[
Replying to post 31 by benchwarmer]
It appears you are not making the distinction between:
1) The facts and evidence used by Christians to support their beliefs: The claims in the NT
and
2) Facts and evidence that support the above claims in (1): Have yet to see any facts and evidence beyond more claims that actually support the claims in the NT.
Oh really? Well, what in the world was it that would have convinced you that Christianity was true? The fact of the matter is, there are facts, and evidence in support of the claims, and we certainly do not have time to go through all of them here, but I would imagine one would have done all this work before becoming convinced in the first place?
Because you see, there are "scholars" who attempt to explain what the facts, and evidence we have would mean, and there would be no need in these "scholars" attempting to explain away all these facts, and evidence, if there were no facts, and evidence to explain?
The most common form of evidence in a court of law, would be what is called, "testimonial evidence" and we have at least 4 authors who report a resurrection. We have very good evidence, that one of these authors actually traveled with Paul, which would mean that this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making from their very lips, which would mean that he would have had every opportunity, to "investigate everything carefully from the beginning" just as he ensured the individual he was addressing that he had done.
Of course, the "scholars" understand this to be evidence, which is exactly why they attempt to insist, with no evidence whatsoever that, this author was simply using a common name in order to address a wider audience. And of course, because they understand there is evidence to indicate this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus, they attempt to tell us, without any sort of evidence, that this author used some sort of literary device. Moreover, they want to insist, with no evidence whatsoever, that Paul would not have been the author of the letter which would have mentioned the name of the one this letter has been attributed to, as being the only one with him at the time, exactly because they understand this to be evidence.
You see, if none of these things were evidence, the scholars would have no need in attempting to explain it away.
Moreover, this debate has been raging for over 2000 years, and there are arenas filled with people who come to listen to folks who debate these very things, and I have been to a number of these debates.
Of course, there have been times when the unbeliever wins the debate, but there have been other times when the apologists clearly wins the debate, and the point is, there would be no way to even have a debate, if there were no facts, and evidence involved, and there would certainly be no way for an apologists to win a debate without facts, and evidence. In other words, the apologists is not standing up there simply saying, "you ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart".
All of the above should demonstrate that there are plenty of facts, and evidence in support, and it should also demonstrate that it is not something we can tackle in it's entirety, in this type of format.
However, it is not all that shocking, to understand one who became convinced of something they now say there would be no facts, and evidence in support of, other than the claims themselves, coming to the conclusion that the matter can be settled with one liners, because they are not use to having to put a whole lot of thinking into anything. In other words, it did not take a whole lot of thinking to convince them that Christianity would be true, and so it should not be shocking to us that it does not take a whole lot of thinking to talk them out, and that they are under the impression that it is all so simple. Easy in, easy out.
Did you look at the definition of fable?
Yes.
Does it insist that the story is false?
One of them certainly does. 2. a story not founded on fact.
So it looks like you are "cherry picking" yourself, which is exactly why I am asking you to tell us exactly what you mean by, "fable"? In other words, which "cherry are you picking"? Because you see, I would think that when most folks think of "fable", it would be in the context of not being based in fact, which I would also guess this is the reason you and others choose this word, and you have a convenient out, when you are challenged.
Are some of the stories in the NT used to teach moral lessons? I think so.
I'm not so sure you can demonstrate this? Because you see, if one is reporting that Jesus told a story, I am not sure how you can say, the story was intended to teach us a lesson, when he was not addressing us?
Next, the definition actually says,
1 a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters; apologue:
the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop's fables.
So then, it is talking about the whole story, and again you demonstrate that you are "cherry picking" certain things, out of the whole, that was intended to be based in fact.
In other words, in our history class, we learn that George Washington was reported to have chopped down a cherry tree, (no pun intended), and this may not have been based upon actual fact, so would you suggest that history is based upon "fables". If so, then I am fine with that, but I really do not think this is why you prefer to use the word "fable" to describe the content of the NT.
Are some of the stories in the NT about supernatural or extraordinary persons? I think so.
Okay, in order for me to understand you better then, you are preferring to use the word, "fable" to describe the content of the NT, only because it contains some moral lessons, and reports "supernatural or extraordinary" events, and for no other reason? Well if this is the case, then I have no problem at all.
No, I am not insisting the material is false. Where did you get that idea? You seem to project your ideas onto others often here. Feel free to quote one of my posts where I insisted the material is false or where I only supplied a definition of fable that requires the story to be false.
No, I think we have it straight now. When you use the word "fable" to describe the content in the NT, you simply mean that it contains moral stories, supernatural and extraordinary events. Correct?
I can't help it if you choose to cherry pick pieces of the actual definition to support your argument. I suggest reading the full definition, not focusing on the example. Do NT stories teach moral lessons? Yes or no? Do they have supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents? Yes or no?
I think that I have demonstrated that I was asking which "cherry you were picking" from the definition?
I think we should make this a drinking game. Every time you bring up the letter addressed to Theophilus all the non-theists have to take a shot. You'll have us all drunk in short order.
If we did make it a drinking game, and I had to drink every time anyone had an answer to explain these things, I would be stone cold sober.
I bolded the important bits to consider when deciding if we are in 'fable' territory or not.
I see mention of at least two supernatural entities and one extraordinary incident. Seems to fit the bill to me, but I'll let readers decide.
Right! So then, you prefer to use the word "fable" simply because it has "supernatural entities and one extraordinary incident", while you seem to ignore the fact that this author reports in a letter addressed to one individual, with no concern, nor any idea that anyone else would ever read these letters, that he is writing these letters to him, after "investigating everything carefully from the beginning", in order for this individual to "know the exact truth".
So what do you have to say about this? Let me guess? He could have been lying? He could have been deceived? Well you would be correct, but the fact of the matter would be, he could have been reporting the truth. So then, what facts, and evidence do we have, which would suggest to us that this author after spending decades traveling with Paul, would have sat down, in order to write out what would be false information? What evidence do we have that he may be lying? What evidence do we have, that he may have been deceived? What would motivate this author to write out false information?
Of course, your question would be, what evidence do we have that he was reporting the truth? Well, how about the fact that he actually went to the trouble, to sit down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth", with no evidence whatsoever, which would indicate that he would have been lying?
Now you may say, this does not demonstrate that what he wrote would be fact, and you would be correct. However, this is certainly not evidence that what he wrote would be false.
The bottom line here is, we have the claims, and we also have facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims, and there also may be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims to be false. I cannot demonstrate the claims to be true, nor can you demonstrate the claims to be false. Ergo, all either of us can do, is to explain what it is we believe, along with why we believe as we do, based upon the facts, and evidence we have.
I do not insist that you, nor anyone else would not have reasons to doubt the claims, but for some reason you seem to want to insist that I have no reasons to believe the claims. The problem is, you cannot demonstrate that I would have no reasons to believe the claims, on top of the fact that you once believe the claims yourself.
And for what reason did you believe the claims? Well, I do not have to guess about that, because according to you, there would be no reason for you to be as convinced as you were? GOOD ARGUMENT!
Well, my friend, if you have never suggested the claims can be verified we seem to be done.
I think it would also include the fact that, you cannot in any way "verify" the claims would be false.
What can we do with unverifiable claims? It seems silly to me to keep believing in something once you realize there is no way to verify it. It might be nice to hope it's true, but it seems more pragmatic to chase things one can verify.
Why don't you tell me? I am not the one who claims to have been convinced of something, there would be no facts, and evidence to support?
I have no need to continue the conversation.
I can certainly understand why.
I only jumped in to point out your mischaracterization of another poster since you did basically the same thing to me.
How is my simply repeating what others say themselves, a "miss-characterization"? All I have said is, "there are those who claim to have been totally convinced Christianity would be true, to now tell us, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of". What do I have incorrect here?
Clearly I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything, just pointing out to the readers what's going on.
And as we can see, not doing a very good job.