Questions for a class I am taking

[EarthScienceguy]

I am taking an apologetics class and I thought it would be interesting to get your imput and discussion on the following questions.

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?
2. How much evidence do you have to support your most important beliefs? (name examples, if possible)
3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate; and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?
4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

[TRANSPONDER]

I am taking an apologetics class and I thought it would be interesting to get your imput and discussion on the following questions.

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?

It is important that I have evidence for and against. I don't think of it in terms of strong or weak.

2. How much evidence do you have to support your most important beliefs? (name examples, if possible)

Never enough. The prophecy of Cyrus is the best example.

3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate; and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?

Absolutely accurate for the most part. Though translation does a number on the cross. Jesus didn't die on a Roman cross. I judge his historicity on the Bible rather than theology or tradition. He never said "he is without sin throw the first stone." That's a spurious scripture. He never considered himself equal to Jehovah God, or some part of the pagan trinity adopted by apostate Christianity.

You don't have to go back far to see how tradition can distort historical figures. Paul Revere riding through the town on a horse shouting "The British are coming" is pretty silly given they were all British. A British colony. George Washington as first president, had wooden teeth, never told a lie is silly. He was a politician who cheated on his wife. He was a natural born liar.

Snagged this from the Watchtower.

“For Cæsar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Cæsar’s day.
“Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century.
“Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. . . .
“The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era.
“The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 B.C.). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” - Professor F. F. Bruce: The Books and the Parchments, page 180.

4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

Apparently, this is directed at unbelievers. As a believer I would want to know if it weren't true.

Dude, we have seen - you don't want to know.

What about the prophecy of Cyrus? Can you cite it?

I think you are wrong about the crucifixion. Crucifixion was known and not uncommon in Judea. The Gospels even hint at the Real reason for it - subversion. The Blasphemy charge is nonsense. John is specific with leg - breaking. mind, I could be in agreement with you that the leg -breaking and spear -thrust is made up by John to excuse why the crucifixion was over so quick. Jesus was dead while the guards were breaking legs to get the crucifixion done before sunset. Jesus was already dead? Mark has Pilate express surprise. What? Over already? John has a spear thrust with forensic detais of which the Bible -apologists make so much. But the synoptics know nothing about it. I suspect that the John -writer, who, like most Romans, had seen crucifixions, invented the details to explain why Jesus was dead before on Reason he should have been alive.

So we may be in agreement about Jesus didn't die on a Roman cross - he swooned or was drugged - if any of the record is reliable. If it isn't, of course, we can't rely on anything else in the gospels.

You should know better than to cite that lying rag the Watchtower. We have coins, images and inscriptions I believe of Caesar. And the career, though remarkable, is not claiming a string of miracles. The history, though based on slender materials, (I'll check) is credible as one source preserved and copied carefully because it was important. Same with the record of Alexander. And if we can't trust Caesar's historical record, why should we trust the one about Jesus?

Aquick and dirty search threw up four inscriptions about Julius Caesar just in the Forum. As to historians, " Other contemporary sources include the letters and speeches of Cicero and the historical writings of Sallust. Later biographies of Caesar by Suetonius and Plutarch are also important sources. Caesar is considered by many historians to be one of the greatest military commanders in history."

If we had as much about Jesus, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2]

I just read through your answers and I think that are great. Those are the issues.

Please do. I should like to know what the professor was after. Those points look so much like deceptive Bible propaganda designed to make us doubt the validity of evidence in hopes to make ONE Faith claim (the others being ignored) more credible.

I could not agree more. I see it often. 'We all have faith in something."

...ah, we cynical ol' skeptics recognise a bunch of red flags when we sees 'em.

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?

For me more important than evidence is how reasonable something is. For example, I believe Jesus, because I think his teachings are good and reasonable. The idea to love others is good, regardless how much evidence I have for that Jesus is real. This is why I don't really need much evidence for the existence of Jesus.

3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate; and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?

I believe Bible is accurate and true. And for me one evidence for that is that anti-Christians have attacked the teachings about 2000 years and failed.

4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

It would be nice to know, but I think that is secondary information. The reasonability of the teachings of Jesus don't depend on the information is Jesus real.

That is no reason to believe. Apart from equivocating 'reasonable' (reasonable teachings/reasonable to believe the record) anyone can come up with the morals of a cult or movement (and the Gospel ones are questionable (1) and make up a figurehead tale to carry them (I suspect this happened with the records of Buddha) so a moral code does not in any way validate the historicity of Jesus.

The reason that the questioning of the Bible has 'failed' is that they didn't really get a hearing until the 80's when the Internet allowed us, and even now, we get little support in public media, other than from stand -up comedians for some reason. Fact is that orgs, businesses and political parties do not want to offend the huge Christian populace. But Bible skepticism is growing, and we haven't seen it fail yet, despite your wishful thinking.

It's true that Bible morals were considered the best guide even by those who doubted the Bible (Jefferson), but I think we just know better., now. Just as the Ptolemaic geocentric system was far better than the snowdome cosmos, Copernicus went one better with the heliocentric system. A moral code in no way validates the Faith. If it did, you ought to compare it with the Buddhist (which is arguably better) and the Muslim. But you don't even consider those. It is clearly finding whatever pretext you can to support the Faith.

(1) just the one about the cult are my family, not my relatives goes against the laws of Moses as well as human morals. It is cult - exclusivism.

[1213]

...The reason that the questioning of the Bible has 'failed' is that they didn't really get a hearing until the 80's ...

You seem to forgot that it started from Jesus. He was questioned by the leaders at that time, about 2000 years ago. Then Jesus was killed, because evil people obviously do so, when they can't defend their thoughts with logic and reason. After that many of his disciples were persecuted and killed. And the history is full of times when people have attempted to destroy Christianity. One example of that is Soviet Union, where they did many evil things, and failed also. It is extremely ignorant to think that only now anti Christians have had the chance. And also this time, when anti Christians see that they fail in debate, I expect they will go in the killing mode. After all, it must be very annoying to them that the words of Jesus still exists, after all they have done.

[TRANSPONDER]

...The reason that the questioning of the Bible has 'failed' is that they didn't really get a hearing until the 80's ...

You seem to forgot that it started from Jesus. He was questioned by the leaders at that time, about 2000 years ago. Then Jesus was killed, because evil people obviously do so, when they can't defend their thoughts with logic and reason. After that many of his disciples were persecuted and killed. And the history is full of times when people have attempted to destroy Christianity. One example of that is Soviet Union, where they did many evil things, and failed also. It is extremely ignorant to think that only now anti Christians have had the chance. And also this time, when anti Christians see that they fail in debate, I expect they will go in the killing mode. After all, it must be very annoying to them that the words of Jesus still exists, after all they have done.

You seem to forget that the same was done in trying to destroy Judaism, including by Christianity, and that failed, too. It is, if anything, stronger than ever. The resilience of the Abrahamic faiths is evident. But it is being eroded right now. Starting from the 80's as I said, people are finding they don't really need it and are realising they have been fooled. They are not going to like that.



It won't be easy to get to the stage where the influence of religion (especially Islam) on Law, education and politics can be removed and critical thinking can be a tool taught to people so lies, cults and conspiracy theories are less likely to take hold, the trend may continue.

In the end, it doesn't matter that Believers want to tell themselves that they will always win. What matters is whether they are in fact losing.

p.s I looked up the prophecy of Cyrus.
Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whom he has taken by his right hand to subdue nations before him and strip the loins of kings, to force gateways before him that their gates be closed no more: I will go before you levelling the heights. I will shatter the bronze gateways, smash the iron bars. I will give you the hidden treasures, the secret hoards, that you may know that I am the Lord.

— Isaiah 45:1–3

That's remarkable. I thought it referred to Daniel But it's Isaiah. I should have known. Taken (like Daniel) as retrospective history cast as prophecy, it dates Isaiah to later than I imagined - to the time when the Exile was ended by Persia smashed the babylonian empire to the delight of the Jews, and allowed a return to their homeland. Persia was regarded as God's messiah, a friend to Israel and the Persians were honoured in the Susa gate in the Ttemple.

Ir rather puts Isaiah at the same time as Ezekiel which imagined a rebuilt Temple (Herod took it as a guide) and in fact, if I'm right that Genesis and Exodus are Exilic or even post Exilic, then I see no reason why the whole OT is not Exilic or later date - later even than the 10th c BC that I'd originally thought.

[Difflugia]

I am taking an apologetics class and I thought it would be interesting to get your imput and discussion on the following questions.

1. How important is it that you have strong evidence for everything you believe?

Commensurate with how important the proposition is. "This wild mushroom is nontoxic" requires less evidence if I'm just looking at it in my yard than if I'm about to make a stir-fry with it.

2. How much evidence do you have to support your most important beliefs? (name examples, if possible)

Pretty much incontrovertible. Society will continue functioning today much as it did yesterday. My office is in the same place it was yesterday. If I generate a phylogenetic tree from molecular data, I'll get a tree consistent with biological evolution. Those are all things I've done over and over again and I get very similar results.

3. Do you think that there is evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life are accurate;

Assuming you mean all of the accounts together and aren't trying to equivocate on "accurate," then no. The biblical accounts of Jesus' life are mutually incompatible by any reasonable reading. At most one can be true and that's before we even start evaluating whether any of them is plausible on its own.

and how would you compare the evidence for Jesus with the evidence we have for other figures in the ancient world?

For his existence? Roughly on par with King Arthur. The combination of evidence and counterevidence suggests that each was maybe real, but probably not. We have better evidence vs. counterevidence for Socrates. We have better counterevidence vs. evidence for Romulus.

4. If a strong case could be made that the Biblical account of Jesus’ life is true, and that he rose from the dead after he was killed, would you want to know it?

Yes. Heck, I'd enjoy hearing a weak case that took more than a few minutes to spot the logical and factual flaws.

[TRANSPONDER]

The King Arthur comparison while seemingly harsh is apposite. In Fact Arthur may well be real and the stories that grew up around him are simply tales that relate to no reality (other than perhaps like the Hyksos and the Exodus, are a garbled story of the Legions leaving Britain to fight in the late Roman wars) and that it can be fitted into a late Roman or post -Rioman context does not make it true.

After all, Robin Hood was probably totally legendary, even though some striking coincidences have been found to relate him to people in the records.

In fact the historical details convince me there is a real Jesus at the bottom of it, but the miracle - claims are always problematical. For the believer it is no problem; Jesus was a one off and normal circumstances do not apply.But for me I see so much discrepancy that I see no reason to credit any of the miracles, including the Resurrection, which is so discrepant that, to bash a simile I maybe use too much, if testifying in a court of law, the gospel writers would be thrown into the gutter. And not only the miracles, but the parable, teaching and every word he is supposed to have said.