That uncomfortable subject, religion …

Mauka: Please, take time to read the very carefully worked out discussion by Mr Copan, who -- along with the majority of competent scholars -- at no point advocates that particular case-law (or incident) in an ANE context will be a perfect solution in all contexts and times. You will understand from above that I decline to play the "decide your worldview by rhetoric" game. Instead, I again invite you to the table of serious, balanced comparative difficulties; in light of the principle that ALL worldviews bristle with such difficulties. For illustrative instance, your argument is an appeal to moral outrage. Now, -- on assumption that a relevant worldview for such objections is the new atheist position, I ask you, citing Copan:

In The Devil’s Chaplain, he asserts: “Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society.”[98] If science alone gives us knowledge, as Dawkins claims (actually, this is scientism [I add,this is precisely the thesis of Lewontinian materilaism]), then how can he deem Yahweh’s actions to be immoral?

In short, before appealing to moral outrage/ the moral monster thesis as a premise for dismissing the God of the Bible, one must first show us why we should take such an appeal seriously, on a worldview -- comparative difficulties -- level. Otherwise the argument you present is little more than manipulative, one sided rhetoric. Rhetoric that ignores the specific moral reformation, redemptive context of the relevant Law. (Not to mention that the cited incident is case law, evidently based on an incident where a wife did what is described, probably in a context where there were other credible options for parting the fight, and issuing in serious damage to the man so pulled out of the fight. That is, the likely situation is one of there was an act of "comparable" punishment for "comparable" damage in an ANE "hardness of heart" context (where there were probably members of his clan clamouring for her life for having willfully unmanned her husband, thus cutting off hopes of "issue"). And, no this is not an invitation to go down a lengthy list of one-sided proof texts out of their context.) Observe, secondly, how Copan notes:

. . Rather than attempt to morally justify all aspects of the Sinaitic legal code, we can affirm that God begins with an ancient people who have imbibed dehumanizing customs and social structures from their ANE context.[39] Yet this God desires to draw them in and show them a better way: if human beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice, then the “better way” must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand . . . . As Alden Thompson argues, God is incrementally “humanizing” ANE structures within Israel to diminish cruelty and elevate the status of, say, slaves and women-even if such customs are not fully eliminated . . .

So, until you either acknowledge the reality of evil and its implications [cf Koukl as linked and cited above] or else present a case where we can see how the invited moral outrage has grounds that are more than mere emotions and manipulation of popular sentiment [just like such emotions and sentiment have been manipulated over the past generation to justify the slaughter of 48 million unborn children and to now use their remains in high tech cannibalism aka embryonic stem cell research . . . see, I can play the outrage card too . . . and in cases that are a lot closer to home], then we need not take your argument seriously. Especially, since the new atheist position is known to be a scientism- based one. As to the reality or otherwise of the God of the Bible, I would suggest you would do much better to start from the case of the 459 prophecies in the OT, esp. Is 52 - 53 and proceed to the evidence from C1 on their fulfillment in a particular person, starting from the document at 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 in the context outlined in Lk-Ac. In that context we can then deal with difficulties as difficulties within a serious worldview option [in a wider context of comparative difficulties analysis of such options], not distractions used as talking-point rhetorical dismissals. GEM of TKI PS: Cabal, you need to do a little homework on the relationship protective nature of jealousy in a covenantal context. Jealousy is not simply to be equated with childish pique.kairosfocus

April 20, 2009

April

04

Apr

20

20

2009

04:59 AM

4

04

59

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Deuteronomy 25:11-12:

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Kairosfocus, could you please offer us a lengthy rationalization of how the abhorrent command I quoted above is actually the perfect solution to the problem it addresses, offered to the Israelites by none other than their omniscient, merciful, loving Creator? And having done so, could you go on to explain why your rationalization is to be preferred to the obvious alternative: namely, that the God of the Old Testament is cruel and barbarous because the people who invented Him were cruel and barbarous.mauka

April 20, 2009

April

04

Apr

20

20

2009

03:49 AM

3

03

49

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

2. Some doctrines are based on logic. For example, why are there not Two Gods? Well, what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? The point is, it can’t happen. So there are not Two Gods. Or Many.

Another doctrine rooted in the Bible says God suffers from jealousy. I just wonder who is/are the object(s) of his jealousy?Cabal

April 20, 2009

April

04

Apr

20

20

2009

02:42 AM

2

02

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

4] responding to the Dawkinsian "moral monster" thesis . . . Above, I have already linked a discussion on the specific issues raised by Mr Taylor. On more broad matters, Paul Copan has some interesting remarks on the tendency of new Atheists to echo Mr Dawkins' fulminations that "What makes my jaw drop is that people today should base their lives on such an appalling role model as Yahweh-and even worse, that they should bossily try to force the same evil monster (whether fact or fiction) on the rest of us." In particular, notice the way he speaks to the issues of exemplars in a context of a culture that is to be morally reformed across time while respecting the personhood of its people; i.e. the God of the OT is precisely not an arbitrary, vindictive and irrational being, but one who works with us as we are to move us towards where we should be, laying out the core principles that should lead us. And in that path, showing us the implications of actions of the good and the evil sort, by way of tellingly instructive example: ____________ The new atheists . . . have not handled the biblical texts with proper care, and they often draw conclusions that most Christians (save the theonomistic sorts) would repudiate. And this judgment is not the refined result of some post-Enlightenment moral vision, but the biblical writers themselves point us toward a moral ideal, despite the presence of human sin and hard-heartedness. These new atheists give the impression of not having the patience for careful, measured replies, yet this is exactly what is required . . . . God's activity in history-particularly in Israel's deliverance from slavery in Egypt-largely generates the motivation for Israel's own treatment of slaves, foreigners, and the underprivileged within its borders . . . . Recently, Richard Burridge has forcefully argued [that] . . . The four Gospels present Jesus' life and deeds, not merely his teachings, in the Greco-Roman genre of biographical narratives or "lives"-bioi or vitae-to inspire mimesis ("imitation") in the reader . . . . OT historical narratives often present role models in action who make insightful moral judgments, show discernment, and exhibit integrity and passion for God-aside from the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Wisdom books, which also provide moral illumination . . . . while Christians can rightly criticize negative moral exemplars and actions with the best of the new atheists, we should also recognize commendable characters and their virtues well-Abraham's selflessness and generosity toward Lot (Gen. 13) or Joseph's moral integrity and sexual purity as well as his astonishing clemency towards treacherous, scheming brothers (Gen. 39, 45, 50) . . . . As we read the OT narratives, we detect a clear Ethos (a moral environment or atmosphere), as Eckart Otto affirms, rather than an Ethik (mere moral prescriptions).[33] These stories and role models in the OT canon remind us that lawcodes and rule-following are inadequate. Rather, we see in them a spirit directing Israel to higher moral and spiritual ground . . . . we see from 1 Corinthians 10 that many of Israel's stories involving stubbornness, treachery, and ingratitude are vivid negative role models-ones to be avoided. The OT's "is" does not amount to "ought." . . . . Any treatment of the Hebrew Bible with regard to ethics, especially as an ethical resource to contemporary communities, must acknowledge the impediment created by the simple fact that these texts are rooted in a cultural context utterly unlike our own, with moral presuppositions and categories that are alien and in some cases repugnant to our modern sensibilities.[38] . . . . Rather than attempt to morally justify all aspects of the Sinaitic legal code, we can affirm that God begins with an ancient people who have imbibed dehumanizing customs and social structures from their ANE context.[39] Yet this God desires to draw them in and show them a better way: if human beings are to be treated as real human beings who possess the power of choice, then the "better way" must come gradually. Otherwise, they will exercise their freedom of choice and turn away from what they do not understand . . . . As Alden Thompson argues, God is incrementally "humanizing" ANE structures within Israel to diminish cruelty and elevate the status of, say, slaves and women-even if such customs are not fully eliminated.[41] So when Joshua kills five Canaanite kings and hangs their corpses on trees all day (Josh. 10:22-7), we do not have to explain away or justify such a practice. Rather, this reflects a less morally-refined condition. Yet such texts remind us that, in the unfolding of his purposes, God can use heroes such as Joshua within their context and work out his redemptive purposes despite themselves. Indeed, we see a God who endures much rebellion and moral decline throughout the time of the judges and during Israel's monarchy, when idolatry was commonplace and religious reforms were rare. Even later on when the Jews returned from Babylon, Nehemiah was properly appalled by Jews opening themselves up to idolatry by marrying foreign wives (for example, Neh. 13, esp. v. 25). Throughout the OT, we see a God who is actually quite patient as he seeks to woo and influence a stubborn, idol-prone people.[42] God's legislation is given to a less morally-mature culture that has imbibed the morally-inferior attitudes and sinful practices of the ANE . . . . after Israel had to wait over four hundred years and undergo bondage in Egypt while the sin of the Amorites was building to full measure (Gen. 15:16), God delivered them out of slavery and provided a place for them to live as a nation-"a political entity with a place in the history books." Yahweh had now created a theocracy-a religious, social, and political environment in which Israel had to live. Yet she needed to inhabit a land, which would include warfare. So Yahweh fought on behalf of Israel while bringing just judgment upon a Canaanite culture that had sunk hopelessly below any hope of moral return (with the rare exception of Rahab and her family)-a situation quite unlike the time of the patriarchy . . . . Israel would not have been justified to attack the Canaanites without Yahweh's explicit command. Yahweh issued his command in light of a morally-sufficient reason-the incorrigible wickedness of Canaanite culture. Second, the language of Deuteronomy 7:2-5 assumes that, despite Yahweh's command to bring punishment to the Canaanites, they would not be obliterated-hence the warnings not to make political alliances or intermarry with them. We see from this passage too that wiping out Canaanite religion was far more significant than wiping out the Canaanites themselves.[67] Third, the "obliteration language" in Joshua (for example, "he left no survivor" and "utterly destroyed all who breathed" [10:40]) is clearly hyperbolic. Consider how, despite such language, the text of Joshua itself assumes Canaanites still inhabit the land: "For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the Lord your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you" (23:12-13). Joshua 9-12 utilizes the typical ANE's literary conventions of warfare.[68] . . . . In Matthew 19, Jesus sheds light on matters Mosaic when he comments that the Law tolerated morally inferior conditions because of the hardness of human hearts. Jesus' discussion of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (which deals with a certificate of divorce permitted under Moses) marks moral progress that moves beyond the Mosaic ethic. Jesus acknowledges Deuteronomy 24's limits to permitting divorce due to human hard-heartedness: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matt. 19:8). Jesus' approach reminds us that there is a multilevel ethic that cautions against a monolithic, single-level approach that simply "parks" at Deuteronomy 24 and does not consider the redemptive component of this legislation . . . . Jesus would frequently point to the spirit or divinely-intended ideal toward which humans should strive.[80] God's condescension to the human condition in the Mosaic Law is an attempt to move Israel toward the ideal without being unrealistically optimistic. Rather than banishing all evil social structures, Sinaitic legislation frequently deals with the practical facts of fallen human culture while pointing them to God's greater designs for humanity . . . . The new atheists tend to view OT ethical considerations in a static manner-a one-size-fits-all legislation for all nations. They fail to note the unfolding "redemptive-movement" of God's self-revelation to his people even within the OT.[82] As we read the Scriptures, we are regularly reminded of an advancing, though still-imperfect, ethic on the surface while various subterranean moral ideals (for example, the divine image in all humans, lifelong monogamous marriage, and Yahweh's concern for the nations) continue to flow gently along . . . . Though Dawkins accuses Yahweh of being a moral monster, one wonders how Dawkins can launch any moral accusation. This is utterly inconsistent with his total denial of evil and goodness elsewhere:

If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies . . . are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention . . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.[97]

In The Devil's Chaplain, he asserts: "Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society."[98] If science alone gives us knowledge, as Dawkins claims (actually, this is scientism), then how can he deem Yahweh's actions to be immoral? . . . ___________ An excellent question indeed, and one that 100+ millions of ghosts from the past century remind us, is not without a certain urgency. I strongly recommend a read of Koukl, of Miller and Copan, as a beginning. But, having laid out the abcvoe, it should be noted tha tthis is not an invitation to run off on one rtangential issue adfter anotehr. instead, i am pointing out resources for those distracted and troubled by the impact of now commonly used talking points. For, if tangential matters are repeatedly used to pull us away from that which is central, and from sound worldview choice method, that is inadvertently revealing of the weakness of he new atheist case on the merits. As I have already pointed out. In particular, let us again note the way that selectively hyperskeptical dismissals on issues of empirical evidence from the past point to self referential inconsistencies in the skeptical approach. And, such incoherence on handling of evidence on so simple and accessible a matter as whether or no Jesus of Nazareth existed in C1 -- complete with the idea that written accounts within 25 years of the event are somehow discredited by that relatively brief lapse of time -- should give us pause as we see how they claim expertise in handling weightier matters from a more remote past. And, indeed, as they look at the information rich molecules and associated information processing system in the heart of cell based life. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 20, 2009

April

04

Apr

20

20

2009

02:09 AM

2

02

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Onlookers: You will observe that above, I have underscored the need to put first things first, to address core worldview issues in a context of their foundational principles and fit to the world, coherence and explanatory power. In that context I have recommended comparative difficulties as the best way to approach worldviews choice; underscoring that ALL worldviews bristle with difficulties, so the only reasonable way forward is a balanced examination, not to decide on the mere impact of rhetoric we happen to have encountered [some of it in the guide of "education"]. I now present some follow up remarks, especially for those troubled by New Atheist talking points and rhetorical techniques. (NB: Vox Day's rebuttal is a good, easily accessed 101 read on that movement.) Pardon a few further points: 1] On the right way to build a worldvierw . . . Rationalists, Atheists, Skeptics and fellow travellers frequently imagine that "faith" is inherently irrational, and that it is a sign of intellectual weakness. Many compound this by resorting to Descartes' error: if I can doubt, I can dismiss. (The error: The implication of this is that finite and fallible minds cannot get started in reasoning. And, that just described us all.) Similarly, some are caught up in Kant's error: making too sharp a cut between the world of things as they are and how we perceive them. (In fact, to know that error exists is to imply that we undeniably know that truth exists, which is a clear knowledge of the external world. We may err but not always.) A safer view is that we inevitably accept certain first plausibles, some of which seem to be self evidently or undeniably true. In that context, we then set out to understand the world and live in it. Wisdom is to understand that we can err in that process, but this implies humility not the self-referential absurdities of denying that knowledge of the truth is possible. Thus, reason is not the opposite of faith, it is inescapably premised on it. Wisdom therefore is to be willing to learn, including changing our minds when that is warranted. And, in that process -- given that all worldviews of consequence bristle with difficulties -- we should use comparative difficulties, as already outlined and linked on. 2] On being mindful, moral beings . . . We find ourselves to be thinking, and morally bound beings. Indeed, we find ourselves with the conviction that a good enough fraction of the time to be important, our thinking and moral convictions are trustworthy and even correct. A part of that conviction is that evil exists and is objectionable -- indeed the arguments from evil that often are used by atheists are premised on this intuition. (BTW, since the turn of the 1970's the serious forms of the argument from evil were blunted by Plantinga's free will defense. Cf here for a summary in a nutshell.) But, too, that evil credibly exists has some implications that Koukl aptly points out, implications that do not auger well for a materialistic view of the world:

To say something is evil is to make a moral judgment, and moral judgments make no sense outside of the context of a moral standard. Evil as a value judgment marks a departure from that standard of morality. If there is no standard, there is no departure. Evil can't be real if morals are relative. Evil is real, though. That's why people object to it. Therefore, objective moral standards must exist as well. This discovery invites certain questions. Where do morals come from and why do they seem to apply only to human beings? Are they the product of chance? What world view makes sense out of morality? . . . . The first thing we observe about moral rules is that, though they exist, they are not physical because they don't seem to have physical properties. We won't bump into them in the dark. They don't extend into space. They have no weight. They have no chemical characteristics. Instead, they are immaterial things we discover through the process of thought, introspection, and reflection without the aid of our five senses. This is a profound realization. We have, with a high degree of certainty, stumbled upon something real. Yet it's something that can't be proven empirically or described in terms of natural laws. This teaches us there's more to the world than just the physical universe. If non-physical things--like moral rules--truly exist, then materialism as a world view is false There seem to be many other things that populate the world, things like propositions, numbers, and the laws of logic. Values like happiness, friendship, and faithfulness are there, too, along with meanings and language. There may even be persons--souls, angels, and other divine beings. Our discovery also tells us some things really exist that science has no access to, even in principle. Some things are not governed by natural laws. Science, therefore, is not the only discipline giving us true information about the world. It follows, then, that naturalism as a world view is also false. Our discovery of moral rules forces us to expand our understanding of the nature of reality and open our minds to the possibility of a host of new things that populate the world in the invisible realm . . . [More]

3] YHWH as "moral monster" As a linked argument, the New Atheists and their followers often stridently raise objections that amount to putting the God of the Bible in the dock and accusing him of being immoral to the point that he is undeserving of respect much less worship. (Then also, by extension, his followers are threats to the good order of society -- i.e. we see atmosphere poisoning here. [Often, complete with litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom and/or the OT Jewish economy, unaccompanied by any entries on the other side of the balance. Some of the new atheists go so far as to try to argue that the sins of Stalin, Mao et al were not due to the living out of the amoral and nihilistic implications of their secularist- materialist views, but that hey formed themselves into quasi-religions. Of course, as Rom 1 warned, if one kicks God off his throne in a community, one is going to be irresistibly tempted to make up a new occupant for the throne. Politically messianistic idolatries are just a new wrinkle on an old problem. And 100+ million ghosts from the just past century warn us on the consequences.) Much of the rhetorical effectiveness of that turns on the public's being ignorant of the core and balance of Biblical morality and its vital contribution to the rise of modern liberty, liberation and democracy: love God and love man, live by that, for love does not harm one's neighbour. (How many know for just one instance that when Locke set out to ground liberty as a keystone of the law of [human] nature, he cited "the judicious {Richard} Hooker" in his Ecclesiastical Polity on the implications of our all being equally made in the image of God and thus mutually bound to love and respect? [Cf 2nd Essay on Civil Govt Ch 2.]) {. . . ]kairosfocus

April 20, 2009

April

04

Apr

20

20

2009

02:03 AM

2

02

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The Fabric Of Time - A Powerful Video Establishing The Authenticity Of The Shroud Of Turin - Part 1 of 3 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4x5wi_the-fabric-of-time-13_tech Part 2 of 3 http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x4x5wi/video/x4x70a_the-fabric-of-time-23_lifestyle?hmz=74616272656c61746564 Part 3 of 3 http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x4x70a/video/x4x7hw_the-fabric-of-time-33_news?hmz=74616272656c61746564 -------------------------- Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review There were a number of people after 1988, including several scientists, who were not convinced that the carbon dating results were right. In part, this was because there was a mountain of other evidence that suggested a much earlier provenance for the shroud and there were some very puzzling mysteries about the nature of the image. Some speculated on why the carbon dating might be wrong but none of the proposals seemed very scientific. It was mostly hypotheses that could not be falsified (ala Popper). Two researchers, Sue Benford and Joe Marino, who were not scientists, proposed that the cloth had been mended in the seventeenth century in a corner from which the carbon dating samples were taken and thus what had been dated was probably a mixture of original cloth (presumably first century) and newer thread. Raymond Rogers, a Fellow of the Los Alamos Laboratory was perplexed by this proposal that seemed to him very unscientific. As a chemist, he had personally examined the shroud in 1978, warning church official that he would report whatever he found. As it turns out, he did offer an opinion on the cloth’s authenticity because there were too many unanswered questions. However, in 1988, he accepted the carbon dating results and withdrew from further shroud study. When he read about what Benford and Marino were suggesting, he was certain that they were wrong. They were, as he put it, part of the lunatic fringe of shroud research. He was certain that he could prove they were wrong. He had some material from the sample corner and set out to do so. Much to Rogers’ surprise, Benford and Marino were right. Rogers not only found substantial evidence of mending, he found stark chemical differences between the corner from which the carbon dating sample had been taken and the rest of the cloth. If there were chemical differences then the sample could not be reliably considered to be representative of the whole cloth. This invalidated the carbon dating. Before publishing his findings in the peer-reviewed journal, Thermochimica Acta (vol 425 [2005] pp 189–194) in 2005, Rogers, with Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan, published an informal paper in 2002. Though it was widely distributed, it received no comment from those who had been involved in the carbon dating. It wasn’t until 2004 when the Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST, U.S. Government Printing Office) published an important paper by Lloyd A. Currie. Currie, a highly regarded specialist in the field of radiocarbon dating and an NIST Fellow Emeritus, wrote a seminal retrospective on carbon 14 dating. Because the Shroud of Turin was such a famous test, Currie devoted much of his paper to it. Like Rogers, Currie dismissed any argument that radiocarbon labs had done anything wrong in dating the Shroud of Turin. Currie also rejected, as Rogers also had done, other very unscientific proposal. But Currie did acknowledge that disguised mending was a viable explanation. He cited the work of Rogers and Arnoldi. He found it credible. Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today. http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/the-custodians-of-time/ The following is the 2005 peer reviewed paper which completely refutes the flawed Carbon Dating of 1988: Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid: http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/shroud/shroudold.htm per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) The abstract in Thermochimica Acta reads in part: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years. The paper in Thermochimica Acta, is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site. note: Raymond Rogers was the lead chemist on the Shroud throughout the entire STURP investigation of the Shroud.bornagain77

April 19, 2009

April

04

Apr

19

19

2009

04:08 AM

4

04

08

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PPS: Finally, there is a question of method here. In effect, you are trying to choose a worldview rhetorically, off debate-points. That does not work, at least if we are to be serious. Debate, echoing Jefferson [a lawyer . . . thus, a professional rhetor], is that wicked art that makes the worse seem tot be the better case, being therein aided and abetted by rhetoric, the art of manipulative persuasion, not proof. So, I comment: 1 --> All of us in the end have core first plausibles that decisively shape our view of the world and how we should then live. 2 --> Think about why you accept a claim A, which leads to evidence and argument B, which calls forth C, etc. Since infinite regress is absurd, we stop at first plausibles, F, our point of faith. So the issue ends up at which faith-point makes best sense why. (And let us note on straight thinking basics while we are at it.) 3 --> All such faith-points/ worldview cores bristle with difficulties, e.g. in your remarks above you assume the validity of morality as binging on persons. And yet, relative to evolutionary materialistic views, it is seriously arguable that both mind and morals are immensely and insolubly problematic. 4 --> In short, a responsible approach is to address major alternative worldviews on inference to best explanation, with particular foci on the central warranting arguments and the comparative difficulties. 5 --> Such an exercise is hard and humbling, but that is what a responsible addressing of the sort of worldview and culture path issues that have come up in this thread demand, for those of us who stand up in more or less public advocacy. (The just linked will show that I have taught this to evangelical seminary students, at the specific invitation of the leadership of the institution. That should tell you something about my degree of tested confidence in my worldview; including on having looked at the sort of issues that you are raising on the OT. But, first things first, or all ends in confusion.)kairosfocus

April 19, 2009

April

04

Apr

19

19

2009

03:46 AM

3

03

46

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PS: While I am at it, let me note on the summary of the extra NT corroboration, from Barnett: _______________ On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions: 1.Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 - 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 - 36). [Tacitus] 2. The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus] 3. Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer] 4. His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny] 5. He was called "the Christ." [Josephus] 6. His followers were called "Christians." [Tacitus, Pliny] 7. They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny] 8. It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer] 9. His brother was James. [Josephus] [Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31.] ___________________ Any alternative account for the origins of the Christian faith has to also reasonably account for facts like these, while being coherent and neither simplistic nor ad hoc.kairosfocus

April 19, 2009

April

04

Apr

19

19

2009

03:23 AM

3

03

23

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Clive: Excellent reminder of the power and responsibility of moral being that has been given to us. For, virtue requires the power of choice. CSL is ever so often a breath of fresh air! +++++++++++ JT: Pardon: you first of all need to take time to look carefully at whether your skepticism about Christian origins can be reasonably and coherently applied across the field of knowledge of the past; especially that of classical times. I suggest to you -- here's why -- that it cannot. The simple truth is, that there is a Jesus-shaped hole in C1 history, and only one Person fits. (And, just-so stories -- I am well aware of your turnabout rhetoric attempt -- do not fit into widely diverse historical patterns as I have described and cross referenced to the frame of Greenleaf's assessment of evidence. For, it lieth not in the arts of man to construct a tale that is THAT deeply coherent and congruent to the paths of history and archaeology. So, I submit, it is the ring of truth that you are hearing.) As to my summary on the provenance of the NT documents, I point out that I am pointing out that the credible reconstruction of the past is an exercise in inference to best explanation, anchored to the evidence we do have; much as happens day by day in our courtrooms. So, the real issue is not a matter of making dismissive objections to the sort of summary I have put up -- and if you are unfamiliar with it, then that means you are deeply unfamiliar with a world of scholarship such as this -- but that (on a massive body of evidence) we must see which explanation best fits the facts, is most coherent and has greatest explanatory power. I also simply add this: by 95 - 112 or so AD, 25 of the 27 NT documents we know were being cited or alluded to familiarly as authoritative writings of the Apostles and their close associates, in the very first Church Father's writings that have survived: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp. The last being a disciple of John in old age. [And, John evidently lived to nearly 100 years, dying c. 95 AD. How easily we forget that eyewitness lifespans can run that long! Add in Polycarp and Irenaeus, and we see a chain of custody running to 180 and beyond. We thus see documents fair on the face and coming from proper chain of custody. The proper burden of argument therefore lies with those who object, not those who accept such. That we consistently see the turnabout attempt and Humean question-begging against the possibility of A God who can act into history beyond the usual course of nature instead tells us that there is but little warrant for the case made by the objectors.] Then, too, by ~ 125 AD, we have a codex -- modern "book" form -- copy of John professionally scribed off and found in Egypt [~ 300 mi from Ephesus its probable location of composition] in the form of the Rylands fragment. When it comes to the prophecy in Is 52 - 53, I again simply repeat: we have every reason to understand this was written c 700 BC. We certainly know it was translated into Gk c. 300 - 200 or so, and that we have DSS MSS, one dating to C2 BC. The passage predicts in the name of YHWH, and in predicting it describes an individual who makes a 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 shaped path through history. A path that such a victim of injustice could not control or determine, especially the part about seeing the light of life after being put to death. And in the aftermath, we can see that the terrified and disheartened followers of the crucified messiah were suddenly and unstoppably transformed. So, we must ask a few questions on the driving forces behind that improbable turnabout in the trend of history: _________________ N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Morison, Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.] ___________________ Similarly, Craig Evans in the above linked 2004 Benthal Public Lecture observed: My purpose tonight is to lay before you what I believe are key facets in the scholarly discussion of the historical Jesus. In my view there are five important areas of investigation and in all five there has been significant progress in recent years. I shall frame these areas as questions. They include (1) the question of the ethnic, religious, and social location of Jesus; (2) the question of the aims and mission of Jesus; (3) the question of Jesus’ self-understanding; (4) the question of Jesus’ death; and (5) the question of Jesus’ resurrection. All of these questions directly bear on the relevance of Jesus for Christian faith and some of them have important implications for Jewish- Christian relations . . . . The story told in the New Testament Gospels—in contrast to the greatly embellished versions found in the Gospel of Peter and other writings— smacks of verisimilitude. The women went to the tomb to mourn privately and to perform duties fully in step with Jewish burial customs. They expected to find the body of Jesus; ideas of resurrection were the last thing on their minds. The careful attention given the temporary tomb is exactly what we should expect. Pious fiction—like that seen in the Gospel of Peter— would emphasize other things. Archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the resurrection, but it can and has shed important light on the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death, burial, and missing corpse . . . . Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. Notwithstanding the eccentricities and skepticism of the Jesus Seminar, the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel. But this does not mean that the historical Jesus that has begun to emerge in recent years is simply a throwback to the traditional portrait. The picture of Jesus that has emerged is more finely nuanced, more obviously Jewish, and in some ways more unpredictable than ever. The last word on the subject has not been written and probably never will be. Ongoing discovery and further investigation will likely force us to make further revisions as we read and read again the old Gospel stories and try to come to grips with the life of this remarkable Galilean Jew. _______________ Such should tell us something, if we are inclined to listen. GEM of TKIkairosfocus

April 19, 2009

April

04

Apr

19

19

2009

03:16 AM

3

03

16

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JTaylor, “No, Clive we’re not asking for Porsches or the ability to fly but some reasonable verifiable historical documentation that Jesus really did live and was the person some make him out to be. Not really that much to ask. Something like an eyewitness report written at the time Jesus actually lived by an unbiased party.” We have that in scripture. James was Jesus’s brother, John was an eye witness, Peter was an eye witness. Paul met Jesus. You can’t be an un-engaged, unbiased, disinterested third-party when you meet your Creator my friend :). My illustration about the Porsche and being able to fly goes to the heart of your question, because it deals with us actually working, trying, studying, striving, working out our own salvation. God “could” have done a lot of things, and still could do a lot of things, like repair our bodies without food. But instead He allows us to do blunderingly and falteringly what He could do perfectly, and in the blink of an eye. It’s ultimately for our benefit. Work is prayer, the old saying goes. Consider the following essay from C S Lewis: “In every action, just as in every prayer, you are trying to bring about a certain result; and this result must be good or bad. Why, then, do we not argue as the opponents of prayer argue, and say that if the intended result is good God will bring it to pass without your interference, and that if it is bad He will prevent it happening whatever you do? Why wash your hands? If God intends them to be clean, they’ll come clean without your washing them. If He doesn’t, they’ll remain dirty (as Lady Macbeth found) however much soap you use. Why ask for the salt? Why put on your boots? Why do anything? We know that we can act and that our actions produce results. Everyone who believes in God must therefore admit (quite apart from the question of prayer) that God has not chosen to write the whole of history with His own hand. Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise. It may be a mystery why He should have allowed us to cause real events at all; but it is no odder that He should allow us to cause them by praying than by any other method. Pascal says that God ‘instituted prayer in order to allow His creatures the dignity of causality’. It would perhaps be truer to say that He invented both prayer and physical action for that purpose. He gave us small creatures the dignity of being able to contribute to the course of events in two different ways. He made the matter of the universe such that we can (in those limits) do things to it; that is why we can wash our own hands and feed or murder our fellow creatures. Similarly, He made His own plan or plot of history such that it admits a certain amount of free play and can be modified in response to our prayers. If it is foolish and impudent to ask for victory in a war (on the ground that God might be expected to know best), it would be equally foolish and impudent to put on a mackintosh - does not God know best whether you ought to be wet or dry? The two methods by which we are allowed to produce events may be called work and prayer. Both are alike in this respect – that in both we try to produce a state of affairs which God has not (or at any rate not yet) seen fit to provide ‘on HIS own’. And from this point of view the old maxim laborare est orare (work is prayer) takes on a new meaning. “What we do when we weed a field is not quite different from what we do when we pray for a good harvest. But there is an important difference all the same. You cannot be sure of a good harvest whatever you do to a field. But you can be sure that if you pull up one weed that one weed will no longer be there. You can be sure that if you drink more than a certain amount of alcohol you will ruin your health or that if you go on for a few centuries more wasting the resources of the planet on wars and luxuries you will shorten the life of the whole human race. The kind of causality we exercise by work is, so to speak, divinely guaranteed, and therefore ruthless. By it we are free to do ourselves as much harm as we please. But the kind which we exercise by prayer is not like that; God has left Himeslf a discretionary power. Had He not done so, prayer would be an activity too dangerous for man and we should have the horrible state of things envisaged by Juvenal: ‘Enormous prayers which Heaven in anger grants’. Prayers are not always - in the crude, factual sense of the word - ‘granted’. This is not because prayer is a weaker kind of causality, but because it is a stronger kind. When it ‘works’ at all it works unlimited by space and time. That is why God has retained a discretionary power of granting or refusing it; except on that condition prayer would destroy us. It is not unreasonable for a headmaster to say, ‘Such and such things you may do according to the fixed rules of this school. But such and such other things are too dangerous to be left to general rules. If you want to do them you must come and make a request and talk over the whole matter with me in my study. And then-we’ll see.’” Work and Prayer, God in the Dock.Clive Hayden

April 18, 2009

April

04

Apr

18

18

2009

04:49 PM

4

04

49

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ScottAndrews: "I could look at the Mona Lisa, observe the missing eyebrows, and conclude that Da Vinci was a bad artist. You see, I set the standards, and if he had painted her correctly, then he would qualify as a great artist." It's an interesting analogy but I'm not sure it works. Here's another analogy from my own field. I work in Information Technology (IT) primarily in the field of software development. One of our biggest challenges is to create software systems that actually meet the business requirements of the customers who are requesting the software. There's a variety of ways of doing this, but usually it is done through the writing down of requirements by a person who is trained in the job (usually called a Systems Analyst); these requirements are then reviewed with the customer. But this process is fraught with problems. It's often the case that the requirements are ambiguous, or incomplete or do not really reflect the true needs of the business. It is not unusual for a software developed to take those requirements, misinterpret them and create an entirely different system from the one the customer wants. This in fact happens all the time, and the IT industry has ways to try and deal with it but it's still an inherent problem largely due to issues with the nature of written communications. The written word then is extremely prone to improper interpretation - even to the point that it can have some quite devastating results (and in the case of IT very expensive ones). Our brains will read something and make all kinds of assumptions and incorrect interpretations. I see this in action everyday in my work. One must presume too that God, being omniscient, also understands the weaknesses that humans have with the written word. That's why I'm suspicious that the "Word of God" really is God's message, given the fact that is been allowed to be so mangled, altered, miscopied, edited, and even redacted over the years. I cannot pretend to be God, but I can say that he would make a very, very poor Systems Analyst! And I cannot think of a very worse time to introduce this message to the world then the time chosen!!!JTaylor

April 18, 2009

April

04

Apr

18

18

2009

02:59 PM

2

02

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF @153 Re: 1. This is an impressive piece of work. I would have to ask did you come up with this prior to coming to faith or afterwards? However, in many ways it reads like a hypothesis. There are lots of 'ifs and buts' in the argument, lots of "it's likely that". Perhaps one might also call it a "just so" story. But it does not seem to address my fundamental point that we still haven't (and probably won't ever) established the simple fact whether there eyewitnesses to Jesus who personally wrote anything down at the time. Yes, you can surmise that there may have been "working notes" (for which there is zero physical evidence). And even though the writings of Paul can indeed be dated to the 40s and later, we still have the concern that no biographical details of the life of Jesus were written down until probably 25 years or later (Mark being first). As many have noted what we can get from Paul is at best a thumbnail sketch of the life of Jesus (and as some such as Earl Doherty argue more of a "spiritual" being than an earthly one) and suggests that Paul did not have concrete information about the details of the life of Jesus. Yes maybe there were earlier written accounts, but we simply don't have them. We also have to deal with the fact that none of this is self-evident - it's only by this elaborate hypothesizing that we can come up with a story that we think may explain how these things came to be. That goes to my point earlier - if God is so passionately concerned with saving souls His chosen medium to communicate this seems deeply flawed and obtuse. Yet being an omnipotent God He could have easily seen to a more reliable transmission method had He chosen (at least to make Christianity not look just like one of many world religions...) Perhaps you think my surmising is also just a "just so" story and perhaps it is! I think it probably shows that there is just a great deal of uncertainty about what really happened and when. That's the point. For myself, I have to look at the evidence and ask myself can I accept this with no reasonable doubt that these things happened? I cannot get to that point (particularly when there isn't just doubt about the Bible but about so many other lines of evidence pertaining to Christianity). I think asking to be able to move beyond reasonable doubt, is actually, well emm, reasonable! It's one thing to say that the evidence is on a par with other classical literature. That may be so. But on the other hand you are asking me to accept that the most extraordinary of extraordinary events occurred - that a person was literally brought back from the dead. Yet when I investigate this I cannot find any external corroboration for this event until many decades later (and then the details are sketchy to say the least) and that if there were any eyewitnesses to this event, they relied on oral tradition to pass it down. It's argued that oral tradition in those times was more reliable than it is today, but we cannot rule out that even with good training, human beings are fundamentally extremely poor at this kind of activity. Besides, I could take every single one of your points that you make and easily find a scholar who would refute them (and I've already done a few searches, and it's not hard to do), and in just a compelling way as you think your points are made. I suppose you would say that these scholars are biased, but how do I know that confirmation bias has not colored what you are saying too? That's why I'm impressed with the likes of scholars like Bart Ehrman and others who started off as evangelical and convinced believers and in their journey of studying the BIble realized that something was very wrong. What's a skeptic to do? KF wrote: "insistence on the tangential is a sign of weakness on the core issue, here, the line from Is 52 - 3 etc and the events in the Gospels, Acts 17:16 - 34 and 1 Cor 15:1 - 11. " I know you would like to ignore the tangential aspects, but we cannot. The key to accepting the prophetic voice of the OT is also accepting the authority of the OT. To do that we have to examine whether the OT is both a historical record and inspired scripture. I believe it fails on both accounts. From an historical record, we cannot find any extra-biblical corroboration for important events such as the Exodus. Same for many of the leaders depicted in the Bible (although there might be some slight evidence for David but others are apparently do not appear else where in other historical records). And of course the morality issues are enormous problem - accepting the prophetic voice of a God who routinely practiced genocide is a huge stumbling block for many of us. I cannot in the same breath accept that God is talking about Jesus in Isaiah 53 and also acknowledge the divine authority of God to slaughter innocent women (and children) throughout the OT. To accept that God did these things (under any circumstances) is to bow down before a monster. If you wish to be enslaved to such a monstrous deity that is of course your prerogative (and in the country I live in I'm happy to say it is your right), but it utterly collides with my innate sense of morality.JTaylor

April 18, 2009

April

04

Apr

18

18

2009

02:44 PM

2

02

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JTaylor:

So it is not unreasonable to ask since this message is possibly the most IMPORTANT thing that God ever utters (at least to humans), that perhaps He could have done a better job?

Do we allow for even the slightest possibility that if it seems like a lousy job, the flaw could be in our ability to understand why it is the way it is? Maybe we completely misunderstand its purpose. It doesn't meet the need we feel it should, but it fulfills its intended purpose perfectly. I could look at the Mona Lisa, observe the missing eyebrows, and conclude that Da Vinci was a bad artist. You see, I set the standards, and if he had painted her correctly, then he would qualify as a great artist. It couldn't be that I don't understand his reasons for leaving off the eyebrows. Any other explanation is acceptable, but not that one.ScottAndrews

April 18, 2009

April

04

Apr

18

18

2009

02:26 PM

2

02

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB: "Now JT, are you employing that “Jesus Seminar/Depok Chopra/ Davinci code” methodology again as a means of identifying authors and dates. The reasonable range of dates for John’s Gospel, which he almost definitely wrote, is from 67-85 AD. So, if your sources are telling you differently, well, they are probably not very good sources. The range itself should tell you something about the speculative nature of this exercise. The book of Acts and Luke’s Gospel were written around 63 AD." I can assure you I pay no credence to either Deepek Chopra - perhaps that's one thing we can both agree on! I think the guy is a New Age fruitcake..his ideas on consciousness are just completely out there. As to the Da Vinci code, entertaining as it maybe (and that's very questionable too), it hardly qualifies as scholarship. I'm not surprised you find different dates for John's Gospel - I'm always finding that different sources provide different dates, and probably the best we can do is provide a range as you've done. In other words it's very hard to pin down any of the dates with any certainty (which of course is another reason to have easonable doubt about it all).JTaylor

April 18, 2009

April

04

Apr

18

18

2009

01:59 PM

1

01

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

---JTaylor: "My research indicates that most scholars think John was not contemporary (looks like the gospel was written 90 AD or later) and was written by a non-eyewitness." Now JT, are you employing that "Jesus Seminar/Depok Chopra/ Davinci code" methodology again as a means of identifying authors and dates. The reasonable range of dates for John's Gospel, which he almost definitely wrote, is from 67-85 AD. So, if your sources are telling you differently, well, they are probably not very good sources. The range itself should tell you something about the speculative nature of this exercise. The book of Acts and Luke's Gospel were written around 63 AD.StephenB

April 18, 2009

April

04

Apr

18

18

2009

11:54 AM

11

11

54

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CY: "That would not be unforgivable if the assumption were true." It is true that (as far as we know) that God is not currently practicing genocide. However, it's also true that God seems quite content to sit back and let genocides continue without any intervention on His part. I guess the explanation for this is that, according to the "rules" of the game (that God Himself came up with), He is not permitted to intervene because it's all our fault because of the Fall. Or something like that. It's quite the cosmic game. My comment really was about the genocide practiced i the OT and despite the advent of the new covenant, it still speaks to the overall character of God, who is after all the same unchanging God throughout all eternity. I was thinking of things like: Hosea 13:16 "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (so much for pro-life!) I could go on to mention the Flood, the Passover, the conquest of Canaan, and many more verses. Biblical scholar Raymond Schwager: "... has found 600 passages of explicit violence in the Hebrew Bible [a.k.a. Old Testament], 1000 verses where God's own violent actions of punishment are described, 100 passages where God expressly commands others to kill people, and several stories where God irrationally kills or tries to kill for no apparent reason. Violence ... is easily the most often mentioned activity in the Hebrew Bible." I suppose some people are going to say that I shouldn't take these at face-value or that as CY says I need to " get a full understanding of how the Jews viewed God before making such allegations". Perhaps the problem is that I don't understand the extraordinary wickedness of the Jewish people, or that Gods ways are "higher" ways that I cannot understand, or that God had an instructive purpose. No doubt with the right theological perspective and exegesis I could get to a point (after many years of course) of understanding the atrocities in the OT. Which is interesting when you think that many Christians (as in comments above) are quite happy to accept OT prophecy at face-value (usually completely out of context). It seems people want it both ways sometimes. But it isn't just the past atrocities. For a start I don't think genocide is ever forgivable, or that there is any kind of rationalization that could explain it (although that hasn't stopped theologians). But the scary thing is according to the NT, God isn't done yet! He has plenty more of this kind of thing waiting up his sleeve. According to Revelation (or at least one of the two million ways it can be interpreted) non-believers are going to be in for a rocky ride sometime in the future during the "end times". One person I read estimated that at least 2 billion people will be killed. And then of course we cannot forget what awaits us beyond that, according to mainstream Christian theology. Those that (like myself) decided that simply was no evidence to submit my life to God (and why would I want to subject myself to such a tyrant anyway) - and because two of my most ancient ancestors apparently did some terribly unforgivable thing (wanting knowledge!) are going to be thrown in a lake of fire (or worse) for all eternity. When you write it down like this it almost makes Scientology sound rational! CY: "It’s nothing new. It appears that you get all your cues from Richard Dawkins." I had formed my ideas long before Dawkins wrote his books, as you say it's nothing new.JTaylor

April 18, 2009

April

04

Apr

18

18

2009

09:32 AM

9

09

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Okay . . . It seems that many of the underlying assumptions, approaches and attitudes that drive how diverse people and movements derive conclusions on the matters under discussion are coming out. Pardon, therefore, a few footnotes, for those interested in some balancing words to the ideas, assertions and arguments being propagated by the new atheists and the many Dan Browns of our era: 1] 25 years . . . Someone above tried to dismiss the evidential significance of the eyewitness lifetime NT with a remark that no-one wrote anything down till 25 years had passed. But in fact, this is plainly erroneous and in parts question-begging, as well as ignorant of the USUAL lapse between events and writings in Classical times; in turn rooted in failure to understand the gap between MOST -- oral -- cultures and our own text-centric one. First, on the direct point of what was written when: a glance at Gal and 1 and 2 Thess will show documents dating to the late 40's; and in Ac 15 we have a preserved letter c. 48 AD. As well, Lk, a well tested and proved reliable historian, has record of sermons and court statements that run back to 30 - 33 AD. ALL of these are fully consistent with the gospel statement as we have it in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, which is in turn a written down record c 55 AD of teachings c 50 AD based on a more or less official summary dating to the period 33 or 35 - 38 AD when Paul would have "received" it. (Note how Paul carefully appends and distinguishes his own testimony.) Moreover, underlying the text of Mt and Lk there is common material [often reconstructed today as Q] consistent with Papias' remark on a "Hebrew" [prob., strictly, Aramaic] record antedating the Gospels as we have them, authored by Matthew, who as a tax collector would have been familiar with writings and as one of the twelve would have had immediate access to the events. (NB Lk's statement in his prologue, <Lk 1:1 - 4 on careful use of prior trusted sources: "1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." In short: ACCURATE oral tradition expressed in community teachings, and rooted in testimony of eyewitnesses, fulfilling the OT prophecies that are highlighted by the community. [Here, cf Ac 8: 26 ff, Mt 8:15 - 17 and 1 Pet 2:24 on how Is 53 is specifically one of those prophecies.) In short, it is very likely that across the 30's and into the 40's - 50's there were working notes and even narratives based on immediate recall -- and accurate oral memory and transmission [cf. Paul's remarks in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 on passing on what he received from the 12 etc] of a Rabbi's teachings was an important duty of the disciple -- and/or on actual fresh notes dating to the turn of the 30's. (That is, the question is being begged.) Furthermore, it was typical that major written narratives on lives of famous classical figures were composed a few generations to a few centuries after their lifetime. And, often making for good -- credibly reasonably accurate -- history. (As to our notions of a "balanced" view, the ancients did not write down what they did not think was significant, and made a point. So, it is tendentious to selectively object to the NT as point-of-view based.) All of this was happening in the lifespan of many friendly and some decidedly unfriendly witnesses and that of those who knew them in a community setting. So, it is rather unlikely that grossly inaccurate writings would have been well received. In the case of Lk -Ac, a consciously historical account runs from c. 27 AD - 62 AD, and cuts off before the major events across the 60's into the 70's: deaths of James, Jewish revolt, Neronian fire and persecution, deaths of Peter and Paul, defeat of Jerwish revolt, etc. that strongly suggests the base compositional date of the sequel to Lk. Thus, Lk as a base document may comfortably be dated 58 - 60 AD, which dovetails with the period when Lk was Paul's companion in Israel at the time of his last visit there and imprisonment. In Lk, Mk and Q are used as trusted sources, and plainly there was access to eyewitnesses [and especially the women of the company of core disciples]. Mk, we have reason to believe, is Peter through his "secretary," Mk. And in that context, Mt would be an expansion of Mt's original notes, with inputs from mk [giving the views and experiences of one of the inner circle of three, Peter.] While all this is happening, we have Paul's occasional correspondence to churches and individuals, ranging from abo0ut 48 to 65+. That correspondence subtly, strongly and undesignedly synergises with the above. So, the 25 years dismissive remark is inadvertently deeply revealing . . . 2] But John . . . By all accounts, Jesus had an inner circle, Peter, James and his brother John. [It is likely that the latter two were his first cousins, sons of his mother's sister. And, that aunt was one of the women of the company of the disciples we may see from Lk 8:1 - 3 etc. (This is of course the context of the famous request to have her sons sit on his right and his left in the kingdom.)] In the 40's, this James was put to death by the Herodians, leaving Peter and John. (The other major James ["the just"] of most of the Ac, was Jesus' brother; murdered in the interregnum between governors in 62 AD. (This incident from Josephus subtly corroborates the climate of a few years previously as reported in Lk, where a conspiracy to murder Paul was entertained by much the same circles.) We credibly have Peter's testimony through Mark. (And note how the tradition carefully preserves the name of the actual author though it would have been ever so convenient to simply re-title this as the Gospel of Peter. That is, the tradition is demonstrably CONSERVATIVE.) So, it should be no surprise that we have another gospel tracing to the inner circle's surviving member, post 64 - 68 AD: John. It should be no surprise that his account would consciously seek to complement the Synoptics, either. Nor, that -- right from its prologue -- it would subtly address the range of issues that were emerging as Docetic ideas [cf Paul in Col and Eph] were shading off into the weird syncretism of Platonic dualism, Hebraic thought filtered via Philo et al in Alexandria [cf prob Apollos in Heb], occult mysticism and elements of the Christian tradition, along with dashes of pagan thought. (In C2 - 4 this would emerge full bore as the movements we now term Gnosticism, the first great cluster of heresies.) Nor, that it should -- in that context -- bring up the longer and more didactic public and private discourses and debates Jesus entered into. 3] Contradictions . . . A good note on the nature of true testimony has been passed down to us by Simon Greenleaf, a founding father of the modern theory of evidence:

Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false . . . . [I]n the testimony of the true witness there is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection . . . the increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false . . . Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts to are be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuity of the investigation. The more largely the narrative partake[s] of these characteristics, the further it will be found removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more profoundly the mind will rest in the conviction of its truth. [pp. 39 - 40, Testimony of the Evangelists, Kregel republication 1995.]

The NT accounts pass that test of artlessness with flying colours. On incidental details -- the matters usually blown up into charges of "contradiction" -- we find instead the pattern of diverse independent and truthful witnesses: agreement of core details, diversity of observations and difficulties on peripheral, especially incidental matters. (If you are interested, some years ago now I took up a case that was trumpeted in the Jamaican media on the events of the first Easter Sunday, and which ended up in a sponsored public debate. I used the principle that contradictions will be un-reconcilable, but if an explanation makes the matters consistent they cannot be contradictory. I then -- with the aid esp. of Prof. John Wenham's work on the subject -- constructed a timeline. I found (to my astonishment!) that it was possible to pull in all the significant details into a coherent, step by step narrative. Thus, the very point where the NT is most accused of being a morass of contradictions is the point where it vindicates itself most powerfully. [NB: the point is that if such a timeline is able to resolve contradictions, then claimed contradictions are not so. This is independent of whether or not he integrative timeline is the actual one. But, I think as well that my construct suggests that there is a real timeline thast is reflected in teh narratives. Perhaps, it is not that far from Prof Wenham's summary.) ______________ In short,t he NT accounts are a lot more credible than many are wont to acknowledge. GEM of TKI PS: On the tangential matters of the OT and moral authority etc, I note that I have already pointed out that ALL worldview alternatives will have difficulties, and that the difficulties can best be addressed in light of first dealing with the core warranting arguments on a comparative difficulties basis. Insistence on the tangential is a sign of weakness on the core issue, here, the line from Is 52 - 3 etc and the events in the Gospels, Acts 17:16 - 34 and 1 Cor 15:1 - 11. (And in that context, resort to loaded and question-begging language such as "genocide" is itself revealing. FYI, our strength of feeling and perceptions have little to do with warranting the substantial truth or falsity of a matter. Only when our feelings rest on an accurate perception of circumstances do our emotional judgements tend to lead us aright. And in turn the accuracy of the perceptions is precisely what is to be resolved starting from the core issues outwards.)kairosfocus

April 18, 2009

April

04

Apr

18

18

2009

03:15 AM

3

03

15

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JTaylor:"is it so unforgivable that I cannot bring myself to worship a God who practices genocide?" That would not be unforgivable if the assumption were true. What I find fascinating is the extent you go in order to show this. It's nothing new. It appears that you get all your cues from Richard Dawkins. The problem with the argument though, is it isn't true. And even if it were true that God engages in genocide, don't you thing then that genocide would be something that people who view the Bible as gospel truth would practice? I would think that genocide would be widespread among Christians if God practiced it in reality. But you have absolutely no basis for making such an outrageous claim. All you have is more question-begging. I think you need to read the scriptures more carefully and get a full understanding of how the Jews viewed God before making such allegations. But perhaps you get a lot of this from the popular new atheist arguments. I would understand this. But they don't serve you well.CannuckianYankee

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

11:26 PM

11

11

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

This thread is still going on? Oh my. Anyway, I wanted to address my thoughts on the trilemna issue and W.L. Craig's views. I think the trilemna is a good argument once certain issues are clarified. It is true that it is not possible to accept Jesus as simply a good teacher without begging the question. Jesus did not allow the Jewish leaders to call him good teacher "no-one is good but God." This indicates that either Jesus was saying that he is not good, or that he is God - I think the scriptures lean clearly towards the 2nd option, and in John Chapter 8 Jesus clearly claims to be God by the "I am" statement, and this confirmed by the Jewish leaders attempting to stone him to death by claiming to be equal with the Father. Furthermore, while John's gospel is the most clear, there are other statements in the synoptic gospels, which indicate that Jesus is God - leaving the first option out of the question. Now this argument is valid provided that we can establish the reliability of the witness of scripture. In other words, a person who accepts the reliability of scripture cannnot say that Jesus was merely a good religious teacher, because the scriptural witness does not allow this. The quasi-Christian cults are simply wrong and inconsistent with Scripture - and notice that the Jehovah's Witnesses, who deny the deity of Christ had to write their own version of the New Testament, changing the meaning of John Chapter One in order to support this theology. Now this leads us to the problem: can we trust the witness of the scriptures? I don't think we can adequately answer that question in this forum, but I provided some sources for answering that question in one of my earlier posts above. I believe it can be resolved satisfactorily. So I don't think Jesus was a liar based on the "good teacher" argument - the scriptures do not allow for this. Is Jesus a lunatic? Well if He claimed to be God, this might certainly fit a person with a mental illness - I think "lunatic" is rather strong, but it fits with the trilemna's 3L presentation. But from a good reading of the scriptures, Jesus simply does not show the classic signs of a mentally ill person. His statements are reasonable in relation to Jewish belief. You could make the argument that the Jewish belief system causes one to be delusional, but this would also be question-begging. Some of the Jewish leaders did think that Jesus was somewhat crazy because he claimed to be God; but they said that he had an "unclean spirit." One would have to believe in unclean spirits to make that assessment, so it's still question-begging. For the most part, the Jewish leaders did not make Jesus' "craziness" their point of contention; rather it was certain claims that he made regarding his deity. In short, they too were begging the question, and for that reason they put him to death. They failed to investigate if his claim to deity was the truth. They had no excuse in light of the many miracles they knew he performed. And the "Lord" issue is thoroughly dealt with in the New Testament - Jesus is called Lord throughout Paul's writings, etc. So the trilemna is useful only once these and other underlying issues are dealt with. I wont go into all of them, but the apologist has a strong argument with the trilemna once the underlying issues are resolved. I think Craig would argue that C.S. Lewis did not effectively resolve the underlying issues, and therefore, the trilemna is not a strong argument.CannuckianYankee

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

06:57 PM

6

06

57

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

John uses the word "parable." You say tomato; I say tomahto. But for now, I hafta say sayonara...got other fish to fry. I'll be back, though...Lutepisc

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

06:02 PM

6

06

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Lutepisc, the examples you gave are extended metaphors (and barely that). Parables are almost always stories. It may be that the author of John was aware of the parable tradition, but these are parables only by a stretch of the imagination. It's not just a different literary style.David Kellogg

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

05:39 PM

5

05

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

David Kellogg:

[Jesus] doesn’t tell any parables and can’t shut up about himself (John).

That John has a different literary style than the synoptics has been recognized from ancient times. But what do you call: The Good Shepherd 10:1-21 or: The True Vine 15:1-8 for example?Lutepisc

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

05:32 PM

5

05

32

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

But nobody is telling me I need to accept Plato as my savior and repent of all my sins.

So if you don’t accept Plato--or anyone--as your savior, you don’t need to repent of your sins? (Sorry...but you brought the subject up, JTaylor :-) )

I have to be honest and say that if the Bible is God’s primary message to His people - it is really quite a botched job and does not represent the supposedly awesome and impotent God he is purported to be.

As a Christian, I believe that Christ is God’s primary message to His people. (Cf., for example, Heb. 1:1-2.) The Bible is “that which testifies of him” (cf. John 5:39). There is a nice example of this principle at work in the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-34). You probably know the story. Two of Jesus’ disciples are walking dejectedly along the seven-mile road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, three days after the crucifixion. They are talking with each other about what has just happened in Jerusalem. A stranger came up and began walking with them. “[The stranger] said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” After they arrived at their destination, [the stranger] was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?’” Luke is presenting the Resurrected Christ as the key to the understanding of scripture. JTaylor, you mention the many conflicting passages and differing understandings of scripture. I acknowledge that this is both confusing for the “outsider” and embarrassing for the “insider.” Nevertheless, there are some general principles at play which bring some order to the chaos. Protestants tend to follow a principle called “scripture interprets scripture.” This means that the clearer passages of scripture are used to aid in understanding the less clear passages. You will perhaps acknowledge that some passages are clearer than others. At its heart, though, this is known as a “Christocentric” principle. The understanding here is that what scripture does most clearly is “point to Christ.” Scripture at its clearest “shows us Christ.” Luther, for example, said he found Christ “under every rock” in the Hebrew scriptures. This is a metaphor, of course, but what it highlights is that what may be hidden in the Hebrew scriptures is uncovered in the Christ event. This is what StephenB and KairosFocus have been getting at. But it applies to the “New Testament” too. For Roman Catholics, the Church has the authority to interpret scripture. As a Protestant, I find some merit in this position, because it safeguards against some of the extremes which can be found in Protestantism. Yes...Protestants and Catholics haven’t always seen eye to eye, and that is an embarrassment to both of us. But I have to say: We’re working on it! That’s another post...but I’d be happy to digress in that direction if called upon… One last thing. I have to agree with what StephenB wrote about “John.” I was rather cavalier before, but the majority opinion by far is that the gospel was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who was an eyewitness to the crucifixion (and resurrection), whose vocabulary and style betray a thorough acquaintance with Jewish customs and culture, and who is well familiar with the features of Palestinian geography. The final product, as it has come down to us, may have been redacted by a “school of John,” but that doesn’t discount the disciple as the source of the gospel as we have it. We do no literary harm by going ahead and calling the author “John,” the disciple of Christ by the same name (who was the same person).Lutepisc

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

05:18 PM

5

05

18

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JTaylor, the Jesus that hung out with Jesus would be Fractal Jesus.David Kellogg

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

03:19 PM

3

03

19

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

@144 I mean "John that hung out with Jesus" (I guess the Jesus that hung out with Jesus would be the Holy Spirit?)JTaylor

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

02:58 PM

2

02

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I'm with JTaylor on the authorship of John. It's clearly later than the synoptics and contradicts the synoptics in all sorts of ways. I don't mean little stuff, like whether Jesus was crucified before or after Passover. I mean big stuff, like whether Jesus (1) talks mainly in parables and almost never talks about himself (Mark) or (2) doesn't tell any parables and can't shut up about himself (John). I don't know if any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, though Luke certainly wasn't. But I don't see any external evidence for the attribution of John to, well, John.David Kellogg

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

02:54 PM

2

02

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB: "Wait, let me save you the trouble. You aren’t sure that John wrote those books, and if did, he probably made things up, and if he didn’t, he probably leached information from Q, who was hanging out with G, who was trying to recapture the spirit of the ancient sun gods. Did I leave anything out?" Not so sure about the sun god stuff, but yep, we don't have any reliable evidence that the same Jesus that hung out with Jesus wrote the gospel. My research indicates that most scholars think John was not contemporary (looks like the gospel was written 90 AD or later) and was written by a non-eyewitness. Again, we cannot categorically and conclusively say that we have any written documentation from any eyewitness of Jesus (and of course we certainly don't have any autographs of even the anonymous works). Doesn't that trouble you?JTaylor

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

02:28 PM

2

02

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ScottAndrews: "The contradiction is that when speaking of a hypothetical creator, you measure him using your own knowledge and wisdom as the ruler. His existence or lack thereof depends on whether he conforms to your standards and does what you think is best. If there were, hypothetically, someone smart enough to create DNA, something we don’t fully understand, is it reasonable to expect that every other decision he made would be perfectly transparent to us?" But it is believed that God earnestly desires to be reconciled to his creation. That He "so loved the world etc" that He pains for people to turn towards Him. Since the majority of the worlds population that have lived or will ever lived did not have the luxury of living in ancient Palestine, then the primary way people know about this message is through the Bible (delivered through the church). So it is not unreasonable to ask since this message is possibly the most IMPORTANT thing that God ever utters (at least to humans), that perhaps He could have done a better job? After all it is quite clear that God does not visit the earth in person these days, and miracles seem hard to come by (well, unless you're Benny Hinn...) No, Clive we're not asking for Porsches or the ability to fly but some reasonable verifiable historical documentation that Jesus really did live and was the person some make him out to be. Not really that much to ask. Something like an eyewitness report written at the time Jesus actually lived by an unbiased party. And the analogy of DNA is to illustrate that God is quite capable of complex and highly intricate work, but it seems to have eluded Him in the creation of the Bible. indeed it appears He was quite happy to subcontract the work out, and the results are extremely poor (perhaps it would have been easy if Jesus had written some of his own work instead of relying on non-eyewitnesses many years later). The quality is so poor in fact that believers and non-believers have spent countless amounts of time trying to figure what the thing actually is trying to see (as indeed we are doing in this thread).JTaylor

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

02:22 PM

2

02

22

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

----JTaylor: "I’d say it again we don’t have evidence of a single eyewitness who knew Jesus themselves and wrote something down. Not one." JT, my man, are you saying that John, the apostle "Jesus loved," and who wrote a big chunk of the New Testament doesn't count as an eyewitness. This is the same guy who stood at the foot of the cross with Jesus' mother. Wait, let me save you the trouble. You aren't sure that John wrote those books, and if did, he probably made things up, and if he didn't, he probably leached information from Q, who was hanging out with G, who was trying to recapture the spirit of the ancient sun gods. Did I leave anything out?StephenB

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

01:23 PM

1

01

23

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JTaylor, "I’m not necessarily denying the existence of Jesus. But you have to wonder about a deity who apparently loved the world so much that he: a) Didn’t bother to have anybody write anything down about his chosen Messenger for some 25-30 years after the event b) Did not make sure that what was written down was properly preserved and immune from editing and malicious hacking c) Did not preserve the original documents d) Did not clarify important theological and doctrinal matters so that some key doctrines were not resolved until decades and hundreds of years later. And even today, Christians still spend countless hours squabbling over what the Bible really means - and to the point that it has caused serious factions and divisions in the church e) Did not see fit to intervene to remove all of the contradictions, obvious myths, and inconsistencies from His word, thus providing confusion and doubt over what it really means." I'll add to the list: f) And give everyone the keys to a new Porsche. g) Repair our bodies without the need for food. h) Make it to where we don't have to sleep. i) Give us the ability to fly. j) Give us all an inherently built-in systematic theology that is totally accurate and a complete knowledge of God's will. k) Provide all that we could ever need or want at our discretion without an ounce of effort on our part. :) You see where I'm going with this.Clive Hayden

April 17, 2009

April

04

Apr

17

17

2009

12:00 PM

12

12

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link