infamous Posted March 30, 2005 Report Posted March 30, 2005 Uh oh, our RA is back. :o Like a bad habit. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 30, 2005 Report Posted March 30, 2005 Uh oh, our RA is back. :o...And I'm a little worried about his blood pressure. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 30, 2005 Report Posted March 30, 2005 It is also rational to note that most did not.True, Tormod. But the point I was attempting to make (unsuccessfully) was that those that were close enough to Him to write stories were much more likely to become Christians than others. Quote
Biochemist Posted March 30, 2005 Report Posted March 30, 2005 You are using the blog of some unknown on the web as scientific evidence? This strikes me as hearsay based on hearsay.Sorry, C1ay, and I take your point. I don't actually have a library on this stuff, and I only have one friend that does. And he is out of town. For expediency, I pulled out a credible web reference. I thought the textual criticism in that blog was credible. Quote
bumab Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 ...And I'm a little worried about his blood pressure. No kidding. I've been worried for a while, though. Seems to be doin' alright, though... Glad you're taking it well, Biochemist :o . As somebody said before... passions can be manipulated. Very interesting list of circumstances you've posted. Thanks! Quote
C1ay Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Sorry, C1ay, and I take your point. I don't actually have a library on this stuff, and I only have one friend that does. And he is out of town. For expediency, I pulled out a credible web reference. I thought the textual criticism in that blog was credible. It's OK. I can wait for some evidence that can hold up under scrutiny a little better... Quote
lindagarrette Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 True, Tormod. But the point I was attempting to make (unsuccessfully) was that those that were close enough to Him to write stories were much more likely to become Christians than others. Who would that be? All of the gospels were written long after he was alleged to have lived and Paul never met him (at least not his living persona). Quote
Biochemist Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Who would that be? All of the gospels were written long after he was alleged to have lived and Paul never met him (at least not his living persona).LG- I am not sure I understand your point. It is true that most scholarship holds that the New Testament documents were authored (in something like their current form) in the period 60-90AD. But, with the exception of Paul, most of the New Testament authors were direct eye witnesses. There are a lot of practical reasons why the existing documents were not authored until 30+ years after Jesus' death (notably, most apostles seemed to have thought that Christ's return was immanent) but they were eyewitnesses. Further the internal consistencies between the three synoptic gospels are a credible testimony to a portion of the text. Quote
bumab Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Further the internal consistencies between the three synoptic gospels are a credible testimony to a portion of the text. Good post. It's important to remember that the Bible is a collection of texts, so, in some sense, it's not 1 source but a collection. It's not one witnesses account, but several, all collected in one volume. Quote
C1ay Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 There are a lot of practical reasons why the existing documents were not authored until 30+ years after Jesus' death.... Just think about that a bit. Think back 30+ years and tell us how accurately you can recall the events in your own life and write about them in vivid detail. Now think about how accurately you can remember the lives of those around you 30+ years ago. I've often been commended on the ability of my memory and that's not a test I think that I can pass. Why would you think they could? Why would you consider this unquestionable proof of anything? Quote
bumab Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Why would you think they could? Why would you consider this unquestionable proof of anything? Although I'm sure Biochemist has a better reason :), one thing to keep in mind was the oral history tradition of cultures. They were much more skilled at passing on information then we are now in unwritten format. Quote
pgrmdave Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Most biographies are written after the person dies, that does not invalidate the biography. Simply because the gospels were written after Jesus died, it does not invalidate the biography. Even if it does make some of the details a little suspicious, the idea that there was a man named Jesus, who was a spiritual leader, is most likely true. Quote
C1ay Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Although I'm sure Biochemist has a better reason :), one thing to keep in mind was the oral history tradition of cultures. They were much more skilled at passing on information then we are now in unwritten format. Didn't you ever sit in on one of those examples where you wisper something in the first persons ear and they pass it on to the next and so on with 20 or 30 people? I've done this at least half a dozen times and the output is never the same as the input, never. Secondly, this is a science discussion. How is that even remotely testable? Quote
bumab Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 Didn't you ever sit in on one of those examples where you wisper something in the first persons ear and they pass it on to the next and so on with 20 or 30 people? I've done this at least half a dozen times and the output is never the same as the input, never. Secondly, this is a science discussion. How is that even remotely testable? It's not testable, and wasn't meant as scientific evidence. Just something to ponder :) . Quote
Biochemist Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 It's OK. I can wait for some evidence that can hold up under scrutiny a little better...C1ay- I am posting a link here that I will probably also post in the thread on resurrection plausibility. This is a good discussion/review of four authors/researchers: two Christian apologists, and two atheistic Christian critics. The author is (I believe) not a Christian, but I am frankly not sure. He reviews in detail the pros and cons of all four sets of arguments in a style much like an academic review article. I include this because I believe the Christian critics (Barker and Martin) are among the most articulate for the case against elements of Jesus' historicity and/or the resurrection itself. The text in this link is well referenced as well.http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html The Christian apologistis (McDowell and Craig) are representative of the mass of Christian apologists. McDowell is far less academic, and has sort of a populist style, although he is famous because of it. Craig is a well regarded Th. D. academic theologian. This is a long read, but the last sentence in the review is the point that I agree with, and is really my only point:...a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection. My assertion is not that the historicity of Jesus or the resurrection is irrefutable. My assertion is that accepting the resurrection based on a preponderance of evidence is plausible. Quote
C1ay Posted March 31, 2005 Report Posted March 31, 2005 My assertion is that accepting the resurrection based on a preponderance of evidence is plausible.plausible adj. - Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible I do not think this inconclusive debate contributes to any plausibility of the resurrection. It was a good read but it did not make me feel that the resurrection is seemingly or apparently valid, likely, acceptable or credible. I am also puzzled by the fact that your quote from the debate omitted the statement immediately preceeding the one you quoted, "Finally, there are serious flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection." Quote
Biochemist Posted April 1, 2005 Report Posted April 1, 2005 plausible.. - Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible..I do not think this inconclusive debate contributes to any plausibilityHmmm. If we make the argument (e.g., in these posts) that belief in God is irrational, and a reasonably detailed review of historical infomation turns up an inconclusive case (to use your words) you don't think that moves the dial up from irrational to plausible? I have a hard time figuring that out. It was a good read...And I truly appreciate you taking the time to read it.I am also puzzled by the fact that your quote from the debate omitted the statement immediately preceeding the one you quoted, "Finally, there are serious flaws in the arguments advanced by both sides. And even if those flaws were corrected, the arguments would still not constitute a strong apologetic for the resurrection."I did not mean to mislead. Quite the contrary, these are pretty heavy anti-Christian arguments that I included. I did think (and sitll do) that the final statement I included I conclude that a rational person may accept or reject the resurrection is the author's net-net summary. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.