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?

[Goat]

You have yet to show they are facts though. You may believe they are facts, but you have not shown it.

How do you know? What is the basis for you saying I havent shown facts? Unless you have a methodology in place, you are in no position to make that claim. If all you are doing is expressing your preference and bias that is your privilege. But, it has nothing to do with rationally based conclusions. Facts arent facts because you like them. Neither do they become "not facts" because you dont like them. Do you have anything besides you opinion to base your claim upon? Didnt think so.

Nor have you shown an objectivie methodology.

Once again, in order to make that claim you must know what an objective methodology is. Why dont you show us you have some clue, and explain what an objective methodology would look like.

So, you have 6 claims (no facts), and from there, you pull a rabbit out of your hat, and come up with a conclusion based on faith. No criteria there.

All I will say to you is the exact same thing I said to Cather: You dont like the criteria I set out, that is fine with me, come up with your own. Just show the dozens of historians and scholars that agree with you, as I listed. Make sure your list covers the full spectrum or scholars from atheist to conservative, as I did.

The problem with you and Confused and Cather is none of you have a clue how induction is done. All your accusations of "no facts," "no method," and "no criteria" are based on your bias opinion, not on induction as used in histography. And this is my BIG point: If we do use induction as it is used in histography, the only rational conclusion is that Jesus rose from the dead. That is why the three of you must run away from inductive methods as fast as your little feet will carry you.

You dont want to accept my criteria, OK, its the same criteria historians use to determine the rest of history for that period and many centuries beyond. Are you going to say that all the facts we have about the rest of history are not facts? Or that the historians using this method havent shown an objective methodology. Why should we accept anything that any historian says? The fact is, if you want to maintain any appearance of coherence you will have to reject all of ancient history based on those criteria and methodology I have presented. That means you will have to reject all of ancient history.

Z

I don't see why I should do your work for you , since you are the one that made the claim.

I don't see any evidence that your assumptions are what the historians use for 'an objective methodlogy'. Maybe if you showed that they are with a site from a university that is interested in specifically history, and not reliigon?? You made a claim,and just then made a whole bunch of unsupported asserstions, and some quite blantant bad calls.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hello Zorro1

You say:

The problem with you and Confused and Cather is none of you have a clue how induction is done. All your accusations of "no facts," "no method," and "no criteria" are based on your bias opinion, not on induction as used in histography. And this is my BIG point: If we do use induction as it is used in histography, the only rational conclusion is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Induction is done this way:

There a white swan
There is a white swan
There is another white swan
Therefore all swans are white.

But you say "induction as used in histography". Well I'm not sure how you historians are using induction, if it is as I have described above then you need to reply to my last post. If it is not then I don't think you should be calling it induction, or at least be very explicit as to how the historians methodology differs from the standard methodology of induction.

[Confused]

Hello Zorro1

You say:

The problem with you and Confused and Cather is none of you have a clue how induction is done. All your accusations of "no facts," "no method," and "no criteria" are based on your bias opinion, not on induction as used in histography. And this is my BIG point: If we do use induction as it is used in histography, the only rational conclusion is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Induction is done this way:

There a white swan
There is a white swan
There is another white swan
Therefore all swans are white.

But you say "induction as used in histography". Well I'm not sure how you historians are using induction, if it is as I have described above then you need to reply to my last post. If it is not then I don't think you should be calling it induction, or at least be very explicit as to how the historians methodology differs from the standard methodology of induction.

You are embarking upon an impossible quest. He confuses deductive with inductive. He presents questionable assertions and uses them to back his assertion claiming that there can me no other conclusion that what he has stated, which would indeed be deductive logic in that his conclusion would be a proof. I wish you better luck than the rest of us. The rest of us are incompetent and he is the greatest, so my mere comment here is only to give you a general breakdown of the past 10+ pages of posts.

[Zorro1]

I don't see why I should do your work for you , since you are the one that made the claim.

I gave a criteria that is acknowledged by historians and scholars in the field. You rejected it based on your bias. In rejecting that criteria you made a counter claim. Now, I know you will say, "I made no claim," but the question will be, why did you reject it? Your answer will form a claim about the criteria.

You notice I never asked that question, because your reason really didn't matter to me. You either have criteria different than mine that is accepted by historians or you have no criteria. I don't think it is much of a guess to say that you have no criteria. So, you have no way to determine what is evidence and what is not. You have no way of determining anything about history.

You see my job is not to come up with something you like, but to come up with something that is inductively cogent. When I ask you to provide a criteria, I don't really expect you to be able to do it. I do it in hopes that you will finally figure out that you have nothing going for you except your bias. You don't like Christianity, so anything that supports any facts concerning Christianty, for you, must be wrong. How do I know this? Because you haven't offered any reasons that the criteria I suggested are wrong, you haven't offered any reasons that the facts accepted by over 95% or historians and scholars writting on this topic are wrong. All you do is continually say, "there is no criteria, there are no facts." You do it again in your next sentence:

"I don't see any evidence that your assumptions are what the historians use for 'an objective methodlogy'."

OK, what historians and scholars have you read dealing with the topic? Name a few and the works you read. Please make sure you cite scholars from all positions that agree with you.

You don't see any evidence because you are completely uneducated in the field. I am not saying you need a PhD, or even a BA in the field; your problem is you are not familar with anything. You don't know the players, you don't know their methods, you don't know why they agree on some issues and not on others. You don't know what makes evidence, evidence; so, how can you see any?

Maybe if you showed that they are with a site from a university that is interested in specifically history, and not reliigon??

I think you have offered a fair question. However, your insistence that it be available on the internet is not fair. Unfortunately, most books and college texts are not available on the internet. So I will cite material that should be readily available in most large public libraries or large university libraries. You will also notice that the authors are all historians or scholars dealing in this area. However, I have cited authors from a wide range of views. I feel that this shows that these criteria neither come just from the skeptic nor come just from the conservative; and that is really the point we are addressing, isnt it?

I have also tried to cite references for each criterion that give some reasoning behind that criterion. You will also find that many of the references speak to more than just the one criterion they appear under. For instance, "The Five Gospels," discusses four of the criteria, even though I list it only once. The same is true with many of the other sources.

Early written evidence. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospel: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 25-26.

Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question. David Hackett Fischer, Historian's Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 62.

Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case. Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 323. Polkow, "Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research," 35051; Meier, Marginal Jew I, 17475; Sanders and Davies, Studying, 32330. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991), 427-434.

The principle of embarrassment. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1977; Collier Books Edition, 1992), 202-3. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume I: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York; London; Toronto: Doubleday, 1991), 168.

Antagonistic party agreement. Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 198-99.

Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established. Christopher Blake, "Can History Be Objective?" in Theories of History, 331.

Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances? Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, translated by John Bowden (London; Minneapolis: SCM Press; Fortress Press, 1998), 116. Cf. W. B. Gallie, "Explanations in History and the Genetic Sciences," in Theories of History: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources, ed. Patrick Gardiner (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 397-98. Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 43-45.

Adequate cause (also known as Effect). Craig A. Evans, JESUS, HISTORY, AND JUDAISM, Theological Studies, March 1993. F. Mussner, The Miracles of Jesus: An Introduction (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 1968).

Principles of embellishment. Craig A. Evans, JESUS, HISTORY, AND JUDAISM, Theological Studies, March 1993. R. Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles (New York: Paulist, 1988) 54-69.

Z

[Zorro1]

Hello Zorro1

You say:

The problem with you and Confused and Cather is none of you have a clue how induction is done. All your accusations of "no facts," "no method," and "no criteria" are based on your bias opinion, not on induction as used in histography. And this is my BIG point: If we do use induction as it is used in histography, the only rational conclusion is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Induction is done this way:

There a white swan
There is a white swan
There is another white swan
Therefore all swans are white.

But you say "induction as used in histography". Well I'm not sure how you historians are using induction, if it is as I have described above then you need to reply to my last post. If it is not then I don't think you should be calling it induction, or at least be very explicit as to how the historians methodology differs from the standard methodology of induction.

Please forgive me for not replying promptly, my time is limited for now. I will address your points shortly.

Regards,

Z

[Goat]

I don't see why I should do your work for you , since you are the one that made the claim.

I gave a criteria that is acknowledged by historians and scholars in the field. You rejected it based on your bias. In rejecting that criteria you made a counter claim. Now, I know you will say, "I made no claim," but the question will be, why did you reject it? Your answer will form a claim about the criteria.

You notice I never asked that question, because your reason really didn't matter to me. You either have criteria different than mine that is accepted by historians or you have no criteria. I don't think it is much of a guess to say that you have no criteria. So, you have no way to determine what is evidence and what is not. You have no way of determining anything about history.

You see my job is not to come up with something you like, but to come up with something that is inductively cogent. When I ask you to provide a criteria, I don't really expect you to be able to do it. I do it in hopes that you will finally figure out that you have nothing going for you except your bias. You don't like Christianity, so anything that supports any facts concerning Christianty, for you, must be wrong. How do I know this? Because you haven't offered any reasons that the criteria I suggested are wrong, you haven't offered any reasons that the facts accepted by over 95% or historians and scholars writting on this topic are wrong. All you do is continually say, "there is no criteria, there are no facts." You do it again in your next sentence:

"I don't see any evidence that your assumptions are what the historians use for 'an objective methodlogy'."

OK, what historians and scholars have you read dealing with the topic? Name a few and the works you read. Please make sure you cite scholars from all positions that agree with you.

You don't see any evidence because you are completely uneducated in the field. I am not saying you need a PhD, or even a BA in the field; your problem is you are not familar with anything. You don't know the players, you don't know their methods, you don't know why they agree on some issues and not on others. You don't know what makes evidence, evidence; so, how can you see any?

Maybe if you showed that they are with a site from a university that is interested in specifically history, and not reliigon??

I think you have offered a fair question. However, your insistence that it be available on the internet is not fair. Unfortunately, most books and college texts are not available on the internet. So I will cite material that should be readily available in most large public libraries or large university libraries. You will also notice that the authors are all historians or scholars dealing in this area. However, I have cited authors from a wide range of views. I feel that this shows that these criteria neither come just from the skeptic nor come just from the conservative; and that is really the point we are addressing, isnt it?

I have also tried to cite references for each criterion that give some reasoning behind that criterion. You will also find that many of the references speak to more than just the one criterion they appear under. For instance, "The Five Gospels," discusses four of the criteria, even though I list it only once. The same is true with many of the other sources.

Early written evidence. Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospel: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 25-26.

Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question. David Hackett Fischer, Historian's Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 62.

Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case. Sanders and Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 323. Polkow, "Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research," 35051; Meier, Marginal Jew I, 17475; Sanders and Davies, Studying, 32330. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991), 427-434.

The principle of embarrassment. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1977; Collier Books Edition, 1992), 202-3. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume I: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York; London; Toronto: Doubleday, 1991), 168.

Antagonistic party agreement. Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 198-99.

Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established. Christopher Blake, "Can History Be Objective?" in Theories of History, 331.

Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances? Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, translated by John Bowden (London; Minneapolis: SCM Press; Fortress Press, 1998), 116. Cf. W. B. Gallie, "Explanations in History and the Genetic Sciences," in Theories of History: Readings from Classical and Contemporary Sources, ed. Patrick Gardiner (New York: Macmillan, 1959), 397-98. Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 43-45.

Adequate cause (also known as Effect). Craig A. Evans, JESUS, HISTORY, AND JUDAISM, Theological Studies, March 1993. F. Mussner, The Miracles of Jesus: An Introduction (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame, 1968).

Principles of embellishment. Craig A. Evans, JESUS, HISTORY, AND JUDAISM, Theological Studies, March 1993. R. Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles (New York: Paulist, 1988) 54-69.

Z

So, you listed a bunch of books. BIg deal. Show me, from those books, that the 'resurrection actually happened.'. I noticed one is 'principles of embellishment'.
Can you show that the resurrection is not an embellishment?

So far, you made lists, and when it comes to making your case, you have fallen flat on your face.

I will give you a challenge though. Show where those books do an analysis that show the resurrection actually happened. Give chapter, verse and quotes.

[Zorro1]

Hello Zorro1

I am new to this very long thread and I cannot say I have read every post. So I need to play catch up.

Zorro1

The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Ok so the conclusion is that it would be irrational not to conclude Jesus rose from the dead. I think that is the implication of "the only rational conclusion".

Yes, the theorem x-> ~(~x) is still true. Your point is?

You have backed up this claim with a set of criteria to guide our way to this conclusion.

Zorro1

"(1) Early written evidence.
(2) Evidence from eyewitnesses of the occurrences in question.
(3) Multiple independent sources significantly strengthen a case.
(4) The principle of embarrassment.
(5) Antagonistic party agreement
(6) Building on those data that are thought by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians to be well-established.
(7) Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances?
(8) Context and expectation.
(9) Adequate cause.
(10) Principles of embellishment.

Let take criteria 7. and the claim that Jesus rising from the dead fits well with other surrounding circumstances. How far do you allow the surroundings to go? All the way to medical science?

Coherence deals with a purported event or teaching fitting well with what is already known concerning other surrounding occurrences and teachings, it may be said to have a basis in history. Perhaps the proposed event or saying even does more, by illuminating other known incidents, rendering them more intelligible.

For instance, John Meier says coherence is one of the best indicators of Jesus teachings. An example he uses is that Jesus teaching in Mark 12:18-27 concerning the resurrection of the dead coheres well with a "Q" saying of Jesus on the same subject of the afterlife (reported in Matthew 8:11-12/Luke 13:28-29), as well as other teachings of Jesus. Meier concludes that another instance is the Gospel teaching that Jesus family had rejected him, which coheres well with Jesus repeated teaching that believers will be called to leave their own families for the sake of himself and his Kingdom (such a Mark 10:29-31).

I believe you are also saying you claim from Jesus rising from the dead is the only rational conclusion is backed up by inductive logic. Is this correct?...

Actually, I said objective, inductive, historical methodology. If you would like to agree that the only rational conclusion, based on the objective examination of the evidence and the objective application of historical methodology is that Jesus rose from the dead, then I would be happy to move on to the different use of induction that you suggest. If you would rather not agree to this statement, then lets continue with history until we are done.

Ok you also say

Most of the rest of your post, like most of your posts, can be chocked up to your ignorance of logic, as I have pointed out in past posts. Since I have no desire to teach logic to you and since in past posts you have already shown that you will reject any principle of logic that refutes your position, all I will say, as I have in the past, is take a class on logic. You simply cant reason with a man that either doesnt know the rules of reason or rejects the rules of reason when their application shows him wrong.

I'm open to reason Zorro1. Rational too I hope. That's why I dont beleive in the resurrection by way of induction. If I did my conclusion would be drawn upon a fallacy. And that rubs against my sesne of what counts as rational

Well, you seem like you are a reasonable person, I have read some of your posts in other threads and I was impressed. I hope we can come to a reasonable conclusion to our discussion.

I would be curious to know what fallacy you think you would be committing if you came to the strong conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead, based on a cogent argument? Are you referring here to your dead men stay dead argument? You have one inductive argument concluding that dead men dont rise and another saying a dead man did rise, so based on this, you feel it would be fallacious to accept the resurrection? Do I have this right?

Regards,

Z

[Zorro1]

Maybe if you showed that they are with a site from a university that is interested in specifically history, and not reliigon??

I think you have offered a fair question

So, you listed a bunch of books. BIg deal.

You ask for verification of the criteria I suggested, I give you almost two dozen historians and scholars from all points of view, including those who reject the resurrection. In the works listed, some comment on and give examples of a few of these criteria and why and how they are used. Others comment and give examples of all of these criteria and why and how they are used. To all that, you respond, "So, you listed a bunch of books. BIg deal." Do you know how stupid that sounds? Is that the full extent of your counter argument for rejecting the criteria?

I thought you had offered a sincere question. Apparently, it was merely a ruse. Boy, you really fooled me. At this point I don't plan to coddle you or to put up with your nonsense replies anymore. You can either accept the criteria or come back with something substantial as a counter argument. Until then, I dont have time for you and your ridiculously childish responses. An 8 year old could come up with a better argument than, "BIg deal." He would also check it for obvious grammar and spelling errors.

Z

[Goat]

Maybe if you showed that they are with a site from a university that is interested in specifically history, and not reliigon??

I think you have offered a fair question

So, you listed a bunch of books. BIg deal.

You ask for verification of the criteria I suggested, I give you almost two dozen historians and scholars from all points of view, including those who reject the resurrection. In the works listed, some comment on and give examples of a few of these criteria and why and how they are used. Others comment and give examples of all of these criteria and why and how they are used. To all that, you respond, "So, you listed a bunch of books. BIg deal." Do you know how stupid that sounds? Is that the full extent of your counter argument for rejecting the criteria?

I thought you had offered a sincere question. Apparently, it was merely a ruse. Boy, you really fooled me. At this point I don't plan to coddle you or to put up with your nonsense replies anymore. You can either accept the criteria or come back with something substantial as a counter argument. Until then, I dont have time for you and your ridiculously childish responses. An 8 year old could come up with a better argument than, "BIg deal." He would also check it for obvious grammar and spelling errors.

Z

Well then.. you will be able to quote chapter and verse from those books where they said the resurrection actually happend.

Please, do so.

[Zorro1]

Maybe if you showed that they are with a site from a university that is interested in specifically history, and not reliigon??

I think you have offered a fair question

So, you listed a bunch of books. BIg deal.

You ask for verification of the criteria I suggested, I give you almost two dozen historians and scholars from all points of view, including those who reject the resurrection. In the works listed, some comment on and give examples of a few of these criteria and why and how they are used. Others comment and give examples of all of these criteria and why and how they are used. To all that, you respond, "So, you listed a bunch of books. BIg deal." Do you know how stupid that sounds? Is that the full extent of your counter argument for rejecting the criteria?

I thought you had offered a sincere question. Apparently, it was merely a ruse. Boy, you really fooled me. At this point I don't plan to coddle you or to put up with your nonsense replies anymore. You can either accept the criteria or come back with something substantial as a counter argument. Until then, I dont have time for you and your ridiculously childish responses. An 8 year old could come up with a better argument than, "BIg deal." He would also check it for obvious grammar and spelling errors.

Z

Well then.. you will be able to quote chapter and verse from those books where they said the resurrection actually happend.

Please, do so.

Once again: You can either accept the criteria or come back with something substantial as a counter argument. Until then, I dont have time for you and your ridiculously childish responses.

Since you have done neither, I still have no time for you.

Z