Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
The difficulty with the bible is that aside from fundamentalist Christians, very few scholars regard the bible as completely accurate.To this day, there is still no corroborating evidence for key events like the "Slaughter of the Innnocents" and Exodus.
One striking aspect of the Dennett/LaScola interviews with non-believing clergy was their accounts of seminary life. This is how the authors summarise the comments:
In seminary they were introduced to many of the details that have been gleaned by centuries of painstaking research about how various ancient texts came to be written, copied, translated, and, after considerable jockeying and logrolling,
eventually assembled into the Bible we read today. It is hard if not impossible to square these new facts with the idea that the Bible is in all its particulars a true account of actual events, let alone the inerrant word of God. It is interesting that all our pastors report the same pattern of response among their fellow students: some were fascinated, but others angrily rejected what their professors tried to teach them. Whatever their initial response to these unsettling revelations, the cat was out of the bag and both liberals and literals discerned the need to conceal their knowledge about the history of Christianity from their congregations.If you distrust the summary, some direct quotes from the clergy are also available here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/Non-Believing-Clergy.pdfThat said, as far as I can see, no serious scholar regards the bible as complete falsehood either. In other words, each incident has to be evaluated on its merits and evidence.This is where the difficulty lies, and where the debate needs to be.
Still even if the majority of the biblical accounts are correct (and I don't know if it is), it ultimately has to be seen as a fallible book.
resonableatheist,
Exactly. There are christian historians who also admit that there are scribal errors and mistakes in the bible. Even the catholic church made a statement that the bible is not completely "factual and scientific" a few years back. And they are christians.
So I wonder why some people would go on and insist that the bible is perfect, even though it is clearly not. It is a beautiful book that has come a long way, but not without errors.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Servant,
End of discussion with you although i would very much like to give you sources and explanations.
Because you are on a monologue, expecting people to answer you but not answering my questions.
You can go on about your monologue and believe that a research study done by mostly christians to confirm the "divine jesus" is absolutely fair and free of bias. :)
On a sidenote, would you think that a study done by mostly muslims to confirm that jesus was just a human prophet is absolutely fair and free of bias?
You have on many times refuse to answer my questions and yet expect people to answer you. Yours is not a dialogue. It's a monologue.
Ah, so it is slander from you as I suspected. You better hope that the historians you've accused falsely do not stumble onto this thread...
-
Originally posted by Servant:
Ah, so it is slander on your part as I suspected. You better hope that the historians you've accused falsely do not stumble onto this thread...
Hi monologue guy, you're at it again.
Why dont you answer my questions?
Few possibilites -
1. Too difficult for you to answer.
2. You got no answer
3. You are on a monologue
4. You have the answer but dont wanna reply (which i seriously doubt)
And when you said "You better hope that the historians you've accused falsely do not stumble onto this thread...", lol.....I see what kind of argument you do here.
Servant
You seem to not have read the Mcdowell article. Most historians that Mcdowell quoted are dead. So can I know how will they stumble upon this? Oh I remember, you believe in a spiritual world. Probably their spirits might come here.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Servant
You seem to not have read the Mcdowell article. Most historians that Mcdowell quoted are dead. So can I know how will they stumble upon this? Oh I remember, you believe in a spiritual world. Probably their spirits might come here.
And so you think: hey, who cares because they can't get me anyway, so let's go ahead and say what I want about them.
OH MY GOODNESS
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
BIC:
1. Well, it is your prerogative to decide whether the omission of such key events as two talking angels and an earthquake is acceptable. Your argument about having three other gospels on backup is also suspect, unless you are telling me that the authors knew which other gospels would be canonized a couple of hundred years later. If I were narrating such a vital piece of history, I might conceivably leave out what the tomb visitors were carrying. I might even conveniently leave out who the full group of visitors were. Maybe if earthquakes were common in the area, I might even leave out the mention of a "great" earthquake. But I would never, ever leave out the fact that there were two angels, not only rolling away the tombstone, but also having a chat with the visitors.
2. The longer ending of Mark as a fabricated addition is only the tip of the iceberg. What about the Pericope Adulterae, another important story now widely believed to be an addition by an overzealous copyist? What about First and Second Thessalonians, which some believe to be forgeries by an author claiming to be Paul? What about the letters by Peter, who was likely to have been illiterate in Aramaic, let alone Greek? The reality is that once you accept that the longer ending of Mark was a later addition by some unknown author, then you have to concede that the bible is flawed. And once you concede that the bible has issues, you have to ask yourself: What other pieces of the bible have problems?
3. Your point about the soldiers being bought over to say that the disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:12?) says nothing about Ehrman's scenario. It could be that a sympathetic member of the guards stole the body, and they were happy to take the money to accuse someone else. It could be that the disciples did steal the body, but the guards had no evidence and therefore had to be bribed to say so. Your objection doesn't hold against Ehrman's scenario.
4. As I said, it is impossible for a layperson to determine the quality of Ehrman's scholarship, precisely due to attacks like yours. Which is why I've evaluated his arguments critically and tried to verify some of his comments with alternative sources.
reasonable.atheist,
1. Whether it is acceptable to me or not is IRRELEVANT. The author of a book has the prerogative to write and include what he thinks is fit. Your point about knowing which book is going to be canonised or not is rather suspect. The Gospels accounts were written by the apostles or their close associates to be circulated and read, and not because they were thinking about a future NT canon. Again what YOU choose to include in your story is YOUR prerogative. I don't see how this can be an argument against the truth of what is being recorded. It's one thing to say "hey, this fact is wrong" and quite another to say "if I were you I would have put this and that in". The former is a question of fact, the latter is a question of the significance that one attaches to a fact.
2. You beg the question by claiming that the end passage of Mark is a fabricated ending. And what about the John 7:53-8:11? This passage is not found in the earliest manuscripts but it is found in the Majority Text. Bible scholars are not ignorant of this fact. Controversy exists thus as to whether this was originally there or not. But assuming it was not there, so? What have we lost in terms of doctrine? And assuming it was there? So? Does it negate anything we already know? You fall into Bart's flawed reasoning that because there is some debate based on things we already know and for which there is room for debate and plausible resolutions, we should therefore question the entirety of the Bible and call it flawed. I call this blowing things out of proportion and hyping things up. Again the only reason why we can even do textual criticism at all and know such things is BECAUSE of the embarassment of riches when it comes to the quantity and quality of the ancient manuscripts concerning the Bible. You will NOT find such things in other ancient writings that can afford such a high level of confidence in textual transmission. So you should look at it from a balanced bigger perspective of things. Biblical inerrancy does not mean that the copy process is inerrant and infallible.
3. There's nothing much to say about Ehrman's scenario when he himself admit that it is unlikely! It's just an ad hoc speculation (which is not even new or novel) that he coughed up which is not even well thought up! Why? Simply because he prefers a naturalistic solution to a miracle. It's anti-supernatural bias at work, pure and simple. You speculate that the disciples stole the body. Is this even novel? It's right there in the Gospel! But are you aware of the arguments against this theory? I am surprised that you don't seem to know and even think that this stolen body theory is worth considering.
4. I boast not of any credentials to attack Ehrman, you have overestimated me. But what I know I read from those who do have the credentials to take him on. You have read Bart's works, so have I but I wonder if you have read books that counter what Ehrman said. If you need references let me know. One such book is "Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman".
-
Originally posted by Servant:
And so you think: hey, who cares because they can't get me anyway, so let's go ahead and say what I want about them.
OH MY GOODNESS
Servant, because you have a habit of just saying what you want to say and expecting people to answer you but refusing to address my questions on all the different topics , my discussion with you ends here.
No its not because I am so "scared" of your arguments. But in fact, I wanna leave you to your monologue.
At least, BIC responds to all my questions, although I dont necessarily agree with his arguments.
But you just "attack" our responses and refuse to answer our queries. Good forum etiquette there
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
reasonable.atheist,
1. Whether it is acceptable to me or not is IRRELEVANT. The author of a book has the prerogative to write and include what he thinks is fit. Your point about knowing which book is going to be canonised or not is rather suspect. The Gospels accounts were written by the apostles or their close associates to be circulated and read, and not because they were thinking about a future NT canon. Again what YOU choose to include in your story is YOUR prerogative. I don't see how this can be an argument against the truth of what is being recorded. It's one thing to say "hey, this fact is wrong" and quite another to say "if I were you I would have put this and that in". The former is a question of fact, the latter is a question of the significance that one attaches to a fact.
2. You beg the question by claiming that the end passage of Mark is a fabricated ending. And what about the John 7:53-8:11? This passage is not found in the earliest manuscripts but it is found in the Majority Text. Bible scholars are not ignorant of this fact. Controversy exists thus as to whether this was originally there or not. But assuming it was not there, so? What have we lost in terms of doctrine? And assuming it was there? So? Does it negate anything we already know? You fall into Bart's flawed reasoning that because there is some debate based on things we already know and for which there is room for debate and plausible resolutions, we should therefore question the entirety of the Bible and call it flawed. I call this blowing things out of proportion and hyping things up. Again the only reason why we can even do textual criticism at all and know such things is BECAUSE of the embarassment of riches when it comes to the quantity and quality of the ancient manuscripts concerning the Bible. You will NOT find such things in other ancient writings that can afford such a high level of confidence in textual transmission. So you should look at it from a balanced bigger perspective of things. Biblical inerrancy does not mean that the copy process is inerrant and infallible.
3. There's nothing much to say about Ehrman's scenario when he himself admit that it is unlikely! It's just an ad hoc speculation (which is not even new or novel) that he coughed up which is not even well thought up! Why? Simply because he prefers a naturalistic solution to a miracle. It's anti-supernatural bias at work, pure and simple. You speculate that the disciples stole the body. Is this even novel? It's right there in the Gospel! But are you aware of the arguments against this theory? I am surprised that you don't seem to know and even think that this stolen body theory is worth considering.
4. I boast not of any credentials to attack Ehrman, you have overestimated me. But what I know I read from those who do have the credentials to take him on. You have read Bart's works, so have I but I wonder if you have read books that counter what Ehrman said. If you need references let me know. One such book is "Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman".
BIC
1. Are you sure it's moral to allow the write to "write whatever he deems fit"??? So can I write a racist book or a book that denies the holocaust and teach them as facts?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
1. You seem to continually blatently commit the error of confirmation bias by quoting from websites that are deeply religious. I wonder why you are not heeding my advice. Maybe you dont care.
2. The first website is riddled with questionable content...
a) Self consistency - Yes bible is consistent in SOME areas but not all areas. Historians and scholars all agree on this. There are christian scholars who also admit that there are scribal errors and catholic church has also agreed that the bible is not 100% scientific (pls dont go into the "catholic are not christians" argument because it is very offending)
b) Consistent with the real world - I dont see how the "miracles" of "walking on water", "living in a fish tummy", "bird-bat" and "coming back to life from death" are consistent with the real world. Yes they are miracles claimed by the bible, but definitely not consistent with the real natural world.
Second website
a) You cant see the circular reasoning because you are in it. Maybe I should show you what you are doing -
Why is Sleeping Beauty a real and true account --> Because in the book it says that Sleeping Beauty ate, slept and kissed a prince. ---> Therefore the Sleeping Beauty story is a real and true account... and so on and so forth.
Tcmc,
1. If you accuse me of confirmation bias, I can also accuse you of anti-Bible bias. Is that how you wanna play this game? The issue is not being biased. Everyone is biased. It's a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with. As it now stands, you are committing the genetic fallacy. Just because I quote from Christian websites means it is to be dismissed? Based on what logic, that because it is Christian, therefore religious, and religious means false? If so, then you should see how sloppy such thinking is. You are not examining things on their own merit, but letting prejuduce and bias override the need to judge things OBJECTIVELY.
2. You said the first website is riddled with questionable content? Just saying so makes it so? What have you evaluated? Don't give me the sloppy reasoning that just because it is a young earth view means it is questionable. You are merely ASSUMING that evolution is the Gospel truth of origins but this is exactly the bone of contention.
3. Please note the distinction between saying that the Bible is inerrant in its Autographs and scribal errors in the copying and transmission of the texts. Two completely different things!
4. Or simply the accusation of circular reasoning holds no water. In effect, you are simply arguing in a circle here.
BroInChrist, you are arguing in a circle.
No I'm not.
Yes, you are. You just can't see it.
But I have seen and check and I don't see where the circularity is.
See? I told you, you can't see it because you are in it.
Duh.....
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Servant, because you have a habit of just saying what you want to say and expecting people to answer you but refusing to address my questions on all the different topics , my discussion with you ends here.
No its not because I am so "scared" of your arguments. But in fact, I wanna leave you to your monologue.
At least, BIC responds to all my questions, although I dont necessarily agree with his arguments.
But you just "attack" our responses and refuse to answer our queries. Good forum etiquette there
No worries, readers know why I've given up trying to answer your questions. I wanted to wish you all the best in reaching an understanding with BIC, but come to think of it, I don't think that's your intention.
Lastly, you may want to reflect on whether good forum etiquette includes slandering the professional integrity and reputation of others.
-
Sorry, double post.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. If you accuse me of confirmation bias, I can also accuse you of anti-Bible bias. Is that how you wanna play this game? The issue is not being biased. Everyone is biased. It's a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with. As it now stands, you are committing the genetic fallacy. Just because I quote from Christian websites means it is to be dismissed? Based on what logic, that because it is Christian, therefore religious, and religious means false? If so, then you should see how sloppy such thinking is. You are not examining things on their own merit, but letting prejuduce and bias override the need to judge things OBJECTIVELY.
2. You said the first website is riddled with questionable content? Just saying so makes it so? What have you evaluated? Don't give me the sloppy reasoning that just because it is a young earth view means it is questionable. You are merely ASSUMING that evolution is the Gospel truth of origins but this is exactly the bone of contention.
3. Please note the distinction between saying that the Bible is inerrant in its Autographs and scribal errors in the copying and transmission of the texts. Two completely different things!
4. Or simply the accusation of circular reasoning holds no water. In effect, you are simply arguing in a circle here.
BroInChrist, you are arguing in a circle.
No I'm not.
Yes, you are. You just can't see it.
But I have seen and check and I don't see where the circularity is.
See? I told you, you can't see it because you are in it.
Duh.....
BIC
1. You are too defensive. I am not anti-bible. In fact, I have mentioned many times that yes I agree that thebible has remained generally unchanged over thousands of years. I also agree that jesus most probably existed. I have also said before in some threads that the bible is beautiful and christianity can be appreciated like other religions too. But what I have a problem with you is that you quote all of your sources either from the bible or websites that are deeply "religious".
I can safely say that I do not commit the error of confirmation bias because I looked up the age of the dead sea scrolls from both christian and non-christian websites. I also look at both christian and nonchristian sources with regards to the existence of jesus as a person.
However, have you also look at jesus from the christian and non-christian perspective? I have asked you this same question before but you said its "impossible" to look at jesus neutrally if you are a christian or if I am an atheist. That's wrong. It's POSSIBLE to look at jesus or any book as neutral as possible if you want to. To do it, look at the subject of the matter from all perspectives and accept accurate information from all perspectives, which you are obviously failing to do so.
2. I have already demonstrated and explained to you why the wbesite is filled with questionable contents. Please read carefuully and address my a, b, c points.
3. I personally dont really care about what errors because my point is to prove that the bible is fallible, that it is beautiful but not perfect. And to me and to you, an error should still be an error, no matter a scribal error, translation error, or factual error.
4. Nothing to say on this
-
Originally posted by Servant:
No worries, readers know why I've given up trying to answer your questions. I wanted to wish you all the best in reaching an understanding with BIC, but come to think of it, I don't think that's your intention.
Lastly, you may want to reflect on whether good forum etiquette includes slandering the professional integrity and reputation of others.
Why dont u tell that to ur friend BIC?
Are u biased against TCMC because he is non christian?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
1. Are you sure it's moral to allow the write to "write whatever he deems fit"??? So can I write a racist book or a book that denies the holocaust and teach them as facts?
Tcmc,
Wow, the level of your misunderstanding of what I wrote is very high! The context of my statement is that each writer decides for himself what is fitting to be included in the account he is writing. If there are 100 events to write about, space and time contraints means he has to choose what account to include in his report. I did not say anything about fabricating falsehood. I was referring to selecting things to report about. Get this right.
Now, of course you CAN write the most racist anti-semitic book. It's a free country we are living in, well almost free anyway. You got time to write racist book and money to publish it? Then feel free to go ahead. But whether your book will end up on the shelves of bookstores and whether you will end up behind bars is another matter altogether. I am not in doubt of your ABILITY to write falsehood. But whether what you do write and publish is deemed lawful is another matter.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
reasonable.atheist,
1. Whether it is acceptable to me or not is IRRELEVANT. The author of a book has the prerogative to write and include what he thinks is fit. Your point about knowing which book is going to be canonised or not is rather suspect. The Gospels accounts were written by the apostles or their close associates to be circulated and read, and not because they were thinking about a future NT canon. Again what YOU choose to include in your story is YOUR prerogative. I don't see how this can be an argument against the truth of what is being recorded. It's one thing to say "hey, this fact is wrong" and quite another to say "if I were you I would have put this and that in". The former is a question of fact, the latter is a question of the significance that one attaches to a fact.
2. You beg the question by claiming that the end passage of Mark is a fabricated ending. And what about the John 7:53-8:11? This passage is not found in the earliest manuscripts but it is found in the Majority Text. Bible scholars are not ignorant of this fact. Controversy exists thus as to whether this was originally there or not. But assuming it was not there, so? What have we lost in terms of doctrine? And assuming it was there? So? Does it negate anything we already know? You fall into Bart's flawed reasoning that because there is some debate based on things we already know and for which there is room for debate and plausible resolutions, we should therefore question the entirety of the Bible and call it flawed. I call this blowing things out of proportion and hyping things up. Again the only reason why we can even do textual criticism at all and know such things is BECAUSE of the embarassment of riches when it comes to the quantity and quality of the ancient manuscripts concerning the Bible. You will NOT find such things in other ancient writings that can afford such a high level of confidence in textual transmission. So you should look at it from a balanced bigger perspective of things. Biblical inerrancy does not mean that the copy process is inerrant and infallible.
3. There's nothing much to say about Ehrman's scenario when he himself admit that it is unlikely! It's just an ad hoc speculation (which is not even new or novel) that he coughed up which is not even well thought up! Why? Simply because he prefers a naturalistic solution to a miracle. It's anti-supernatural bias at work, pure and simple. You speculate that the disciples stole the body. Is this even novel? It's right there in the Gospel! But are you aware of the arguments against this theory? I am surprised that you don't seem to know and even think that this stolen body theory is worth considering.
4. I boast not of any credentials to attack Ehrman, you have overestimated me. But what I know I read from those who do have the credentials to take him on. You have read Bart's works, so have I but I wonder if you have read books that counter what Ehrman said. If you need references let me know. One such book is "Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman".
1. First of all, you were the one who wrote: "And if you knew 3 other authors are also writing on the same series of events, perhaps you may not mention this thing or that thing because you think the other guy has also wrote it."
In other words, you are assuming that each gospel author knew what the others were writing, and whether their accounts would go into the canonical bible, and hence allowed some "slippage" in terms of mentioning key details. This is such a weak argument that I really wish you would concede that it was a mistake.
Second, go ahead and believe that two angels were talking to the witnesses, and that Mark and Luke just conveniently left this fact out, while Matthew mentioned only one of them. Maybe in those days, angels were pretty commonplace, so the authors of Mark and Luke went "bah".
But to me, this is the weaker explanation.
2. If we agree that a big part of Mark's account of the resurrection was possibly fabricated, then it throws the bible's account of the incident into greater doubt. As far as I can see, scholars seem to agree that there was probably an empty tomb, but the miracles beyond that are subjected to debate.
Make no mistake, very few people say that the entire bible is inaccurate -- so don't misrepresent my views. Instead, all I'm saying is that, given that there are some forgeries and inaccuracies in the bible, Christians should read the resurrection accounts with a bigger dose of skepticism.
3. As I've mentioned before, a miracle is by definition the rarest of events, so even if a tomb theft is unlikely, it would still be more likely than Jesus Christ going to heaven, "body and soul". You call this an anti-supernaturalist bias, sure, but would you automatically assume that Tan Ah Kow had been resurrected if one day you find his body missing from the grave? What if it was Ong Teng Cheong? What if it was the previous Dalai Lama? What if it was Mother Theresa?
Now, I know I'm not going to convince you, and I'm already going into re-runs. As always, when I debate with you, it's for the sake of other people. But I won't keep this going for much longer unless there are some new arguments.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
1. You are too defensive. I am not anti-bible. In fact, I have mentioned many times that yes I agree that thebible has remained generally unchanged over thousands of years. I also agree that jesus most probably existed. I have also said before in some threads that the bible is beautiful and christianity can be appreciated like other religions too. But what I have a problem with you is that you quote all of your sources either from the bible or websites that are deeply "religious".
I can safely say that I do not commit the error of confirmation bias because I looked up the age of the dead sea scrolls from both christian and non-christian websites. I also look at both christian and nonchristian sources with regards to the existence of jesus as a person.
However, have you also look at jesus from the christian and non-christian perspective? I have asked you this same question before but you said its "impossible" to look at jesus neutrally if you are a christian or if I am an atheist. That's wrong. It's POSSIBLE to look at jesus or any book as neutral as possible if you want to. To do it, look at the subject of the matter from all perspectives and accept accurate information from all perspectives, which you are obviously failing to do so.
2. I have already demonstrated and explained to you why the wbesite is filled with questionable contents. Please read carefuully and address my a, b, c points.
3. I personally dont really care about what errors because my point is to prove that the bible is fallible, that it is beautiful but not perfect. And to me and to you, an error should still be an error, no matter a scribal error, translation error, or factual error.
4. Nothing to say on this
Tcmc,
1. You have a problem with me quoting from predominantly Christian websites? Well, sorry about that. You just have to live with this problem. Just note that if you insist on dismissing my arguments BECAUSE of the Christian nature of the websites without examining the merits of the argument, then you are guilty of the genetic fallacy.
2. Then I can easily shake off your accusation of confirmation bias also BECAUSE the website I quote from also refers to non-Christian sources. You probably do not know this because you did not even bother to check things out for yourself. That's how "objective" you are.
3. What have you demonstrated, seriously?
4. Ah, see your confirmation bias? You said your point is to prove that the Bible is fallible. You started with that goal and you will want to see anything that will confirm that bias. Of course you will say you are "objective", ya? Yes, an error is an error. But if you completely disregard the DIFFERENCE between a copyist error and an error in the Autograph, that's sloppy thinking at work.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. You have a problem with me quoting from predominantly Christian websites? Well, sorry about that. You just have to live with this problem. Just note that if you insist on dismissing my arguments BECAUSE of the Christian nature of the websites without examining the merits of the argument, then you are guilty of the genetic fallacy.
2. Then I can easily shake off your accusation of confirmation bias also BECAUSE the website I quote from also refers to non-Christian sources. You probably do not know this because you did not even bother to check things out for yourself. That's how "objective" you are.
3. What have you demonstrated, seriously?
4. Ah, see your confirmation bias? You said your point is to prove that the Bible is fallible. You started with that goal and you will want to see anything that will confirm that bias. Of course you will say you are "objective", ya? Yes, an error is an error. But if you completely disregard the DIFFERENCE between a copyist error and an error in the Autograph, that's sloppy thinking at work.
BIC
1. So you do admit that you only quote mostly from religious sources. I wonder what would your response be if a muslim quotes from muslim scholars, muslim sources to "prove" to you that jesus was just a human prophet and not divine. Lol. I guess then confirmation bias only applies to others and not yourself huh? Special pleading fallacy? Another flaw?
2. Both websites are christian websites. Religious websites. I dont see any non-christian sources. Why dont you quote from a non-christian website regarding "using the bible to prove the bible"? Why dont you, right now, find a non-christian website that talks about using the bible to prove the bible?
3. I have demonstrated and explained why the first website is filled with falsehood. Please read again and address a, b and c --
a) Self consistency - Yes bible is consistent in SOME areas but not all areas. Historians and scholars all agree on this. There are christian scholars who also admit that there are scribal errors and catholic church has also agreed that the bible is not 100% scientific (pls dont go into the "catholic are not christians" argument because it is very offending)
b) Consistent with the real world - I dont see how the "miracles" of "walking on water", "living in a fish tummy", "bird-bat" and "coming back to life from death" are consistent with the real world. Yes they are miracles claimed by the bible, but definitely not consistent with the real natural world.
4. BIC, you're wrong. I dont start with a goal of finding errors. I read the bible objectively, THEN i found the errors. And THEN i look for evidence to support these errors. By the way, christian theologians also do admit there are errors in th ebible so I wonder if you are more well-verses than them. Even my expastor told me there are errors. Yes there are differences between a copyist error and a factual error but still it is an error and my conclusion is - the physical bible is fallible. What exactly is wrong with this conclusion when other christian theologians have said the same thing?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
1. So you do admit that you only quote mostly from religious sources. I wonder what would your response be if a muslim quotes from muslim scholars, muslim sources to "prove" to you that jesus was just a human prophet and not divine. Lol. I guess then confirmation bias only applies to others and not yourself huh? Special pleading fallacy? Another flaw?
2. Both websites are christian websites. Religious websites. I dont see any non-christian sources. Why dont you quote from a non-christian website regarding "using the bible to prove the bible"? Why dont you, right now, find a non-christian website that talks about using the bible to prove the bible?
3. I have demonstrated and explained why the first website is filled with falsehood. Please read again and address a, b and c --
a) Self consistency - Yes bible is consistent in SOME areas but not all areas. Historians and scholars all agree on this. There are christian scholars who also admit that there are scribal errors and catholic church has also agreed that the bible is not 100% scientific (pls dont go into the "catholic are not christians" argument because it is very offending)
b) Consistent with the real world - I dont see how the "miracles" of "walking on water", "living in a fish tummy", "bird-bat" and "coming back to life from death" are consistent with the real world. Yes they are miracles claimed by the bible, but definitely not consistent with the real natural world.
4. BIC, you're wrong. I dont start with a goal of finding errors. I read the bible objectively, THEN i found the errors. And THEN i look for evidence to support these errors. By the way, christian theologians also do admit there are errors in th ebible so I wonder if you are more well-verses than them. Even my expastor told me there are errors. Yes there are differences between a copyist error and a factual error but still it is an error and my conclusion is - the physical bible is fallible. What exactly is wrong with this conclusion when other christian theologians have said the same thing?
Tcmc,
1. I know my sources, so it is not as though you had to force me to admit to anything! Muslim quote from Muslim sources is hardly surprising to me. It's to be expected. Still, I will then evaluate what is being told to me. I won't make the fallacious argument that if it's from Muslim source it must be dismissed. That's intellectual integrity for you.
2. You don't see Christian sources because you don't bother to check footnotes! The website contains thousands of articles which quotes from many sources. If you tell me you have checked and did not see them, I say you are lying.
3. Have you really demontrated that there are falsehoods? Where?
4. The lack of consistency by itself is not sufficient to reject the Bible. For example, in the beginning God said all were vegetarian. Then after the Flood God allowed man to eat meat. Consistent? Nope. Error? Nope. Conditions changed so God allowed something He previously did not. To demonstrate error you have at least to prove there is a contradiction and some IRRECONCILIABLE things.
5. You are confused with natural laws and miracles. Miracles are by definition a violation of natural laws. To say that it is inconsistent with the real world and thus could not have happened is to beg the question.
6. You said you read the Bible objectively, yet I have shown how you are anything BUT objective. Intellectual honesty requires you to acknowledge your bias and to deal with it. If you say you are free from bias that already disqualify you. Do you know why I don't say I am free from bias? Because no man is free from bias. But that does not mean we cannot try to be objective as much as we can. If you are objective you would allow the Bible the benefit of the doubt, and rigorously go through all the standard apologetic answers that can be mustered against your objection, rather than assume that spotting some apparent errors means the Bible must be in error.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. I know my sources, so it is not as though you had to force me to admit to anything! Muslim quote from Muslim sources is hardly surprising to me. It's to be expected. Still, I will then evaluate what is being told to me. I won't make the fallacious argument that if it's from Muslim source it must be dismissed. That's intellectual integrity for you.
2. You don't see Christian sources because you don't bother to check footnotes! The website contains thousands of articles which quotes from many sources. If you tell me you have checked and did not see them, I say you are lying.
3. Have you really demontrated that there are falsehoods? Where?
4. The lack of consistency by itself is not sufficient to reject the Bible. For example, in the beginning God said all were vegetarian. Then after the Flood God allowed man to eat meat. Consistent? Nope. Error? Nope. Conditions changed so God allowed something He previously did not. To demonstrate error you have at least to prove there is a contradiction and some IRRECONCILIABLE things.
5. You are confused with natural laws and miracles. Miracles are by definition a violation of natural laws. To say that it is inconsistent with the real world and thus could not have happened is to beg the question.
6. You said you read the Bible objectively, yet I have shown how you are anything BUT objective. Intellectual honesty requires you to acknowledge your bias and to deal with it. If you say you are free from bias that already disqualify you. Do you know why I don't say I am free from bias? Because no man is free from bias. But that does not mean we cannot try to be objective as much as we can. If you are objective you would allow the Bible the benefit of the doubt, and rigorously go through all the standard apologetic answers that can be mustered against your objection, rather than assume that spotting some apparent errors means the Bible must be in error.
BIC
1. Special pleading. You can quote from most christian sources and not be sceptical about your own sources yet when a muslim uses muslim sources, suddenly your scepticism comes up and you need to "evaluate". Why dont you evaluate carefully all your religious sources? And neither did i say that if its a christian source, it must be dismissed. You are really too defensive! I'm saying your sources are OVERWHELMING christian.
It's like a hindu quoting hindu sources and telling you Lord Krishna is God and a muslim quoting muslim sources only telling you Allah is God and that Muhammed is his prophet.
IF you can accept a hindu doing that and a muslim doing that, then I have no qualms about you quoting christian sources only. Fair? Can you accept that? Or you wan special pleading?
2. You showed me 2 pages of 2 websites. You showed me 2 SPECIFIC christian pages because we were discussing - "proving bible with bible" and "circular logic". And when I fault you for quoting only christian sources, you suddenly tell me to navigate the whole website myself? HAHAHA! Talk about sudden change of subject. But well, you dont have a problem with quoting christian sources only, so why do you want so desperately for me to see the nonchrstian sources? I am confused!
3. So firstly you have agreed with me that the bible is not consistent when you said "The lack of consistency by itself is not sufficient to reject the Bible." Yes I agree with you. I do not reject the whole bible. I am just saying it lacks consistency and yes its not a valid reason for me to reject the whole bible.
BUT the wbesite says the bible can prove itself because its consistent. The issue here is not about rejecting the bible. I dont know why you brought it up. The issue here is that we cant use the bible to prove itself since you have also admitted that the bible isnt consistent. Or are you gonna say it is still consistent?
Again, you have also agreed with me again. Yes miracles are opposed of the natural world. THat is why the website is WRONG when it says the bible is consistent with the real world. It should say it is consistent with the "supernatural world" because like you said, miracles are opposed of the real natural world.
4. You didnt read did you? I said to be "as neutral as we can". I didnt say anyone would be free of bias. But seriously, you are not trying to be neutral at all. Lol. You are not even trying, thats the issue.
-
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED........................during the ''missing years''.........
after Sauron created Jesus.................Darth Vader taught Jesus all he knew.............
Jesus then spend most of the missing years in Narnia.............
-
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED........................during the ''missing years''.........
after Sauron created Jesus.................Darth Vader taught Jesus all he knew.............
Jesus then spend most of the missing years in Narnia.............
-
By far........from what I had read...........Susanteo2011 sounds like the most rational explanation.
-
Originally posted by Turbulent Times:
By far........from what I had read...........Susanteo2011 sounds like the most rational explanation.
of course my explanation on Jesus is most accurate..............
we're talking about a fictional character here after all................
in fact, Jesus's 1st disciple was................Harry Potter's ancestor..........
-
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:
of course my explanation on Jesus is most accurate..............
we're talking about a fictional character here after all................
in fact, Jesus's 1st disciple was................Harry Potter's ancestor..........
any proof? wait later people accuse you of BS
-
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED........................during the ''missing years''.........
after Sauron created Jesus.................Darth Vader taught Jesus all he knew.............
Jesus then spend most of the missing years in Narnia.............
I LOL-ed.
Maybe Snow White also involved.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
1. First of all, you were the one who wrote: "And if you knew 3 other authors are also writing on the same series of events, perhaps you may not mention this thing or that thing because you think the other guy has also wrote it."
In other words, you are assuming that each gospel author knew what the others were writing, and whether their accounts would go into the canonical bible, and hence allowed some "slippage" in terms of mentioning key details. This is such a weak argument that I really wish you would concede that it was a mistake.
Second, go ahead and believe that two angels were talking to the witnesses, and that Mark and Luke just conveniently left this fact out, while Matthew mentioned only one of them. Maybe in those days, angels were pretty commonplace, so the authors of Mark and Luke went "bah".
But to me, this is the weaker explanation.
2. If we agree that a big part of Mark's account of the resurrection was possibly fabricated, then it throws the bible's account of the incident into greater doubt. As far as I can see, scholars seem to agree that there was probably an empty tomb, but the miracles beyond that are subjected to debate.
Make no mistake, very few people say that the entire bible is inaccurate -- so don't misrepresent my views. Instead, all I'm saying is that, given that there are some forgeries and inaccuracies in the bible, Christians should read the resurrection accounts with a bigger dose of skepticism.
3. As I've mentioned before, a miracle is by definition the rarest of events, so even if a tomb theft is unlikely, it would still be more likely than Jesus Christ going to heaven, "body and soul". You call this an anti-supernaturalist bias, sure, but would you automatically assume that Tan Ah Kow had been resurrected if one day you find his body missing from the grave? What if it was Ong Teng Cheong? What if it was the previous Dalai Lama? What if it was Mother Theresa?
Now, I know I'm not going to convince you, and I'm already going into re-runs. As always, when I debate with you, it's for the sake of other people. But I won't keep this going for much longer unless there are some new arguments.
reasonable.atheist,
1. I was trying to give you a plausible reasoning for why the Gospel accounts differ in their reporting. Weak argument or not, the point is that it is hardly logical to reject the Bible based on such differences that can be easily explained. So long as a logical explanation exists, you have no case. Remember, I only need to demonstrate the reasonableness of belief.
2. Since when did I agree that any part of the Bible was fabricated? I was only saying that there is controversy over whether certain passages were in the original, and EVEN if we should remove them just for the sake of argument that there is no damage done to any core doctrines of the faith. So should those verses be there? It's up to you to judge since we only have recourse to extant manuscripts. One side will say go with the earliest manuscripts, another side will say go with the majority texts.
3. You commit the fallacy of appeal to majority. So what if few now believe in Biblical inerrancy? Truth is NEVER determined by numbers. I am sure you are reasonable to see that. The Bible predicts that in the last days the love of many will grow cold and there will be a great apostasy. What then? A prediction of Bible prophecy or simply because few belief means it is false?
4. If you prefer theft theory to resurrection theory despite the weakness and flaws in your theft theory, then you are simply being ARBITRARY. I have no quarrel with that. It's your choice. But still it will only be because you hold to naturalism. Why would you assume that because I believe in the resurrection of Jesus it would mean that any missing body necessitates a resurrection? That's a distortion of my beliefs again. You clearly ignores the fact that there are many good reasons to believe that Jesus resurrected. All your naturalistic theories to do away with the resurrection have been tried and found wanting.
5. I also know I am going into re-runs and not gonna convince you. Like I said before, I see people coming here clearly with the intention to engage in Bible-bashing and I am trying to give a reason for the hope that is in me. I try to give a REASONABLE defense. It may not please everyone but that's besides the point. Even apostle Paul when he preached to the Greeks in Athens did not have everyone coming for altar call. SOME believed, MANY scoffed, and SOME asked that he speak to them again.