In the comment thread of my last post, some of us mentioned that it’s hard for us to understand the point of view of Christians who believe the Bible can be inspired by God, without holding to the doctrine of inerrancy. unkleE left the following comment:
How is it that in everything else in life – whether it be ethics, or politics, relationships, science, history, law, even disbelief – we are willing to make decisions based on non-inerrant evidence and reasoning, but when it is belief in God we require inerrant evidence? I reckon your first thought might be that the stakes are so much higher. But that logic applies to disbelief as well. If we applied that logic, no-one would be an atheist because they didn’t have inerrant knowledge for that conclusion. You would not have any belief either way until you gained inerrant knowledge.
He then suggested that I might want to do a post on this topic (you’re reading it!), but there were also a couple of other comments that I think are worth including here. nonsupernaturalist said this:
My answer would be that ethics, politics, relationships, science, history, and law do not involve supernatural claims. When someone makes a supernatural claim, the standard of evidence required by most educated people in the western world to believe that claim is much, much higher than a claim involving natural evidence.
Let’s look at “history”. If someone tells me that most historians believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or that Alexander the Great sacked the city of Tyre, I accept those claims without demanding a great deal of evidence. However, if someone claims that the Buddha caused a water buffalo to speak in a human language for over one half hour or that Mohammad rode on a winged horse to heaven, I am going to demand MASSIVE quantities of evidence to believe these claims.
I think that most Christians would agree with my thinking, here, until I make the same assertion regarding the bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Then Christians will shake their heads in disgust and accuse me of being biased and unreasonable.
No. I am not being biased and unreasonable. I am being consistent. It is the Christian who is being inconsistent: demanding more evidence to believe the supernatural claims of other religions than he or she demands of his own.
And it isn’t just supernatural claims. Most educated people in the western world would demand much more evidence for very rare natural claims than we would for non-rare natural claims.
Imagine if someone at work tells you that his sister just gave birth to twins. How much evidence would you demand to believe this claim? Probably not much. You would probably take the guy’s word for it. Now imagine if the same coworker tells you that, yesterday, in the local hospital, his sister gave birth to twelve babies! Would you take the guy’s word for it? I doubt it.
So it isn’t that we skeptics are biased against Christianity or even that we are biased against the supernatural. We are simply applying the same reason, logic, and skepticism to YOUR very extra-ordinary religious claim that we apply to ALL very rare, extra-ordinary claims, including very rare, extraordinary natural claims.
And Arkenaten said this:
I cannot fathom how you can disregard something like Noah’s Ark as nonsense and yet accept that a narrative construct called Jesus of Nazareth could come back from the dead.
Personally, I feel very much the same way that nonsupernaturalist does. The first part of unkleE’s question that I’d like to address is his statement about nonbelief:
If we applied that logic, no-one would be an atheist because they didn’t have inerrant knowledge for that conclusion.
I think this depends on what one means by “atheism.” I’m not really interested in trying to determine what the official definition of the term is; rather, I’d like to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing within the confines of this discussion. When I refer to myself as an atheist, I simply mean that I don’t believe any of the proposed god claims that I’ve encountered. I’m not necessarily saying that I think no gods exist, period. And if I were to say that, I’d give the caveat that I could easily be wrong about such a belief. This notion of atheism, the position that one hasn’t been convinced of any god claims, is often referred to as “weak atheism” or “soft atheism.” Personally, I think that should be everyone’s default position. No one should be a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Christian until he or she has been convinced that the god(s) of that particular religion exist(s). If we didn’t operate in this way, then we’d all immediately accept the proposition of every religion we encountered, until its claims could be disproven. This would make most of us Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, and atheists all at the same time. Obviously, that’s ridiculous. So on those grounds, I don’t agree with unkleE’s assertion that we would need inerrant information to not believe something.
Furthermore, when it comes to the claims of Christianity, I can accept or reject them completely independently of what I think about the existence of god(s). Many times, discussions about the evidence for and against Christianity slide into discussions about whether or not a god exists. People bring up the cosmological and teleological arguments. While those discussions can be important, I think they are really just distractions when we’re talking about a specific religion. I’m okay conceding that a god might exist, so I’d rather focus on the pros and cons of Christianity to see if it could possibly be true. After all, it could be the case that God is real, but Christianity is false.
unkleE’s comment started like this:
How is it that in everything else in life – whether it be ethics, or politics, relationships, science, history, law, even disbelief – we are willing to make decisions based on non-inerrant evidence and reasoning, but when it is belief in God we require inerrant evidence?
To piggy-back off the comments I just made, I don’t necessarily require inerrant evidence to believe in God. I think the necessity for inerrancy comes from the kind of god being argued for. The Abrahamic religions teach that there is one God who is supreme. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, completely just, etc. I know there are sometimes caveats placed on those labels. For instance, can God create a rock so large that he can’t lift it? Arguments like that illustrate that being all-powerful doesn’t mean he’s outside the laws of logic. And the same goes for all-knowing. It’s sometimes argued that he knows all that can be known… perhaps there are some things that can’t be known? The waters can get muddy pretty quickly, so I think it’s best to refer back to the religion’s source material (the Bible, in this case) to learn more about the characteristics of this god.
In the Bible, God seems to be big on proofs. When God wanted Noah to build an ark, he spoke to him directly. Noah didn’t have to decide between a handful of prophets each telling him different things — God made sure that Noah knew exactly what was required of him. The same was done for Abraham when God wanted him to move into the land of Canaan, and when God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. When God called Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, he also spoke directly to Moses. And on top of that, he even offered additional proofs by performing signs for Moses. And when Moses appeared before Pharaoh, God again used signs to show Pharaoh that Moses did indeed speak on God’s behalf. Miraculous signs were used throughout the period of time that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness. And we can fast forward to the time of Gideon and see that God used signs as evidence then as well. Throughout the Old Testament, signs were given to people to show God’s involvement and desires. There are even examples where God punished those who listened to false prophets who hadn’t shown such signs, such as the man of God who listened to the instruction of an old prophet who was actually lying to him. God sent a lion to kill the man (I Kings 13:11-32).
The New Testament is no different. Jesus and his apostles perform all kinds of miracles as evidence of Jesus’s power. When the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, he pointed out how nonsensical that would be, showing that such miracles were intended as a display of God’s approval (Matt 12:24-28). And the Gospel of John also argues that these miracles were intended as evidence:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
— John 20:30-31
Not only did Jesus and his disciples use miracles to make their case, they also appealed to Scripture. Throughout the New Testament, you find references to the Old: “as it is written,” “as spoken by the prophet,” etc. That in itself doesn’t necessarily make the case for inerrancy, but it at least shows that they expected the scriptures to be accurate.
If God cared so much during the time periods talked about in the Bible, why wouldn’t he care just as much today? How can Jesus say that “not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away” if God’s not really all that concerned about how accurate the “jots” and “tittles” are? And yes, like unkleE said in his comment, I do think the fact that the stakes are tremendously high on this question makes it that much more necessary to have good evidence. While the Bible gives us countless examples of those who received direct communication from God or one of his representatives, we find ourselves living in a time when we’re surrounded by competing claims about which god is true, and which doctrines are the right ones. I used to believe that the one tool we had to cut through all that noise was the Bible. It was the one source we could go to to find what God wanted from us. And we could trust that it was his word because of the amazing prophecy fulfillments that it contained and that despite its length and antiquity, it was completely without error. In other words, I thought it was a final miracle to last throughout the ages. And because of its existence and availability, we no longer needed individuals who went around performing miracles and spreading the gospel.
That’s how I saw the world. Of course, since then, I’ve discovered that the Bible doesn’t live up to that high standard. I have many other posts that deal with its various problems, so I won’t try to detail them now. But I simply don’t see how the God portrayed in the Bible, a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, etc, would inspire individuals to write down his incredibly important message to all of mankind, yet not make sure they relay it completely accurately. It doesn’t always agree with itself, it contains historical and scientific mistakes, and sometimes it advocates things that are outright immoral. It’s understandable why a number of people would fail to be convinced by such a book; therefore, it would be impossible for an all-loving and completely just God to punish people when they’re merely trying to avoid the same fate as the man of God who trusted the old (false) prophet.
Finding Truth 
If you believe in God(s), anything can be evidence of that.
A tree falls next to your house – God(s) were looking out for us and saved our house
A tree falls on your house, but misses all the people – God(s) were looking out for us and saved our lives
A tree falls on your house and crushes a loved one – God(s) know best, or are testing us, or comfort us in our time of loss, or are punishing us/them for a sin.
A tree doesn’t fall at all – praise god(s)
Interestingly, all of those things can also be explained by, “shit happens.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
Sometimes we just need to accept that different people believe different things. We all once believed things that we now think are irrational. We all will probably realize later in life that some of the things we believe now are unjustified beliefs.
Belief isn’t about knowledge or intelligence. Christians are just as intelligent and educated as non-Christians. People far smarter than any of us believe in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and maybe even Scientology.
People believe for a lot of reasons — upbringing, culture, emotion, reason, peer pressure, evidence, personal benefit, deception, fear, hope, and no doubt many more. Most people believe because their parents told them to believe and their community (social group, church) reinforced it. Whether it is Christianity, atheism, Islam or whatever, it’s not hard to understand why most people stick with the belief they were born into and spent decades reinforcing.
All that to say, cut people some slack. It can be enjoyable and educational to debate, but we should all remember that we are all wrong about some stuff.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jon, that’s true.
All of it.
But, at some point, no matter the subject, once all the cards have been laid out in front of you, often there’s one clear solution.
It’s like discussing how many jellybeans are in a jar – sure, that’s kind of a guess.
But opening the jar, spreading the jelly beans out in rows and columns, it’s all of a sudden much less nebulous, right?
Most of here were once Christians. Many of us here once believed and participated in our churches, so we know that having faith or being a christian doesn’t make one stupid, but after laying out the jellybeans and counting each one, it is sort of confusing why anyone would still argue over the solution – unless of course they still weren’t away the jar had been emptied and aligned?
At some point, after the facts have been highlighted, it’s not really any more debatable than the color of the sky.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Most people believe because their parents told them to believe and their community (social group, church) reinforced it. Whether it is Christianity, atheism, Islam or whatever, it’s not hard to understand why most people stick with the belief they were born into and spent decades reinforcing. All that to say, cut people some slack.”
We have already done this in the past. That’s why they are perfectly willing to strap on explosives , behead or drown people who do not believe the same way they do. Perhaps if we send them enough human sacrifices, they will leave the rest of us alone. Hmmmmm Any volunteers ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, unkleE is obviously not the suicide bomber type. And I also think that beliefs can be more difficult than just counting jellybeans. Not that I completely disagree with what you guys are saying, but I think I’m a little closer to Jon’s sentiment on this one.
LikeLike
“Well, unkleE is obviously not the suicide bomber type.”
I have to admit I agree, Nate. 🙂
Jon’s statement, ” Most people believe because their parents told them to believe” caused me to think about what ARK has preached for years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I in no way want to infer that UnkleE is any less intelligent than we skeptics. On the contrary, he is a very intelligent man. But I think that for our benefit and his, we need to recognize that his primary attachment to his supernatural worldview has nothing to do with objective evidence. So debating him on objective evidence for the Resurrection, for instance, is pointless. No matter how improbable his supernatural Christian beliefs may be in the real world, as long as he is sure that Yahweh/Lord Jesus exists, ANYTHING is possible, and therefore highly probable.
His worldview is primarily based on subjective evidence: his feelings and his perception of events (perceiving rare coincidences as “answered prayers”). Until these foundational beliefs are brought into question, in his mind, no amount of evidence against the Resurrection or the inspiration of the Bible is going to convince him he is wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So I find it difficult to believe that anyone truly believes in the resurrection just because of the historical “evidence.””
Hi Nate, just when it seemed we may be winding down, you bring this up! 🙂 I think it is worth outlining how I see this without trying to present all the arguments.
1. Christians have won debates on the evidence for the resurrection. WLCraig uses it in many of his debates and he wins more than he loses, though I don’t know how much this plays a part in that. Gary Habermas famously won a debate (that seemed to be the consensus) with Antony Flew on this topic, and Flew later said that the resurrection was the best attested miracle claim in history. So there must be something in the claim worth looking at.
2. I notice Jon mentioned Habermas and the empty tomb. It is worth noting that in his paper in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, he surveyed 1400 academic papers by “critical scholars”, and one finding was this:
“A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb …. Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.”
3. Atheist and co-founder of the Secular Web, JJ Lowder did a study of the resurrection and concluded that both belief and disbelief were reasonable positions.
4. If the resurrection was a non-supernatural event – say, the disciples all demonstrated outsides the Antonia Fortress with placards saying “Stop crucifixions!” – there would be very little doubt about it being accepted as historical – we have many independent accounts, people kept talking about it as a formative event for a long time afterwards and it can be seen as an important factor in subsequent history. It is not the historical evidence that is lacking, it is the metaphysics of it that bother people.
5. Having said all that, I am more inclined to say I believe in the resurrection because I believe in Jesus, than to say I believe in Jesus because I believe in the resurrection. So I respect your view that it didn’t happen, it couldn’t happen, because there’s no way a dead man can come back to life except if God did it, and you don’t believe God exists. But once I believe, for all the reasons you know, that God exists and Jesus was/is his son, then the historical evidence becomes compelling.
Now I don’t want to get into what I think would be a fruitless discussion of whether the resurrection happened, but I just wanted to make the point that christians aren’t cowering in a corner trying to avoid the hard light of evidence on this. We believe the evidence is very good for those who approach it with an open mind.
Thanks.
LikeLike
“I think what’s less reasonable is seeing how the Bible isn’t all that reliable, but still thinking it’s somehow an authority on God.”
This is really the nub of our disagreement, don’t you think? I think your view is still based on the fundamentalist view of the Bible you grew up with. We both reject that. But what I have long found difficult to understand is why, having rejected the fundamentalist approach, you and others don’t accept a scholarly approach. That doesn’t necessarily lead to christian belief, of course, but I think it leads to informed belief or disbelief.
I take my views of the Bible primarily on reading it with an open mind, plus the views of scholars like CS Lewis, Peter Enns, and a host of NT specialists. That leads me to the view that the Bible started with legend or myth and gradually became more historical as it went on – the details on that don’t actually matter to me . By the time we get to the NT, we have good, though not inerrant, history plus interpretation. I think that is a pretty factual statement of the views of historians, and Bible specialists.
So of course Genesis 1-11 isn’t “all that reliable” as history, because it is an aetiological myth, with maybe some history, but a quite different purpose. But by the NT, we have as good history as we get for that period and place.
So my view is that, instead of saying (as you and others here do) that God should have done it differently, we should ask “Is there any reason God couldn’t have revealed truth this way?” And then “Is there any reason to believe that he did reveal truth this way?”
I can’t see there is any in principle reason to say he couldn’t have, so the question is, did he? That is the question I think we should be discussing.
In favour of this approach are many considerations:
1. A gradual approach is similar in principle to evolution.
2. Letting people learn for themselves is the best way to teach – as teachers and parents know.
3. The world is a mixture of good and bad, so why expect a perfect books any more than a perfect world?
4. “If you love someone set them free.” Most people accept that idea, so why not God?
etc
Now you always say something to the effect that the stakes are high, if heaven and hell depend on us believing, then God should give us more. But that statement too begins with a premise that I don’t accept, and I think also comes from fundamentalism. It too needs to be re-examined.
So I think we may be beginning to repeat ourselves. But let me finish by saying like I did in my post on the resurrection – I’m not directly trying to convince you or expecting you to suddenly re-convert, I’m just hoping you’ll see that there are other ways of looking at the issue. Thanks for that opportunity.
LikeLike
“I think that once this starts to happen it is a slippery slope to realizing that you’ve created your own imaginary friend that thinks a lot like you do.”
Except, Dave, if we base our facts on what the historians and experts tell us.
Of course we can still create our own reality, but that can happen to a fundamentalist christian (how many of them agree?), or a more liberal christian, or an atheist. There’s no stopping people making things up to fit what they’d like to be true. So it’s not a reason to oppose any particular viewpoint, I think.
LikeLike
Hi William, wonder no more …. 🙂
“I do wonder what UnkleE thinks about God’s test for the prophets of Baal, where the prophets of baal built an alter and then Elijah built and alter and filled his with water, and whichever God sent fire to consume their own sacrifice won.
1) Did that actually happen, or this also one of those events in the OT that happens to be bogus?
2) would god pass his own test today?
3) if god worked that way then but doesn’t now, then couldn’t Baal have not worked that way back then, unwilling to lower himself to such tests and baiting?”
1. “Bogus” is too crass and black and white a word. Many events are partly historical and partly legendary. As for this one, I don’t know, and I don’t actually care all that much.
2. Sometimes, but mostly not. Check out the temptations of Jesus.
3. Of course. Please feel free to follow Baal if you think there is evidence that way. I’ll stick with Jesus, for that’s where I think the best evidence points.
What do you make of those answers?
LikeLike
What bloody evidence , UnkleE! There is No Damn Evidence, only the bible.
You might as well say Harry Potterians have won debates on the evidence for Harry Potter.
It is palpable bullshit.
Now we begin to really see what Nonsupernaturalist was saying.
This is not the argument presented by someone who is genuinely interested in establishing truth and fact.
He is back to his conniving ways.
And he has still not made a case for why he is able to dismiss the mythological Pentateuch and accept the nonsense of the Resurrection.
He is a damn fraud! Little different than than wheedling bastard of old Eusebius.
And you lot are buying into it…. and playing his game.
And here we go again ….
What facts?
and What historians ?
For the love of the gods will SOMEONE on this thread have the gumption to demand that this man present a list of these historians and a list of these verifiable facts that he continues to waffle on and on about?
LikeLike
Every single Christian argument begins with a presuppositional statement namely:
The biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth was a genuine historical character.
Is there any non-biblical evidence to back this claim?
Answer: No. None at all.
So how can there be any discussion regarding a supernatural resurrection if we have not established the veracity of this character?
It is dishonest for any Christian to approach this issue as a matter of historical fact without producing some sort of verifiable evidence.
Winning endless debates means nothing other than one’s debating skills are better than the next person’s.
It is for such a reason you will never see Craig, or McDowell or Licona debate Finkelstein or Dever on the historicity of Moses and the Exodus.
Simply because there is evidence that flatly refutes any Christian claim of veracity for this biblical tale.
Sound archaeological evidence.
And it is for this reason that people like Woods and Kitchen are never entertained by any serious secular scholar on this matter and can only pander to the indoctrinated fear-based beliefs of Christians.
UnkleE cites Habermas regarding his empty tomb survey.
How many of these scholars are/were secular historians?
Is there a list of these scholars?
I have never seen a published list.
Has UnkleE?
Has anyone asked him to produce it?
Do a quick Google search for ”Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus” and the only secular historian on the first page of entries I saw was Carrier; and a brief mention of Prof. Bob Price ( I simply did not bother after that) and we all know what UnkleE will say of Carrier, do we not? He dismisses him out of hand.
Yet the arguments of McDowell and Craig are more reliable?
NT Wright, Sanders, JP Meir etc must be given due reverence?
If we are ever going to approach this subject with any genuine honesty, let’s first use terms that we all understand.
And when we say verifiable evidence we mean verifiable.
LikeLike
*Paul L Maier.
LikeLike
unkleE, “I take my views of the Bible primarily on reading it with an open mind, plus the views of scholars like CS Lewis, Peter Enns, and a host of NT specialists.”
Though Lewis was considered a Scholar in other fields, I find no where that CS Lewis was considered a “Bible Scholar”
A reviewer of Enns’ book , “The Bible tells me so” has this to say, “As might be expected, however, Enns goes much further than just correcting modernistic expectations about history. He argues that many of the historical accounts are just “invented” (76), “contradict each other” (76), and engage in “creative writing” (80) and even “myth” (119). The Gospel stories conflict all over the place—from Christ’s birth to his resurrection.
And yet the reviewer says this about Enns view of the Resurrection, ” Why is he now suddenly certain Jesus died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday? Why think Jesus rose at all? Perhaps the story has been modified to meet readers’ expectations. Maybe it’s been reshaped to address the needs of the audience. Maybe the resurrection is just a story that helps Christians remember that their god is “alive” and better than other gods. After all, we must remember what Enns told us earlier—that it is a “wrongheaded premise” to assume Scripture has to “get history ‘right’. Throughout chapter six he often refers to the actions and teachings of Jesus without any qualification about whether these things really happened or were said. Indeed, when it comes to the passages he uses to formulate his own interpretation of Jesus, he seems much less concerned to challenge their historicity.
“and a host of NT specialists” And who is an NT Specialist ? I think Nate might fit that category . 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the reply, UnkleE.
I think whether the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal is or not, doesn’t really matter, because it presents issues fro me either way.
if it’s real, and the test proved Baal wasn’t a real god, or wasn’t a powerful god, then why wouldn’t the test indicate the same thing today? I don’t think anyone reading here thinks that Jehovah or Yahweh would pass that test today, so what would that mean? If the test were real, it would mean that Jehovah or Yahweh either isn’t real, or he’s not as powerful as he once was… or it could mean that he just doesn’t care and wont be tempted to perform a sign – but if that’s true, then Baal would get the same pass, and that would make the entire test moot to begin with.
If it’s not real, then there’s just one more example of a miraculous claim being untrue or at least a metaphor or some other example or lesson – which could mean that the entire Resurrection and following siting are the same, instead of being literal, actual events.
And if we’re going on history, isn’t it the case that many once believed supernatural events (some healings, some miracles, lighting, comets, typhoons, etc) have been shown to be the result of physical and natural phenomena, while there have been zero proven cases of actual supernatural events resulting from supernatural phenomena?
And along with that, isn’t there ample historical evidence that people can sincerely believe falsehoods, that people can be mistaken?
LikeLike
I think the gospels and Jesus’ early disciples were built on something, so whatever that something was is sort of evidence for a man Jesus. But there being a guy named Jesus who had some followers is no more evidence for that Jesus being a deity as it would be for David Koresh or Jim Jones, or anyone else.
One could argue those guys had a certain level of charisma, but again, that in no way serves as any indication of deity or possessing supernatural powers.
LikeLike
Hi unkleE,
I mostly agree with your comment about the resurrection, and I also agree that this isn’t the thread to get into a long discussion about the evidence for/against the resurrection. In your point 5, you said this:
I appreciate your saying that. I tend to think that most Christians must fit into this category. It’s true that an actual resurrection would explain the evidence we have from the gospels and the growth of Christianity, but it’s not the only thing that could explain it, and that’s why I think most people believe for different reasons.
I think I have accepted a scholarly approach (not that I’d come anywhere close to qualifying as an NT scholar, though I do appreciate Ken’s compliment 🙂 ), but not all scholars are Christians. I very much feel that I fall into the “informed disbelief” camp.
I think so too. But to me, this is exactly what we would expect to see if the Christian god weren’t real.
And this is where you and I part ways. First of all, I doubt that you ask this same question of the Koran or the Book of Mormon, so why focus on the Bible? Because I think those two books could easily pass this same test. Hell, the US tax code could probably pass this test. But more importantly, the only reason you’re able to think God might have used a book like this is because you’ve thrown out all the reasons not to! A 6 day creation? Obviously, that’s allegory. A global flood? Just a myth. Commands to keep slaves and commit genocide? Just a barbaric tribe inserting its own views. This is the very definition of confirmation bias! If you tracked stats for a baseball team in this way, every batter would bat 1000, since you’re ignoring all the misses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ark, personally, I’m willing to accept that Jesus was real. I think the mythicist stuff is interesting, and I’m curious to see where that research leads. But I don’t know enough about it to argue for that position, and I’m not even convinced it’s the right one. I wasn’t really bothered by anything that unkleE laid out. Most importantly, he did concede that while he thinks the evidence for the resurrection is good, that’s not really what leads him to Christianity.
LikeLike
William…
Perhaps so, and yet — on the subject of religion — the majority of people on earth disagree with your solution (no matter what your solution is).
I like this analogy. It is sometimes frustrating that Christians think atheists don’t understand Christians. It is more frustrating when Christians think they understand atheists, but only offer absurd strawman reasons for atheism (you wanted to sin, you are rebelling against God, etc). I try to remind Christians (to whom this applies) that I have been where you are. You have not been where I am. Only one of us has seen both sides of this, and it usually isn’t the Christian.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I guess this is as close anyone (else ) will come to calling unkleE out!
Better than nothing.
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, it’s pretty much the same point you’ve been making about the exodus, the flood, etc. 🙂
LikeLike
Most Christians simply refuse to recognise the umbilical link between the Old and New Testament.
In truth I cannot fathom how it is possible to divorce the two and still call oneself a Christian.
Marcion recognised the problems this must have caused even back then and he wanted to do away with Yahweh completely. You know, this of course. Preaching t the choir! Sorry.
Why the church opted to hang on to the Old Testament I do not know.
I read somewhere ( I think) it had to do with Original Sin.
Is this correct, Nate. Do you know?
But the New Testament is also so fraught with problems; historical, geographical etc that to be able to single out the resurrection of Jesus ( and nobody ever mentions Lazarus do they?) and claim ”Historical Fact” when we have so many other Supernatural Garbage that is completely overlooked is, to my mind , the height of hypocrisy.
Why are there no Campus Debates about whether Jesus of Nazareth walked on water?
Where is Unklee’s scholarly consensus and Habermas’s hundreds and hundreds of scholars who state this was likely a true historical event?
(And just for interest’s sake, no other document of the period mentions the Sea of Galilee)
LikeLiked by 1 person
unklee
I agree that WLC wins most of his debates. The man is a master at the art and technique of debate. He really is very, very good. However, I would note that WLC tends to debate experts on topics outside of their own expertise. This gives him a tremendous advantage. But when WLC debates a subject matter expert on the topic of their expertise, things go far less well for him. For example, 1) his debate on morality with Shelly Kagan (the clearest debate loss I’ve seen for WLC), 2) his debate with Bart Ehrman on “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead”, and 3) his debate against Sean Carroll on God and Cosmology. I think those three were losses, because Craig was unable to take them outside of their comfort zones or make claims his opponents were unfamiliar with.
Flew became a deist, not a Christian. He said the evidence for the resurrection was “better” than for mother miracles, but he did not accept it as true.
I am very, very familiar with Habermas’ work. I would note that he has never published the data he cites as the basis for this claim. Never. It exists in a word document on his computer and I don’t believe even his co-author, Mike Licona, has ever seen it. I am willing to accept that Habermas has accumulated these references, but we have no way of determining whether he is using valid methodology, who he counts (theologians? historians? seminarians?) or how he evaluates an author’s position.
Then there is the fact that “scholars who write about an empty tomb” is bound to be heavily weighted towards scholars who are predisposed to believe in an empty tomb, in much the same way that “scholars who write about Joseph Smith” are more likely to be Mormons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You know, I don’t really know why the OT was hung onto. That’s an aspect of canonization that I haven’t researched. I may look into that…
LikeLike