[
Replying to POI in post #11]
I am going to start with this claim of yours,
Again, I tried to explore this with you, by starting with the many claims from "Luke" alone, as you have referenced the author for this publication a lot. You continue to avoid.
I have addressed this over, and over again in that we do not even have to determine whether or not the author of Luke was reliable or not, because it does not in any way matter. Again, and again, and again, even the critical scholars who do not believe the material to be reliable are forced to admit there are certain things we can know to be true by reading the material whether it be reliable or not. Your problem here is the fact that I have never read what is contained in the Bible as if what is reported is true, and or reliable in that we can trust what it has to say. Rather, just like anything else I read, I read in such a way as to determine what it is we can know from reading the material, not in any way assuming it to be reliable. I know this is hard for one to imagine, who was convinced for decades that a dead man rose from the grave for years of their life with no reason at all to believe such a thing, because this person simply assumed what was contained in the Bible must and had to be reliable, but I can tell you with no reservations at all, that I never assumed the Bible was reliable, and continue to read it in this same way. This is exactly the "historical method" you are referring to.
You see, you are confusing me with someone like yourself who admits to making decisions even to this day by being "hooked on a feeling". Not only do you admit to making major life decisions in this way when you were a Christian, you continue to admit to making decisions in this way still today even though you have changed the mind in that you freely admit you weigh the odds, even though you cannot explain what the odds would really be in any case where you refer to the odds, but even more importantly you admit to making major decisions by going on a "gut feeling". I cannot for the life of me understand how you cannot see that it was going on a feeling that got you to believing a dead man rose from the grave, and now that the mind has changed, you admit that it is all based upon the odds which you have no way to measure, along with admitting that what you believe now is based in some way on a "gut feeling" which is exactly the way in which you found yourself believing in something for no reason.
On the other hand, I have not, and do not assume what is contained in the Bible is reliable, so I do not have to attempt to defend what is contained as being reliable. In fact, I am on record on this site, along with several other places as saying, "I wish the Bible had never been composed". Can you imagine a Christian saying such a thing? You need to understand that I do not hold the Bible in high regard and am on record long ago as saying this to be the case. With this being the case, I have no reason to attempt to defend the Bible as being reliable, since I could not have ever made such an argument, when I am on record as saying, "I wish the Bible had never been composed".
However, even though you do not in any way consider the Bible to be reliable, you certainly seem to be admitting there are certain things we can know by reading what is contained. As an example you say,
When did I flat out say "made the story of the resurrection up"?
I have not said that you have "flat out" said such a thing. Rather, on several occasions I have insisted that you would never make such a claim, because you could not possibly defend it. There is no doubt in either of our minds that if you could make such a claim, you would, but you will not, and cannot because the evidence contained in what is called the Bible is so overwhelming this is the case you cannot possibly make such a defense, and what is contained in the Bible does not in any way have to be reliable in order for you to understand that you cannot possibly make such an argument. So then, what we are left with is the fact that you would certainly make the argument that the disciples of Jesus could have made the story of the resurrection up if you could, but it is because you understand that the evidence contained in what has been called the Bible is so overwhelming that you cannot possibly make such an argument, and you understand this to be the case, whether what is contained be reliable or not.
This means, we do not have to waste time on the argument as to whether what is contained would be reliable, since neither of us is making such an argument. Rather, we can come to an agreement as to what we can know by reading the material whether it be trustworthy or not, and we seem to be agreeing that the story of the resurrection could not have been made up.
Can we agree that the disciples could not have possibly made the story of the resurrection up by reading the material contained in the Bible whether it be trustworthy or not? If you answer yes to this question, I can assure you that this is a major concession on your part because you are admitting that we can know certain things to be true by reading material you insist is not reliable. On the other hand, if you answer no to this question, you will have to defend this response and you cannot. The reason you cannot is because the evidence (which you say we do not have) is so overwhelming that even the critical scholars are forced to admit this to be the case.
I'll answer. I didn't.
And again, the reason you cannot, and did not, is because the evidence contained in what you insist to be unreliable is overwhelming. You see, I do not have to defend what is contained in the Bible as being trustworthy in order to determine that there are certain things we can agree upon.
It's almost as if you did not read the OP.
GOOD GRIEF! I responded to almost every word of the OP directly.
There is a reason I mentioned "legacy media".
My friend, you are preaching to the choir. I fully understand that most all news agencies report the news with a slant. However, this does not negate the fact that we can know that those who recorded the resurrection were not reporting the news with a slant, since we can know they were reporting what they were convinced was the truth, and we can know this by applying what you refer to as the "historical method". This would apply whether we can know who the authors were or not, because the evidence is overwhelming whether we know the authors or not. Unless of course, you would like to make the argument that we cannot know the story was not made up, which we both know you will not attempt. With this being the case, I do not see how your appeal to the "legacy media" which we both agree slant the news helps your argument?
for later presumably anonymous Gospel authors to tell the tale many decades later
Exactly what do you mean by "anonymous"? Do you mean that the authors intended to be anonymous, meaning they did not want their identity to be known? Or do you simply mean they did not identify themselves? There would be a tremendous difference. Because you see, there are authors who intend to write anonymously because they do not want to be identified. On the other hand, there are authors who do not identify themselves to the intended audience because the intended audience would have had no need in the author identifying themselves since the audience would have already known who the author would have been.
As an example, the author of the two letters addressed to Theophilus did not identify himself to Theophilus and it may be the fact that he did not feel the need to do so, since the author was sure the audience would have known who the author was. Another possibility would be that whoever delivered the letters to Theophilus may have identified the author to Theophilus upon delivery. The question again is, are you suggesting that the authors intended to write anonymously? Or are you simply insisting that we cannot know who the authors were?
Next, when you say "many decades later" exactly how many decades are we talking about? As an example, we know that Paul was opposed to Christianity and was out to put a stop to the claims, and we know for a fact that he later converted, and we know for a fact that it was 3 years later before he met with the apostles in Jerusalem, and it would have been some years later before Paul set out on his missionary journeys, and Paul would have spent some years at the first town he stopped at in order to plant a Church there before he moved on to the next, and we are already at decades later before Paul would have had the need to write his first letter to any of the Churches he planted.
Next, let us add to this the fact that we can know that Paul was the author of at least two other letters that we do not have. Add to this the fact that the author of the letters to Theophilus tells Theophilus that, "many have undertaken to write out an account of the things accomplished among us" and we are left with the idea that there were "many things" written concerning the life and death of Jesus which we do not have.
The main point I am attempting to understand is, why do you think it is important to stress the point that we cannot know who the authors of the Gospels may have been? Next, why do you believe it is so important to stress the idea that the Gospels MAY have been authored decades later? I can tell you this, we can know for a fact that all of the letters which were authored by Paul would have been written before 70 AD. Moreover, we can know for a fact that Paul would have known the original apostles and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips. We can know all of this simply from the letters of Paul, and I am attempting to understand the argument as to whether what we have in what is called the Gospels would have been authored anonymously, and that they may have been authored decades later would make any sort of difference, since we can know for a fact that Paul authored all of his letters before 70 AD and would have known the apostles who were making the claims that Jesus rose from the dead, which is one of the main reasons that the critical scholars, and historians are forced to admit the story of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up.
I mean, can you see what I am saying? We do not even need to know who the authors of the Gospels would have been in order to know what the original apostles were claiming, and we do not need to know who the authors of the Gospels were, nor when they wrote in order to know that the earliest followers could not have possibly made the story of the resurrection up.
What I have just done is to demonstrate that your argument as to who the authors may have been, nor how many decades later it may have been, nor even if the accounts would have been trustworthy even matters, because we can know what the original apostles were claiming simply by reading what Paul had to say to the Churches he was addressing at the time, and we can know for a fact that Paul was alive at the time of Jesus, and certainly, and beyond doubt knew, and spent a whole lot of time with the apostles who knew Jesus on a personal level.
which was then selectively canonized by the church centuries later.
I have already explained how I wished the Bible had never been composed. So then, please explain why you seem to be under the impression that anything contained in the Bible is problematic simply because the Church centuries later decided what should be in the Bible? Does this somehow discredit what was authored centuries earlier? Does this somehow change the fact that we can both agree that the story of the resurrection could not have possibly been made up?
You see, you are simply making arguments you have heard from others, because you certainly did not come up with these arguments on your own and I know this to be the case because I have heard these same old tired and worn-out arguments for decades. Your problem is the fact that I actually go on to think through the arguments being made and come to see how they do not matter in the least and have no impact whatsoever on the final outcome. That's right! Because you see, it does not matter in the least as to whether the authors identified themselves or not, and it does not matter how many decades or even centuries later as to when the material was authored, and it does not matter in the least as to whether the material is trustworthy, and the reason is the fact that it is from these same materials we can know that Jesus lived, that he had a following, that he was crucified, dead, buried, and that his followers claimed to have witnessed him alive after death, and we can go on to know from this same material that it would not be possible for these followers to have made the story of the resurrection up.
We can know all these things, from reading the material contained in the Bible, and we can know all these things no matter who authored the material, no matter how long after the fact the authored penned the material, no matter whether the material be trustworthy or not, and no matter if it was the Church who decided what material would be contained in the Bible. The point is you continue to make arguments which do not matter, as if they matter, and it is simply a way in which to divert the conversation in such a way in order to avoid having to deal with the actual arguments which matter. We are wasting a lot of time and space on arguments which makes no difference whatsoever because in the end, no matter as to any of the arguments above, we are left with the fact that we can know that Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and that there were those very soon afterwards (we are talking days) who claimed to have witnessed this same Jesus alive, and we can know from this same material that these folks could not have possibly made the story up, and you want to waste our time on whether the reports were trustworthy, when it may have been penned, who the authors actually were, and you go on to act as if it somehow matters that the Church decided the material which is contained, when none of these things matter in the least.
As I stated in the OP, claims which defy naturalism are to be held with more scrutiny.
GOOD GRIEF! I agree, and it is a fact that what is in the Bible has been held up to this "scrutiny" you are referring to and it is called the historical method, and after this intense scrutiny you are left with the fact that Jesus lived, had a following, was crucified, dead, buried, with those days later claiming to have witnessed this same Jesus alive after the crucifixion, and we can know these folks could not have possibly made the story up. Again, it is what you have referred to as the "historical method" and the Bible has certainly been through this intense scrutiny and in the end, these are the facts you are left to deal with.
That's all. I'm addressing Otseng's beef with why skeptics are a little more leery in believing claims from this particular collection of claims, <verses> some other claims from ancient antiquity. It's because it is completely infested with unfalsifiable/supernatural claims. The 'Bible' is absolutely riddled with claims which defy natural law.
In the end it does not matter if it is Otseng, or the skeptics, there are certain facts we are all forced to admit no matter the side we end up on. Because you see, no matter if you believe the material to be trustworthy, no matter when the material may have been authored, no matter who it was who decided what would be contained in what is referred to as the Bible, we are all forced to admit from the material contained that it is not possible for the story of the resurrection to have been made up.
What I am demonstrating to you is, it does not matter if you are "hooked on a feeling, high on believing", it does not matter what "your gut is telling you", and it does not matter what you think the "odds" are. You see, it was being "hooked on a feeling, high on believing", and going on what the wonderful feeling was telling you in your gut, which got you to believing in something you had no reason to believe. But now that you have changed the mind, you continue to talk about we have to go on this feeling in our gut, and now you have added what you think are the odds which you have no way to measure, and I am demonstrating to you that none of these things matter and all that matters is the facts and evidence (which you say we do not have) and when we weigh these facts and evidence (you say we do not have) we are all forced to admit that it would not have been possible for the resurrection story to have been made up.
Now, I do not know if you can see it or not, but this is a major concession on your part, because simply examining the facts and evidence you insist we do not have, we are left with a good number of facts we can know, no matter any of the other arguments you attempt to make. And guess what? It is called the "historical method". Notice, it is not called the scientific method, because science cannot help us out here. But when we used the correct method which is the historical method, or what you refer to as "scrutiny", there are certain facts we are all forced to admit.
We are left with many extraordinary tales. Not just one.
This is avoidance! You know that we are talking about the events surrounding the resurrection claims, and one of the reasons you give for doubt is that a resurrection would be an extraordinary tale, but when we put the reports through the historical method (scrutiny) we come to find that the story could not have possibly been made up, which eliminates this as a possibility, and there have been those who have attempted to come up with other explanations of the facts we can know and in the end these other explanations end up being far too extraordinary to believe. This is why I say, "no matter how you slice it you end up with the extraordinary", and instead of you addressing this fact, you divert to other extraordinary claims in the Bible when we have already established that even if we were to determine most all the Bible to be fabrication, this still does not change the facts we can know from the material, and we can know from the material contained (no matter how many other extraordinary claims are in the Bible) that Jesus lived, had a following, was crucified, dead, buried, and we have those who claimed to have witnessed Jesus alive after the crucifixion and we know they were not making the story up. It does not matter if we were to falsify every other claim in the Bible, we would still be left with these facts we can know.
This is part of my point. When you read the Gospels, and the rest of the Bible, it is completely filed with extraordinary tales which defy the laws of nature. This is, again in part, why skeptics place these claims into a category of applying higher levels of scrutiny.
What I am demonstrating is that you have no point, because the claims surrounding the resurrection has indeed been through the scrutiny of the skeptics you refer to, and these are the facts we end up with, which is that no matter the explanation, we end up with the extraordinary, and you continue to attempt to divert away from these facts we can know.
I made an entire thread about all of this, but you have continued to refuse to address it. The invitation still stands, but I'm growing more and more doubtful you will ever actually engage it? Case/point, we need not go much further than "Luke" to understand that the Gospels are likely not trustworthy.
'
This objection has been met head on in that it is a waste of time to attempt to discredit and or defend this author's trustworthiness since no matter his trustworthiness, there are facts we must agree upon by reading what is in the material, and we do not need an entire thread in order to establish this, because it only takes a couple of sentences.
Yes, you can, and you certainly have. A matter of fact, you do this quite a lot. And when I respond, you often disappear for months, only to still say the same exact things, for which I have already (addressed/debunked) multiple times.
Are you really under the impression that my disappearance for months has anything to do with the facts you avoid?
There is absolutely no way for me, or anyone, to falsify a claim that a rotting corpse rose again 2,000 years ago. Or, any other one-time claimed supernatural event from antiquity for that matter. And no, "science" alone does not even claim to have all the answers.
Here is another argument which you have not come up with on your own and it holds no weight whatsoever. Again, the falsifiable claim argument was intended to be confined to science and that is a fact. It is not intended to say that we should not use other methods in order to investigate events. Rather, the intent was that these sorts of things would be outside the realm of science, and science should only deal with things which can be falsified, and you are bringing science into a realm it does not belong, and you are doing so because you have heard the argument from others and have not thought it through. Because you see, when we use the correct tool which is the historical method, we are forced to agree on certain facts, and you attempt to avoid these facts by bringing in the falsifiable claim argument which is confined to science.
I believe "the Bible" is a massive human assisted collection of claims, consisting of both natural/supernatural varieties, which were written by ~40 authors over the span of ~1.500 years.
And you would have to agree that when we use the correct tool which is the historical method, we have to come to agreement upon certain facts I have continued to mention, and the falsifiable claim argument would not have a thing to do with it since this is not the realm of science which was intended to be confined to science.
Again, I tried to explore this with you, by starting with the many claims from "Luke" alone, as you have referenced the author for this publication a lot. You continue to avoid.
I have already addressed this matter head on but allow me to put it this way. When I have referred to the material peened by this author, I have never referred to it as being something we should simply believe. Rather, I have always ever only dealt with the facts we can know by reading the material. Since this is a fact, I am attempting to determine what the authors trustworthiness would have to do with it, because I am only referring to things we can know. I could give you many, many examples, but this would make this post even longer so allow me to demonstrate just one example.
We can know this author begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the events recorded as if he were there to witness the events. We can know this to be the case because there are critics who want to insist that the author may have been using a literary device and did not intend to give the impression that he would have been present. Now, we do not have time to go into this argument, but the fact that these critics have come up with this argument is evidence enough to know there is reason to believe in author was traveling with Paul.
Do you see what I have done above? I have used the material from this author to point out facts we can know, and it does not matter how trustworthy it may or may not have been.
Great! Not all threads are meant to have countless exchanges. This thread was created to drive home a point. The reason skeptics scrutinize claims from "the Bible" is in part, because it is also filled with countless wild claims. This is exactly why I asked what I asked in the OP. Meaning, do we just ignore it all, regardless of if the claim is merely a mundane one, verses, if the claim is supernatural?
I believe you and I have worked together in order to answer this question, and it is that we should apply the historical method (intense scrutiny) in order to determine the facts, we can agree upon, and I think we also agree that this is not the realm of science, and this means the falsifiable claim argument does not apply.
No. The problem is you continue to avoid examination of your epistemology.
And here we go with another argument, or method which is not your own. My friend, you have already admitted to us your epistemology, and that is to weigh the odds, and to go with being "hooked on a feeling, high on believing". Not very good at all, and it was this very method which caused you to believe a man rose from the grave for decades of your life with no reason. I on the other hand, simply deal with the facts we can know.
Which allows you to continue to make unsubstantiated claims without contest
What "unsubstantiated claims" have I made? I can help you out. That would be none.
Based upon my prior limited direct engagement of the claims themselves, and also by only absolutely trusting the many others for which I respected growing up, it could not have been possible for me to have had much doubt at the time. It was not until I actually researched for myself, did I then have no choice but to then vastly more-so become a skeptic. I've been completely open and transparent about this time and time again. This is not a gotcha moment, in the least. The more I explore for myself, the more the claims seem improbable. Too bad that no one here has given me anything to raise pause, in regard to my current line of skepticism. Sort of strange how that works, isn't it? Being how I have also conversed with you for years.
All of this is just useless information. I was brought up in a Christian home. In fact, my dad was a pastor. When I became of age I did not attend Church because I was not interested. I was forced to do the study, and when I did, I rejected MUCH of what I was taught, and the more I converse with folks such as yourself the more I am convinced in the position I hold and this is because you are not making any arguments I have not already thought through. You, see? Your testimony did not mean a thing when you were a Christian, and it means nothing now, nor does mine.
I guess it would depend on what YOU define as "reasonable"? Is it instead possible both you and I are generally reasonable people, but we both adhere to some cognitive dissonance(s)?.?.?.?.?
Another argument which is not your own but somehow sounds good to your ears which has nothing to do with it. All of us has "cognitive dissonance" and you either acknowledge and mitigate for it, or you ignore it and assume you could not be guilty. In the end, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts we can agree upon.
Different scholars hold differing views on the audience of the Gospels, but there's a consensus that the authors intended to reach diverse groups, including both believers and non-believers. I guess it would depend on which ones you accept and which ones you ignore?
Allow me to give you some facts. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to believing audiences. The only material which could possibly be in doubt would be Matthew, Mark, and John. All the other material is addressed to believing audiences, and the ones which are left out would be simply a guess, and or an opinion. This means the fact is, we know who the intended audience was for the overwhelming majority of the NT which leaves us with a very small amount which could be questioned.
Hahaha! Can you please define 'reckless theology' please?
Sure. When I use the term, I am referring to the kinds of theology you and I were exposed to. You rejected everything you were taught, and I have no problem with that, while I have rejected the majority of what I was taught.
Hmm? So, based upon both shotty evidence, as well as sketchy testimonials - like with 'Luke" for instance, it is reasonable to believe that a one-time (2K year-ago) rotting corpse really did rise to say 'hi' to a few' choice individuals?
And it is based upon this "shotty evidence" you are forced to admit is good enough for us to know the resurrection could not have been made up. I'm thinking this is not "shotty evidence" in the least, but very strong evidence, and any thinking person would then begin to ask themselves, if we have eliminated the disciples from making the story up, what other explanation would there be which would explain the fact that we can know that Jesus lived, Jesus had a following, Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and we can know there were a good number of folks who claimed to have witnessed him alive after the crucifixion, and we can know that it is not possible they made the story up? I can assure you that many have attempted to come up with some sort of alternative explanation, but in the end when we go on to examine what all would have to be involved in order for this scenario to be true, we discover that said scenario would be far too extraordinary to believe.
Okay, this post is about to become even longer because I am about to go back to the point in which you say that "I often leave for months". You are correct that I have left for months, but you would be incorrect that it has been often. The reason I left for months this last time is the fact that these responses take hours and my wife often becomes aggravated about the amount of time I spend, and so I took a good amount of time off in order to appease my wife. Next, I am extremely concerned about Christian nationalism and have spent the time I have over the past number of months battling against what I am convinced is a threat to our democracy. The fact of the matter is, I have been involved in debates with some extreme Christian nationalists over the past months which has taken up much of my time. I can assure you that the months I have been absent from this site had nothing whatsoever to do with being stumped by any of your arguments.
With that being said, I would like to suggest that I believe that we may have far more in common than we think. We were both raised as Christians, we both have rejected much of what we were taught as Christians, with the only difference here being that you seem to have rejected all of what you were taught, while I have come to the conclusion that I was exposed to reckless theology which means that the Christianity I was exposed to was not Christianity at all. It was not charismatic, there was no speaking in tongues, but rather we were taught to attempt to experience God, instead of engaging the mind. This is exactly why when I became of age, I was out the door. When I was forced to engage the mind and do the study, I came to the conclusions I have based on such study. It is because of this long and intense study that I absolutely understand the possibility of my error, and it is because of this long and intense study that I understand those who doubt, and or do not believe. It is also because of this long and intense study, that I understand that those opposed to the position I have, can and do you reason to come to the positions they hold, and I understand their reasoning because I have thought through the same things which they have thought through and I can clearly see they are using reason. This means, that I hold to the position that it is possible to use reason, and logic, and come to different conclusions. However, as you and many, many others are an example, it is possible to come to conclusions without using reason at all, but I can assure you that this occurs on both sides.
The main point here is, I as a Christian recognize the real possibility of my own error, and I acknowledge that it is possible for both sides to use reason and come to different conclusions. You on the other hand, seem to want to insist that it is impossible for one to use reason and come to a different conclusion than you hold. It is like you cannot even allow this to be a possibility, and you seem to want to eliminate this as a possibility. My whole point here is, do you really want to talk to me about "cognitive dissonance"? Which one of us is mitigating for the possibility of cognitive dissonance? I know it is possible to use reason and come to a different conclusion than I have, because I have actually done the study and understand the reason, along with the possibility of my own error, while you seem to refuse to accept that reason can be used to hold to a different position than you hold, and the amazing thing is, your argument against those who hold to a different position is, they have to be guilty of cognitive dissonance? Do you ever wonder why I continue to say, "GOOD GRIEF"?
