Wm Lane Craig: New Discovery Proves Bible

[midniterider]

So "where" was God before he created time and space?  Yeah, gotcha now you damn theists. :-)

[Positivist]

Craig did not examine the authorship of the Gospels or even raise the topic.

 

 

The Bible is true because the Bible says it is.

 

Seems legit.

[Cousin Ricky]

In the debate I saw betw Craig and Bart Ehrman, Craig said, not only were the five (I think) accounts. He said they were independent accounts. I am surprised that Ehrman never challenged that claim. Maybe it's because Ehrman is convinced that there were five independent, pre-gospel accounts: Paul, Mark, L, M and something else, maybe the Signs Gospel.

 

There is the lost gospel of Q, which is independent from Mark.

 

Don't know where to fit Paul. Some critics make a point of doubting the authorship of the Paulines because they are not quoted by Justin Martyer in the mid second century, who you would think would quote them if he had them.

 

I wouldn't even consider Paul a source. He never met Jesus, didn't know anything about Jesus' life, and was not on good terms with the people who allegedly did know Jesus. The gospels and the Paulines obviously derived from different traditions, and in the 2nd century, it is conceivable that one could accept the gospels without accepting the Paulines. According to Wikipedia (citing New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge), however, Justin did make reference to some of the Paulines (including some pseudepigraphs).

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

In the debate I saw betw Craig and Bart Ehrman, Craig said, not only were the five (I think) accounts. He said they were independent accounts. I am surprised that Ehrman never challenged that claim. Maybe it's because Ehrman is convinced that there were five independent, pre-gospel accounts: Paul, Mark, L, M and something else, maybe the Signs Gospel.

 

There is the lost gospel of Q, which is independent from Mark.

 

Yes, I didn't mention that because as I understand it, Q is a postulated collection of Sayings, sort of like the actual Gospel of Thomas. I don't know how much narrative of action is supposed to have stood in Q.

 

 

Don't know where to fit Paul. Some critics make a point of doubting the authorship of the Paulines because they are not quoted by Justin Martyer in the mid second century, who you would think would quote them if he had them.

 

I wouldn't even consider Paul a source. He never met Jesus, didn't know anything about Jesus' life, and was not on good terms with the people who allegedly did know Jesus. The gospels and the Paulines obviously derived from different traditions, and in the 2nd century, it is conceivable that one could accept the gospels without accepting the Paulines. According to Wikipedia (citing New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge), however, Justin did make reference to some of the Paulines (including some pseudepigraphs).

 

Would like to know more about the proof that Justin quoted Paulines. I've seen differences of opinion on this. I understand that he did not quote Paul by name, although he does refer to the Memoirs of the Apostles.

 

-----------------

edited to add: I agree now that, while Justin does not quote Paul by name, he seems to use Pauline epistles. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 95-96 pretty clearly draws from Gal. 3. Justin progresses from "cursed is everyone who does not abide in all the things written in the book of the law, to do them" (Gal. 3: 10 / Dt. 27:26/ Dialogue 95) to "cursed is everyone hung from a tree" (Gal. 3: 14 / Dt. 21:23 / Dialogue 96), in the same order as in Paul, and with these Deuteronomy quotations doing similar work in the argument.

 

OK I will stop talking about Paul since I'm hijacking my own thread.

[bornagainathiest]

Joshpantera wrote...

 

"I mean that I'd like to see Craig put on the spot for mix matching old BBT singularity ideas with the newer theories that are beyond it.  Guth could point out that the new data does not in fact point to a singularity matching the creation ex nihilo ideas Craig is pushing."

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry for the delay in responding Josh!

 

Yes, I'd like to see that as well.

 

But I still retain a measure of doubt as to Guth actually nailing Craig with anything concrete. 

He could skewer him on his inconsistent use of theory, but that's as far as I think it might go.  This is the unsatisfying state of play at the moment.  There's much theorizing and some evidence, but nothing iron-clad or definitive.  If things were as black-and-white as we'd like, then we wouldn't just be reading speculations and theories about the multiverse on the blogs of various physicists and cosmologists.  https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ We'd be seeing Inflation and Quantum Gravity dominating every headline on every newspaper, the world over.  We'd be seeing images and diagrams of these other pocket universes blazoned across every TV screen.  We'd be seeing lengthy, primetime interviews with Guth and Linde and Max Tegmark.  We'd also see a global backlash against this news by billions of ordinary people who can't understand or deal with the idea that they aren't unique individuals.

 

But none of that's happening, is it?

That's because the likes of WLC still have enough wriggle room in the gray area between theory and established fact to tout their theistic ideas and avoid being held to account - except in places like Ex-C.  Also, nobody can force them to play by the ground rules of science and logic if they don't want to.  Which is why scientific best practice, up-front honesty and complete transparency in Christian apologetics will always yield to the "inner conviction of the Holy Spook".  Which explains why, so long as Craig can mix and match cosmologies to suit his agenda - he'll do so.  Which also explains why such necessary guidelines as the Copernican and Cosmological principles are ignored by him.  And so on. 

 

In the meantime, our role can be neatly stated by paraphrasing Job:5: 12 & 13.

"We thwart the plans of WLC, so that his hands achieve no success.

We catch him in his craftiness, and his schemes, no matter how wily are swept away."

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

[Joshpantera]

^