Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[McCulloch]

C'mon, McCulloh fess up. It's you isn't it? You're a magician in your spare-time outside of debating Christianity.

I wish. Two things prevent me from being a good magician. One, I'm too clumsy. Second, I cannot keep up the entertaining line of patter that distracts the audience from what I don't want them to think about. This one also prevents me from being a successful religious leader.

I would agree that nothing is "sure and certain." I would not agree however, that the resurrection "cannot be supported" if by this you mean there to be no evidence whatsoever. So'll assume that is not what you meant, unless of course this is what you meant. And that puts us back at the beggining

Understanding your statement from the perspective of naturalism, yes I agree.

ev‧i‧dence 
–noun

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

evidence. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence (accessed: October 23, 2006).

I challenge you to provide evidence (definition 1) of continued existence after death. I have not seen any yet.

[Lotan]

But don't insult me with the leprachaun thing. You can do better than that can't you?

Probably, but I wasn't insulting anyone. You're just missing the point. It is not the claim that matters. It doesn't matter if you claim to believe in the resurrection, or that you just saw Elvis. What I was addressing was the 'logic' of making a claim that something can't be disproven. You're right! The resurrection can't be disproven, but neither can leprechauns or the wildest claim that you or anyone else would like to make. So the point is that just because something can't be disproven is a poor reason to believe that it must be true.
As for the existence of Jesus, I have no problem with that, in fact I've argued for it many times. That doesn't mean that every NT claim made regarding him should be accepted uncritically.

[Goose]

But don't insult me with the leprachaun thing. You can do better than that can't you?

Probably, but I wasn't insulting anyone. You're just missing the point. It is not the claim that matters. It doesn't matter if you claim to believe in the resurrection, or that you just saw Elvis. What I was addressing was the 'logic' of making a claim that something can't be disproven. You're right! The resurrection can't be disproven, but neither can leprechauns or the wildest claim that you or anyone else would like to make. So the point is that just because something can't be disproven is a poor reason to believe that it must be true.

Ok, let's look at it from your angle. In your mind, what would constitute acceptable proof of the resurrection for you? Remember, this event is supposed to have happened 2000 years ago, so video footage is out of the question I'm affraid. And you'll have to rely on third party info.

[Goose]

Second, I cannot keep up the entertaining line of patter that distracts the audience from what I don't want them to think about.

Speaking of keeping up, I feel like I'm trying to keep up with everybody on here. You guys are wearing me out :sleep: But it's all good.

I challenge you to provide evidence (definition 1) of continued existence after death. I have not seen any yet.

Nor have I. So I can't. But are you asserting that because of this it couldn't have possibly happened as accounted for in the NT?

[Goose]

Well, it depends what that thign says. If it says something that I know is physcially feasible, then I give it more weight to something that I know is impossible.

For example, suetonius, in his 'The Twelve Ceasers', relates how two angels came down to ignite Julius Ceasars funeral pyre when there was an arguement about when/how to do it. I don't give that account credulence as 'angels', because I have never seen any evidence of any angels at all.

I take Josphus's account of what happened in Masada with a grain of salt, because, although archelogists found shards with letters on them (as described in his account), the graves and bodies of those who are supposed to have commited suicide rather than surrender are not to be found (yet).

When it comes to the epic writing of the Illiad, I will acknowledge that there was a city probably called Troy, and there was a battle for it. I do not accept that Zues is a God because of it.

That's a fair perspective. So here is a quote from the Jewish Antiquities. Interpolation speculations aside, do you lend any credibility to this. Remember it's not from the NT. Josephus wrote the history of Jews up to about 66CE. So it shouldn't be as hard to swallow so to speak as the NT. Just want to know your thoughts. Either way.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18, 3, 3

[McCulloch]

Ok, let's look at it from your angle. In your mind, what would constitute acceptable proof of the resurrection for you? Remember, this event is supposed to have happened 2000 years ago, so video footage is out of the question I'm afraid. And you'll have to rely on third party info.

Why should we have to rely on third party information for such an important issue? Did Jesus die again? Did he not make post-resurrection appearances to some of his followers? Did he not even make post-ascension appearances to some of his followers? Did he not promise to send the Holy Spirit? Why doesn't Jesus provide twenty-first century first person evidence that he rose from the dead? That would be proof!

But, I take it from his non appearances, that God does not want us to have this level of proof. So how about evidence? Eye-witness accounts of mass resurrection of the dead from someone other than one of his followers.

The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

[Jesus said, "]And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers and cast out demons. That would count as evidence.

I challenge you to provide evidence (definition 1) of continued existence after death. I have not seen any yet.

Nor have I. So I can't. But are you asserting that because of this it couldn't have possibly happened as accounted for in the NT?

No, just that it is the least likely explanation of the events recorded in the NT.

[Goat]

Well, it depends what that thign says. If it says something that I know is physcially feasible, then I give it more weight to something that I know is impossible.

For example, suetonius, in his 'The Twelve Ceasers', relates how two angels came down to ignite Julius Ceasars funeral pyre when there was an arguement about when/how to do it. I don't give that account credulence as 'angels', because I have never seen any evidence of any angels at all.

I take Josphus's account of what happened in Masada with a grain of salt, because, although archelogists found shards with letters on them (as described in his account), the graves and bodies of those who are supposed to have commited suicide rather than surrender are not to be found (yet).

When it comes to the epic writing of the Illiad, I will acknowledge that there was a city probably called Troy, and there was a battle for it. I do not accept that Zues is a God because of it.

That's a fair perspective. So here is a quote from the Jewish Antiquities. Interpolation speculations aside, do you lend any credibility to this. Remember it's not from the NT. Josephus wrote the history of Jews up to about 66CE. So it shouldn't be as hard to swallow so to speak as the NT. Just want to know your thoughts. Either way.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18, 3, 3

Ah yes, the piece of antiquites that was added in the 4th century, probably by Euribus.

Why should I trust a later interpolition?

WHy would I trust something that is highly uncharactiristic of Josephus? . It
is not in his style, he was very careful not to make religious statements, and this was a very very pro-christian statement.

Even the most conservative Christian biblical scholars will admit that particular paragraph has been at least modified. There is no evidence that
it existed before the 4th century,and there is evidence it DIDN'T exist in the third century.


And, it even if parts of it were genuine, Josphus was born after the alledged event anyway.

[MrWhy]

In your mind, what would constitute acceptable proof of the resurrection for you? Remember, this event is supposed to have happened 2000 years ago, so video footage is out of the question I'm affraid. And you'll have to rely on third party info.

It would take a lot of third party accounts, and they would have to be from outside the religious group. It is impossible for something as old as Biblical scripture to prove or even contain good evidence of a true resurrection.

If this happened today, think about how much substantiation would be required. First we would need proof that the person was dead. An examination by a group of medically trained people who could verify death. Then the body would need to be secured for the period (3 days?) to make certain it was the original (dead) body. Perhaps round the clock observation and monitoring by the same group. Finally the same or another equally qualified (medical) group would have to witness and document the resurrection. Anything less than this type of verification, and you have no evidence that resurrection occurred. The observation group could not be involved in the religion or whatever cause/organization was claiming resurrection. They need to be uninvolved, skeptical observers. The scripture resurrection story has no credible evidence, or corroboration. How can we see anything but myth in an ancient story this incredible?

[Lotan]

In your mind, what would constitute acceptable proof of the resurrection for you? Remember, this event is supposed to have happened 2000 years ago, so video footage is out of the question I'm affraid. And you'll have to rely on third party info.

If that "third party info" could otherwise be shown to be 100% reliable, I might be persuaded. For example, claims like those in Mark 16:17-18.
If it was written by unbiased (or even hostile) eyewitnesses that would help.
If the accounts could be shown to have survived uncorrupted from the originals that would be good.
If there were multiple attestations of the event (not merely copies) that would help.
If there was a record of general agreement (besides the accounts) that the event occurred as recorded that would be a plus.

If most, or at least some, of these conditions were fulfilled then I would certainly consider that to be compelling evidence. Unfortunately, not one of them is.

[Goat]

In your mind, what would constitute acceptable proof of the resurrection for you? Remember, this event is supposed to have happened 2000 years ago, so video footage is out of the question I'm affraid. And you'll have to rely on third party info.

If that "third party info" could otherwise be shown to be 100% reliable, I might be persuaded. For example, claims like those in Mark 16:17-18.
If it was written by unbiased (or even hostile) eyewitnesses that would help.
If the accounts could be shown to have survived uncorrupted from the originals that would be good.
If there were multiple attestations of the event (not merely copies) that would help.
If there was a record of general agreement (besides the accounts) that the event occurred as recorded that would be a plus.

If most, or at least some, of these conditions were fulfilled then I would certainly consider that to be compelling evidence. Unfortunately, not one of them is.

I would also want the account to be contemporary, and not 40 years or more after the event.

That would be a start at least.