Apologetics Thread!!!

Turtwig · 30-10-2009 04:03PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We have loads of idea what happened, we have the historical record. It amazes me how you can say to me 'how do you know you weren't there?' when you will stand up and claim evolution, yet you weren't there? Your double standard is amazing. And now your comparing Christianity to scirntology, or will you deny that as well?

Wow!

Hang on now a second. Evolution has lots of physical evidence left behind after it and we can see it's effect unambiguously at the microscopic level with no vagueness.
Where is the physical evidence left behind by Christ? Furthermore where is the evidence that it's Christ that's working in the world today and not Mohammed.
You see evolutionary evidence points in the one direction and is pretty darn clear, yours on the other hand is far from clarity.

lugha · 30-10-2009 04:27PM

PDN wrote: »

I tell you, men using women's names on the internet, it's not natural!

:eek::eek:
Dude,
Lugha was son in law to Fionn mac Cumhail, married as he was to one of Fionn's warrior daughters. And I can assure you, like the rest of the red blooded Fianna, he was all man! :P

lugha · 30-10-2009 04:29PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We have loads of idea what happened, we have the historical record.

A historical record is often all we have for many events, but surely you will agree that it is no where near as good as being a direct witness to an event, or even just being around at the time of the event where you would have a fuller appreciation of precisely what the witnesses had reported and where you could judge if they have any particular axe to grind, or even if they were reliable as witnesses. Thus, a resurrection from 2000 years ago would be much more difficult to believe than a contemporary one. And I would respectfully suggest that you, and most other people, would categorically reject a modern story of a resurrection, no matter how many witnesses there were, or how big a movement it might subsequently spawn. If a contemporary resurrection is not credible, how can one observed through the distorting lens of history not be substantially less credible?

PDN · 30-10-2009 04:39PM

lugha wrote: »

And I would respectfully suggest that you, and most other people, would categorically reject a modern story of a resurrection, no matter how many witnesses there were, or how big a movement it might subsequently spawn. If a contemporary resurrection is not credible, how can one observed through the distorting lens of history not be substantially less credible?

I would see no reason to categorically reject a modern resurrection story if the witnesses were credible.

BrianCalgary · 30-10-2009 06:10PM

lugha wrote: »

A historical record is often all we have for many events, but surely you will agree that it is no where near as good as being a direct witness to an event, or even just being around at the time of the event where you would have a fuller appreciation of precisely what the witnesses had reported and where you could judge if they have any particular axe to grind, or even if they were reliable as witnesses. Thus, a resurrection from 2000 years ago would be much more difficult to believe than a contemporary one. And I would respectfully suggest that you, and most other people, would categorically reject a modern story of a resurrection, no matter how many witnesses there were, or how big a movement it might subsequently spawn. If a contemporary resurrection is not credible, how can one observed through the distorting lens of history not be substantially less credible?

We can not be witnesses to a historical event, so we need to rely on teh reports of eyewitnesses to the event.

When we examine the evidence of the resurrection we note that it was witnessed by over 500 people.
Those that would suffer most by the event (Romans and jewish hierarcy) who had control over the tomb, could not produce the body. It would have killed Christianity if they had.
The apostles who moved around the Mediterranean world suffered for preaching the truth of the event, for no personal gain. Except that which was promised after death.

BrianCalgary · 30-10-2009 06:14PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Wow!

Hang on now a second. Evolution has lots of physical evidence left behind after it and we can see it's effect unambiguously at the microscopic level with no vagueness.
Where is the physical evidence left behind by Christ? Furthermore where is the evidence that it's Christ that's working in the world today and not Mohammed.
You see evolutionary evidence points in the one direction and is pretty darn clear, yours on the other hand is far from clarity.

The resurrection is pretty darn clear. From a historical perspective and applying historical research principles the event is clear.

BrianCalgary · 30-10-2009 06:16PM

PDN wrote: »

I would see no reason to categorically reject a modern resurrection story if the witnesses were credible.

And the body had been guarded night and day for a period and that the factions that controlled the guards could not produce the body.

Knowing that th efactions guarding the body would see the particular leader as a threat to their power.

Zombrex · 30-10-2009 06:19PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We have loads of idea what happened, we have the historical record.

You have a funny idea of what a "historical record" is if you think a religious book written decades after the events it describes based on an oral record of the followers of said religion in an attempting to promote said religion is a "historical record"

Do you mean simply a document from history? Or are you implying that this record is some how accurate and trust worthy?

Here is the L. Ron Hubbard biography from the Scientology website.

http://www.scientology.org/l-ron-hubbard/founder/index.html

Hands up who thinks that is a trust worthy historical record of Hubbard's life?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It amazes me how you can say to me 'how do you know you weren't there?' when you will stand up and claim evolution, yet you weren't there?

If you have a testable scientific model of the events in the New Testament by all means present it.

If you genuinely (rather than just trolling) think that people accept evolution based simply on people saying they witnessed it you seriously need to read up on evolution.

Darwinian evolution has precisely what claims of the resurrection doesn't have, a testable theory to explain observed phenomena.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And now your comparing Christianity to scirntology, or will you deny that as well?

I'm comparing religious documents written by religious followers to promote a religion to religious documents written by religious followers to promote a religion.

I picked Scientology because it is an easy to hand religion that no one here believes in but I could have picked any non-Abrahamic religion that publishes it's own information about it's founding and/or founder.

You want to explain to me how the New Testament accounts of Jesus are inherently more trust worthy and historical record-ish than Scientology's records about L. Ron Hubbard?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Why and how?

Because you have no idea if they had anything to gain or not. What you think you have demonstrate they didn't simply because they (technically their followers) said they didn't?

Again apply that logic to Scientology's record of L. Ron Hubbard (who "dedicated his life to helping others" apparently) and then get back to me. Or any other religion if you like if you find Scientology more objectionable than others.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Heavens you brought up Jonestownin post #3 and right away compared it to the claims of the apostles. And then you bring it up again in post #103.

Yes, and if you had been paying attention then you might have got my point.

The idea that people would not follow a lie if it lead to harm or damage to themselves is false. Utterly false as Jonestown demonstrates.

The argument therefore that the "witnesses of Jesus" must be accurate accounts, or simply believe they are accurate accounts,

Humans have and will follow a lie even if it means harm or even death to themselves. You therefore cannot assume they don't.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Because that's what Jones did and you keep comparing the two.

I'm using Jones as an example to disprove your assertions that it is not plausible that the apostles would lie with nothing to gain

This is not plausible at all.
...
The apostles had nothing to gain from their witness of Christ, except for possible death. There were no riches and no power.

Even if we assume that is true (which there is not reason to) it still doesn't make it implausible since we have in Jim Jones a perfect example of a person who claimed witness to miracle powers, to the point of killing himself and others, that he knew were lies.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No, its probably because you are so inconsistent and around teh bend that your point is impossible to determine.

Please try and keep the personal insults to a minimum if you can BC.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No my argument is that they believe in the resurrection because they witnessed the risen Christ.

No your argument was that it is implausible that they would lie about this because they had nothing to gain except death. I can quote you again if you still think I'm putting words in your mouth. :rolleyes:

Examples like Jim Jones (and there are plenty of others) demonstrate religious believers who seem perfectly happy to follow a lie to the point of death, for what ever reason (Jones was probably insane by the time he killed himself).

Zombrex · 30-10-2009 06:19PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I know of no Christian that denies the supernatural..

Neither do I, and nor is that what I claimed.

Zombrex · 30-10-2009 06:33PM

PDN wrote: »

I would see no reason to categorically reject a modern resurrection story if the witnesses were credible.

What makes the witnesses to the resurrected Jesus credible?

PDN · 30-10-2009 06:46PM

lugha wrote: »

:eek::eek:
Dude,
Lugha was son in law to Fionn mac Cumhail, married as he was to one of Fionn's warrior daughters. And I can assure you, like the rest of the red blooded Fianna, he was all man! :P

I was talking about Fanny Cradock

Soul Winner · 30-10-2009 07:31PM

Wicknight wrote: »

You have a funny idea of what a "historical record" is if you think a religious book written decades after the events it describes based on an oral record of the followers of said religion in an attempting to promote said religion is a "historical record"

Scholars who study Oral Tradition express the view that it wasn't anything like kids playing Telephone or Chinese Whispers. But be that as it may according to Graham N. Stanton

"The widely held view that the followers of Jesus were either illiterate or deliberately spurned the use of notes and notebooks for recording and transmitting Jesus traditions needs to be abandoned. Oral and written traditions were not like oil and water. They could exist side by side; orally transmitted traditions could be written down by the recipients – and written traditions could be memorized and passed on orally."

More here on the evidence for why written notes were common place duing and even before New Testament times.

A lot of people have the erroneous idea that by the time the writers of the Gospels got around to writing their accounts of Jesus' ministry that the stories they retell had developed layer upon layer of additional legendary embellishments via the Oral Tradition before being transmitted to text, which ended up being written down decades after the events they describe, and this is what we have in our New Testaments today. But the majority of scholars agree that the oldest New Testament documents i.e. Paul’s letters, dated to within 5 to 10 years of Jesus' death have within them the passing on information (creeds if you like) which had previously been received, i.e. that Jesus was Crucified, Buried and Raised again on the third day. This wasn't something that had the decades or centuries needed for the legendary embellishment of the facts to develop, simply because they were written down at a time when Jesus’ generation were still alive, who would have been able to refute such testimony and stifled the Church’s growth. The real legendary embellishments of the life of Jesus occur in the second century AD in the Gnostic texts. One only needs to read these texts so see the stark contrast between them and the New Testament documents, especially its account of the resurrection. Here’s the Gnostic account of the resurrection for instance.

“Early in the morning on the Lord’s Day, the heavens opened and two men surrounded by a bright light descended to the tomb. The stone sealing the entrance rolled aside all by itself. The men stepped in to escort Jesus out of the tomb. When they exited the tomb, the men from heaven were so tall that their heads bumped the sky but the resurrected Jesus was so tall that his head reached the heavens. A cross floated out of the tomb behind them. A voice from heaven asked, “Did you preach to those who sleep?” The cross replied, “Yeah!.”

No such legendary embellishments like that are present in the New Testament account. What you get are witnesses to His post mortem appearances not to the resurrection itself, which leaves open the question: “If they were just making it all up, then why didn’t they have someone who actually eye witnessed the resurrection?” Another reason to think that their accounts of the events as they experienced them were honest. If it was me and all I was interested in was having people believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then I would say that I actually saw Him rise. None of the New Testament writers actually claimed that anybody saw Him rise.

lugha · 31-10-2009 12:05AM

PDN wrote: »

I was talking about Fanny Cradock

Cool. But I have been thought to be a lady more than once on boards!

PDN wrote: »

I would see no reason to categorically reject a modern resurrection story if the witnesses were credible.

I don't think that view would be shared by many of the Christians I know (admittedly, they would be predominantly of the RC cultural type). Their instinctive reaction is to dismiss out of hand any claims of the supernatural or paranormal or similar variety. They don't look at “Most Haunted” like programs and think, “this is extraordinary stuff. I must investigate this in more detail” Any more than they would when they hear the testimonies of “victims” of alien kidnapping, or the claims of psychics, or water diviners or fortune tellers or the like. They understand that such phenomena have no scientific basis and wouldn't consider it worth the effort to look at any of these antics more closely. If someone did ever claim to have resurrected from the dead, I would fully expect them to take the same skeptical view.

chozometroid · 31-10-2009 01:44AM

Wicknight wrote: »

You have a funny idea of what a "historical record" is if you think a religious book written decades after the events it describes based on an oral record of the followers of said religion in an attempting to promote said religion is a "historical record"

I don't see the Bible as promoting a religion at all. It's a collection of very candid books regarding the God of Judeo-Christianity. I don't see any intent in the whole of the Bible other than conveying a message that requires the reader to humble themselves and work at understanding it.

monosharp · 31-10-2009 08:29AM

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't see the Bible as promoting a religion at all. It's a collection of very candid books regarding the God of Judeo-Christianity. I don't see any intent in the whole of the Bible other than conveying a message that requires the reader to humble themselves and work at understanding it.

So does all other religious texts.

chozometroid · 31-10-2009 01:10PM

monosharp wrote: »

So does all other religious texts.

Well, since I don't say they are historically less valid because their texts "promote" their religion, your words are wasted on me. What religious texts are you referring to anyways? You're being a bit too general there.

Zombrex · 31-10-2009 03:23PM

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't see any intent in the whole of the Bible other than conveying a message that requires the reader to humble themselves and work at understanding it.

Thus promoting a religion.

What did you think I meant? What in your view is something would be considered to promote a religion?

How many books of this "historical record" were written from the view of non-believers? Where is the other side of this story? If the Bible was a historical document rather than a text promoting a religious view point, should it not have a bunch of books where Jesus is just a crazy cult leader?

The Bible is an historical record the same way FOX News is Fair and Balanced

Zombrex · 31-10-2009 03:45PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Scholars who study Oral Tradition express the view that it wasn't anything like kids playing Telephone or Chinese Whispers.

All that is merely assumption, since nothing that may have been written down has survived. Which is the point. You guys seem so sure that all this is accurate, BC going so far as to call it is historical record. We have no idea if that is true or not.

Certainly by all means people can discuss and debate how it may have happened, such as Lieberman's views on a possible way that the disciples could have recorded Jesus' teaching. But again it is all educated guessing.

Which is fine for the purposes of historical curiosity, but certain not fine when you guys then twist this to some how mean the Bible is of high historical accuracy.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the majority of scholars agree that the oldest New Testament documents i.e. Paul’s letters, dated to within 5 to 10 years of Jesus' death have within them the passing on information (creeds if you like) which had previously been received, i.e. that Jesus was Crucified, Buried and Raised again on the third day.

They certainly do not agree that Soul Winner.

Thessalonians is considered the earliest of Paul's writings and was written approx 20 years after Jesus' death by someone who had never met him or witnessed his teachings first hand. The actual record of Jesus' life were written years later than even that.

Soul Winner wrote: »

This wasn't something that had the decades or centuries needed for the legendary embellishment of the facts to develop

Modern studies of supernatural claims demonstrate that "legendary embellishment of the facts" can develop within days Soul Winnner of a claimed event. It certainly doesn't require decades or centuries.

Soul Winner wrote: »

No such legendary embellishments like that are present in the New Testament account. What you get are witnesses to His post mortem appearances not to the resurrection itself, which leaves open the question: “If they were just making it all up, then why didn’t they have someone who actually eye witnessed the resurrection?”

Probably because it is more believable if they don't. Is it not?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Another reason to think that their accounts of the events as they experienced them were honest.

Not really, just a reason to think that if they were lying they knew what they were doing. Worked on you didn't it?

chozometroid · 31-10-2009 09:25PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Thus promoting a religion.

What did you think I meant? What in your view is something would be considered to promote a religion?

How many books of this "historical record" were written from the view of non-believers? Where is the other side of this story? If the Bible was a historical document rather than a text promoting a religious view point, should it not have a bunch of books where Jesus is just a crazy cult leader?

The Bible is an historical record the same way FOX News is Fair and Balanced

The Bible is supposed to be God's message to man. Why should it have the message of unbelievers included in it?
It's a document outlining the details of the religion, and the history of the religion's origins.

I do thing I took the wrong meaning of promote from you, however. I suppose spreading the message is promoting the religion, but the way you state the fact that (paraphrase)"it was the followers of the religion who produced the content in an effort to promote it" gives the impression that the Bible should actually be "The Good Things of Christianity," which it is not.

Zombrex · 01-11-2009 12:37AM

chozometroid wrote: »

The Bible is supposed to be God's message to man. Why should it have the message of unbelievers included in it?

It should only have the "message of unbelievers" in it if it is try to be a historical record, which it clearly isn't, it is trying to promote a religion.

chozometroid wrote: »

It's a document outlining the details of the religion, and the history of the religion's origins.

Hence promoting a religion

Remember in this thread we are supposed to be coming from this all with a neutral non-Christian view point and building up the rational case for Christianity, not starting from the position that the Bible is, ahem, gospel.

Yes from the Christian view point the Bible speaks truth as fact and fact as true. But you only get to that conclusion by accepting Christianity, and the Bible, as true in the first place.

To everyone else it is a religious book promoting a religion, just like every other religion and their produced writings. And just like every other religion and their produced writings I'm sceptical from the outset of the neutrality of the Bible. In the same way I'm sceptical of the neutrality of the Scientology biographic of L. Ron Hubbard, or the official communist party biography of Stalin (and before Brain says it no I'm not comparing Jesus to Stalin :rolleyes:)

Followers of a religion, or any ideological movement, have always had a vested interest in painting the religion in a particular light. That doesn't mean that everything is untrue, or even that any of it is untrue. But it certainly doesn't mean we should consider it, as Brian said, a historical record of these events.

chozometroid wrote: »

I do thing I took the wrong meaning of promote from you, however. I suppose spreading the message is promoting the religion, but the way you state the fact that (paraphrase)"it was the followers of the religion who produced the content in an effort to promote it" gives the impression that the Bible should actually be "The Good Things of Christianity," which it is not.

Well it is hardly the bad things of Christianity now is it? That is what I mean by where is the other side?

If you look at the way news media works (or used to work before it become new-tainment), news media was expected to report all sides of a news event, thus attempting to produce the facts of the event and thus produce an historical record.

To me that is what an historical record is, something either devoid of ideology or at the very least reporting all sides of the ideology. That is not what the Bible is.

chozometroid · 01-11-2009 03:23AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it is hardly the bad things of Christianity now is it? That is what I mean by where is the other side?

If you look at the way news media works (or used to work before it become new-tainment), news media was expected to report all sides of a news event, thus attempting to produce the facts of the event and thus produce an historical record.

To me that is what an historical record is, something either devoid of ideology or at the very least reporting all sides of the ideology. That is not what the Bible is.

What would qualify for you? The Bible includes the statements of the Pharisees who were outraged at Jesus' claim to be one with God, and the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection.

Ickle Magoo · 01-11-2009 04:22AM

Other than the bible what other source is there to cross reference? What proof of religious miracles anywhere other than a book claiming to hold the proof of religious miracles?

There are thousands of mythologies and religions that claim they are correct, real and absolute truth - why do you think Christianity's claims should be given any more credence than the Maya or Inca or anyone else whose enormous pyramids or fantastical standing stones can claim historically to have had an ethereal "helping-hand" in the making of?

I'm not sure if religion should demand non-theists supply reason why they find the "evidence" of a particular religion unconvincing until theists can explain why they only find the evidence supporting their own religion convincing.

Zombrex · 01-11-2009 12:01PM

chozometroid wrote: »

What would qualify for you? The Bible includes the statements of the Pharisees who were outraged at Jesus' claim to be one with God, and the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection.

Yes but they contain them from the point of view of the Christians. The Pharisees are portrayed almost as pantomime villains, and the little coverage the Sadducees get is simply Jesus dismissing them as not knowing God.

Again using the Scientology example, reading the Scientology press release to the French court finding Scientology members guilty of fraud. That is certainly an historical document describing historical events that actually happened.

But would you think you were getting the unbiased historical record of that event from this press release?

Or would you be instantly sceptical, knowing that a religion like Scientology is most likely going to present the events in a way that puts them in a good light and those they disagree with in a bad light?

Likewise with the Bible. Why does anyone here think you are getting the historical record of these events from this document? It seems that people either just never really considered that what they were reading might be a slant on actual events (possibly when you grow up with so many others considering it accurate people become unquestioning) or that they already believe all of it based on supernatural reasons before they come to read it properly (a number of Christians around these parts have said they first read the Bible properly after they become Christian)

Soul Winner · 03-11-2009 03:09AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Other than the bible what other source is there to cross reference? What proof of religious miracles anywhere other than a book claiming to hold the proof of religious miracles?

Let me get this straight. You want a book that is not biased and not in the Bible which can corroborate the miracles that are recorded in the Bible? Is that what you want? Assuming such a text existed, what way do you think such a text might re-word what the the Bible records as a supernatural happening? How would it have recorded what the Bible writers describes as signs and wonders from God? And what would make the interpretation of those same events in this hypothetical book more historically accurate and reliable than what the Bible texts describe? My point is, can you really get a non biased text anywhere in history on any subject? And is their bias toward a certain position really a good reason to reject the whole text as an historically unreliable account of the events they describe? If so then you will have to throw out all historical accounts because all historical accounts are written from the biased perspective of the writers or eyewitnesses. If you disagree with that then please give us an example of an unbiased historical eyewitness account.

I witnessed a man getting knocked down one night at the junction of Parnell Street and Gardiner Street. He later died in hospital and it was reported on the news the next morning and the Gardaí were appealing for eyewitness to come forward and give their accounts of what happened. I did just that and met with a Garda in Fitzgibbon Street Garda station and gave him my account of events. I asked him if my account gelled with other accounts of the accident and he said that it differed in some minor points but more or less described what the others said had happened. Do we let the little discrepancies in our reports make us throw out all the testimonies of the eyewitness because we disagree on some minor points? No, we listen to them all and build up a general picture of what actually happened from the similarities in the accounts. You can also do this with the different testimonies in the New Testament in relation to Jesus miracles and build up similar pictures. The problem with New Testament accounts is that it made believers out of the eyewitnesses and therefore biased reporters of the events they describe. Hence unless an actually eyewitness account can be found by somebody who was not swayed by what they saw to the extent that they became believers only then can what the Gospel writers record be corroborated. In other words the eyewitness testimony of someone who doesn't believe in what they have witnessed is a more reliable reporter than those who become believers.

Is anyone else seeing the bad reasoning being employed in this approach? Or am I just biased toward a certain position? If I am then I am not the only one, so what remains is simply a choice on the part of every individual of whether to believe the reports or not. What's changed in 2000 years hey? :pac:

lugha · 03-11-2009 08:29AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

You can also do this with the different testimonies in the New Testament in relation to Jesus miracles and build up similar pictures. The problem with New Testament accounts is that it made believers out of the eyewitnesses and therefore biased reporters of the events they describe. Hence unless an actually eyewitness account can be found by somebody who was not swayed by what they saw to the extent that they became believers only then can what the Gospel writers record be corroborated. In other words the eyewitness testimony of someone who doesn't believe in what they have witnessed is a more reliable reporter than those who become believers.

But you are sidestepping the problem that what all of these witnesses reported is not possible (according to any reasonable understanding of what constitutes possible, which for me would rule out singular violations of the laws of nature). So how can I explain how a whole host of folk might insist they witnessed something which they almost certainly didn't? Happily, we have a topical example. Cast your eyes Westward and look at what is going on in Knock at the moment.

Soul Winner · 03-11-2009 12:27PM

lugha wrote: »

But you are sidestepping the problem that what all of these witnesses reported is not possible (according to any reasonable understanding of what constitutes possible, which for me would rule out singular violations of the laws of nature). So how can I explain how a whole host of folk might insist they witnessed something which they almost certainly didn't? Happily, we have a topical example. Cast your eyes Westward and look at what is going on in Knock at the moment.

How many times?

If the people in Knock were all lined up tomorrow and asked to renege on what they claimed to have witnessed or else face the firing squad, how many of them do you think would not only rather die for what they claimed to have witnessed than to renege, but to be happy to do it? And that is a quick and easy death, nothing like the long and torturous deaths inflicted on the martyrs of the Church who to a man save one (John) all died horrific hideous deaths rather than renege on their testimony that Jesus was the Son of God and had risen from the dead.

lugha · 03-11-2009 01:16PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

How many times? If the people in Knock were all lined up tomorrow and asked to renege on what they claimed to have witnessed or else face the firing squad, how many of them do you think would not only rather die for what they claimed to have witnessed than to renege, but to be happy to do it? And that is a quick and easy death, nothing like the long and torturous deaths inflicted on the martyrs of the Church who to a man save one (John) all died horrific hideous deaths rather than renege on their testimony that Jesus was the Son of God and had risen from the dead.

That there were those who were prepared to suffer death rather than deny what they believed indicates nothing more than that they genuinely did belief (which I don’t dispute), not that what the believed is true.
And regrettably, military history makes it quite clear that it was possible (indeed necessary) to persuade men that there is something worth sacrificing their life for. Often this took the form of an appeal to crude nationalism rather than the promise of eternal salvation offered by Christianity, arguably a tougher ask.

Zombrex · 03-11-2009 01:17PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

My point is, can you really get a non biased text anywhere in history on any subject?

Probably not which is why most historians look for multiple sources for an event. A Roman text proclaiming that Jesus had come back to life and this must be the work of trickster gods would lend more credibility to the claim. Not a huge amount more, but certainly more than the Bible alone.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And is their bias toward a certain position really a good reason to reject the whole text as an historically unreliable account of the events they describe?

Yes, it is. The issue is whether that is a big deal

The issue is that most non-Christians don't have a huge problem with that, it is not that important that the New Testament be accurate history to them, where as Christians it is.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If so then you will have to throw out all historical accounts because all historical accounts are written from the biased perspective of the writers or eyewitnesses.

But not all historical accounts are record in one single source, nor are they based on a source that comes from a group with an ideological bias.

I would trust the Irish Times reporting on the Scientology fraud case in France much more than I would trust the Scientology press release, as I imagine you would as well. If the only historical record of that case that survived was the press release historians in a thousand years would be very sceptical that the events took place as described by the Scientologists

This idea that if we reject the Bible as being unreliable we have to reject all historical documents is frankly ridiculous. The Bible is particularly unreliable.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I witnessed a man getting knocked down one night at the junction of Parnell Street and Gardiner Street. He later died in hospital and it was reported on the news the next morning and the Gardaí were appealing for eyewitness to come forward and give their accounts of what happened. I did just that and met with a Garda in Fitzgibbon Street Garda station and gave him my account of events. I asked him if my account gelled with other accounts of the accident and he said that it differed in some minor points but more or less described what the others said had happened. Do we let the little discrepancies in our reports make us throw out all the testimonies of the eyewitness because we disagree on some minor points?

Where are the other reports of the other eye witnesses? There is only the Bible's report and most historians seem to think that all the 4 gospels are based on an original story.

If you went around to every eye witness of that accident and asked them what happened and then you alone went to the guards and said "You don't need to interview everyone else, I've already done that just ask me what happened" the guards would kick you out of the station and go interview everyone else, because a single person recounting the claimed eye witness testimony of everyone else is not reliable enough for the guards.

Particularly if you had a vested interest in making it look like the accident happened a particular way (say for example not the fault of the man driving the car)

Soul Winner wrote: »

You can also do this with the different testimonies in the New Testament in relation to Jesus miracles and build up similar pictures.

No you can't because they are not record as is, they are recorded as filtered accounts.

If Mary actually said she saw a bit tree trunk laying beside the rolled over bolder, as if someone had used it to move the rock, and that was left out of the account in the Bible, would we know? No we wouldn't.

We are trusting the authors to accurately record the testimonies, and I don't see much reason to do that considering they are members of the religoin they are attempting to promote and their faith rests of these stories being true.

Again use the example of the Scientologists. I wouldn't expect Scientology to accurately record and publish critical events in the history of the religion, I don't think anyone would. And that doesn't require the idea that the entire Scientology Church is participating in a massive lie either. I believe Tom Cruise believes in all of this. I still wouldn't trust him to tell me accurately what L. Ron Hubbard was like.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The problem with New Testament accounts is that it made believers out of the eyewitnesses and therefore biased reporters of the events they describe. Hence unless an actually eyewitness account can be found by somebody who was not swayed by what they saw to the extent that they became believers only then can what the Gospel writers record be corroborated.

That is not a problem for non-Christians. I've no issue not trusting the Bible is particularly accurate, any more than I have a problem not trusting the Quran is accurate or Dianetics.

If you can't trust the Bible just don't be a Christian. It is pretty easy.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is anyone else seeing the bad reasoning being employed in this approach? Or am I just biased toward a certain position?

You are biased toward a certain position :P

Seriously though, the issue here to me seems to be not whether the bible events are particular well supported by documentary evidence (they aren't) but how much that matters to different people.

It doesn't matter at all to me. History doesn't owe me, or you for that matter, an explanation of what actually happened. I'm happy not knowing. Most events in history we don't know what actually happened.

It matters a lot to a Christian who likes to fell their belief's are supported by more than just faith. But again that isn't history's problem.

Zombrex · 03-11-2009 01:20PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

How many times? If the people in Knock were all lined up tomorrow and asked to renege on what they claimed to have witnessed or else face the firing squad, how many of them do you think would not only rather die for what they claimed to have witnessed than to renege, but to be happy to do it? And that is a quick and easy death, nothing like the long and torturous deaths inflicted on the martyrs of the Church who to a man save one (John) all died horrific hideous deaths rather than renege on their testimony that Jesus was the Son of God and had risen from the dead.

You are right, we have been over this so many times...

What do you think that demonstrates?

And would you apply that conclusion to every other cult where a lot of people have ended up dead (Jonestown for example)

JimiTime · 03-11-2009 01:28PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

How many times? If the people in Knock were all lined up tomorrow and asked to renege on what they claimed to have witnessed or else face the firing squad, how many of them do you think would not only rather die for what they claimed to have witnessed than to renege, but to be happy to do it? And that is a quick and easy death, nothing like the long and torturous deaths inflicted on the martyrs of the Church who to a man save one (John) all died horrific hideous deaths rather than renege on their testimony that Jesus was the Son of God and had risen from the dead.

IMO, you could probably find some people willing to die for the 'apparitions' at Knock. The issue with the comparrison, is that Knock is a vague one off 'happening'. In the case of Christ, his followers were with him for 3 years. Gave up their worldly goods and witnessed many, many signs. Blind men seeing, dead men rising, lame men walking. Not to mention the apparition of Moses and the voice of God from the heavens when Jesus was baptised. They also performed these signs when they recieved the Holy Spirit.

So when Lugha says, 'I'm sure they believed', well it was such an elaborate scenario, that it would have to be a lie, or true. The only reasonable stance, is that the apostles stories were true, or they were liars. The whole, 'they were decieved' just does not add up. That is where their willing to die comes in. People willing to die for what they believe is no strange occurance. People willing to die for what they know is a lie though, thats a different kettle of fish.

Apologetics Thread!!!

Comments