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?

[Goose]

Why should we have to rely on third party information for such an important issue?

Why not? Your own defintion you provided says:
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.

Unless you want to call into question the authenticty of the NT and the record I noted above of Josephus. But Then I suppose that will be a whole new thread or "resurrection" of an old one.

Why doesn't Jesus provide twenty-first century first person evidence that he rose from the dead? That would be proof!

Why must he do this? Show me where in scripture it says he must make modern day appearances to prove his resurrection? Is it Christ's fault that you choose to disregard the NT and records such as the Antiquites because of your own presuppositions? Would you believe it anyway if he did make an appearance? Something tells me that he could walk up to you on the street, raise someone from the dead, and you would probably find a "rational" way to dismiss him and his actions. A hoax perhaps. Am I wrong?

So how about evidence? Eye-witness accounts of mass resurrection of the dead from someone other than one of his followers.

See my post to Goat. What more do you want? What other records in your opnion should have recorded the resurrection and why? Why does it have to be a mass resurrection, by the way?

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

Would you acknowledge them as authentic healings if these things did happen? Somehow I doubt it. If not, why use that arguement?

[Zorro1]

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.

Really? Where did you get a third century copy of Josephus?

Please show us this evidence. Isn't it the truth that all complete extant copies of Josephus, Greek and Arabic, have a form of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Z

[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

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.

Your assertions. Please provide your sources so I too can make my own decision.

[Goose]

It would take a lot of third party accounts, and they would have to be from outside the religious group.

Please quantify "a lot" and the specific sources you'd expect the event to be recorded in and why you'd expect them to be there. You are evaluating this as a 21st Cent event. Why must it be a non-religious group, by the way (there are mind you, but I'm still curious).

It is impossible for something as old as Biblical scripture to prove or even contain good evidence of a true resurrection.

This is your opinion. Show me why it is impossible

If this happened today, think about how much substantiation would be required.

MrWhy, but it didn't happen today. This event is supposed to have taken place 2000 years ago. That is my point. I understand that you are looking at the Bible and the resurrection through 21st Cent eyes. But try again keeping in mind when this event took place.

[Zorro1]

Hello,

Hope you don't mind me jumping in here.

When there is no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell you that some awesome incredible miraculous event has happened that has been reported to have happened, you have determined that it is rational to believe that it is true?

By "irrefutable" do you mean 100% certain? That kind of deductive certianty is not available for anything in the realm of history, law or even science. We usually say that the rational man goes with the preponderance of evidence. If someone goes against the preponderence of evidence, it shows that his position is not based on the evidence, but something else; perhaps it is based on a presupposition.

Yes, without irrefutable evidence, a rational person must believe that dead people stay dead. We have lots of evidence to support the idea that dead people stay dead and none to oppose it.

Of course, you really mean that dead people that do not have a sufficient cause to change their state, stay dead. There are two categories here. Those who have a sufficient cause and those who do not. Some people upon death have CPR applied and some of them do not stay dead; others have defibulation applied and some of them do not stay dead. Those wo have no sufficient cause to change their state, stay dead. When it comes to Jesus, no one has made the claim that there was no sufficient cause. Just the opposite is true, the claim is that he rose because of a sufficient cause, one greater than a defibulator. So, we wouldn't want to prima facia place him in the wrong category; that would constitute a categorical fallacy.

Now about this magician issue and the vanishing coin. You rejected the testimony. But of course rejecting the testimony is not based on the evidence at hand. The testimony is the evidence. Now, I am not saying I wouldn't do the same thing, but I am just wondering if you have a coherent epistemological reason or is this merely a subjective dislike for anything that is not "naturalism?"

I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that you would also reject your own sense perception, if you saw the event yourself.

So, if you reject testimony and your own sense perception, what is your basis for knowledge?

Regards,

Z

[Zorro1]

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.

Some do and some don't. You can't make a over generalized statement like that and then apply the position of some to all. Let's examine another, but similar question:

Do Atheists 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 think you will agree that we should not impose the position of the some on to all, in this question either. Do you want to be held to account for some of the stupid things a few atheists say?

Well, I don't wnat to be held accountable for some of the stupid things some Christians say.

I think we can agree on this.

Regards,

Z

[Goat]

Why should we have to rely on third party information for such an important issue?

Why not? Your own defintion you provided says:
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.

Unless you want to call into question the authenticty of the NT and the record I noted above of Josephus. But Then I suppose that will be a whole new thread or "resurrection" of an old one.

Not ONE of those pieces of docuements were written by an eye witness. In the modern court, none of those pieces of evidence would be admissible.

As I said, you are using a different level of proof for your religious myth.

[Cmass]

We insist that engineers, financial advisors, physicians, etc. have reason and evidence for what they do, but religious leaders are not held to the same standard. Intelligent people lower their requirements for evidence when pressed about their religious faith. In no other domain of knowledge is belief without evidence considered a desirable quality.

I think MrWhy said it better than I.
- C

[Zorro1]

Why should we have to rely on third party information for such an important issue?

Why not? Your own defintion you provided says:
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.

Unless you want to call into question the authenticty of the NT and the record I noted above of Josephus. But Then I suppose that will be a whole new thread or "resurrection" of an old one.

Not ONE of those pieces of docuements were written by an eye witness. In the modern court, none of those pieces of evidence would be admissible.

As I said, you are using a different level of proof for your religious myth.

Isn't it you who is demanding a different level of proof? The Resurrection claims to be an event that happened in history. Shouldn't we use the same methodology to determine if the Resurrection happened as we do other events in the same period?

Perhaps you could provide an objective, historical methodology that has been shown successful in determining history? Then we can apply that methodology to the documents and the evidence and see if ithe resurrection holds up. Does that sound fair?

Regards,

Z

[Goat]

Why should we have to rely on third party information for such an important issue?

Why not? Your own defintion you provided says:
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.

Unless you want to call into question the authenticty of the NT and the record I noted above of Josephus. But Then I suppose that will be a whole new thread or "resurrection" of an old one.

Not ONE of those pieces of docuements were written by an eye witness. In the modern court, none of those pieces of evidence would be admissible.

As I said, you are using a different level of proof for your religious myth.

Isn't it you who is demanding a different level of proof? The Resurrection claims to be an event that happened in history. Shouldn't we use the same methodology to determine if the Resurrection happened as we do other events in the same period?

Perhaps you could provide an objective, historical methodology that has been shown successful in determining history? Then we can apply that methodology to the documents and the evidence and see if ithe resurrection holds up. Does that sound fair?

Regards,

Z

I am not. I am not even expecting the same level of insistance on if the ressurection happened today.

The 'ressurection' is decribing a supernatural event, that in our experiance does not happen.

I need much more than a couple of contrary accounts , written for religious purposes, that were written 40 years or more after it happened.