God Interferes

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 1319 here...

Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

[Sherlock Holmes]

From Post 1319 here...

Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

The usual means should work fine Joey, what means do you use already for establishing if a claim about events in antiquity is true or not?

For example if someone told you a man named Spartacus had really lived and led a slave rebellion in the Roman empire, how have you (or how would you, if you haven't already) confirmed this claim?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 1319 here...

Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

The usual means should work fine Joey, what means do you use already for establishing if a claim about events in antiquity is true or not?

I don't presuppose to know how folks'd confirm the challenged claim.

What you got?

For example if someone told you a man named Spartacus had really lived and led a slave rebellion in the Roman empire, how have you (or how would you, if you haven't already) confirmed this claim?

Is Spartacus another name for the God in question?

[Sherlock Holmes]

From Post 1319 here...

Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

The usual means should work fine Joey, what means do you use already for establishing if a claim about events in antiquity is true or not?

I don't presuppose to know how folks'd confirm the challenged claim.

What you got?

For example if someone told you a man named Spartacus had really lived and led a slave rebellion in the Roman empire, how have you (or how would you, if you haven't already) confirmed this claim?

Is Spartacus another name for the God in question?

Your question is answered, use whatever method you've used in the past to establish the veracity of claims made about the distant past.

Nothing special here, claims about say the resurrection can be evaluated in exactly the same way you'd evaluate claims about Spartacus.

If you don't have a method then I'm sure a decent book on ancient history could serve you well.

[brunumb]

From Post 1319 here...

Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

The usual means should work fine Joey, what means do you use already for establishing if a claim about events in antiquity is true or not?

I don't presuppose to know how folks'd confirm the challenged claim.

What you got?

For example if someone told you a man named Spartacus had really lived and led a slave rebellion in the Roman empire, how have you (or how would you, if you haven't already) confirmed this claim?

Is Spartacus another name for the God in question?

Sherlock has no answer, so we get a diversionary tactic with an attempt to make you supply the answer for him. If he actually had a compelling answer you would have got it in a flash.

[JoeyKnothead]

Your question is answered, use whatever method you've used in the past to establish the veracity of claims made about the distant past.

I choose the method of presenting the topic for debate, then watching the theists do anything but attempt to put truth to it.

Nothing special here, claims about say the resurrection can be evaluated in exactly the same way you'd evaluate claims about Spartacus.

For them that don't read too good, the topic of this debate is presented up there in the OP.

Nowhere in that OP does it mention a resurrection.

But don't y'all pick on Sherlock there, he's a good boy, he means well, he's just struggling to understand how to make sense of that particular string of words up there in the OP.

If you don't have a method then I'm sure a decent book on ancient history could serve you well.

As before, my method is to present claims in the form of an OP.

Then to watch you theists stepping and fetching, and just doing anything but putting one iota of truth to the challenged claims presented in the OP.

[Sherlock Holmes]

From Post 1319 here...

Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

The usual means should work fine Joey, what means do you use already for establishing if a claim about events in antiquity is true or not?

I don't presuppose to know how folks'd confirm the challenged claim.

What you got?

For example if someone told you a man named Spartacus had really lived and led a slave rebellion in the Roman empire, how have you (or how would you, if you haven't already) confirmed this claim?

Is Spartacus another name for the God in question?

Sherlock has no answer, so we get a diversionary tactic with an attempt to make you supply the answer for him. If he actually had a compelling answer you would have got it in a flash.

If you believe Spartacus really lived and led a slave rebellion within part of the Roman empire then you already know what the process is for establishing the truth of Biblical claims, it is the very same process.

It has a name The Historical Method, that's the method, that's the answer to your question, the question "Please offer some means", that's the means, the Historical Method is the means.

The question has therefore most certainly been answered.

[Sherlock Holmes]

From Post 1319 here...

Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

I regard the question as stated, as worded, to have been answered. So now I'd like to ask a question, did the OP really mean to ask this question:

"Please offer some means to influence me so that I will say 'I believe you' "

Is that the actual intended question?

[TRANSPONDER]

It is and of course it's the familiar debate about God, Bible Jesus and Christianity. The atheists says 'I don't believe any of it; convince me'. The Believer (and I can't see inside their heads ) says: "What would convince you?" Joey Nodhead saith 'Evidence'. Sherlock has opted for the 'What evidence would convince you?' gambit. This is not too hard because scientific and historical evidence (since we all know God is not going to give TV interviews) is what we look for and we have already debated these away. That the theists believe the signature of God in the Glacier and the reliability of the Jesus - story at least, even without Personal Experiences, is no longer enough because science has a natural explanation (in fact hard evidence for it) and serious doubts about the Bible that the fact it exists is no longer enough to make it stand as good evidence.

So, Sherlock's point about why we can't believe Jesus but we can believe Spartacus. Sure George Washington and Julius Caesar won't do as we have so much hard evidence for them. Even portrait busts of Caesar. If we ever had doubts about Pilate, the inscription has put those to bed, even without Josephus and Philo. Ok, so Spartacus is another matter. We have only a written account (or so I suppose). Why do we believe that and not Jesus?

It's a fair point and it brings up the whole question of assessing history. We can hardly doubt Alexander even though he reads like a fantasy tale and some parts (the Gordian knot) do sound legendary. I mention the Jugurthine war which sounds a perfectly credible history, until we get to a Roman army short of water praying to a Numidian god for rain and it rains.

The thing with Spartacus is that there is no obvious reason why the tale should have been invented. It could be a tall story to frighten the Romans so they'd keep the Gladiators under supervision and increase the funding to the army.

It could be. But is there any real reason doubt it? I don't recall any hard to swallow miracles. The burden of proof rather in one someone who doesn't believe it.

Now Jesus has for long been accepted as a historical figure, but the claims of miracles don't help. I don't myself use the 'miracles don't happen' argument as Jesus was a one off- that's the point. I also see evidence (principle of embarrassment) that suggests that the Jesus story was real, even if parts of it didn't suit the writers, so they has to Edit. And that's where my doubts come in. The editing becomes obvious when one writer roundly contradicts another. I know the Bible apologists excuse them and edit it themselves to make it work (1). Of course it doesn't matter if the believers refuse to accept the rebuttal and just stick to the excuse - that still doesn't convince the atheists and that's what arguing for the Bible is supposed to do.
Excusing the synoptics not having a spear thrust does not make a case for the skeptics to credit the story; all it does is enable the believer to cling to Faith that the story is credible. It's the old story of where the burden of proof lies.

It's quite remarkable how often a discussion intended to convince me ends up with them refusing to be convinced by me. If they deny all the evidence and cling to Faith they somehow seem to think they won, though they haven't produced a convincing case to persuade me. And I do try to give their evidence a fair whack.

So sorry for the length and I could go on more, but this argument for why we can believe some rather doubtful old histories but not the Gospels requires some explanation.


(1) I have to mention the 'Marys split up' apologetic to try to try to get over the contradiction of Matthew by Luke, even though the Bible itself refutes that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is and of course it's the familiar debate about God, Bible Jesus and Christianity. The atheists says 'I don't believe any of it; convince me'. The Believer (and I can't see inside their heads ) says: "What would convince you?" Joey Nodhead saith 'Evidence'. Sherlock has opted for the 'What evidence would convince you?' gambit. This is not too hard because scientific and historical evidence (since we all know God is not going to give TV interviews) is what we look for and we have already debated these away. That the theists believe the signature of God in the Glacier and the reliability of the Jesus - story at least, even without Personal Experiences, is no longer enough because science has a natural explanation (in fact hard evidence for it) and serious doubts about the Bible that the fact it exists is no longer enough to make it stand as good evidence.

So, Sherlock's point about why we can't believe Jesus but we can believe Spartacus. Sure George Washington and Julius Caesar won't do as we have so much hard evidence for them. Even portrait busts of Caesar. If we ever had doubts about Pilate, the inscription has put those to bed, even without Josephus and Philo. Ok, so Spartacus is another matter. We have only a written account (or so I suppose). Why do we believe that and not Jesus?

It's a fair point and it brings up the whole question of assessing history. We can hardly doubt Alexander even though he reads like a fantasy tale and some parts (the Gordian knot) do sound legendary. I mention the Jugurthine war which sounds a perfectly credible history, until we get to a Roman army short of water praying to a Numidian god for rain and it rains.

The thing with Spartacus is that there is no obvious reason why the tale should have been invented. It could be a tall story to frighten the Romans so they'd keep the Gladiators under supervision and increase the funding to the army.

It could be. But is there any real reason doubt it? I don't recall any hard to swallow miracles. The burden of proof rather in one someone who doesn't believe it.

Now Jesus has for long been accepted as a historical figure, but the claims of miracles don't help. I don't myself use the 'miracles don't happen' argument as Jesus was a one off- that's the point. I also see evidence (principle of embarrassment) that suggests that the Jesus story was real, even if parts of it didn't suit the writers, so they has to Edit. And that's where my doubts come in. The editing becomes obvious when one writer roundly contradicts another. I know the Bible apologists excuse them and edit it themselves to make it work (1). Of course it doesn't matter if the believers refuse to accept the rebuttal and just stick to the excuse - that still doesn't convince the atheists and that's what arguing for the Bible is supposed to do.
Excusing the synoptics not having a spear thrust does not make a case for the skeptics to credit the story; all it does is enable the believer to cling to Faith that the story is credible. It's the old story of where the burden of proof lies.

It's quite remarkable how often a discussion intended to convince me ends up with them refusing to be convinced by me. If they deny all the evidence and cling to Faith they somehow seem to think they won, though they haven't produced a convincing case to persuade me. And I do try to give their evidence a fair whack.

So sorry for the length and I could go on more, but this argument for why we can believe some rather doubtful old histories but not the Gospels requires some explanation.


(1) I have to mention the 'Marys split up' apologetic to try to try to get over the contradiction of Matthew by Luke, even though the Bible itself refutes that.

You raise some good points.

For me a key question is what would we expect intelligent, literate witnesses to the miracles of Christ to do? If we ourselves had been there and seen the things described, what could we have done?

You say the claims of miracles don't help, but would you record them or not, if you had seen them?

The Gospels strike me as exactly what I'd expect to find if the events were true. A huge effort to record and propagate the information as soon as possible, a devotion to spreading the word as much as possible, an eagerness to do all one can to ensure the story isn't killed off.

The NT is quite exceptional when it comes to documents from antiquity:

It all therefore comes down to how one interprets all this, different people will and do interpret this in different ways.