I was excited to see this today. It is a trailer for a movie coming out next month. It's Ben Stein's Expelled. My heart began to soar as I watched the trailer. Stein is saying the same thing I said in my blog/column found below: That the evidence does not support Darwinian Evolution. But scientists cling to Darwin's Theory like a Holy Grail, or really, more like a lifeboat in a desperate sea.I'm looking forward to supporting this movie.
I also want to note that not one person has commented on my anti-evolution blog. And I haven't received one email telling me how stupid I am. In the past, I would have been inundated after running a column like this. It is appearing in newspapers and on web sites across the country, but no one has even tried to refute it. Several people came to the blog after seeing it posted on Digg.com, but it disappeared almost as suddenly as it appeared. Why? Are people afraid of the truth? Are people beginning to understand that the only explanation to our existence is that we were created? The ramification is huge: it means we have to answer to God if he exists and created us. Let the fight for truth continue!
73 comments:
Could be that no one commented on your anti-evolution blog because it just isn't worth their time. Most people, including most Christians and god believers accept evolution. God beliefs are one thing, science is another. No matter what your beliefs, the world is as it is. Everything evolves. Even religion.
You have now received several comments on your evolution post. That said, I agree with Stardust--refuting rubbish that has already been expertly and completely dismissed as non-sense is exhausting.
It would be amusing if not so exasperating, to hear a creationist argue there is no evidence supporting evolution (false, as this is how something BECOMES a scientific theory) when there is absolutely no sound scientific evidence to support creationism.
When an author making an argument against evolution either presents straw-men, or demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the theory, it becomes easy to dismiss the argument altogether.
Please, read up on the theory of evolution before embarrassing yourself again.
Stardust,
Evolution just means "change" or "change over time". Despite Craig's careful definitions and differentiations, you still missed it!
Second, it is a false dichotomy to seperate "scientific" truth and truth about God's existence. Truth is truth. Science, as you are using it, is mostly limited to empirical investigations. But empiricism is not the only way to discover truth.
Kevin H
kevin h, Just because we can't say for certain how life got started on this planet doesn't mean we automatically write it off as "Goddidit". You are "answering to" a god that was created in the minds of a certain group of people. Gods have been created and discarded by humans from various cultures for thousands and thousands of years. If you were born into another culture, you most likely would believe something entirely different. You have been programmed in a certain environment to believe a certain thing. People are not born with an innate sense of "truth". Each group creates their own truth, and then each individual interprets what he or she has been taught in their own individual ways according to their experiences, needs and desires.
There has not been one shred of evidence to prove the existence of any god, gods, goddesses. Your evidence is always presented as a "feeling" or based on "faith."
I notice kevin h, that you have not had a response to others here and on other posts disputing Craig's ideas about fossils and evolution.
phreemunny, you said:
"It would be amusing if not so exasperating, to hear a creationist argue there is no evidence supporting evolution (false, as this is how something BECOMES a scientific theory) when there is absolutely no sound scientific evidence to support creationism.
KH> What is exasperating is the Darwinian's force-fitting the evidence of the natural world into their paradigm. On Naturalism (atheism/materialism), Darwinian Macro-Evolution is the only game in town! The evidence MUST fit the worldview and assumptions. As such, there should be years of overwhelming evidence of transitional fossils. It's just not there. There's nothing but a handful of disappointments (to Darwinists).
The Christian is free to follow where the evidence leads, i.e. to what extent did God use natural processes, adaptation, etc. to create?
In light of the irreducible complexity of bio-systems like the bacterial flagellum, what do you suppose it means that rather than adjust their paradigm, most respected Darwinists and Darwinist departments in academia scream in fury?
Some lines of evidence that God created are:
1). The absolute beginning of the time/space/material universe from nothing about 13.5 billion years ago.
2). The fine-tuning of the initial cosmological constants for intelligent life.
3). The impossibility of an actual, concrete infinite regress of material cause and effect.
4). The irreducible complexity found in a bio-systems that defy Darwinian explanations.
5). The specified complexity in bio-systems, particularly in DNA.
All the above are what were instrumental in the world's most influential atheist, Antony Flew, rejecting atheism for theism. I just spent two hours face to face with Flew's biographer discussing this!
We could stop there, but I invite any honest seeker to examine the evidence for God found in:
6). The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Kevin H
The Christian is free to follow where the evidence leads, i.e. to what extent did God use natural processes, adaptation, etc. to create?
First you must prove the existence of a god. The only evidence Christians use is an ancient book written by people who were ignorant of the world and the universe.
We could stop there, but I invite any honest seeker to examine the evidence for God found in:
6). The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
This is all a fictional story made up by humans. A story passed on like all cultures have their stories of gods with great powers, and their god "heroes"...it is written in their books. Do you accept their ancient texts as proof that their gods exist?
"kevin h, Just because we can't say for certain how life got started on this planet doesn't mean we automatically write it off as "Goddidit".
KH> That accusation (Goddidit) is better known as God of the Gaps. But Christians need not argue for God based on what we don't know, but on what we DO know!
Second, God can work via secondary causation, i.e. put systems in place that produce effects like cellular mitosis, etc. We don't have to automatically look for a direct intervention of God for every process.
In fact, the scientific method was developed by scientists who were theists - or informed by the Christian Worldview. Namely, that this is an orderly universe, created by God, and worthy of study.
"You are "answering to" a god that was created in the minds of a certain group of people. Gods have been created and discarded by humans from various cultures for thousands and thousands of years".
KH> First, how do you know that. Second, if gods were invented how does that disprove God? In fact, man's anthropological awareness of deity or the divine is an argument for Theism.
"If you were born into another culture, you most likely would believe something entirely different. You have been programmed in a certain environment to believe a certain thing".
KH> This is the Genetic Fallacy. That is, the rejection of an argument based on where it originated, where it was taught, who taught it, etc. The proposition must be evaluated on it's own terms - despite the geographical or sociological influence.
"People are not born with an innate sense of "truth". Each group creates their own truth, and then each individual interprets what he or she has been taught in their own individual ways according to their experiences, needs and desires".
KH> Then I guess I can discount everything you just wrote! Afterall, it's just "your truth"! It is the way you have been taught and/or interpreted your experience, etc. Right?
There has not been one shred of evidence to prove the existence of any god, gods, goddesses. Your evidence is always presented as a "feeling" or based on "faith."
KH> Reasonable faith, not blind faith. Look at my response to phreemunny for some starters on the evidence for God's existence.
I notice kevin h, that you have not had a response to others here and on other posts disputing Craig's ideas about fossils and evolution.
KH> Stay tuned!
Kevin H
In fact, man's anthropological awareness of deity or the divine is an argument for Theism.
I disagree. Theism is a psychological response to things we cannot control or explain. Humans have a common awareness of our own mortality and a fear of death. Religion and magical thinking is a desperate invention in an attempt to avoid the inevitable. Gods have been created by humans as psychological coping devices to help cope with forces of nature beyond our control.
Reasonable faith, not blind faith. Look at my response to phreemunny for some starters on the evidence for God's existence.
You are still using an ancient mythology book written by flawed, ignorant humans thousands of years ago. And Christians are extremely divided on the interpretation of this book. 38,000 sects of Christianity and you all can't come to an agreement and no god is coming down to explain it.
If a god exists, isn't it kind of absurd to think that he/she/it would be able to be puppetmaster to billions and billions of individuals past, present and future, taking care of everything from pet poodles to goldfishes... along with causing/preventing natural events and taking care of the entire cosmos. If you really stop to examine the whole god idea, you start to see how incredibly absurd god beliefs actually are.
"First you must prove the existence of a god. The only evidence Christians use is an ancient book written by people who were ignorant of the world and the universe".
KH> First, what do you mean by "prove"? What would you accept as proof that a proposition (like "God exists") is true?
Second, the Bible is not a book, but a collection of books.
Third, the Bible is one evidence Christians acknowledge that God exists and has revealed himself. The Scriptures would be in the category of Special Revelation.
Kevin H
This is all a fictional story made up by humans. A story passed on like all cultures have their stories of gods with great powers, and their god "heroes"...it is written in their books. Do you accept their ancient texts as proof that their gods exist?
KH> What is your criteria for historicity? What are your tests for determining whether ancient documents are historical or fiction?
Are you suggesting that because some ancient works are not historical or truthful that all are not?
Kevin H
Kevin H, there is no evidence God has ever existed. In fact, there is no contemporary evidence Jesus ever existed, and there should be tons.
God in gaps is not a way to prove God's existence. Back when lightning couldn't be explained, mankind most likely believed lightning was caused by a deity or at least the supernatural.
Lightning doesn't prove God, nor does anything else I'm aware of.
As beaj says, "there is no evidence God has ever existed. In fact, there is no contemporary evidence Jesus ever existed, and there should be tons."
Kevin, you keep talking in faux intellectual circles and never answer the questions straightforward. Basically, what you are saying is that god believers choose to believe an ancient text written by flawed ignorant humans as proof that a god exists. That is no different than saying that Santa Claus exists because Clement Clarke Moore wrote a book about him.
"Theism is a psychological response to things we cannot control or explain. Humans have a common awareness of our own mortality and a fear of death. Religion and magical thinking is a desperate invention in an attempt to avoid the inevitable. Gods have been created by humans as psychological coping devices to help cope with forces of nature beyond our control.
KH> Theism is not determined via psychology. Psychology is a worthy study of human behavior, attitudes, etc. Whether God exists is independent of man's behaviors, attitudes, anxiety, or wishes, etc.
I think it does, however, point to God that, as one atheist put it, "Man is a God-intoxicated ape". The question of God is the greatest philosophical question of all time.
Kevin H
"Kevin H, there is no evidence God has ever existed.
KH> What would you consider evidence for God?
While you think about that, keep in mind that theists and atheists have considered the evidence for God for ages! Answer my above question and I'll gladly list some categories of evidence.
In fact, there is no contemporary evidence Jesus ever existed, and there should be tons.
KH> I'm not sure what you mean by "contemporary" and what you mean by "tons" but the fact is, there is more evidence for Jesus than for virtually any other figure from the time period.
The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of eyewitnesses and events.
By your standard, you wipe out all of ancient history! The sources we have for most ancient figures are 500 to 1,000 years removed (e.g. Alexander the Great).
Josephus contains two Jesus passages written at the end of the first century (despite interpolations, we have a two core passages).
"God in gaps is not a way to prove God's existence. Back when lightning couldn't be explained, mankind most likely believed lightning was caused by a deity or at least the supernatural.
Lightning doesn't prove God, nor does anything else I'm aware of.
KH> One need not resort to God of the Gaps as evidence for God. We can argue from what we DO know, not necessarily from what we don't. God can work via secondary causation. Weather systems in place produce lightning. It need not be seen as direct intervention.
Kevin H
Whether God exists is independent of man's behaviors, attitudes, anxiety, or wishes, etc.
I beg to differ. God belief is a result of a psychological crutch used to deal with fear of death, fear of the unknown and the inability to accept the world as it is. God belief is self-delusion, and self-delusion is a psychological illness.
Kevin H, what do you know with respect to God's existence?
As far as your answer regarding Jesus, I don't need to go further with you on it, because it is apparent that you haven't a clue regarding real history versus made up stuff.
There are many sites on the internet that will crush any weak argument regarding Jesus' existence.
My theory is that Paul made him up, and by the time the bible was written, Jesus became a "real" person to the Christians. I see no evidence to contradict my theory.
"Kevin, you keep talking in faux intellectual circles and never answer the questions straightforward".
KH> Name one thing I have not answered in a straightforward manner. If I missed it, I'll address it.
If you appreciate logic, reason, and evidence you should appreciate what I am offering you and that I have pointed out your fallacies:
*Wrong definition of "evolution".
*Failure to provide criteria why you think the Scriptures are fiction.
*False Dichotomy
*Genetic Fallacy
*Distorted view of truth (i.e. denial of truth as correspondence with reality).
"Basically, what you are saying is that god believers choose to believe an ancient text written by flawed ignorant humans as proof that a god exists. That is no different than saying that Santa Claus exists because Clement Clarke Moore wrote a book about him.
KH> Now you've committed Argumentum ab Annis (the age of something determines how true it is),
Chronological Snobbery (ancient people could not write history or grasp basic concepts),
and Category Error (confusion of historical literary genre with fictional literary genre).
And, again, the Bible is one among many evidences for God to consider, albeit a strong one!
Kevin H
"You are still using an ancient mythology book written by flawed, ignorant humans thousands of years ago.
KH> Chronological Snobbery. And what are the criteria for mythology as opposed to historicity?
"And Christians are extremely divided on the interpretation of this book. 38,000 sects of Christianity and you all can't come to an agreement and no god is coming down to explain it".
KH> All the major denominations of orthodox Christianity hold to the essentials of the Faith. They disagree on peripheral issues.
"If a god exists, isn't it kind of absurd to think that he/she/it would be able to be puppetmaster to billions and billions of individuals past, present and future, taking care of everything from pet poodles to goldfishes... along with causing/preventing natural events and taking care of the entire cosmos. If you really stop to examine the whole god idea, you start to see how incredibly absurd god beliefs actually are"
KH> No, I don't think God is a "puppetmaster".
Kevin H
"I beg to differ. God belief is a result of a psychological crutch used to deal with fear of death, fear of the unknown and the inability to accept the world as it is. God belief is self-delusion, and self-delusion is a psychological illness.
KH> The only thing your begging, Stardust, is the question! (petitio principi).
What is your proof that God is nothing more than a psychological crutch or projection? What if I were to say your view was nothing more than self-deception and delusion? It is just an assertion and not backed up!
Again, whether God exists cannot be determined via psychology. It is a philosophical/historical question.
Kevin H
What would you consider evidence for God?
Some good evidence for the existence of this god would be him not needing stupid humans to speak for him. If humans don't spread the word, no one would know about the Christian mythology.
I must clarify that I am aware that the Bible is a collection of books, a collection of books chosen and collated by mere humans who wished to control the masses. Religion is a great tool to keep the sheeple in line.
I was a Christian for more than three decades. I studied the Bible as Literature in a Social context at the university level. I also studied world religions and world mythology along with social anthropology and psychology. So, I have learned quite a lot about the traditions and beliefs of various cultures based on their societal needs and experiences.
As for Josephus, you would think that someone as important and controversial as Jesus was would have had a lot more written about him, and not just a few lines from a questionable source.
"Kevin H, what do you know with respect to God's existence?",
KH>First, let me with all due respect, offer some correctives with regard to the historicity of Jesus.
Don't you see how ridiculous it is, beaj, to just assert that there are internet sites all over the web debunking Jesus? I could reply that there are debunkers of the debunkers! Let's go on...
As far as your answer regarding Jesus, I don't need to go further with you on it, because it is apparent that you haven't a clue regarding real history versus made up stuff."
KH> Then I respectfully ask that you supply me with your tests for histority vs. "made up stuff".
There are many sites on the internet that will crush any weak argument regarding Jesus' existence.
KH> I've interacted with the main ones. It is a rogue, radical, ridiculous view that Jesus never existed! Virtually no respected professional historian or New Testament scholar holds that view.
I've offered you the New Testament documents and Josephus, I could add more (as you know if you've studied this and not just defer to "websites").
My theory is that Paul made him up, and by the time the bible was written, Jesus became a "real" person to the Christians. I see no evidence to contradict my theory.
KH> Okay. I think that is reasonably stated. Some major problems with that view are:
1). The gospels are independent of Paul.
2). The conversion of Paul the Pharisee and student of Gamaliel is inexplicable apart from the historical Jesus.
3). Paul quotes the gospels on at least two occasions.
4). Paul interviewed (historeo) the original disciples of Jesus and recounts that in his letter to the Galatians.
5). Colin Hemer has done an exhaustive work on the book of Acts and has shown how historically accurate it is in even the smallest details and that it could not have been written after 62 or 63 ad.
6). Paul quotes an extremely early creed handed down to him in I Corinthians 15:1-6. It follows the exact outline of the gospels and the speeches in Acts.
The creed has been dated to within 5 years of the crucifixion!
Therefore, the evidence just leans far, far away from your theory.
Kevin H
"Some good evidence for the existence of this god would be him not needing stupid humans to speak for him. If humans don't spread the word, no one would know about the Christian mythology."
KH> C'mon Stardust! That is just an emotional rant. And you still haven't shown what the earmarks of hisoricity vs. mythology are.
Your comment on the process of canonicity is just more emotion. That is not what happened.
As for Josephus, we don't have everything he wrote, but he is certainly not a questionable source. The probable interpolations in the Testimonium Flavianum do not eradicate the whole passage. We have a shorter passage found in Arabia that may closer reflect the original and there are only a few interpolations!
Also, 1st century historians, especially the Romans, were very prejudiced as to what they would include in their chronicles. They are known for willfully leaving out events due to their personal biases. The historian must often sift through such biases to get at the truth.
I have a hunch that your objections to Jesus, who you once claimed as your Savior, are not merely intellectual. Should we get off the technical stuff and talk about what happened in your life? Perhaps in private email?
kharris@thewordfm.com If I don't reply it means the junk mail got it.
Kevin H
You talk of emotion? God beliefs are all based on emotions and internal beliefs.
Should we get off the technical stuff and talk about what happened in your life? Perhaps in private email?
No need for private email. Nothing dramatic happened in my life. No traumatic incident. Just a gradual realization of what religion is (mythology) as I became more and more educated about various cultures and their mythologies and belief systems.
I know many more people who have turned to god beliefs in times of crisis than those who have turned away from it, so that is a false assumption on your part. Most of the people I know who have given up the god beliefs did so because of education and analyzing the history and purpose of religion in societies.
The Josephus writings Its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved. Probably because Christians are in such dire need of "evidence" that Jesus was real, and there is not a hint of evidence for Jesus' existence anywhere else (except Biblical accounts). Like all religions, you must invent and keep re-inventing "evidence" where there is none.
Like all religions, you must invent and keep re-inventing "evidence" where there is none.
*******************
Contrary to how Fundies deal with evidence regarding evolution where they poke holes and ignore evidence.
Oh and Kevin, using the Gospels to prove empirical history just doesn't float with me.
Oh dear. I can count the number of historians who deny the historicity of Christ on one hand. The deniers are almost universally fringe types--professors of German, Classics B.A.s etc. Really, denying that Christ lived, had a ministry and was executed, is on the same "intellectual" plane as denying evolution.
Kevin-- I fear that you may have put yourself in an untenable position unnecessarily. God works in whatever ways he chooses and evolution appears to be a big part of that creation. While there may be dispute over the various mechanisms, as a theory, evolution covers the data very well. If we accumulate enough data that it doesn't cover, well, all bets are off. But at the moment that doesn't seem likely.
But so what? Science can only answer "how". It cannot answer "why" or deal with any question outside its limited realm. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al(and Beaj and Stardust, for that matter) can wave their impotent, puny fists in God's face (so to speak) all they like. It isn't likely to accomplish much. Scientists weighing the evidence honestly will do far more good than some of their spokespersons ...
But so what? Science can only answer "how". It cannot answer "why" or deal with any question outside its limited realm.
There is no why. God believers have a hard time accepting that fact.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al(and Beaj and Stardust, for that matter) can wave their impotent, puny fists in God's face (so to speak) all they like. It isn't likely to accomplish much.
Atheists do not believe in the existence of god or gods. One cannot be angry and shake their fists at something that does not exist. We shake our fists at people who not just hold god beliefs, but who wish to force those beliefs on the rest of the population.
Or, perhaps, the relative handful of non-believers, since the dawn of history, are the ones who have some explaining to do.
the relative handful of non-believers,
There are millions of non-believers. Far from a "handful" and as more of us come "out of the closet" our numbers will keep growing. There are many more doubters in churches than you realize. Fence-sitters. Most of your doubt, that is why there are doctors, and science. God believers do not trust their god to take care of them that much.
And as for gods, humans have created many in their own minds. These gods never, ever show themselves.
Think about this. If you come down with a serious potentially life-threatening illness, or are seriously injured and are alone and no human around to help you, even if you pray your heart out, no help will come. Your god is silent, just as he is silent as innocent babies and children starve to death as vultures sit on the sidelines waiting to devour their tiny bodies. No god comes to stop the murder of your missionaries when out in dangerous lands. No god comes to stop a church bombing or fire or even some natural disaster. No god intervenes when a priest rapes children over and over again. No god stops the natural disasters that destroy the homes of the faithful who believe in a god.
God is a figment in each believer's imaginations...a psychological coping device. And most people seem to need that, to a point. Most people will run to a doctor before trusting prayer alone. Most people do not trust their god.
It is your right in this society of all free nations to believe what you want, but not your right to try to impose those beliefs into our public schools and secular government.
It's a good thing that most Christians, like I said before, can reconcile their "faith" and science (evolution in particular). It's the ones who cannot that are a threat to education and all that science has accomplished thus far.
Stardust said,
"The Josephus writings Its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery. This conclusion was questioned in the 20th century and the intellectual controversy will probably never be resolved.
KH> Not quite. Dr. Louis Feldman is the foremost expert on Josephus. His work backs everything I said.
Further, Josephus discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. He mentions Jesus in two passages and the longer passage probably contains interpolations - the removal of which does not wipe out the core passage.
Beaj, you said,
"Oh and Kevin, using the Gospels to prove empirical history just doesn't float with me."
KH> I'm asking again. Please give me your tests or criteria for determining the historicity of ancient documents.
If you don't wish to research this, let me just say I know the tests historians use and the New Testament documents pass with flying colors.
The three category headings are:
1). Bibliographical tests.
2). Internal tests.
3). External tests.
Kevin H
maggie, you said,
"Kevin-- I fear that you may have put yourself in an untenable position unnecessarily. God works in whatever ways he chooses and evolution appears to be a big part of that creation. While there may be dispute over the various mechanisms, as a theory, evolution covers the data very well".
KH> I think Young Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution are both untenable (but both can fall roughly within the pale of Christian orthodoxy).
I think Progressive Creationism best fits the biblical and scientific data.
What I oppose is the contention that all life arose by blind, unguided, accidental processes making God superflous and Christianity false. If the evidence proved that, so be it. Fortunately it does not.
Kevin H
Modern science is the child of what the early church called natural philosophy-- and that is the gift of medieval Christianity to our modern world. There simply is no disputing this. All of history and all of scholarship is against such a position.
There are untold millions of us who can tell you that God is not silent. You can dismiss that testimony but... who are you? Why do you suppose that your opinion outweighs the unbroken testimony of 2000 years (just to speak of Christianity) of history? I am sure that some of us don't trust God-- that is a position one comes to with spiritual maturity and it is not a fixed position. We are all at different points along the spectrum: distrust <---> complete trust. How does that change anything?
Think about this. If you come down with a serious potentially life-threatening illness, or are seriously injured and are alone and no human around to help you, even if you pray your heart out, no help will come.
This profoundly misunderstands the nature of reality. God has certainly intervened in such situations. You can hardly pick up a newspaper without seeing yet another story of unexpected rescues or healings. Unless it happens to you, you will always be able to dismiss them. But constant supernatural intervention in our lives is not the norm because we live in a world that operates under certain laws of nature.
(They aren't laws, of course, but merely descriptions of natural phenomena that we can make because of their predictability.) Thus, if a baby falls into a swimming pool, he will drown because humans are not able to breathe under water. Likewise, if I step into the path of a car, I will die because the human body is not designed to withstand the impact of 2000 pounds of steel moving at 30 mph.
I do not minimize the problem of evil and suffering. But simply closing one's eyes and saying that there is no God, won't do anything about either.
oops. my last comment was for Stardust.
Kevin: I don't have a problem with the orthodoxy of YEC or theistic evolution: YEC is simply unsupportable as science and ID is, I think, philosophy rather than science. (I am assuming that you mean intelligent design by "theistic evolution".)
What I oppose is the contention that all life arose by blind, unguided, accidental processes making God superflous and Christianity false. If the evidence proved that, so be it. Fortunately it does not. Amen!
Stardust,
I have answered you and you are just being repetitious. Rather than assume you know what Craig and I believe, why don't you just ask?
Your last post dealt with the Problem of Evil, God as a psychological projection (which I answered), imposing one's views, and the role of religion, education, and science. Is there a question you have for us on any of these?
Kevin H
This is pointless as usual. You firmly cling to your delusion of a puppetmaster god who is all-powerful but favors some people over others. The idea of a god who is protecting some while allowing harm to come to others makes this god out to be nothing more than a sadistic monster. This whole puppetmaster idea is utterly absurd.
You reject the god beliefs of others but cling to your own. Your argument about people believing this nonsense for 2000 years is not evidence that this god exists or that your beliefs are true. Hinduism has existed far longer than Christianity. Christianity is a spin-off of Mithraism, who Constantine himself believed until he converted to Christianity for political reasons...power and control reasons. Religion has much to do about controlling the masses, and I must admit that it has done very will with doing that with most people.
I can see we will get nowhere here and will continue to dance in circles.
You have stated the truth yourself. " . . . we live in a world that operates under certain laws of nature." Nature. God is a human invention for natural events they cannot control.
Evidence for the existence of god has not been found. You still have not provided it.
I meant to write "Gods are a human invention to explain natural events they cannot control."
Kevin, the only evidence you have provided is that god exists because you choose to believe it. I am being repetitious because you have not provided evidence for the existence of this god except for what is in your own mind. It's the same answer from every Christian...he's in our hearts, he's in our mind. That's the only place he is.
Kevin, there is absolutely no contemporary evidence (anything from 1-40 AD) that leads me to believe Jesus ever existed. There should be lots.
There were historians around and there is no mention of Jesus by anyone. Jews, Roman letters, Greeks, etc.
Josephus' writings from 85 AD were a good 50 years after the fact, a time when a person's life expectancy was 40 (of course you probably believe that people could live to 922 back then). He observed Christians who by that time started to believe that Jesus was a real person, not just a dream by Paul.
It doesn't take long for masses of people to buy into fiction. How many people fell for James Frey's book recently?
It is easier to make up a person and give him or her magical powers, than use a real person in history to do so.
I am afraid that you are wrong in all your assumptions, Beaj. The average life expectancy was not 40. Plato lived to be 74, Aristotle- 62, Emperor Augustus, 77, Tacitus, 68 or 69, Cicero made it to 63 and he, of course, was murdered. I could multiply examples but won't bother. You can look others up. What matters is that the argument from life expectancy is a non-starter.
More to the point, Paul (and no one, absolutely no one, doubts his existence) met with James and Peter in Jerusalem after his conversion experience some 2 years, give or take a couple of months, after the resurrection. He got his facts (or, more accurately checked with them to make sure he was teaching accurately) directly from them. His first undisputed letter was written in 55 or 56 a.d. and in it he is writing to established churches. He is not evangelizing. In other words, a mere 20 or so years after the death of Christ, there are established churches teaching and preaching the new faith and needing to appeal to the authorities (apostles) to settle disputed matters.
There is a mass of information that can be gleaned from contemporary sources. Christ's life is among the best attested in the ancient world. We don't have even a 1/10th as much about most other figures we believe actually lived.
You can inform yourself better by consulting Gary Habermas. He is a scholar who also writes for a non-scholarly audience, i.e. in a very "user-friendly", accessible way. http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/articles.htm
However, if you want scholars who write with lots of technical jargon, let me know. It would be quite easy to compile a bibliography for you.
The average life expectancy was not 40.
beaj is correct. The "average" was lifespan at that time was about 40.
Average life expectancies throughout the ages
maggie, you still ramble on about humans who may or may have not existed, but still no evidence to prove the existence of a god.
As for Paul, he created Christianity. Without him it would not exist today. Evangelicals worship Paul more than they do Jesus.
Christianity "evolved" from Mithraism. Emperor Constantine officially fused Mithraism and Christianity. Like other mythologies, the Christian mythology morphed from an early mythology.
Consider the great temples of Greece. Most people believed the Greek gods existed and lived in those temples. They would go to the temples regularly to worship, performing prayers and ritual. Most people in ancient Greece truly believed. Ancient Egyptians believed their gods were real for thousands of years. They believed they would live forever, making elaborate arrangements for the afterlife. Hindus believe their many gods are real. Just because you believe something doesn't make it real. Just because you believe you will live forever doesn't change the reality that you cannot.
Your religion today, is only mythology of the future.
No, Beaj is not correct. If you read for understanding instead of looking for ways to score points, you would have read this, among a number of other disclaimers:
Life expectancy is heavily dependent on the criteria used to select the group.
The article goes on to say that class and gender play a big role, too. Duh! Such numbers change drastically, if you look at only those who survive infancy or count all those who were born, whether they survive the first year or not. There are other variables as well. So, life expectancy simply doesn't do the job you want it to do, no matter how long you hold your breath, no matter how ardently you wish it.
Your remarks about Paul are the "ramblings", to use your civil terminology, of someone who is simply ignorant of history and ignorant of whom evangelicals worship. It is not worth discussing. You are going to have to do better, if you expect to be taken seriously.
The key word maggie is AVERAGE. Some people were lucky to live longer, many lived shorter. But the average was indeed 40 around that time. KNOW YOUR HISTORY. Did you even look at the link of FACTS I provided for you?
It is not worth discussing. You are going to have to do better, if you expect to be taken seriously.
Interesting how you believers all use these cop outs when you are cornered and have no answers for the difficult questions. And you continue to evade the big question, the main question...where is evidence for the existence of your god...without using your mythology book that was written by humans?
Your remarks about Paul are the "ramblings", to use your civil terminology, of someone who is simply ignorant of history and ignorant of whom evangelicals worship.
I was a member of a Baptist church for some time, and all was ever preached was what Paul said. Little from other parts of the Bible (good thing most Christians don't follow the bad parts like stoning adulterers and disrepectful children...read Leviticus sometime).
The Baptist church and most evangelical denominations put the focus on Paul. That you cannot dispute. If you don't believe me, really study up on the history of Paul and not just want your pastor tells you.
Now, you are getting snippy, Stardust, which is what happens all too often, when a person cannot defend a position. It is human but it should be resisted. Let's see, you wrote:
Did you even look at the link of FACTS I provided for you?
I quoted from it. How do you think I was able to quote it, if I didn't look at it? My remarks stand. The argument from life expectancy is ridiculous.
Why you think that it is significant that Paul is quoted heavily eludes me. His letters make up most of the New Testament! He was the apostle to the gentiles and they are the ones whose congregations were the largest and most contentious.
In turn, that means that he is the one who most often had to document his decisions and explanations. We know that he wrote at least 4 letters to the Corinthians but, alas, only 2 have survived. Since he consulted with James and Peter at least two more times during their life times, specifically to make sure that he was teaching correct doctrine, I think we can rely on his writings.
Oh, how I wish you atheists would get over your dependence on the Old Testament! It is a work nearly 4000 years old in its most ancient parts and reflects the cultures in which it was produced. If you read it as a "how-to" manual, you are going to have problems. I am aware that some Christian bodies think it is all literally true. Most of us know better. Most of us can recognize a poem when we see one, a story when we see one, etc.
And then you said this:
Interesting how you believers all use these cop outs when you are cornered and have no answers for the difficult questions. And you continue to evade the big question, the main question...where is evidence for the existence of your god..
What cop outs? What difficult questions have you posed? I haven't seen one. It is just the same old, same old that everyone spouts, whose atheistic "education" has been limited to a little Dawkins here, a little Hitchens there coupled with a freshman biology class. It is high school/undergraduate stuff, to be frank. I actually do think that atheism is a defensible position, philosophically, but it isn't usually argued well in comment boxes by "regular" people.
And what question are we supposed to be evading? The existence of God? I think most of us will gladly grant that there is no empirical evidence. But there is a great deal more to be looked at than that. At a minimum, if the Bible accurately relates the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the question is settled.
Now does the Bible do that accurately? There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that it does. Now an argument based on historical evidence can only be more or less probable. It cannot be iron-clad. But most of us who have looked at the evidence, think it quite strong.
Now you can dismiss all but empirical evidence, if you wish. It is a horribly reductionist, emotionally impoverished way of looking at the world. But suit yourself.
What difficult questions have you posed? I haven't seen one
Prove the existence of your god. You still haven't done so. Without getting off on distracting tangents and without merely quoting Bible verses. You have not one shred of verifiable evidence.
Oh, how I wish you atheists would get over your dependence on the Old Testament!
But your Jesus says in the NT that he came to add to the word of god, not to change it. NT does not cancel out OT. If you believe it does, why do you follow the ten commandments? You cherry-pick what you want to keep, and what you want to discard based. Much of the OT is not followed because we now have laws preventing much of what is ordered in it, supposedly by your god. Thank human goodness.
But there is a great deal more to be looked at than that.
Including what I have mentioned before...human psychology and the desperate fear of death and things they cannot control. The fear of being alone. The dissatisfaction that life has no meaning except what meaning each individual gives their lives. Have you ever opened your mind to that possibility? As a 54-year-old mother of three grown children, with a Masters, and as a Christian for more than three decades, yes, I have looked at this subject in depth and for a long time before coming to my conclusion. It was not a decision that was made suddenly overnight. It happened gradually as I allowed myself not to be afraid of being afraid of some imaginary man in the sky.
You write this
But your Jesus says in the NT that he came to add to the word of god, not to change it. NT does not cancel out OT. If you believe it does, why do you follow the ten commandments? You cherry-pick what you want to keep, and what you want to discard based. Much of the OT is not followed because we now have laws preventing much of what is ordered in it, supposedly by your god.
and, at the same time, expect me to believe that you were ever more than a nominal Christian? That does not compute.
Jesus did not say that he came to "add to the word of God, not change it". Where, oh where do you get such a thing???! No, he said that he had come to fulfil the law, and so he did. We do not follow Jewish ceremonial or ritual laws because they were the laws appropriate to an ancient theocracy trying to put in to practice God's commandments. The 10 commandments (all versions of them) are the law that Jesus fulfilled. He confirmed the universality of them in plain words. See Matthew chapter 5, for example:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus follows these words by enumerating the laws which he has fulfilled: those regarding, murder, adultery, etc. These are moral precepts that everyone must follow. But he has freed us from ritual and ceremonial law (circumcision, dietary regulations, etc.)
I do not think that there is anything further that you can offer in way of argument. You must believe what you wish. You cannot hope to persuade anyone of anything, when you can't get the easy stuff right. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but I am not up to shadow boxing. You may have the last word.
You must believe what you wish. You cannot hope to persuade anyone of anything, when you can't get the easy stuff right.
I think you are just angry with yourself because you know you cannot prove the existence of a god. That iw what I was trying to get you to admit. You can believe and have faith, but you can never prove.
And you also have proven that biblical interpretation is subjective and left open to the interpreter. This is why the Christians are so divided...more than 300 branches of Christianity and more than 38,000 sub-branches and you all cannot come to an agreement when it comes to biblical interpretation. Where is your god to come and get you all on the same page?
kevin h said: “Also, 1st century historians, especially the Romans, were very prejudiced as to what they would include in their chronicles. They are known for willfully leaving out events due to their personal biases. The historian must often sift through such biases to get at the truth.”
Which is exactly what the writers, editors, and redactors of the gospels were and did, except that many of them weren’t even historians. They were very prejudiced as to what they would include in their chronicles - indeed, which chronicles they would include in the babble, period (Irenaeus condemning the Wrong Gospels ™ comes to mind). They are known for not only leaving out events but changing them due to their personal biases and religio-political agendas. The historian must often sift through their biases to get at the truth.
"Which is exactly what the writers, editors, and redactors of the gospels were and did,...
KH> What brings you to that conclusion? What tests do historians use to sift the possible bias?
All of our best information on the Holocaust were from Jewish survivors! How biased were they?
Irenaeus spoke out against gnostic gospels and those not having apostolic control and authority (i.e. those who were closest to the events).
Biased people can write accurate history. What are the acknowleged tests that they were accurate?
Kevin H
Kevin h, a friend named Eve doesn't have a blogger account and wishes to respond to your last comment point-by-point.
Here is her response:
KH says: What brings you to that conclusion? What tests do historians use to sift the possible bias?
This is what you claimed first about historians in general and the ancient Romans in particular, therefore you’re the one who has to answer your own question.
KH: All of our best information on the Holocaust were from Jewish survivors! How biased were they?
Unlike the writers of the gospels, they were contemporaries to the events they were describing. They lived them. The New Testament and even the gospels are not; the oldest surviving texts were written almost a century after what they talk about.
And again, the accusation of bias in historians and historical reports was initiated by you. The burden for supporting your point is yours; I simply applied your assertion to another example.
KH: Irenaeus spoke out against gnostic gospels and those not having apostolic control and authority (i.e. those who were closest to the events).
Precisely what I said: he was biased against what he and those who agreed with him considered the Wrong Gospels ™. He also didn’t have much to work with, poor guy; as I mention above, even the oldest surviving texts of the canonical gospels are later than the events they describe. You also seem to be ignoring what established biblical scholarship has pretty much agreed upon: that the four gospels were not actually written by the people they claim to have been written by.
On the other hand, the Roman historians of the period were contemporary to their time.
KH: Biased people can write accurate history. What are the acknowleged tests that they were accurate?
Exactly! But that’s not what you said originally. You claimed that historians, especially the Romans, were biased and that therefore we couldn’t and shouldn’t take their work seriously. My point in this little exercise was to show that what you said applies just as accurately to the writers of the gospels; they were also biased and according to your own viewpoint, should therefore not be taken seriously. You provide the tests that conclusively prove one account over the other but as someone who a few months ago researched the First Crusade, I warn you: contemporary accounts weigh more than stuff written afterward by non-contemporaries.
But overall, like so many believers, you’re oversimplifying the whole field of study into Jesus’ historicity. So far all the acknowledged experts in the field can kinda sorta agree with is that some person upon whom the New Testament character may have been based might have actually existed. Your attempt to discredit professional, scholarly work that doesn’t align with your personal bias, much like Craig does with established science re: creationism, doesn’t speak well of your own objectivity and seriousness in approaching the subject.
True scholars take everything they can into account, including problematic sources. Star and I aren’t telling you anything that reputable, respected, renowned academics in the field have not studied in far greater detail than, quite frankly, you have. If you have some far-reaching, jaw-dropping, incontrovertible, indisputable contribution to make to the question of Jesus’ historicity that will make every scholar out there working on the subject to drop everything and just say, “Kevin’s right. No use studying any further. The gospels are 100% accurate and no one can say otherwise anymore,” then please go ahead and do it. Silence the debate forever more.
Eve should have stayed in bed this morning. That "rebuttal" is so faulty that I hardly know where to start. Well, let's tackle the most egregious error first.
If you have some far-reaching, jaw-dropping, incontrovertible, indisputable contribution to make to the question of Jesus’ historicity that will make every scholar out there working on the subject to drop everything and just say, “Kevin’s right. No use studying any further.
The question of the historicity of Jesus is not disputed by anyone anymore. Well, ok. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of trained historians who do still try to dispute it. But they are so far outside the scholarly consensus that they cannot get published in the scholarly journal literature. Really, absent some startling new evidence (manuscript or archaeological), the subject is closed. The overwhelming majority of the deniers are not scholars at all and the few who are, are rarely historians.
Then you mixed the orange below with the apple above:
The gospels are 100% accurate and no one can say otherwise anymore,” then please go ahead and do it. Silence the debate forever more.
Do what? The scholarly literature on the historicity and the accuracy (those are not exactly the same thing) of the Gospels would fill 3 or 4 football fields. Where can one even start???
We have an amazing amount of information on the transmission of the manuscripts; we have more than 5000 surviving texts from most parts of the ancient world, some half dozen (if I remember the number correctly) full manuscripts have survived.
The Gospels were not written a century after the events they describe. While there is some disagreement about their exact dates, the overwhelming majority of scholars hold, for instance, that Mark was written between 60 and 80 A.D. This is to say that it was written 30-50 years after the crucifixion. This is well within the living memory of the apostles' contemporaries.
We know for a certainty that Paul's earliest undisputed letter was written in the 50s. He, himself, had gone to consult with Peter and James in Jerusalem after his conversion. We can date that to within two years of the crucifixion. So his earliest surviving letter was written some 20 years after the crucifixion. Again, well within the living memory of Christ's contemporaries.
Moreover, he was writing to long established congregations who already knew the stories. Their issues were doctrinal-- how to live out their faith.
As far as accuracy is concerned, the Gospels all tell the same story. It is a problem, if two say Christ didn't rise from the dead and two say he did. It isn't a problem if some of the details (how many angels were at the tomb, eg.) are wrong. Moreover, the Gospels are not biographies. They were written and shaped to address different audiences. The internal evidence is very strong that Mark was aimed at a gentile (probably Roman)audience, for example.
These gospel stories were very well known among the first generation. Luke starts his Gospel by telling "Theophilus" that he is writing down an orderly exposition of what happened because Theophilus had heard so many stories that Luke wanted to set them down properly for him.
In fact, as the opening of his Gospel makes clear, there had been many (how many? Dunno) accounts written by the time Luke tackled the story. He says (1:1-3) in his opening lines:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, 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, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Moreover, we know that by the 1st century there was overwhelming agreement on the canonical books of the Bible. There was no dispute over the books that were accepted in to the Bible we have today. There were disagreements over books and letters that were popular and taught accurate doctrine (the Didache is a good example of that) but that could not pass the tests applied to the canonical books (they had to have been associated with an apostle, they had to have been used in the liturgy, etc. You can look that up in the Britannica, if you like.)
Don't have the time to tackle the rest. But this should be enough to convince you and Eve that you have a bit more to learn.
OOps, that first sentence, last full paragraph should read:
Moreover, we know that by the beginning of the second century ...
maggie, there is no need for insults. We all have a lot to learn, including yourself. Eve is a scholar and very knowledgeable in the subjects of history and mythology. I will pass on your response to Eve and will come back to post her response to you if she feels she wants to waste some more time. She is very busy since this is mid-semester (no she is not one of the students.)
From Karen at GifS:
Since maggie has mentioned Paul again, I have looked up this reference to Paul’s lying in order to win converts. So how is one to believe anything he writes is true?
"One should be aware of the fact that Paul, a founding father of the early church, and the most successful missionary that ever lived, confessed to using deception and lies to make converts:
* Corinthians 9:20-22: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law — though not being myself under the law — that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.
* Romans 3:7: If through my lies God’s truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?
* Philippians 1:18: In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Jesus is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
The veracity of everything that Paul stated and wrote is called into question by the fact that these quotes are found in the books he himself authored. Or, did he?"
www.messiahtruth.com
maggie, you might want to jump into the discussion we are having about this at GifS.
What insults? I don't doubt that she is a scholar. But she is clearly not a historian, nor is she a scholar in a related field. Hers was a misconceived, poorly grounded response. That is not an insult. It is the simple truth.
If I tried to formulate an argument about chemistry or modal logic or 18th century naval battles, or any other subject in which I have only familiarity but no real training, I would make equally as weak an argument, or, likely, weaker.
And there's the rub. Everyone thinks he knows the Bible because its stories are familiar, the people in it are familiar, etc. But that isn't nearly enough to enable one to make historical arguments about the historicity and accuracy of the texts, their transmission, how the canon was formed (and when), etc. One needs to be grounded in history. And not in just any old subfield-- one needs to be grounded in the ancient world.
I don't think I have enough years of life left to try to reach people who could make the argument about Paul that you have reported here. If that is the level of the discussion, it is a waste of my time. The line between sanity and madness is clearly not as sharp, as I once supposed.
You are invited to come over to GifS to discuss this subject with people who are experts in this subject. Much more educated than you or I.
Maggie, here is Eve's rebuttal
maggie: Eve should have stayed in bed this morning. That “rebuttal” is so faulty that I hardly know where to start. Well, let’s tackle the most egregious error first.
If you have some far-reaching, jaw-dropping, incontrovertible, indisputable contribution to make to the question of Jesus’ historicity that will make every scholar out there working on the subject to drop everything and just say, “Kevin’s right. No use studying any further.
The question of the historicity of Jesus is not disputed by anyone anymore. Well, ok. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of trained historians who do still try to dispute it. But they are so far outside the scholarly consensus that they cannot get published in the scholarly journal literature. Really, absent some startling new evidence (manuscript or archaeological), the subject is closed. The overwhelming majority of the deniers are not scholars at all and the few who are, are rarely historians.
Interesting that you chose to address my response to kevin as opposed to my response to you about evidence for a non-material world…Actually, your assertion supports what I said about what most scholars generally agree upon, that a figure probably existed who possibly provided the basis of the character in the gospels. However, debate continues among reputable scholars as to the actual historical facts of such a figure and whether every single word, action, event, and theological significance (e.g., that he was/is completely human and completely divine at the same time) attributed to Jesus in the gospels is actual, verifiable fact.
maggie: Then you mixed the orange below with the apple above:
The gospels are 100% accurate and no one can say otherwise anymore,” then please go ahead and do it. Silence the debate forever more.
Do what? The scholarly literature on the historicity and the accuracy (those are not exactly the same thing) of the Gospels would fill 3 or 4 football fields. Where can one even start???
Now you’re being disingenuous. The conversation was about whether what is stated as indisputable fact about Jesus in the gospels is 100% accurate, which is what kevin is unsuccessfully trying to maintain (or maybe he’s not; does he believe, for example, that the Sermon on the Mount really took place but that the water-into-wine miracle did not? That’s not the impression he gave from his comments to Star). I actually agree with you: there’s no way to silence debate on the historicity and accuracy of the gospels in scholarly literature – but that is what he’s arguing, that we should no longer even pay attention to the subject but simply accept that the gospels are 100% accurate in everything they claim about Jesus.
maggie: We have an amazing amount of information on the transmission of the manuscripts; we have more than 5000 surviving texts from most parts of the ancient world, some half dozen (if I remember the number correctly) full manuscripts have survived.
I never brought this up, either to support or dispute it (which I don’t).
maggie: The Gospels were not written a century after the events they describe.
I didn’t say they were.
maggie: While there is some disagreement about their exact dates, the overwhelming majority of scholars hold, for instance, that Mark was written between 60 and 80 A.D. This is to say that it was written 30-50 years after the crucifixion.
Then I concede the point that “almost a century” was inaccurate on my part; “half a century” would have been a more accurate choice of words for me to use.
maggie: This is well within the living memory of the apostles’ contemporaries.
Except that you have to consider factors like age, mental health, and as kevin pointed out, bias. We also don’t know how many of those contemporaries were living at the time, given the upheavals and the standard life expectancy of your average xian in those days, but I admit that it’s possible.
maggie: We know for a certainty….how to live out their faith.
I didn’t mention Paul’s letters, at least one of which is older than even Mark, I think (Galatians? Memory fails me), but even more so than the gospels, they raise the question of bias again, perhaps even more strongly as Paul had a very definite agenda in spreading the faith as he saw it. Karen has a reference to his lying.
maggie: As far as accuracy is concerned, the Gospels all tell the same story. It is a problem, if two say Christ didn’t rise from the dead and two say he did. It isn’t a problem if some of the details (how many angels were at the tomb, eg.) are wrong.
It is if you claim the bible is infallible / the inerrant word of god / to be taken as 100% accurate word for word, but perhaps you’re not a literalist. At any rate, I didn’t bring up the topic of inter-gospel accuracy either, but I was correct in John’s being a later, and markedly different contribution.
maggie: Moreover, the Gospels are not biographies. They were written and shaped to address different audiences. The internal evidence is very strong that Mark was aimed at a gentile (probably Roman)audience, for example.
Which is exactly my point about bias shaping their writing in the first place. And if they’re not biographies, then why is kevin claiming they are? Or perhaps he isn’t, and I’ve misread his deliberate attempts to discredit Roman historians. Does he also take the gospels with a grain of salt?
maggie: These gospel stories….you have been taught.
So which is it: the same stories were very well known among the first generation, presumably all in the same form, or there were so many of them, presumably contradictory, that “Luke” wanted to make sure Theophilus knew the Right Ones ™?
maggie: Moreover, we know that by the 1st century there was overwhelming agreement on the canonical books of the Bible. There was no dispute over the books that were accepted in to the Bible we have today. There were disagreements over books and letters that were popular and taught accurate doctrine (the Didache is a good example of that) but that could not pass the tests applied to the canonical books (they had to have been associated with an apostle, they had to have been used in the liturgy, etc. You can look that up in the Britannica, if you like.)
Again, unlike kevin, I restricted myself to a specific example, the gospels. I didn’t bring up the rest of the babble because I don’t disagree with what you mention. Seems to me you’re going off on a tangent because you’re upset that I called the gospel writers biased – and yet you yourself have demonstrated that you understand that truth, that there is no way for any human writer to be completely objective – not even the gospel writers, who have a great need, as much as any Roman historian disparaged so cavalierly by kevin, to convey their version of the “truth.”
maggie: Don’t have the time to tackle the rest. But this should be enough to convince you and Eve that you have a bit more to learn.
About what? You haven’t told me anything I didn’t know; in fact, we seem to agree with each other on much of the scholarly pieces, and unlike most believers I encounter, I at least admit when I’m inaccurate. You also acknowledge, albeit not directly, the subject of bias.
I guess it all comes down to your choosing this particular holy writ with a particular system of worship to believe in and follow as actual, hard-and-fast fact as opposed to my not seeing the need to do the same.
In fact, I see other dimensions to the Jesus story as written, particularly mythical ones; like other archetypal heroes, he has an unusual conception; a powerful male figure tries to murder him at birth; he goes on a quest, answers riddles/questions, and in a way, even wins the princess; dies on a hilltop but leaves no body/burial place; and has sites, shrines, and temples attributed to him.
You’re right, though; I don’t have the time either to tackle everything associated with this topic.
I am completely confused now and I think you (Eve) may be too. I don't remember some of the topics you say you addressed in your original message (maybe it didn't all get cut and pasted over here?) In any case, I can't tell who said what and to whom any more. I think the better part of wisdom would be for me to talk to you directly on your forum-- cutting out the middle (wo)man, so to speak, if you like.
Stardust, I have an advanced degree in Medieval Studies. My two main areas of concentration were German literature and church history-- roughly from the 3rd to the 14th centuries. My undergraduate degree was in classics so I once had a pretty decent grasp of Greek and Roman history. I haven't quite forgotten everything but still... On the bright side, I still remember where to look things up!
I think the better part of wisdom would be for me to talk to you directly on your forum-- cutting out the middle (wo)man, so to speak, if you like.
That would probably be better. I am growing weary of this going back and forth. ;) Just so you know, Eve and I are two of the several moderators at GifS. Most of our mods hold degrees, a couple have PhDs. We get about 10,000 visitors a week, so will most likely be a lively and informative discussion.
Post a Comment