927 thoughts on “What Makes Something Right or Wrong?”
“Jesus supposedly said some other strange things too, like ‘let the dead bury their own dead’.” – Dave, as an apologist, you’d make a good chiropractor – I can answer that one, and I’m in the other camp – the passage refers to a conversation, as I recall, of someone saying to Yeshua that he would follow Yesh, but his father had just died and he needed to go home and bury him, but god Jr. said “let the dead (in Christ) bury their own.,” meaning, “Choose your dead dad or me —“
“Paul frequently defends himself against the accusation of being a liar and false apostle.” – I believe you’re mistaken, Gary – Paul doesn’t, but ironically, the fake Paul does. As I’ve mentioned before, Paul only wrote 7 of the 13 letters ascribed to him, the other six,
Timothy I, Timothy II, Titus, Thessalonians II, Ephesians, and Colossians were forgeries. It was in one of these, Tim 2, I think, where the forger says, “No kidding, I’m really Paul!“
Paul said that when the law was still in force, faith had not yet come, Galatians 3:23. However, he contradicts this in Romans 4:3, 22. Which way is it?
Paul defended a lie because it ‘glorifies God’ and he wondered why he was judged a sinner, Romans 3:7. He was caught lying and tried to wriggle out of it with a song and dance. He doesn’t seem to grasp that a lie is a lie, and never does it glorify Yahweh. Why does Paul keep insisting he’s not deceitful and does not lie? Romans 9:1, II Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:18, I Thessalonians 2:1-12, I Timothy 2:7. Why are the real apostles not accused of lying as Paul is? Ask yourself this: Would Yahushua (Jesus) lie ‘for the glory of God’ as Paul did? I think not!
Paul lied before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:6-7. He said he was ‘called into question for the hope and resurrection of the dead’. This was strictly a divide and conquer ploy with no basis in reality. The truth of the matter is he was called into question on account of his anti-Torah teachings, found in Acts 21:27-28.
Paul lied again before Agrippa, about his conversion, Acts 26:12-19.
“Arch, I think it was John Wesley who said the Devil should not have all the good music.” – Everybody knows that the devil plays a fiddle, and it’s really hard to get a good beat going with a harp.
Ok, Christian Dave. Are you in agreement that “Wouldn’t die for a lie” won’t fly? If so, what is your next evidence?
Yes, I’ll concede that one. I’ve been flipping through my copy of Reasonable Faith by WLC to see if there was anything worth presenting, but nothing has impressed me. This experiment has shown me how difficult it is to think of a decent argument for something when I don’t actually believe in it.
Here are a few other pieces of evidence that Christians use with me:
1. The Jewish Pharisee Saul/Paul would not have converted to the Faith he was persecuting, and would not have endured persecution, torture, and death, if he hadn’t seen a real resurrected body. No other reason can adequately explain his conversion.
2. When Paul said in I Corinthians, “Have I not seen the Christ?” that means that Paul saw a real body, not a body in a vision or in a hallucination.
3. Paul says that 500 people saw Jesus at once. In any court of law, five hundred witnesses would guarantee a verdict in favor of the alleged event having really happened.
4. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that there was an empty tomb that first Easter morning. Since we know that Roman guards were guarding the tomb, there is no other explanation for an empty tomb other than a miraculous act of God: a Resurrection!
Hi Peter, thanks for your kind comment. I was going to respond to what you said before I read that. 🙂
“I think that the key issue is lack of common ground. IT comes down to both sides of the debate being prepared to allow for the possibility that the others sides position could be correct.”
When I first came to Nate’s blog, I was in full christian apologist mode and we clashed, politely, several times, and each apologised to the other several times about being forceful or misunderstanding. I think I was more at fault than him. So I started re-considering my approach to him and tried to treat him more like a work colleague than an atheist on the internet. As a result, we have become friends within the limits of the internet, and can converse quite constructively, agreeing on many things while we disagree on others.
So I have thought this matter through a bit, and I think there are three (at least) basic approaches we can take in these discussions.
1. We can try to help others to come to our viewpoint in as constructive a way as possible. This generally only works when the other person is looking for ideas and input (that is the common ground). I find that happens occasionally, mostly on my own blog.
2. Failing this, we can enjoy simply getting to know someone else, learn what they think and why, and represent our own viewpoint by adding our comments into the mix. This is how most of us approach conversation in real life, and it is generally how I approach conversations on the internet. Nate seems to have the same approach, and so we can be friends and appreciate each other’s comments even if we disagree. In this case, the wish to be friends is the common ground, and it doesn’t require anyone to think they may be wrong..
3. It is possible to be argumentative, which generally ends in a slanging match, with mockery, insults and misunderstanding. This is common in politics, war and professional sport. Trash-talking the opposition in sport is a way of building up one’s confidence while trying to gain a competitive edge over one’s opponent. In politics and war, it is a way of demonising the opposition so you can feel more justified in treating them badly, and to feel more convinced of the righteousness of your cause. I think it is similar to this for some people on the internet. Hatred, disdain and/or competitiveness become the common ground. I am not interested in this, and if the discussion moves from #2 to #3, I generally withdraw.
So I think #2 is a possibility that falls outside what you have said, and if we could avoid descending into #3, it could work.
Hi Dave, I sympathise with you when you say: “how difficult it is to think of a decent argument for something when I don’t actually believe in it”. So I wanted to help you a little. 🙂 For I think there are many cases where scholarship has advanced the christian religion.
1. In my youth I was very interested in astronomy and cosmology, and in the early 1960s I did 2 years of Philosophy as part of my Engineering degree. Back then, there were 3 hypotheses about the universe, big bang, steady state and pulsating. The latter two assumed an eternal universe, and philosophically this was attractive because an eternal universe didn’t need a creator. But now the big bang is established and we need an explanation – and an eternal creator (who doesn’t need an origin, similar to the steady state theory) is a more plausible explanation than no explanation and no cause.
2. Paley’s original design argument was based largely on the complexity of life on earth, and it was destroyed by evolution. It was replaced by the rare earth argument, which is still an open question, but with the likelihood of zillions of planets out there, the argument is less effective. But in the 1970s cosmologists discovered cosmic fine-tuning, and almost all cosmologists agree it is very difficult to explain. The design argument has been revived due to the work of cosmologists like Rees, Davies, Susskind, Penrose, etc, and is seen by some atheists and agnostics as the most powerful theistic argument.
3. Neuroscience and psychology are fairly dominated by naturalism, but this makes it difficult to explain free will, consciousness, ethics, even rationality itself. But there is a small but I think growing group of scientists who are challenging the naturalistic status quo, through study and documentation of NDEs, divine visions, mystical experience, paranormal phenomena, miraculous healings, the science of religion, etc. A number of philosophers have picked up on these ideas and are also challenging naturalism. It will be interesting to see if this science continues to grow.
4. More than 40 years ago I completed a degree in theology. At that time the dominant New Testament understanding was still extremely sceptical about the historical evidence for Jesus. But in the intervening period, New Testament scholarship has undergone a revolution, influenced by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (yes, discovered in 1947, but only gradually translated and assessed), increasing understanding of first century Judaism via archaeology and newly-discovered texts, and a lot of other work on culture and language, so that the historicity of Jesus and the basic historical value of the gospels (treated as any other texts, not privileged as being somehow holy) is now almost universally accepted.
Thus areas 1,2 & 4 have seen quite large increases in the evidence for christianity in the past 50 years, all due to scientific and historical scholarship, and it looks like #3 might be heading the same way. As result, I feel more confident of the truth of christianity than I did back then, though I also feel more problems because of the evil in the world.
I hope that helps your “angel’s advocate” a little. 🙂
I have been doing a lot of research of late on your point 4 and I would characterise the material I have come across as less clear cut than is suggested in your conclusion.
Most scholars suggest that it is a mistake to see the gospels as history. At the very least all agree that if they were based on real events then those events have been re-ordered and potentially interpreted) with a Theological purpose in mind.
There is a body of opinion to suggest that some of the events in the Gospels (some people say all) are more a sort of pious fiction. What is striking is the lack of references to Jesus and the Gospel events in contemporary reports (I am not referring to reports from a generation later). The suggestion in the Gospels is that the whole of the whole place in an uproar in regard to Jesus, but if that was the case he left no discernible trace at the time (once again I am not talking about a generation later).
Some argue that the stories in the Gospel represent Galilee and surrounding areas of the time around a generation later, but not the purported time of Jesus’ life. I am not sufficiently expert to consider those.
Contemporary Non Witness of Jesus
“Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place—when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.”
There was a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth-century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “He [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did.” (Photius’ Bibliotheca, code 33)
Yes, most scholars don’t consider the gospels to be plain history, but biography, which was history with a purpose, and thus the events were selected and interpreted with that purpose in mind. But ancient biography was still expected to be accurate history within certain limits. Scholar are very familiar with this, because virtually all history and biography written back then was the same.
That was why I was careful with my phrasing – I didn’t say 100% accurate history, but “the basic historical value of the gospels (treated as any other texts, not privileged as being somehow holy)”, i.e. quite sufficient to get basic historical detail, but having lots of areas of uncertainty. What scholars like Sanders, Casey, Wright, Evans & Grant (to name a few I am most familiar with) conclude from the texts is quite sufficient for my apologetic purposes. Here is a summary: Jesus in history and Jesus – son of God?.
Yes, there are places where scholars think the writers have modified or added to the events in the light of later events. Whether that is true or not is somewhat speculative, but I generally accept what they say. But it doesn’t change the facts they do mostly endorse.
A lot of what you read on the internet about the gospels is not well-based. For example, people talk about contemporary reports, as you have here, as if Jesus lived in the age of TV and Facebook. Back then, there were very few contemporary reports, oral transmission and small sections of written texts were available and broadly reliable, making the gap between event and writing, and between writing, and earliest extant text, and the number of copies, extremely important. And in these matters, the gospels are way ahead of any other ancient document. And there are four of them to compare, unlike most other documents of the time. Again, here is a summary – Are the gospels historical? and The reliability of the New Testament text.
Now whether you believe what they say is another matter, but I find the argument compelling based on the evidence. Thanks for the interaction.
“Thus areas 1,2 & 4 have seen quite large increases in the evidence for christianity in the past 50 years, all due to scientific and historical scholarship, and it looks like #3 might be heading the same way. As result, I feel more confident of the truth of christianity than I did back then, though I also feel more problems because of the evil in the world.”
I’m not trying to be rude, but this is a non-sequitur.
I agree that areas 1 and 2 can be seen as evidence for the existence of intelligent design by an intelligent Creator, but this in no way can be said to be evidence for Christianity. This intelligent design could well have been accomplished by Allah, Zeus, or the Spaghetti Monster.
This is why I never debate the origin of the universe with Christians. You will NEVER win this argument. Concede it and move on. However, once you have conceded this point to them, immediately go on the offensive: Ask them to give you good evidence to believe that Yahweh/Jesus is the Creator.
You have just taken the high ground from them , and you immediately change the dynamics of the debate. By conceding intelligent design to them (at least the possibility) you have blunted their offense, and put them on defense. They now have only one means of winning the debate: they must provide a rational, believable defense against your withering attacks upon their audacity, their unmitigated gall, in asking educated, 21st people to believe that virgins have babies and that three-day-dead corpses come back from the dead; eat broiled fish lunches with former fishing buddies; and then levitate into outer space!
Area #4: “…the historicity of Jesus and the basic historical value of the gospels (treated as any other texts, not privileged as being somehow holy) is now almost universally accepted.”
This again is a non-sequitur.
The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and the “basic” historical value of the Gospels (that Herod the Great existed; that Pilate existed; that the Romans occupied Jerusalem; that someone, somewhere really did write the four gospels in the middle and late first century, etc., etc..) does NOT confirm ONE single miracle claim, and specifically, does not confirm the core doctrine upon which Christianity rises or falls, as espoused by the overwhelming majority of Christians for two thousand years: that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is verifiable proof that Jesus is God, Creator and Ruler of Heaven and Earth; that he is the only way to God/eternal life/eternal happiness; and, that by rejecting him as your god (slave master) you face some form of eternal punishment.
Christians do not have a good defense on these issues. They are forced to fall back on assumptions and second century hearsay. That’s it.
Take away their offense. Take away their pseudo-scientific “intelligent design” position and they are stuck defending the nonsensical equivalent of prophets flying on winged horses and talking water buffalo.
It’s time for bed on the West Coast, so let me close with this:
Modern Christians just can’t imagine that the writers of the Gospels would make things up…like virgin births, men walking on water, zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem, ascensions into outer space (or into other dimensions), etc. as part of their “ancient biographies”.
“…ancient biography was still expected to be accurate history within certain limits.”
But remember this: Paul said that he would do anything and say anything to convert souls to “Christ”. Paul was willing to LIE (and apparently did as he was forced to frequently defend against this accusation) to win souls. So why should we believe that the authors of the Gospels, writing 20-50 years later, wouldn’t do the same??
If inventing zombies to burst out of their graves on the day of the Resurrection, to roam the streets of a major city, chatting with old friends and neighbors…wins a few more souls to Jesus…why the Hell not throw it into the “biography”??
“But now the big bang is established and we need an explanation – and an eternal creator (who doesn’t need an origin, similar to the steady state theory) is a more plausible explanation than no explanation and no cause.” – What is it about theists that they can’t accept a simple, “I don’t know – yet” as an answer?
“But in the 1970s cosmologists discovered cosmic fine-tuning, and almost all cosmologists agree it is very difficult to explain.” – Absurd – Sagan explained it very well – there are untold billions of stars, many of which have planetary systems. Only a few of those are “Goldilocks” planets, planets that are “just right” for the support of life as we know it. There may well be other forms of life with which we are not yet familiar, and planets that would never support our forms, may well support theirs. At any rate, this planet was not such a “Golidlocks” planet, it supported the formation and evolution of life forms entirely unlike our own – in fact, its atmosphere was originally so high in nitrogen and low in oxygen, that life as we now know it could NEVER have originated here – only over eons, of early life decomposing, releasing oxygen in the decomposition process, was there ever enough oxygen in the atmosphere for oxygen-breathing organisms like ourselves to survive (in fact, organisms had to evolve an ability to tolerate oxygen, just to survive the change) – what kind of god would take that kind of ass-backward approach to a genesis?
“But there is a small but I think growing group of scientists who are challenging the naturalistic status quo, through study and documentation of NDEs, divine visions, mystical experience, paranormal phenomena, miraculous healings, the science of religion, etc.” – Really? This is what you’re going with? “The science of religion“? Talk about an oxymoron! What is it again that Nate sees in you? Clearly you take his affirmation as a carte blanche to spout nonsense.
“…the historicity of Jesus and the basic historical value of the gospels (treated as any other texts, not privileged as being somehow holy) is now almost universally accepted.” – What exactly have the Dead Sea scrolls to do with the historicity of Yeshua? The gospels have no historical value, they’re based entirely on multiple-hand, hearsay information that would never be admissible in any court of law.
Hi Peter, now to your next point: “Contemporary Non Witness of Jesus”
I haven’t read much on this topic, so I am quite willing to be corrected. But here is what I think I know.
There were several wannabe Messiahs around the first century. Josephus, I’m told, mentions at least 5 – Athronges, a Sarmatian, Theudas, an Egyptian prophet, and Jesus. Historians of the day tended to be interested in politics or “affairs of state”, and on these terms, Jesus was small cheese. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey to the cheers of a group of Jews and overturning a few tables in the temple – not much there to interest anyone, and this is how the gospels portray it – Pilate was hardly interested. Compared to this, some of the others were much bigger deals – they raised armies and mounted serious rebellions which the Romans some serious military power to put down.
So, what do Philo and Justus and other historians of the time say about these Messianic claimants? According to my reading, absolutely nothing! And nothing about other prominent Jewish figures like Hillel, Shammai, Choni HaMa’agel, John the Baptist or Gamaliel. And virtually nothing until much later even about Hannibal! The only one (I’m told) who mentions them all also mentioned Jesus.
So we are left with two possible conclusions. (1) on the same basis, we should assume that Athronges, the Sarmatian, Theudas, the Egyptian prophet, Hillel, Shammai, Choni HaMa’agel, John the Baptist or Gamaliel all didn’t exist either, or (2) we assume Philo, Justus and the rest weren’t interested in failed messiahs. It’s obvious what the solution is, surely?
So this argument is based on poor and anachronistic understandings of first century history.
What I find interesting is this – and I apologise if this seems critical. You have gotten your facts from Dan Barker, an ex-christian ex-evangelist who has no historical credentials that I know of. So much of Jesus mythicist and anti christian polemic on the web is similarly based in people who don’t always know what they are talking about. That is like believing Ken Ham about evolution.
If we want to know about Jesus in history, we should surely read the most respected historians like EP Sanders, Geza Vermes, Maurice Casey (all non-christians) or NT Wright, Craig Evans and Richard Bauckham (christians). They are highly respected, experienced, well-read and peer reviewed historians, and they don’t make arguments like Dan Barker tries to, because they have a good historical perspective.
I hope I haven’t been harsh, I don’t mean to be, I just feel strongly that people who claim christians are faith-heads and they are now evidence-based should do better than fool honest readers like you with poorly based information. Thanks again.
“Scholar are very familiar with this, because virtually all history and biography written back then was the same.” – So I take it you’re saying we can expect the same degree of reliability with the gospels that we find in Genesis, and with the story of Noah, or Job, or Jonah —
“And there are four of them to compare, unlike most other documents of the time.” – No, there aren’t. “Pseudo-Matthew” copied a full 90% of his gospel from “pseudo-Mark,” and then there were three. But “Pseudo-Luke copied 60% of his gospel from “pseudo-Mark,” so then there were 2 and a half men, starring Charlie Sheen.
Do you really see us as that gullible, Unk? We’re not Christians, you know —
“You have gotten your facts from Dan Barker, an ex-christian ex-evangelist who has no historical credentials that I know of.” – If it’s not too much trouble, Unk, could you please give us the credentials for “pseudo-Mark, “pseudo-Matthew,” “pseudo-Matthew,” and “pseudo-John”? Go ahead, make my day – say, “eye-witnesses” —
“There were several wannabe Messiahs around the first century.”
From the beginning, his mother knew that he was no ordinary person. Prior to his birth, a heavenly figure appeared to her, announcing that her son would not be a mere mortal, but would himself be divine. This prophecy was confirmed by the miraculous character of his birth, a birth accompanied by supernatural signs.
The boy was already recognized as a spiritual authority in his youth; his discussions with recognized experts showed his superior knowledge of all things religious.
As an adult, he left home to engage in an itinerant preaching ministry. He went from town to town with his message of good news, proclaiming that people should forgo their concerns for the material things of this life, such as how they should dress and what they should eat. They should instead, he insisted, be concerned with their eternal souls.
He gathered around him a number of disciples who were amazed by his teaching and his flawless character. They became convinced that he was no ordinary man, but was indeed the Son of God. Their faith received striking confirmation in the miraculous things that he did. He could reportedly predict the future, heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead.
Not everyone proved friendly, however. At the end of his life, his enemies trumped up charges against him and he was placed on trial before Roman authorities for crimes against the state.
Even after he departed this realm, he did not forsake his devoted followers. Some claimed that he had ascended bodily into heaven; others reported that he had appeared to them, alive, afterward, that they had spoken with him, had touched him, and had become convinced that he could not be bound by death.
A number of his followers spread the good news about this man, recounting what they had seen him say and do. Eventually, some of these accounts came to be written down in books that circulated throughout the empire. Ultimately, these eye-witness stories were collected into a single book, in the third century A.D., and the details of his life and teachings preserved for us today in the twenty-first, by author Philostratus, in his biography, “The Life of Appolonius.”
Appolonius of Tyana was a great, first century A.D. neo-Pythagorean teacher and pagan holy man, a worshiper of the Roman gods, and only one of numerous others during that century, who were believed to have been supernaturally endowed as teachers and miracle workers, many of whom were said to have performed miracles, calmed storms, multiplied loaves, to have foretold the future and healed the sick, to have cast out demons and raised the dead, to have been supernaturally born and taken up into heaven at the ends of their lives. It seemed to have been the century for it – or something in the water.
You can rest assured I have been reading somewhat wider than Dan Barker. I have just finished reading Raymond E. Brown’s 880 page Introduction to the New Testament. He is a someone whose credentials are widely accepted. Brown’s finishes his introduction by looking at the Search for the Historical Jesus. He is rightly skeptical about such activity, partly because as he admits we has in essence no information about Jesus except what is contained in the Bible.
There are some non canonical gospels that potentially provide more information on Jesus but these are pretty much seen by all scholars as unreliable.
So the issue about the historicity of Jesus is the lack of non biblical sources.
I have also read Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus Misquoted and and have been following the work by John Dominic Crossan. These latter two scholars both are convinced that Jesus existed though they discount the supernatural.
I have also investigated the work of others like Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Hector Avalos who tend to have more radical views.
I am currently reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘A History of Christianity’.
The bias of my reading has recently been toward those of a skeptical view because I had spent the previous four years studying Theology and had focused on had spent a lot of time reading people who were supportive of the traditional position. I often read these scholars characterization of the skeptics. However I had not read the skeptics position directly until this year. Having read some of the views of people who I had previously dismissed, such as Jesus Seminar co-chair Crossan, I have come to realise that there is more substance to their views than had been admitted by their critics.
There is much more I could say on these matters, I suppose I just wanted to assure you that I was not relying on people such as Dan Barker as the primary source for my views.
If you don’t mind my asking, what is your view of Original Sin and/or the Fall of Man? If you’ve already written about this somewhere do you have a link handy?
Hi Peter, I’m sorry if I sounded like I was saying you hadn’t read more widely than Dan Barker. I was only referring to your use of him as a source on this matter we were discussing. And then of course I sounded off a little as well!
“So the issue about the historicity of Jesus is the lack of non biblical sources.”
But this is only an issue if we have good reason to think the Biblical sources are not any good. Most scholars don’t think that. Of course they are filled with supernatural claims, which scholars treat in various ways, but they are still considered good historical sources, especially Mark.
I can understand you wanting to read more widely than in your theological studies, but there is a big gap between what you may have read there and people like Crossan Ehrman, Price and Carrier! I suggest Casey, Sanders and Wright would fill in the gap a little.
I have been a christian for about 53 years. I think I only believed in the normal formulation of Original Sin for about the first 10 years. I don’t think the doctrine as often taught is at all Biblical, though there are some variations of it that may be plausible I guess.
For many years I believed neither in evolution (because I didn’t think it was proven or made sense) nor the historicity of Genesis 1-3 (because it is clearly written like a folk tale or myth). So I didn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve and I wondered about the fall. When I came to accept evolution, maybe 20 years ago, I began to think about the Fall, Adam and Eve, etc, again. I still believe that humans suffer from alienating themselves from God and each other, but I have come to the tentative conclusion that there was maybe no literal historical fall. But I wouldn’t pretend to know, and I honestly don’t care all that much. I think the NT stands on its own, and can fit with different views of the OT without much difficulty.
All this would be an issue with someone who sees the Bible as literal inerrant history, but even the Bible writers and Jesus (IMO) don’t treat their scriptures like that, so why should I? I find my belief in Jesus has stayed much the same while I have gone through these changes regarding Genesis.
Finding Truth 
“Jesus supposedly said some other strange things too, like ‘let the dead bury their own dead’.” – Dave, as an apologist, you’d make a good chiropractor – I can answer that one, and I’m in the other camp – the passage refers to a conversation, as I recall, of someone saying to Yeshua that he would follow Yesh, but his father had just died and he needed to go home and bury him, but god Jr. said “let the dead (in Christ) bury their own.,” meaning, “Choose your dead dad or me —“
LikeLike
“Paul frequently defends himself against the accusation of being a liar and false apostle.” – I believe you’re mistaken, Gary – Paul doesn’t, but ironically, the fake Paul does. As I’ve mentioned before, Paul only wrote 7 of the 13 letters ascribed to him, the other six,
Timothy I, Timothy II, Titus, Thessalonians II, Ephesians, and Colossians were forgeries. It was in one of these, Tim 2, I think, where the forger says, “No kidding, I’m really Paul!“
LikeLike
Lies, lies, and more lies.
Paul said that when the law was still in force, faith had not yet come, Galatians 3:23. However, he contradicts this in Romans 4:3, 22. Which way is it?
Paul defended a lie because it ‘glorifies God’ and he wondered why he was judged a sinner, Romans 3:7. He was caught lying and tried to wriggle out of it with a song and dance. He doesn’t seem to grasp that a lie is a lie, and never does it glorify Yahweh. Why does Paul keep insisting he’s not deceitful and does not lie? Romans 9:1, II Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:18, I Thessalonians 2:1-12, I Timothy 2:7. Why are the real apostles not accused of lying as Paul is? Ask yourself this: Would Yahushua (Jesus) lie ‘for the glory of God’ as Paul did? I think not!
Paul lied before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:6-7. He said he was ‘called into question for the hope and resurrection of the dead’. This was strictly a divide and conquer ploy with no basis in reality. The truth of the matter is he was called into question on account of his anti-Torah teachings, found in Acts 21:27-28.
Paul lied again before Agrippa, about his conversion, Acts 26:12-19.
LikeLike
http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/problem.htm
LikeLike
Wow, Gary, THAT’s a load of information! Thanks!
LikeLike
Arch, I think it was John Wesley who said the Devil should not have all the good music.
What struck me from the AC/DC video is that the crowd scenes are not that dissimilar from a Christian Music Video.
Consider another Australian music export
Incidentally Hillsong were going to invite Mark Driscoll (the disgraced ex-pastor) to their conference but after a backlash last week backed down.
LikeLike
“Arch, I think it was John Wesley who said the Devil should not have all the good music.” – Everybody knows that the devil plays a fiddle, and it’s really hard to get a good beat going with a harp.
LikeLike
Yes, I’ll concede that one. I’ve been flipping through my copy of Reasonable Faith by WLC to see if there was anything worth presenting, but nothing has impressed me. This experiment has shown me how difficult it is to think of a decent argument for something when I don’t actually believe in it.
LikeLike
Here are a few other pieces of evidence that Christians use with me:
1. The Jewish Pharisee Saul/Paul would not have converted to the Faith he was persecuting, and would not have endured persecution, torture, and death, if he hadn’t seen a real resurrected body. No other reason can adequately explain his conversion.
2. When Paul said in I Corinthians, “Have I not seen the Christ?” that means that Paul saw a real body, not a body in a vision or in a hallucination.
3. Paul says that 500 people saw Jesus at once. In any court of law, five hundred witnesses would guarantee a verdict in favor of the alleged event having really happened.
4. The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that there was an empty tomb that first Easter morning. Since we know that Roman guards were guarding the tomb, there is no other explanation for an empty tomb other than a miraculous act of God: a Resurrection!
LikeLike
Hi Peter, thanks for your kind comment. I was going to respond to what you said before I read that. 🙂
“I think that the key issue is lack of common ground. IT comes down to both sides of the debate being prepared to allow for the possibility that the others sides position could be correct.”
When I first came to Nate’s blog, I was in full christian apologist mode and we clashed, politely, several times, and each apologised to the other several times about being forceful or misunderstanding. I think I was more at fault than him. So I started re-considering my approach to him and tried to treat him more like a work colleague than an atheist on the internet. As a result, we have become friends within the limits of the internet, and can converse quite constructively, agreeing on many things while we disagree on others.
So I have thought this matter through a bit, and I think there are three (at least) basic approaches we can take in these discussions.
1. We can try to help others to come to our viewpoint in as constructive a way as possible. This generally only works when the other person is looking for ideas and input (that is the common ground). I find that happens occasionally, mostly on my own blog.
2. Failing this, we can enjoy simply getting to know someone else, learn what they think and why, and represent our own viewpoint by adding our comments into the mix. This is how most of us approach conversation in real life, and it is generally how I approach conversations on the internet. Nate seems to have the same approach, and so we can be friends and appreciate each other’s comments even if we disagree. In this case, the wish to be friends is the common ground, and it doesn’t require anyone to think they may be wrong..
3. It is possible to be argumentative, which generally ends in a slanging match, with mockery, insults and misunderstanding. This is common in politics, war and professional sport. Trash-talking the opposition in sport is a way of building up one’s confidence while trying to gain a competitive edge over one’s opponent. In politics and war, it is a way of demonising the opposition so you can feel more justified in treating them badly, and to feel more convinced of the righteousness of your cause. I think it is similar to this for some people on the internet. Hatred, disdain and/or competitiveness become the common ground. I am not interested in this, and if the discussion moves from #2 to #3, I generally withdraw.
So I think #2 is a possibility that falls outside what you have said, and if we could avoid descending into #3, it could work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Dave, I sympathise with you when you say: “how difficult it is to think of a decent argument for something when I don’t actually believe in it”. So I wanted to help you a little. 🙂 For I think there are many cases where scholarship has advanced the christian religion.
1. In my youth I was very interested in astronomy and cosmology, and in the early 1960s I did 2 years of Philosophy as part of my Engineering degree. Back then, there were 3 hypotheses about the universe, big bang, steady state and pulsating. The latter two assumed an eternal universe, and philosophically this was attractive because an eternal universe didn’t need a creator. But now the big bang is established and we need an explanation – and an eternal creator (who doesn’t need an origin, similar to the steady state theory) is a more plausible explanation than no explanation and no cause.
2. Paley’s original design argument was based largely on the complexity of life on earth, and it was destroyed by evolution. It was replaced by the rare earth argument, which is still an open question, but with the likelihood of zillions of planets out there, the argument is less effective. But in the 1970s cosmologists discovered cosmic fine-tuning, and almost all cosmologists agree it is very difficult to explain. The design argument has been revived due to the work of cosmologists like Rees, Davies, Susskind, Penrose, etc, and is seen by some atheists and agnostics as the most powerful theistic argument.
3. Neuroscience and psychology are fairly dominated by naturalism, but this makes it difficult to explain free will, consciousness, ethics, even rationality itself. But there is a small but I think growing group of scientists who are challenging the naturalistic status quo, through study and documentation of NDEs, divine visions, mystical experience, paranormal phenomena, miraculous healings, the science of religion, etc. A number of philosophers have picked up on these ideas and are also challenging naturalism. It will be interesting to see if this science continues to grow.
4. More than 40 years ago I completed a degree in theology. At that time the dominant New Testament understanding was still extremely sceptical about the historical evidence for Jesus. But in the intervening period, New Testament scholarship has undergone a revolution, influenced by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (yes, discovered in 1947, but only gradually translated and assessed), increasing understanding of first century Judaism via archaeology and newly-discovered texts, and a lot of other work on culture and language, so that the historicity of Jesus and the basic historical value of the gospels (treated as any other texts, not privileged as being somehow holy) is now almost universally accepted.
Thus areas 1,2 & 4 have seen quite large increases in the evidence for christianity in the past 50 years, all due to scientific and historical scholarship, and it looks like #3 might be heading the same way. As result, I feel more confident of the truth of christianity than I did back then, though I also feel more problems because of the evil in the world.
I hope that helps your “angel’s advocate” a little. 🙂
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE
I have been doing a lot of research of late on your point 4 and I would characterise the material I have come across as less clear cut than is suggested in your conclusion.
Most scholars suggest that it is a mistake to see the gospels as history. At the very least all agree that if they were based on real events then those events have been re-ordered and potentially interpreted) with a Theological purpose in mind.
There is a body of opinion to suggest that some of the events in the Gospels (some people say all) are more a sort of pious fiction. What is striking is the lack of references to Jesus and the Gospel events in contemporary reports (I am not referring to reports from a generation later). The suggestion in the Gospels is that the whole of the whole place in an uproar in regard to Jesus, but if that was the case he left no discernible trace at the time (once again I am not talking about a generation later).
Some argue that the stories in the Gospel represent Galilee and surrounding areas of the time around a generation later, but not the purported time of Jesus’ life. I am not sufficiently expert to consider those.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE, further to my above point
Contemporary Non Witness of Jesus
“Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place—when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.”
There was a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth-century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “He [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did.” (Photius’ Bibliotheca, code 33)
More at: http://www.andrsib.com/dt/51_jesus.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Peter,
Yes, most scholars don’t consider the gospels to be plain history, but biography, which was history with a purpose, and thus the events were selected and interpreted with that purpose in mind. But ancient biography was still expected to be accurate history within certain limits. Scholar are very familiar with this, because virtually all history and biography written back then was the same.
That was why I was careful with my phrasing – I didn’t say 100% accurate history, but “the basic historical value of the gospels (treated as any other texts, not privileged as being somehow holy)”, i.e. quite sufficient to get basic historical detail, but having lots of areas of uncertainty. What scholars like Sanders, Casey, Wright, Evans & Grant (to name a few I am most familiar with) conclude from the texts is quite sufficient for my apologetic purposes. Here is a summary: Jesus in history and Jesus – son of God?.
Yes, there are places where scholars think the writers have modified or added to the events in the light of later events. Whether that is true or not is somewhat speculative, but I generally accept what they say. But it doesn’t change the facts they do mostly endorse.
A lot of what you read on the internet about the gospels is not well-based. For example, people talk about contemporary reports, as you have here, as if Jesus lived in the age of TV and Facebook. Back then, there were very few contemporary reports, oral transmission and small sections of written texts were available and broadly reliable, making the gap between event and writing, and between writing, and earliest extant text, and the number of copies, extremely important. And in these matters, the gospels are way ahead of any other ancient document. And there are four of them to compare, unlike most other documents of the time. Again, here is a summary – Are the gospels historical? and The reliability of the New Testament text.
Now whether you believe what they say is another matter, but I find the argument compelling based on the evidence. Thanks for the interaction.
LikeLike
“Thus areas 1,2 & 4 have seen quite large increases in the evidence for christianity in the past 50 years, all due to scientific and historical scholarship, and it looks like #3 might be heading the same way. As result, I feel more confident of the truth of christianity than I did back then, though I also feel more problems because of the evil in the world.”
I’m not trying to be rude, but this is a non-sequitur.
I agree that areas 1 and 2 can be seen as evidence for the existence of intelligent design by an intelligent Creator, but this in no way can be said to be evidence for Christianity. This intelligent design could well have been accomplished by Allah, Zeus, or the Spaghetti Monster.
This is why I never debate the origin of the universe with Christians. You will NEVER win this argument. Concede it and move on. However, once you have conceded this point to them, immediately go on the offensive: Ask them to give you good evidence to believe that Yahweh/Jesus is the Creator.
You have just taken the high ground from them , and you immediately change the dynamics of the debate. By conceding intelligent design to them (at least the possibility) you have blunted their offense, and put them on defense. They now have only one means of winning the debate: they must provide a rational, believable defense against your withering attacks upon their audacity, their unmitigated gall, in asking educated, 21st people to believe that virgins have babies and that three-day-dead corpses come back from the dead; eat broiled fish lunches with former fishing buddies; and then levitate into outer space!
Area #4: “…the historicity of Jesus and the basic historical value of the gospels (treated as any other texts, not privileged as being somehow holy) is now almost universally accepted.”
This again is a non-sequitur.
The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and the “basic” historical value of the Gospels (that Herod the Great existed; that Pilate existed; that the Romans occupied Jerusalem; that someone, somewhere really did write the four gospels in the middle and late first century, etc., etc..) does NOT confirm ONE single miracle claim, and specifically, does not confirm the core doctrine upon which Christianity rises or falls, as espoused by the overwhelming majority of Christians for two thousand years: that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is verifiable proof that Jesus is God, Creator and Ruler of Heaven and Earth; that he is the only way to God/eternal life/eternal happiness; and, that by rejecting him as your god (slave master) you face some form of eternal punishment.
Christians do not have a good defense on these issues. They are forced to fall back on assumptions and second century hearsay. That’s it.
Take away their offense. Take away their pseudo-scientific “intelligent design” position and they are stuck defending the nonsensical equivalent of prophets flying on winged horses and talking water buffalo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s time for bed on the West Coast, so let me close with this:
Modern Christians just can’t imagine that the writers of the Gospels would make things up…like virgin births, men walking on water, zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem, ascensions into outer space (or into other dimensions), etc. as part of their “ancient biographies”.
“…ancient biography was still expected to be accurate history within certain limits.”
But remember this: Paul said that he would do anything and say anything to convert souls to “Christ”. Paul was willing to LIE (and apparently did as he was forced to frequently defend against this accusation) to win souls. So why should we believe that the authors of the Gospels, writing 20-50 years later, wouldn’t do the same??
If inventing zombies to burst out of their graves on the day of the Resurrection, to roam the streets of a major city, chatting with old friends and neighbors…wins a few more souls to Jesus…why the Hell not throw it into the “biography”??
LikeLiked by 1 person
“But now the big bang is established and we need an explanation – and an eternal creator (who doesn’t need an origin, similar to the steady state theory) is a more plausible explanation than no explanation and no cause.” – What is it about theists that they can’t accept a simple, “I don’t know – yet” as an answer?
“But in the 1970s cosmologists discovered cosmic fine-tuning, and almost all cosmologists agree it is very difficult to explain.” – Absurd – Sagan explained it very well – there are untold billions of stars, many of which have planetary systems. Only a few of those are “Goldilocks” planets, planets that are “just right” for the support of life as we know it. There may well be other forms of life with which we are not yet familiar, and planets that would never support our forms, may well support theirs. At any rate, this planet was not such a “Golidlocks” planet, it supported the formation and evolution of life forms entirely unlike our own – in fact, its atmosphere was originally so high in nitrogen and low in oxygen, that life as we now know it could NEVER have originated here – only over eons, of early life decomposing, releasing oxygen in the decomposition process, was there ever enough oxygen in the atmosphere for oxygen-breathing organisms like ourselves to survive (in fact, organisms had to evolve an ability to tolerate oxygen, just to survive the change) – what kind of god would take that kind of ass-backward approach to a genesis?
“But there is a small but I think growing group of scientists who are challenging the naturalistic status quo, through study and documentation of NDEs, divine visions, mystical experience, paranormal phenomena, miraculous healings, the science of religion, etc.” – Really? This is what you’re going with? “The science of religion“? Talk about an oxymoron! What is it again that Nate sees in you? Clearly you take his affirmation as a carte blanche to spout nonsense.
“…the historicity of Jesus and the basic historical value of the gospels (treated as any other texts, not privileged as being somehow holy) is now almost universally accepted.” – What exactly have the Dead Sea scrolls to do with the historicity of Yeshua? The gospels have no historical value, they’re based entirely on multiple-hand, hearsay information that would never be admissible in any court of law.
LikeLike
Hi Peter, now to your next point: “Contemporary Non Witness of Jesus”
I haven’t read much on this topic, so I am quite willing to be corrected. But here is what I think I know.
There were several wannabe Messiahs around the first century. Josephus, I’m told, mentions at least 5 – Athronges, a Sarmatian, Theudas, an Egyptian prophet, and Jesus. Historians of the day tended to be interested in politics or “affairs of state”, and on these terms, Jesus was small cheese. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey to the cheers of a group of Jews and overturning a few tables in the temple – not much there to interest anyone, and this is how the gospels portray it – Pilate was hardly interested. Compared to this, some of the others were much bigger deals – they raised armies and mounted serious rebellions which the Romans some serious military power to put down.
So, what do Philo and Justus and other historians of the time say about these Messianic claimants? According to my reading, absolutely nothing! And nothing about other prominent Jewish figures like Hillel, Shammai, Choni HaMa’agel, John the Baptist or Gamaliel. And virtually nothing until much later even about Hannibal! The only one (I’m told) who mentions them all also mentioned Jesus.
So we are left with two possible conclusions. (1) on the same basis, we should assume that Athronges, the Sarmatian, Theudas, the Egyptian prophet, Hillel, Shammai, Choni HaMa’agel, John the Baptist or Gamaliel all didn’t exist either, or (2) we assume Philo, Justus and the rest weren’t interested in failed messiahs. It’s obvious what the solution is, surely?
So this argument is based on poor and anachronistic understandings of first century history.
What I find interesting is this – and I apologise if this seems critical. You have gotten your facts from Dan Barker, an ex-christian ex-evangelist who has no historical credentials that I know of. So much of Jesus mythicist and anti christian polemic on the web is similarly based in people who don’t always know what they are talking about. That is like believing Ken Ham about evolution.
If we want to know about Jesus in history, we should surely read the most respected historians like EP Sanders, Geza Vermes, Maurice Casey (all non-christians) or NT Wright, Craig Evans and Richard Bauckham (christians). They are highly respected, experienced, well-read and peer reviewed historians, and they don’t make arguments like Dan Barker tries to, because they have a good historical perspective.
I hope I haven’t been harsh, I don’t mean to be, I just feel strongly that people who claim christians are faith-heads and they are now evidence-based should do better than fool honest readers like you with poorly based information. Thanks again.
LikeLike
“Scholar are very familiar with this, because virtually all history and biography written back then was the same.” – So I take it you’re saying we can expect the same degree of reliability with the gospels that we find in Genesis, and with the story of Noah, or Job, or Jonah —
“And there are four of them to compare, unlike most other documents of the time.” – No, there aren’t. “Pseudo-Matthew” copied a full 90% of his gospel from “pseudo-Mark,” and then there were three. But “Pseudo-Luke copied 60% of his gospel from “pseudo-Mark,” so then there were 2 and a half men, starring Charlie Sheen.
Do you really see us as that gullible, Unk? We’re not Christians, you know —
LikeLiked by 3 people
“You have gotten your facts from Dan Barker, an ex-christian ex-evangelist who has no historical credentials that I know of.” – If it’s not too much trouble, Unk, could you please give us the credentials for “pseudo-Mark, “pseudo-Matthew,” “pseudo-Matthew,” and “pseudo-John”? Go ahead, make my day – say, “eye-witnesses” —
LikeLiked by 2 people
“There were several wannabe Messiahs around the first century.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi UnkleE
You can rest assured I have been reading somewhat wider than Dan Barker. I have just finished reading Raymond E. Brown’s 880 page Introduction to the New Testament. He is a someone whose credentials are widely accepted. Brown’s finishes his introduction by looking at the Search for the Historical Jesus. He is rightly skeptical about such activity, partly because as he admits we has in essence no information about Jesus except what is contained in the Bible.
There are some non canonical gospels that potentially provide more information on Jesus but these are pretty much seen by all scholars as unreliable.
So the issue about the historicity of Jesus is the lack of non biblical sources.
I have also read Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus Misquoted and and have been following the work by John Dominic Crossan. These latter two scholars both are convinced that Jesus existed though they discount the supernatural.
I have also investigated the work of others like Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Hector Avalos who tend to have more radical views.
I am currently reading Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘A History of Christianity’.
The bias of my reading has recently been toward those of a skeptical view because I had spent the previous four years studying Theology and had focused on had spent a lot of time reading people who were supportive of the traditional position. I often read these scholars characterization of the skeptics. However I had not read the skeptics position directly until this year. Having read some of the views of people who I had previously dismissed, such as Jesus Seminar co-chair Crossan, I have come to realise that there is more substance to their views than had been admitted by their critics.
There is much more I could say on these matters, I suppose I just wanted to assure you that I was not relying on people such as Dan Barker as the primary source for my views.
LikeLike
UnkleE,
If you don’t mind my asking, what is your view of Original Sin and/or the Fall of Man? If you’ve already written about this somewhere do you have a link handy?
LikeLike
Hi Peter, I’m sorry if I sounded like I was saying you hadn’t read more widely than Dan Barker. I was only referring to your use of him as a source on this matter we were discussing. And then of course I sounded off a little as well!
“So the issue about the historicity of Jesus is the lack of non biblical sources.”
But this is only an issue if we have good reason to think the Biblical sources are not any good. Most scholars don’t think that. Of course they are filled with supernatural claims, which scholars treat in various ways, but they are still considered good historical sources, especially Mark.
I can understand you wanting to read more widely than in your theological studies, but there is a big gap between what you may have read there and people like Crossan Ehrman, Price and Carrier! I suggest Casey, Sanders and Wright would fill in the gap a little.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying that.
LikeLike
Hi Ruth, I certainly don’t mind your asking.
I have been a christian for about 53 years. I think I only believed in the normal formulation of Original Sin for about the first 10 years. I don’t think the doctrine as often taught is at all Biblical, though there are some variations of it that may be plausible I guess.
For many years I believed neither in evolution (because I didn’t think it was proven or made sense) nor the historicity of Genesis 1-3 (because it is clearly written like a folk tale or myth). So I didn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve and I wondered about the fall. When I came to accept evolution, maybe 20 years ago, I began to think about the Fall, Adam and Eve, etc, again. I still believe that humans suffer from alienating themselves from God and each other, but I have come to the tentative conclusion that there was maybe no literal historical fall. But I wouldn’t pretend to know, and I honestly don’t care all that much. I think the NT stands on its own, and can fit with different views of the OT without much difficulty.
All this would be an issue with someone who sees the Bible as literal inerrant history, but even the Bible writers and Jesus (IMO) don’t treat their scriptures like that, so why should I? I find my belief in Jesus has stayed much the same while I have gone through these changes regarding Genesis.
So that’s how I see things at present.
How about you? How have your view changed?
LikeLike