew it's probably not possible for you to write...Andrew it's probably not possible for you to write without projecting your feelings onto someone else, and I'm sure I'm guilty of that at times, but obviously I don't hate Christians. I love them. They're the vast majority of the people I know. My family are Christians ... my brother is a minister and my Dad's a retired minister, my mom is the head elder of her church. If I hated Christians I'd really be in a lurch.<BR/><BR/>I do disagree with Christians and I really try to do that by pointing out things like facts and evidence. However to say that I hate them would be statement wholly without basis in fact. One thing I recently pointed out was that Christians think God talks to them ... and so far I think this blog has held up my position on that quite well.<BR/><BR/>Rho, as for your dichotomous definition of fundamentalism I'd offer a more standard one:<BR/><BR/><I>Religious fundamentalism refers to a "deep and totalistic commitment" to a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of holy scriptures, absolute religious authority, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (fundamentals), away from doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.</I><BR/><BR/>If you believe that an onager could talk, you're a fundamentalist. If you believe that a man could survive for three days inside a fish, you're a fundamentalist. If you believe Moses wrote the Torah, you're a fundamentalist. If you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, you're a fundamentalist. If you believe in Noah's flood, you're a fundamentalist.<BR/><BR/>So ... I'd be eager to find out if there's anyone besides Joe Hinman here who's not a fundamentalist, but I doubt there are any.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13896022339194356772008-07-16T15:44:00.000-04:002008-07-16T15:44:00.000-04:00J.L. HINMAN SAID:"Hey Triblogue guys, I will write...J.L. HINMAN SAID:<BR/><BR/>"Hey Triblogue guys, I will write a long response to the Jesus myth thing and the arguments being made here if you will post it as a guest commentary. interested?"<BR/><BR/>I can't make an open-ended commitment. If you do a nice job on them we'd be happy to plug your critique, just as we plugged your reviews of Avalos.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24151404046128607982008-07-16T15:29:00.000-04:002008-07-16T15:29:00.000-04:00Ah, just come on and admit it debunkers.You hate C...Ah, just come on and admit it debunkers.<BR/><BR/>You hate Christians, you despise them. You can almost feel the bile spilling out of your site.<BR/><BR/>You would like to shut them up.<BR/><BR/>At the very least.<BR/><BR/>Come on, have the guts to admit it.Emanuel Goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653303041185240250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30831920252849927482008-07-16T15:04:00.000-04:002008-07-16T15:04:00.000-04:00Re: Poe's lawLook, either "fundamentalist" means ...Re: Poe's law<BR/><BR/>Look, either "fundamentalist" means "one who is committed to a strict position and refuses easy compromise" or it means "a movement among American Christianity in the 70s and 80s that advocated withdrawing from society".<BR/>The former applies to either of us, and your critique has no referent.<BR/>The latter doesn't apply to me or other believers here at all (else why would we be here?) and thus has no bite. Much like the rest of your assertions.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60391641556960996472008-07-16T14:57:00.000-04:002008-07-16T14:57:00.000-04:00Evan said:---Reading this site I wonder if I'm a v...Evan said:<BR/>---<BR/>Reading this site I wonder if I'm a victim of Poe's law.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>No, you're just incredibly stupid.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16243246540098969372008-07-16T14:41:00.000-04:002008-07-16T14:41:00.000-04:00John calls me a blog terrorist?TERRORIST?If that i...John calls me a blog terrorist?<BR/><BR/>TERRORIST?<BR/><BR/>If that is not libel, what is?<BR/><BR/>But you are getting more vociferous in your name calling, John.<BR/><BR/>Get over yourself, you can not shut me up and have no power over me.<BR/><BR/>Quit pretending like you do.<BR/><BR/>You know your arguments are deriviative, and hardly any of them are original, and yet you talk about your book being the greatest atheist book ever.<BR/><BR/>I guess the people who thought you were arrogant had their reasons, didn't they?Emanuel Goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653303041185240250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64915589836070932222008-07-16T12:47:00.000-04:002008-07-16T12:47:00.000-04:00Reading this site I wonder if I'm a victim of Poe'...Reading this site I wonder if I'm a victim of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adages_named_after_people#N.E2.80.93Q" REL="nofollow">Poe's law</A>.<BR/><BR/>First I argue that Christians believe Jesus talks to them.<BR/><BR/>Then I'm told that's an evil caricature of their beliefs and is only to be taken metaphorically.<BR/><BR/>Then I read the top post for today:<BR/><BR/><I>Although it is our gracious Lord who either allows or brings about our trial, it is also our gracious Lord who is with us in the midst of it. ...<BR/><BR/>If Christ is with us, then it is well with our souls — come what may. ...<BR/><BR/>For our Maker is our husband, and he loves us with such an unimaginable, indescribable, unquenchable love, a love that the best, most perfect husband’s love for his wife is but a pale reflection. ...<BR/><BR/>... our Beloved’s promise is precisely that he is ours, and we are his, and he is with us, and he loves us, and he will always be with us, and he will always love us!</I><BR/><BR/>You guys need to get on the same page.<BR/><BR/>How the heck do you know that your Beloved (homoerotic imagery duly noted) is with you if he doesn't talk?<BR/><BR/>Is he like <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/harveytpooka/harvey2.htm" REL="nofollow">Harvey</A>?<BR/><BR/>It's all well and good for you guys to make sport of me when I say something arrogant or irrational. But when I said that you believed that God talks to you, you acted like I had been deceitful and was putting words in your mouths.<BR/><BR/>Guess not so much. Remember all I suggested was that you think God talks to you.<BR/><BR/>To remind you all of what you said, let's go over it.<BR/><BR/>"I" said:<BR/><BR/><I>I have a serious question: Do you think setting up a position in the weakest possible light (sometimes even presenting the other position in an untrue light), and then "refutting" it, is a firm foundation on which to set up your denial of that position on?</I><BR/><BR/>So is it really so weak for me to suggest God talks to you when you are posting a devotional about ... Jesus talking to you?<BR/><BR/>Jonah said:<BR/><BR/><I>I never stated that God spoke directly to me.</I><BR/><BR/>Take it up with Patrick. He seems to think God does speak directly to him. Perhaps he is the one who is arrogant?<BR/><BR/>Jonah then said:<BR/><BR/><I>Good grief, Evan, do I really need to spell out the fundamentals of poetry and metaphor to you? Did you take English lit. in school?</I><BR/><BR/>So is Patrick's devotional metaphorical? If so, it's a bizarre homoerotic metaphor. It strikes me that Patrick is speaking about a literal Jesus who literally is with him and who he loves to be with. Patrick thinks Jesus is God's son and was a human sacrifice for him and he is so grateful for this.<BR/><BR/>Patrick says:<BR/><BR/><I>so long as our Beloved is ours and we are his in the bonds of the holiest of all holy matrimonies; so long as we have our Beloved and our Beloved has us, then no matter how long the tears may run, and no matter how deep the tears may cut, we know that in the end our Beloved will wipe away all our tears, and restore to us the joy of our salvation, when he restores us to himself.</I><BR/><BR/>Is that all metaphor? It's pretty hard to get that from the text. I am thinking when Patrick has real tears he thinks there's a real Jesus who he is in love with who is gonna put his soft man-hands on his weeping face.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85090277218657096342008-07-16T10:44:00.000-04:002008-07-16T10:44:00.000-04:00Evan:I haven't read Mr. Bauckham but I'm curious w...Evan:<I>I haven't read Mr. Bauckham but I'm curious what he makes of the virgin birth, the temptation of Jesus, the dead coming back to life in Matthew, Pilate's wife's dream and other such elements of the gospels.</I><BR/><BR/>Well if you're curious, get the book. The residual you'll be putting in Prof. Bauckham's pocket won't be *that* much. :)<BR/><BR/>Let me be clear on this, though. "JatE" is not a commentary. It's a treatise on historiography and oral tradition in the First Century, showing that the Gospels follow the conventions of how people wrote and related events in that time, ergo they are as reliable as any other document from that era. Whether you agree with all his conclusions or not (and I have one major point of disagreement with him), it's a very well researched and well written book.<BR/><BR/>But let's take your issues in turn:<BR/><BR/>1. Virgin birth (already argued above)<BR/><BR/>2. temptation of Jesus: easy, Jesus told Mary, or the disciples what happened.<BR/><BR/>3. dead coming back to life in Matthew: obviously there would be many eyewitnesses to this event, so your question instead must be why the other three Gospel writers don't mention this event. There have been disagreements among commentators as to the significance of this fact. I will grant you that there is no firm consensus at the moment. But that does not imply that such a miraculous event did not occur, unless you have a presupposition against the supernatural.<BR/><BR/>4. Pilate's wife's dream: as alluded to above, either Procula herself related the dream to the Apostles, or more likely one of the house servants did.Jonahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13261273762380915910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68734189509232068302008-07-16T07:14:00.000-04:002008-07-16T07:14:00.000-04:00Notice that Evan has been corrected dozens of time...Notice that Evan has been corrected dozens of times, by many people, yet continues to behave so irresponsibly. He ignores most of the refutations of his arguments and goes on to post more bad arguments.<BR/><BR/>For the benefit of other readers, I want to respond to some of Evan's latest claims. He writes:<BR/><BR/>"The stories make much more sense as legends and indeed contain virtually every component of a legend. Yet you all treat them as verified by eyewitnesses ... who lived 35 years after the events ... and yet were so accurate that it took another 300 years for the church to figure out exactly who Christ was theologically."<BR/><BR/>Evan's claim of "35 years after the events" has been disputed. He hasn't responded to the evidence we cited against his claim. And notice that he tries to shift our attention from historical facts such as whether Jesus existed and the nature of His public ministry to "who Christ was theologically".<BR/><BR/>If he has the ecumenical councils of the Nicene and post-Nicene eras in mind or the consensus of opinion surrounding those councils, those councils and the consensus surrounding them can reflect earlier thought. We don't date a theological concept or its widespread recognition to the time when a council now recognized as ecumenical taught that concept or the time when the consensus that produced that council was most visible. If the concept of Christ's deity is present in a New Testament document or ante-Nicene church father, for example, or in many such sources, then what's the significance of the lateness of an ecumenical council that taught the concept? Ecumenical councils can be held for a variety of reasons. The fact that a theological concept is first taught by an ecumenical council at a particular date doesn't lead us to the conclusion that "the church couldn't figure out that theological concept" prior to that time. Even if a particular theological concept wasn't agreed upon widely until later in church history, why are we supposed to believe that the gospels and other relevant sources weren't "accurate" enough? How does Evan know that the "accuracy" of the gospels or other such sources was the problem? Where is Evan getting his standard for what level of "accuracy" is needed?<BR/><BR/>Evan writes:<BR/><BR/>"I think any reasonable person reading these comments can determine whether he thinks it's reasonable to take the authors of the Greek gospels at face value when it comes to the hymen of a Hebrew woman who gave birth at least 70 years before they wrote. Yet if you deny the hymen, you are denying a significant theological fact."<BR/><BR/>Once again, Evan assumes his dating of the gospels without interacting with the contrary arguments already cited. And if by "taking the authors of the Greek gospels at face value" Evan is referring to acceptance of the gospels without reason to accept them, who suggested that we do so?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86961893979925427142008-07-16T07:11:00.000-04:002008-07-16T07:11:00.000-04:00Andrew is a stalking blog terrorist who has been b...Andrew is a stalking blog terrorist who has been banned from DC. It's said that the more famous a person is then the more stalkers he has. Well, I have one!<BR/><BR/>In any case, this is what I said:<BR/><BR/>Someone asked me: "John, you say we must follow the evidence, but haven't you said elsewhere that even if you were to admit that Christianity were proved to your satisfaction that you would not follow it? Could you explain how that is following the evidence." Gladly. The belief system that the initial evidence supports is to be considered part of the evidence itself, and as such, it should be included when examining the whole case. If, for instance, the evidence supported accepting militant Islam, where I am called upon to kill people who don't believe, then I must make a choice between the initial evidence that led me to believe and that belief system itself. And such a belief system, even if the evidence initially supported it, renders that evidence null and void. I would have to conclude that I misjudged the initial evidence, or that I'm being misled, or something else. In other words, a rejection of such a belief system like militant Islam trumps the evidence, for I cannot conceive of believing it unless the evidence is completely overwhelming, and there is no such thing as overwhelming evidence when it comes to these issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com