Does Good come from God II – Harris vs Lane

_{David L. Hagen

April 8, 2011

Atheism, Creationism, Design inference, Ethics, Evolutionary psychology, Intelligent Design, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Science}

Part 9 of 9 – Harris vs Craig – Does Good Come From God
———————————————
Apologetics 315 has posted the audio link the Full Debate MP3 Audio here (120 min)
———————–

I found the debate a fascinating test of technical debating skills vs red herrings and emotional appeals. (PS please post links to transcripts when available.)

This debate provides an interesting framework within which to examine the ID related question:
Does Information come from an Intelligent Agent?

Harris claimed that the axioms of science are accepted and obvious to everyone and provide the basis for proving there is no god. However, atheists commonly presuppose naturalistic materialism.
How can one scientifically examine if an intelligent agent exists or is causative, if one a priori excludes intelligent agents from possible causes?

I posit that in testing for an intelligent cause, one must presuppose:

1) Intelligent agents exist. (e.g. humans)
2) Intelligent agents can influence nature. (e.g. this post)
3) Some intelligent intervention can be detected. (e.g., forensics)
4) An intelligent agent may be a cause for an observed phenomena.

—————————————————-

April 11 See JonnyB’s follow on post:

Sam Harris Delivers Riveting Oration Championing Deism

Comments

---Bruce David: "The subject of the right use of reason has been a discussion that began between me and StephenB. I was responding to his assertion that he can determine truth through reason alone. To me that means using reason to arrive at knowledge that is unassailable, not simply reasonable." You are using the word "alone" is an an equivocal and misleading way. I can say, in principle, and with certainly, that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. That is not using "reason alone" to arrive at truth. It is using reason coupled with the knowledge that Jupiter does, in fact, exist. With that knowledge I can say, with certainly, that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist because the principle of non-contradiction, as a non-negotiable law of thought, forbids that possibility. You do not accept that law of thought, which means that you are not, and cannot be reasonable. ---"If you want to define reason to include ascertaining what is reasonable, not just absolutely true, that is an entirely different discussion." Reason is a broader and a more sophisticated concept than logic and its laws, but you cannot bypass the latter to get to the former. You cannot graduate to the second-grade level of intelligent reasoning without passing the first-grade level of valid logic.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: Re #144. The subject of the right use of reason has been a discussion that began between me and StephenB. I was responding to his assertion that he can determine truth through reason alone. To me that means using reason to arrive at knowledge that is unassailable, not simply reasonable. If you want to define reason to include ascertaining what is reasonable, not just absolutely true, that is an entirely different discussion.Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

QuiteID, "CY, the Diatessaron has the visit to Jerusalem and the presentation in the Temple come before the flight to Egypt. So in that text, Mary & Joseph have Jesus circumcized, presented, then take him back to Bethlehem, encounter the Magi, and flee to Egypt. This is obviously ridiculous. If they went to Bethlehem for the census (of which no other record exists, and of which Matthew seems unaware — he makes Jesus a Bethlehem native who moves to Nazareth), they would not return there after going to Jerusalem a month later. Maybe the Diatessaron is wrong, and the flight to Egypt took place first. Equal problems occur in that case." Nice try, but we then approach another issue. The fact that we've harmonized the texts does not mean that we have arrived at all the events that took place. There could (and probably is) still missing information still not mentioned. So your assumptions do not hold even if the Diatessaron is correct. Furthermore, neither text states that Joseph is a native of Bethlehem. I think what you're probably hung up on is Matthew's introduction of Nazareth as a fulfillment of prophecy, while Luke seems to suggest that Mary and Joseph originated from Nazareth, and that it wasn't simply somewhere they went to fulfill prophecy. And I have to say that your conclusion regarding these two texts is far off the mark. Again, an omission of information is not the same as a contradiction. Here we have further omission - even though we have as much information as the gospels are willing to provide. Furthermore, to determine that because a text from the 1st Century does not meet with your 21st Century standard of clarity, means that they are meant to be simply stories without historic merit, is simply ridiculous. As I pointed out in several passages, the gospel writers most certainly intended their accounts to be historical and not simply lessons in esoteric spirituality. Yet you seem to rest your argument that they cannot be historical on one problematic passage of scripture, which can have other explanations in light of missing information. Quite apart from your assertions, it is within an historical context that Paul is able to make the proclamation regarding the meaningless of Christianity apart from the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is the foundation of Christianity. But of course you dismiss Paul in preference to your own natural proclivities; which you don't even appear to question. It is "according to the scriptures" that Jesus was crucified. It is "according to the scriptures" that he rose from the dead, and for which there were hundreds of witnesses, and it matters to faith. I have no problem pointing this out to people who are not believers, or to people who like you who are sitting on the back side of the fence and not even wanting to see the other side, on the issue of the historicity of the resurrection. Not wanting to offend someone is not my concern when their salvation may be at stake.CannuckianYankee_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

CY, you say it's an angel, but the text calls him a "young man." I've read Mark many, many times. Have you? If so, why are you putting words in Mark's mouth?QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

QuiteID, "The original ending of Mark (Mark 16:8) has an empty tomb but no risen Jesus, who appears in later additions..." Not so. Even if you allow that the verses from 16:9-20 were not in the original manuscript of Mark: which many scholars doubt, there is still the resurrection attested to by the angel: "But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified.5 He has been raised!6 He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. 16:7 But go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.” 16:8 Then7 they went out and ran from the tomb, for terror and bewilderment had seized them.8 And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." (Mark 16:6-8 NET) Which leads me to ask: have you actually read Mark, or are you simply repeating what you've heard from detractors?CannuckianYankee_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

CY, you ask, "Where is your demarcation, which differentiates Christianity with any other religion, which holds Jesus as an historical figure?" I'm uninterested in telling other people they aren't Christians. As a former evangelical and inerrantist, I used to be interested in that, but not any more. I'm happy to affirm that you're a Christian if you take that designation. We can have a conversation about what that means for you and for me, and I'm happy to express my disagreement on certain issues, but I'm not going to deny the truth of what you affirm to yourself. I don't know anybody that well.QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

CY, the Diatessaron has the visit to Jerusalem and the presentation in the Temple come before the flight to Egypt. So in that text, Mary & Joseph have Jesus circumcized, presented, then take him back to Bethlehem, encounter the Magi, and flee to Egypt. This is obviously ridiculous. If they went to Bethlehem for the census (of which no other record exists, and of which Matthew seems unaware -- he makes Jesus a Bethlehem native who moves to Nazareth), they would not return there after going to Jerusalem a month later. Maybe the Diatessaron is wrong, and the flight to Egypt took place first. Equal problems occur in that case. It's much simpler to affirm what seems obvious: that both stories are just that, stories, told for a purpose. They are not "false" just because they're not literally true.QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

"CY, try to harmonize the flight to Egypt. Tell me how it makes sense." It makes sense in that Mary and Joseph got word of Herod's evil intentions, and escaped to Egypt. The period of time may have been, I would guess, fairly short, since it is well established by history that Herod died in 4BC. Jesus' birth must have been some time before that, but perhaps not too long before. I don't believe it is actually necessary to make any more sense from this than what I've just stated. The issue is rather trivial, and it has no bearing on the truth of the gospels. The main point I would like to make is that the flight from Egypt can be easily harmonized with Luke's account where he omits the event simply because Luke does not say that Mary and Joseph did not take Jesus to Egypt. He simply omits this information, and the information he gives does not appear to contradict Matthew's information in any way. Matthew's account simply adds more information to Luke's, while Luke lends information, which Matthew omitted. So you can put the two accounts (Matthew and Luke) together as one (as many have done) and find harmony. Titian's (AD120-180) Diatessaron is the first known attempt to harmonize the canonical gospels. His work was the standard text in the Syriac speaking Churches until the 5th Century. So some of the very first Christians depended on a harmonization of the Gospels as their word of God. The Diatessaron includes all of the passages, which you seem to have a problem with. Apparently they weren't a problem for the Syriac speaking Church of the 2nd Century on. You state: "For me, Christianity is about following Christ. It’s about a practice of faith, not faith as a matter of getting my beliefs in proper order, ready for inspection by you or any other person." For me Christianity is also about following Christ and the practice of faith. For me faith is reasonable, and in order for me to make reasonable sense of Christianity I'm required to understand the scriptures according to their intent and not according to my own natural proclivities. I am certain that the faith I hold is continually open to inspection by others and God Himself. I wouldn't have it any other way, as I understand that the scriptures demand this. There's a lot of claims made about Jesus, which from close inspection simply are not true from a comparison with what the scriptures state. If you're really looking for what does not harmonize with Christianity you only really need to look at history - both from the practices of some who claimed to be Christian and from those who have based their faith in scriptures along with some other text(s). Christianity is not the same as Islam, for example; but if you apply your reasoning contextually, it's difficult to assess this difference. After all, Islam is spiritual, and also holds Jesus as an historical figure - only he was never crucified, and he was merely a profit of lesser significance to Mohammed. Are you then saying that those of the Islamic faith are Christians as well, since they have faith that Jesus existed, and they exhibit a certain spirituality? What then does faith in Jesus really mean if Jesus was not only the historic figure of the Christian scriptures, but crucified and resurrected as the scriptures state? Where is your demarcation, which differentiates Christianity with any other religion, which holds Jesus as an historical figure? Furthermore, there are some who claim to be Christian, who make hate-filled proclamations against certain groups of people (does Rev. Phelps ring a bell?). Without inspection of those groups with the scriptures, how are you to determine if Rev. Phelps is following Christ when he pickets the funeral of a soldier, who's sexual orientation is not even known to him - and what would it matter if it was? From what do you determine then, what is true and what is not? It seems to me that for you it matters not; but I have determined that the scriptures state one thing and not the other according to principles of reason, in the same way as any other reasoned approach to truth.CannuckianYankee_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Also of related interest: Why are the birth narratives so different? (Part 1) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC78xZ97sdo Why are the birth narratives so different? (Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GgtyksNmyo -------------- they even have an old favorite, Plantinga, weighing in on Bart; Dr. Alving Plantinga - "Have you personally experienced evil in your life?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpzWvX_Quc Dr. Alvin Plantinga - "Why does God allow his creation to have freewill?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcTdes3MSYYbornagain77_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

This may be of interest to some: Short video responses to Bart Ehrman; (Some are The Ehrman Project http://ehrmanproject.com/ I haven't seen all of the videos but this particular video seems relevant to addressing Bruce's pantheistic position; Is there a central message throughout all 66 unique books of the Bible? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVgpkG4Ks1sbornagain77_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Bruce, "I never meant to give that impression. If that’s how you understand what I wrote, I apologize." No apology is necessary. I perhaps wrongfully assumed that you were agreeing with Harris' assessment of religion. Clearly your perspective is different than his. And I apologize for the error.CannuckianYankee_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Bruce, "No, I did not. To call something “reasonable” is not to use reason in any formal sense, like a proof which yields undeniable truth." I'm really not getting the twisting that goes on here. Reason is simply applying sound principles to a proposition to determine if it adheres to such principles. For example, if someone states a proposition that apples and oranges are the same things, I can use reason's principles in determining that such a proposition is not sound according to those principles. If such a proposition is heralded as a scientific one, then the principles of reason can be used (for example) to show that oranges have a different molecular structure than apples; and therefore, are not the same thing. A child could watch Sesame Street, and apply similar principles with apples, oranges and blocks of wood - "One of these things is not like the other," and through reason, determine that apples are similar to oranges, but not as much to blocks of wood. It's not an issue then of undeniable proof, but of determining through these principles, which is the more reasonable proposition. If you're not using reason, then you're not arriving at any truth in any sense of the word, and in that case, your arguments are simply meaningless. But of course I believe that you have used reason - despite your denial. The problem is that your reason does not appear to follow first principles of reason; and that may be where you are confusing not only yourself, but others who are reading your posts and thinking as I am thinking: "say what?"CannuckianYankee_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

I realize that you'd like to know my "real" belief about the resurrection, because this will allow you to classify me. You'll get to decide whether I fit your criteria of what constitutes a true Christian. This in turn will allow you to make all sorts of other assumptions about me. Let me just say that I too once held that view, and I'm glad to be rid of it. For me, Christianity is about following Christ. It's about a practice of faith, not faith as a matter of getting my beliefs in proper order, ready for inspection by you or any other person.QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

CY, try to harmonize the flight to Egypt. Tell me how it makes sense. As for the resurrection as an actual physical event, I don't know and don't care. The original ending of Mark (Mark 16:8) has an empty tomb but no risen Jesus, who appears in later additions. Luke and Matthew, of course, used Mark for one of their sources but added different accounts of how the resurrection was discovered. John's a completely different animal, as he is in so many ways: much later, and with a picture of Jesus at odds with the others. I don't think any of this matters. Believe what you want about what's historically true. I'm interested in what the stories mean.QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

"CY, so in your reconciliation of the two accounts, how and when does the flight to Egypt happen?" I'm not certain. A "reconciliation" as you call it (I much prefer harmonization - because I don't believe in this case there is anything to reconcile) does not require that both accounts state exactly the same thing. Again; one account omits the flight to Egypt. However, there does not appear to be any contradiction in the accounts with such an omission. "Add 'for Paul' to the last sentence and I’ll agree with you. Paul’s perspective is Paul’s perspective." Paul's perspective is also Luke's perspective as well as the perspective of the three other gospel writers. Consider that all of the gospels - including John are concerned with the fulfillment of prophecy. Such fulfillment makes no sense whatsoever apart from an historical account of their fulfillment - unless of course you play games with those accounts by suggesting (as some do) that they were somehow a "spiritual" fulfillment. But if you look at the approaches of all four gospel authors and Paul carefully, it becomes clear that all are concerned with actual history, and not simply an esoteric spiritualization of prophetic events. Either they are historic or Christianity means nothing. I don't buy the argument that Paul had an entirely different perspective than those of the gospel authors. I have no reason to do so. Let me ask you this - do you believe that the resurrection was a physical and historic event?CannuckianYankee_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

CY, so in your reconciliation of the two accounts, how and when does the flight to Egypt happen? On another issue, you write,
So for Paul the entire Christian faith depends upon the truth of an historical event. If that event had not occurred, Christianity is meaningless.
Add "for Paul" to the last sentence and I'll agree with you. Paul's perspective is Paul's perspective.QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Interestingly, Craig’s presentation ties in very well with the two themes we have been discussing, namely the reliability of the Gospel narratives and the first principles of right reason. I could write pages on this, but I will summarize: Notice how often Craig points out that if a certain proposition is true, then the opposite proposition cannot be true. Also, the four criteria he alludes to must be rigorously defined in ways that explain the contexts in which they can and cannot be used. There can be no excluded middle, so to speak. This happens all throughout the presentation. We need some kind of test to discern when these criteria are being faithfully or unfaithfully applied, conflated, or even misunderstood. Assuming the laws of logic [affirming the existence of a historical event is irreconcilably different from negating it] Craig, exposes the many examples in which Ehrman does, in fact, misapply the criteria, reflecting a “sloppy” brand of scholarship that indicates a breakdown in rational thought. Similarly, it is only by utilizing reason’s principles that Craig can identify the difference between Ehrman, the private scholar, and Ehrman, the public dissembler. And, again, notice how reason’s rules expose the folly of appealing to “probability theory” uniformed by “background information.” Post-modernism, Darwinism, and New Age Spirituality, however, admits of no such limitations. Someone from one of those camps might say, “Gosh, I wonder if Christ could have risen from the dead while also remaining in his tomb? Who is to say otherwise?" or “I wonder if the Gospels could have written themselves. Did they really need an author?” “Who are you to impose your suffocating principles of right reason on me? I gotta be me! I gotta be free! I accept all my definitions and axioms in that proof as true, based on personal experience, faith, and inner knowing."StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee @131: Thank you.StephenB_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: "It does not follow, first of all that if philosophers disagree on what is truth that at least one of those philosophers cannot know what that truth is. Therefore, simply because there are a large number of religious beliefs, which contradict one another, does not mean that at least one of those beliefs can’t be true." You don't get my point either. StephenB claims that reason by itself can discover truth. My assertion is that if that is true, then ALL those philosophers should agree with him, since they were all intellectual giants highly trained in the use of reason. The fact that none of them do is very strong evidence that in fact reason alone is powerless to discern truth. "Christianity does not teach that we should slaughter those who don’t conform to Christianity; it in fact teaches the opposite." I never meant to give that impression. If that's how you understand what I wrote, I apologize. What I was trying to convey is my conviction that it is a belief in the illusion of separation that is responsible for the slaughter (and other misfortunes). When I talked about religion in that context, I meant that that illusion can have the effects I described within a religion. However, I never meant to imply that such effects were in any way intrinsic to the religion itself. "So when Bruce states: “The idea that you can arrive at any kind of truth through reason alone is definitely nonsense,” what he apparently means is that one arrives at truth by an emotional appeal through manipulating and twisting reason to conform to one’s own emotional proclivities." Have you actually read what I have been writing? You certainly don't understand it. Please reread posts 42, 83, 96, 102, and 116 and try again.Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: "Furthermore, for you to claim that religion that views itself as the only truth is problematic, is to completely ignore your own pronouncements concerning inner knowing and “Conversations With God,” for you too have pronounced that approach as the only legitimate approach to truth." No, I never did. I have said throughout this thread and others to which I have contributed that there is truth in every tradition. Conversations with God resonates with my inner knowing more than any other tradition I have encountered it is true, but I would never say that it is the only source of truth in the world. I consider Sufism to be a very close second, along with Yogananda's brand of Hinduism and certain forms of esoteric Buddhism.Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

QuiteID So the problem of the differing lineages can be accounted for from two differing perspectives - that of omition of certain details, or two separate lineages through mother or father. Both of these approaches do not lend any credence to the notion that they are contradictory - just different. I'm not certain which I would accept as the better of the two, but I am certain of one point - that they are not necessarily contradictory. With that, I'm not inclined to jump to a conclusion, which appears to completely subjectify the texts in question. I think the more reasonable approach is to hold the accounts as historical until one can reasonably attest that they are not.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

“'The only reasonable conclusion is that reason by itself is powerless to ascertain truth.' Question is: did you use reason to arrive at that conclusion?" No, I did not. To call something "reasonable" is not to use reason in any formal sense, like a proof which yields undeniable truth. This is an argument more like a conclusion that ID is "the most reasonable explanation" for some phenomenon. It is not a proof. I have been using the term "reason" throughout these discussions as meaning a process that generates a proof, since StephenB claims that he can discover unassailable truth through reason.Bruce David_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

QuiteID, Consider also that the lineages both omit certain details, which if you were to do your own investigation on the differences, you would find that you could reasonably harmonize both.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

QuiteID, "Certainly Matthew is not, at least in the first five chapters: he’s writing a kind of fable in which Jesus is a new Moses, complete with an an ambiguous birth, an endangered infancy, an exodus from Egypt, a period of wandering in the desert, and a declaration of law from a mountain." I'm not persuaded to jump to that conclusion. I take it that Matthew was projecting an historical account of Jesus' lineage, that is different than the lineage illustrated by Luke in the 3rd Chapter of his gospel. Again, difference does not mean contradiction; and there's the element of two parents involved, that of Mary, and that of Joseph, who both have their separate lineages. Consider this.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee,
What’s a modernist spin is the notion that it doesn’t matter whether the gospels are history.
Exactly right.Clive Hayden_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Clive, BA77, others, The video of Craig dismantling Bart Ehrman illustrates two very important points: 1) Ehrman himself treats the gospels as historical accounts - contrary to QuiteID's assertion that it matters not whether they are history. Apparently to Ehrman it does matter, and his argument is that the history is inaccurate. 2) Craig, on the other hand dismantles Ehrman based on the observation that he is not an historian; rather a textural expert. I think the most revealing part of the video is when Craig points out that Ehrman believes that the scriptures we have today are pretty much what was written 2,000 years ago - that what we currently have is 99% accurate, and what is not accurate is trivial. Furthermore, Ehrman took over from the great textural critic Bruce M. Metzger, who did not share Ehrman's cynicism.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Bruce, Now that you've decided to discuss on topic, allow me to address: "So what is the cause of so much slaughter if it isn’t religion? I believe it is the illusion of separation. We have forgotten that we are all one–one humanity, one human family (one with all of life, actually). This plays out in religion as the belief that my religion is better than your religion. From there it is a short step (a step not always, taken, certainly, but often enough, unfortunately) to the belief that God (or Allah, or Jehovah, or Krishna) wants, nay even demands, that we impose our “true” religion on those “other” people through force." First of all, Christianity does not teach that the gospel is spread through force. That this has happened in history only illustrates that Christian doctrine can be twisted and used as a force for evil. Christianity is spread through word of mouth - preaching, and is adhered to through choice, not coercion. If it is adhered to through coercion, it is not authentic, because the truth of the gospel must be held in one's heart - not through lip-service. Furthermore, for you to claim that religion that views itself as the only truth is problematic, is to completely ignore your own pronouncements concerning inner knowing and "Conversations With God," for you too have pronounced that approach as the only legitimate approach to truth. So your religion has its own particularism, which you can't reasonably deny.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, as Clive pointed out this following video, which you may have missed yesterday, is excellent. It even has the whole Bethlehem 'controversy' at about the 25 minute mark (But I recommend watching the whole video since it lays the criterion out used by Biblical Scholars to establish the historicity of Jesus): Defense Of The Historical Jesus From Supposed Higher Criticism Of Biblical Text And Historical Reliability – William Lane Craig http://www.vimeo.com/11144955bornagain77_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

QuiteID, "CannuckianYankee, you’re assuming that the gospel writers were attempting to write history." This is correct. I am assuming that, but I make that assumption based on scriptural evidence, namely Luke: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold 5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron...." (Luke 1:1-5 NIV) "Your adherence to the straightjacket of legal testimony is a modernist add-on to an ancient text." Where midrash is apparent I do not deny. But it is clear to me that the gospel writers were at least attempting to write historical facts based on what was passed down, while employing their own particular take on what occurred. Luke has apparently done this. Furthermore, the early Church fathers depended upon the gospels as history, so it's not exactly a modernist spin. What's a modernist spin is the notion that it doesn't matter whether the gospels are history. This is problematic in that the truth of Christianity depends on an historical fact - that of the resurrection. And I quote Paul in that regard: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8 NIV) "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:12-19 NIV) So for Paul the entire Christian faith depends upon the truth of an historical event. If that event had not occurred, Christianity is meaningless. This is hardly a modernist notion.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Bruce David,
It isn’t me. It’s Biblical scholars. And what they use is the fact that there are hundreds of copies of the original books now available, dating from the second century (in a few cases) onward, and these copies do not agree with each other (there are literally thousands of discrepancies among them).
Did you watch bornagain77's post of William Lane Craig's video about this? The differences or so called discrepancies are nothing doctrinal. It's amazing to me that someone would deny the Grand Canyon in front of them because there are pebbles in his shoes.Clive Hayden_{April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sam Harris Delivers Riveting Oration Championing Deism

Leave a Reply