Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[mwc]

Thanks, Dagnarus. I'm going to read what Josephus wrote, when I get to that part of the Bible.

www.josephus.org is a great Josephus site.

 

mwc

[agnosticator]

The Bible doesn't condemn philosophy either, just vain and worldly philosophy.

 

Are you pulling my leg or what?? If you truly didn't get the point of my post, you shouldn't respond as if you did. The sentence quoted above is the only sentence in your response that has anything to do with what I said. The new testament verses referred to clearly say that the christian is not to use ANY worldly philosophy in his belief system, as philosophy is "vain and worldly". You are being condemned by your own scriptures.

[Mriana]

Thanks, Dagnarus. I'm going to read what Josephus wrote, when I get to that part of the Bible.

www.josephus.org is a great Josephus site.

 

mwc

 

I'm not so sure it is great. The Josephus (JF Testimonium) account of Jesus is consider a forgery by many scholars. I don't see that on this site. Of course, I have not explored the whole site yet.

[mwc]

I'm not so sure it is great. The Josephus (JF Testimonium) account of Jesus is consider a forgery by many scholars. I don't see that on this site. Of course, I have not explored the whole site yet.

To be honest that doesn't concern me. I totally skipped the section on the TF on that site. I looked at the links to the translations and the other stuff they were doing with the time lines as well as references to the various items in his texts and they looked reasonable (I have all the texts on my system and it saves some searches). If you want to debate the TF to death be my guest but if you want to get up and running with all the OTHER stuff Josephus may have actually said in his 27 books (not including Life or that little paragraph in book 18) then the site is helpful.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

True and neither was Mark, Matthew, or John.

What's funny is that in Luke 24:51, it says that Jesus ascended into heaven the same day he appeared to them

While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.

But in Acts 1:3, it says Jesus didn't ascend into heaven until 40 days later.

After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over the course of forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Scholars agree Luke and Acts are written by the same person although most don't believe it was Luke who wrote them. Yet why is it that the same author can't even remember correctly what day it was Jesus went back into heaven if Luke is such a great and reliable historian? Or is this another one of those verses LNC conveniently doesn't use to justify the resurrection even though he at the same time claims the gospels have no mythology?

[centauri]

True and neither was Mark, Matthew, or John.

What's funny is that in Luke 24:51, it says that Jesus ascended into heaven the same day he appeared to them

The Gospel of Peter also indicates a quick return to heaven.

Jesus ascended without appearing to them at all.

Verse 5:

And it was noon, and darkness came over all Judaea. And they were troubled and distressed for fear the sun had set while he was yet alive, for it is written for them that the sun must not set on him that has been put to death. And one of them said, Give him gall with vinegar to drink. And they mixed and gave it to him to drink, and fulfilled all things, and accomplished their sins against their own head. And many went about with lamps, supposing that it was night, and fell down. And the Lord cried out, saying, My power, my power, you have forsaken me. And when he had said it, he was taken up. And in that hour the veil of the temple of Jerusalem was rent in two.

 

Verse 13:

And they went and found the tomb opened, and coming near they looked in and saw there a certain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clothed in a robe exceeding bright. He said to them, Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Him that was crucified? He is risen and gone. But if you do not believe, look in and see the place where he lay, that he is not here; for he is risen and gone where he was sent. Then the women feared and fled.

http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/peter.htm

[LNC]

You misread Paul's admonishment in Colossians, it says, not to be taken captive by deceptive philosophy...thankfully, I have not been taken captive by deceptive philosophy of this world.

I missed this tidbit. I like it. You're absolutely right. You have not been taken by the philosophy of this world. If it's deceptive or not, it's a matter of view. For the religious of course, reasonable, rational, and logical arguments of this world, are of course a threat to the delusional fantasy which religion maintain. So I guess we finally got it in print. I must say, I do agree with you finally.

 

Actually, the key point of Paul's admonishment is found in the words "of this world" and that is the differentiator between the philosophy to which I ascribe and that which Paul warns against. The interesting thing is that you could not use reason, rational thought or logic if God didn't exist. The naturalist cannot get there since there is no independent mind, just biology. Think about that idea.

[LNC]

I pointed out to LNC that he was going against his biblical directives in utilizing the worldly heathens' rational philosophy, and then he responds with irony! He won't get the humor either, I bet. Faith really is blind since he can't see that philosophy threatens the irrational new testament christianity he embraces.

 

Paul is not arguing against using our rational minds or philosophy since he is using both in making the argument. All you you are overlooking the key differentiator that he uses, so let me put the verse here in total:

 

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Col. 2:8

 

The key as you see in the highlighted portion is that the philosophy Paul warns against is according to human tradition and the elementary spirits of the world. That is not the type of philosophy that I use. What I use is philosophy that is according to Christ. I am not a naturalist (which is philosophy according to human tradition), I am a Christian.

[LNC]

Bullshit. You specifically stated earlier in the thread that the majority of biblical scholars agree that everything in the gospels is historically accurate, not myth. Everything means everything. If you admit there's no evidence to support this scripture and you admit this scripture is not important to validate the accuracy of the gospels, then you admit your earlier claim that the gospels are historically accurate and that there is nothing mythological about them is a lie and you must retract your earlier false claim. Either everything in the gospels is historically accurate as you claimed and so these verses are important to validate the historicity of the gospels or if you admit it's not an important part of the gospels to validate, you must admit it's mythological and that the gospels are not historically reliable.

 

You are going to have to point out where I said that, since I know I didn't because I know it is not the case. What I may have said is that certain accounts are accepted as credible by a majority of the NT scholars, but I know that the whole of the NT is not. So, again, if you have evidence that I said this, please produce it. I don't say that there is no evidence since it is evidence in and of itself. I said that certain passages don't have any outside or corraborating evidence, but then, that doesn't mean that those passages are necessarily inaccurate representations either, just that they have no corroboration. When I say that the Gospels are historical accounts, I mean that they are written like history not like fable or myth. Does that mean on that basis that they are true history? Not just because they are written like history, but we have much corroboration of many parts of the NT and have no valid reason to think that they are false and that is the way that historical accounts are treated by historians. I don't accept your faulty dilemma. Just because one passage may not be corroborated doesn't mean that it is false, and even if one part were shown to be false, wouldn't mean that the whole would be automatically considered to be false or myth. You don't have a good grasp on literary styles or literary critical methodology to make such a claim.

 

Do you not grasp the concept of circular logic? You can't use the bible to prove the bible is true. That would be like me using the Koran to prove that Islam is true and since you have no non-scriptural evidence that Muhammed was not visited by the angel Gabriel in a cave and given the words of Allah, then surely it must be true that Muhammed was visited by Gabriel and so you must convert to Islam!

 

You don't understand my argument or even your argument. I am not trying to prove the Bible is true, I am using the Bible as a piece of evidence for the resurrection which is a separate issue from whether the Bible is true. However, that is a faulty claim that is often used by skeptics against Christians and shows a lack of proper logical thought. You prove your mistake in your next sentence when you say that using the Qur'an to prove that Islam is true is wrong. Here you didn't make the circular argument of using the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an is true, you said to prove that Islam is true. And, one can validly try to use the Qur'an to try to prove that Islam is true without begging the question. However, it is not my job here to argue for or against Islam.

 

Whoopedoo, 145 instead of 200. Because everyone knows that 145 scholars is a minority view and the three or four conservative sources you cited must somehow magically be the majority because we live in a magical alternate universe where four is a bigger number than 145. It's obvious you need to go back to kindergarden and learn how to count.

 

For someone who seems to be so concerned about accuracy, you certainly drop your standards when it is you under the microscope. How is 145 people (BTW, as I said, not all are scholars, so I won't grant you that) a majority. What is the total sample size from which they are drawn. How many of the 145 are actual scholars in the field who are recently published in peer reviewed journals, currently studying and/or teaching in the field? I think your number will shrink significantly after a proper filter is applied. Wow, you are the one who is using new math - 145=200 - and you tell me that my math is bad!!? I would love to shop at your store.

 

Uh, I judge by facts and evidence? So, in other words, you don't judge a scholar by whether or not what they say is true, you judge them by whether or not you agree with them?

 

Right, that is exactly what I said. Unfortunately, you need to study the evidence in order to properly judge it which you haven't done regarding the people involved with the Jesus Seminar.

 

Again, you have no right to tell us that we can't insult your beliefs yet you can turn around and insult us by making judgment claims that we're all hiding behind smoke screens. It's obvious you're not interested in what we have to say and want to tell us what we really think because you magically know what we think better than we do. Also, last I checked, this was webmaster Dave's site, not LNC's site. If you don't like the way the Lion's Den is run, perhaps you should post in the Colosseum forum instead which is for more serious debates. You'd think the name "Lion's Den" would give you an idea as to what this part of the site is like. If we've posted anything that's violated forum rules, I'm pretty sure the mods would have warned us by now and I would have backed off if I was saying something inappropriate. Given that the mods have not said anything yet, I assume I haven't broken forum rules yet and I don't see why what we've been posting is any worse than what you've been posting.

 

Go back and reread what I actually wrote. I said to you to keep the insults coming as they show that you have no argument and instead hide behind the name-calling. Judging is not inherently wrong since you have done it throughout this post, it is being judgmental that is wrong and that is also what you have been doing in your name-calling escapade.

 

I also wonder why you keep reverting to this "you are not interested in what I have to say" claim as it is clearly false. What have I been doing all these weeks but reading and responding to what you have to say. How is it that you claim to be able to read my thoughts and intentions? I am not the one with hurt feelings, and as I said, keep using the names if that is all you have. However, I would have hoped that you could make more serious arguments so that we could have a more intelligent exchange. Maybe we can get back to that and drop this line of discussion.

[LNC]

Right back at you. All you need is a quick search of the internet to see the errors and fallacies in the Bible. We have argued with you till the cows came home and went back out again, providing numerous examples. You just give your typical LNC 'answering a question with 10' response and flat out deny there is a problem when it is starring you in the face. The flat earth and solid sky dome arguement you still haven't said jack on. Only die hard religious fanatics still cling to the ridiculous idea that the Bible doesn't state a flat earth with a solid sky dome covering it. Only die hard fanatics can say with a straight face that the Biblical flood and the creation myth are original and not at all copied from the nearly identical and older Babylonian myths. Only fanatics can say that Leviathan and Behemoth weren't monsters.

 

The is no difference between Christianity and any other religion being debunked. It's only you that continues to argue on and on to the contrary. Just like any mormon who still tries to hopelessly argue his/her faith

 

OK, let me ask you to be more specific with your questions. If you have specific verses or passages to address, please quote them rather than making these vague assertions. I know that these claims are all over the skeptic websites, but I will only address specific verses or passages as I have said in the past. Sorry if it requires you to do more work, but I am going to have to do the work of answering them, so it is only fair.

 

How do you know Medusa never existed, or that Poseidon doesn't have a trident or that Godzilla doesn't inhabit the interior of Neptune? Remember, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense.

 

You ask Han to cite evidence that there wasn't an exodus out of Egypt. Well, just like with the slaughter of the innocents in the NT, something of that horrific magnitude would have been recorded by somebody somewhere. There would be evidence LNC, and you know it. It would be like the Holocaust going unrecognized and unrecorded in the last 60 odd years. I think it's very telling that the major and fantastic events and happenings in the Bible all leave you faithfull empty handed and without proof. That is the very heart of the Bible's claims, the fantastic and supernatural. Without that, it is just a scattering of vague accounts of trible life from the bronze age on up to the Roman era of Israel. The very core of the NT has no meaning if Jesus cannot be proven to be anything more than an ordinary man. Do you see what i'm saying LNC? Without any proof to the main events of the Bible, nothing seperates them from any other old writings or myths.

 

As you mentioned in another post, Pilate has now been found to have existed. So what? My head will roll only when proof of the Bible's supernatural and miraculous events can be validated. Proof of a person means nothing LNC. However, proof of the impossible happening is another thing entirely. Proof of a man named Jesus is nothing, proof that he rose from the dead and was born of a virgin and raised the dead and healed the blind, etc, and the dead went out and preached is earth shattering. But like i said in the above paragraph, all you christians have is ordinary bland stories without any substance or flare to set them apart from Aesop's fables.

 

OK, again, you don't provide me with one shred of evidence for your claim, just empty assertions. Can you tell me how many babies were killed in Bethlehem? Can you even tell me the population of Bethlehem at the time? You seem to think that this was some huge event that should have been wall-to-wall coverage on CNN Jerusalem, so maybe you can fill in those details for me.

 

Now, I provide you with corroborating evidence that verifies a story in the Bible, a person that skeptics at one time doubted the existence of, and you say "so what?" You see, there will never be enough evidence to convince you if you just reject the evidence that we have with a mere wave of the hand. You say, "proof of the impossible happening" which says that you have already made up your mind and that no amount of evidence will convince you that the "impossible" could happen, since that would be logically contradictory. Now, my question to you is how you know that these events are impossible. What proof do you have that these events are "impossible"?

[LNC]

Is it very liberal? Do the best scholars date it to the 5th century B.C.?

 

"Traditionally, the Book of Daniel was believed to have been written by its namesake during and shortly after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC. Although this view continues to be held by traditionalist Christians and conservative Jews, it has been rejected by most[29] of the scholarly community since the end of the nineteenth century. While a number of conservative scholars accept a sixth century date, "for mainline scholarship... these issues were decided at least a century ago" [30] Even leading evangelical scholars have recently adopted this position, while in the Roman Catholic community it has been the norm since World War II.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_daniel#Dating_and_content

 

Not just on wiki, but everywhere i look it seems that it is predominatly the hardlined religious who believe it was written in the 5th century instead of the 2nd.

 

Wikipedia is not a Biblical scholar last time I checked. If you did look beyond that site as you claim, then you could certainly have posted a couple of actual scholars who date it late rather than early. The only basis that naturalists (who are the only ones who date the book so late) give for the late dating is the prophesies found in the book. However, even if it were written that late (a theory that only surfaced in the 18th century, post enlightenment I may add) it still has other prophesies for later events that are remarkably accurate (see, the 70 weeks prophesy). Still there are huge problems with the late dating theory that make it weaker and only one reason to lead toward it and that is due to a naturalistic bias.

[LNC]

Yes, and maybe aliens hit the guards with stun rays just before the Apostles came to steal the body

 

Did anyone else catch the screaming irony in this? On top of everything else you believe in your holy book, i would honestly not rule out the possibility of you actually believing this.

 

Don't hold your breath...

[LNC]

But Christians "rip a few words from the Bible and try to make them say whatever.." all the time. In one sense I do agree that if a person really wants to understand the Bible all the Greek/Hebrew studies are necessary since those are the languages it was originally written in, but my main point is that the concept that God would make it necessary to understand his word through all this effort and he couldn't make it more obvious or easy doesn't make sense.

 

Can you give me an example or two of where you think this is done? Why do you think that God must make the Bible understandable in languages in which it was not originally written rather than just make it understandable in the language in which it was written? The Bible is generally understandable in its translation when taken in context; however, in certain circumstances it helps to read it in its original language. The main problem that I am seeing on this site is that people are not using the passages in context, for which there is no excuse.

 

This statement is untrue. LNC, I have read many of your posts. You have been told many times by many of us why the Bible is wrong, yet you stubbornly ignore the evidence.

 

Just telling me that the Bible is wrong is not the same as proving that the Bible is wrong. If you want me to just roll over every time you make an unproven assertion, then we will not be arriving at truth, just at your preconceived ideas. Second, I have changed my position on the evolution thread regarding life surviving the late heavy bombardment and I did the research to check myself and found out that I was wrong based on some recent findings. No one else pointed that research out to me to show that I was wrong in my statement. So, yes I am willing to admit when I am wrong and even to check my own facts. Now, if you have evidence that the Bible is wrong in certain places, you have to do more than assert that, you have to give evidence. And, if I think that your evidence is faulty, it is up to me to show evidence to that effect as well.

 

I don't have assumptions about the Bible to jettison. After years of reading and study I decided it was false and so I had no reason to further pursue it. To "assume" truth or falsity about the Bible would mean I never took the time to read it or commentaries about it, and just came to a conclusion. That was not the case.

 

That wasn't the question, the question was are you willing to jettison your ideas if the Bible is right? Now, you seem to have already made up your mind despite any evidence you may see that contradicts your view, so I will take that as a no.

 

Congratulations on moving away from YEC, but you still hold views that don't conform to reality.

 

Yes, and it shows that I can change when the evidence leads me to that conclusion, contrary to your earlier claims.

 

Not often. The moderators here are very tolerant. After all, you have been allowed to post many pages. "Your ideas" are no longer "yours" when you believe something like Christianity.

 

I have also been temporarily suspended for posting an argument, not a personal attack. Why are my ideas suddenly not mine just because I follow Jesus Christ? That doesn't logically follow.

 

It is a threat. Heaven/with Jesus or hell is a threat. I heard it all my young life. It is ineffective with me, since I don't believe in Jesus or hell. I have thought these things through and none of them correspond to reality. I can't answer your question since it doesn't make any sense.

 

If you consider hell to be a threat, then there is a solution for that. Yet, you say it is ineffective as a threat, which means that it really isn't a threat. Real threats are generally effective in motivating a change in behavior.

 

You must admit most people do not use the word "data" with regard to the contents of a book, unless its a scientific or mathematical text. People don't say "did you see all that data in "Gone with the Wind"? I have plenty of grounds for regarding it as fiction. Others have pointed out to you many reasons why, which you reject.

 

Scholars do use data to refer to information in a book. It is a technical term to be sure. Scholars, even skeptics, don't consider the Bible to be in the genre of fiction.

 

Modern fiction authors set their stories in real cities or towns to add credibility. Why shouldn't ancient ones? H.P. Lovecraft set his stories in Providence, RI, does that mean the Old Ones or the Cult of Cthulhu is there today? The stories in the Bible are equally incredible.

 

Thirty years is still thirty years, decades from when the original event took place. Just to humor me, what fragments are these you are referring to?

 

Still, scholars don't consider the Bible to be in the genre of fiction, even skeptical ones. So, your claim of such is contra literary critical thought on the Bible. Again, you aren't arguing with me on this point so much as you are arguing against literary critics. Thirty years is not the hundreds of years later as you claimed for the authorship of the Bible. Do you know of any other works of antiquity that can boast fragments as close to the originals as the Bible? They consider this to be amazing. The Rylands Library Papyrus P52 is dated between 117-138 A.D., so it is technically between approximately 27 and 48 years after the original was believed to have been written.

[Deva]

Can you give me an example or two of where you think this is done? Why do you think that God must make the Bible understandable in languages in which it was not originally written rather than just make it understandable in the language in which it was written? The Bible is generally understandable in its translation when taken in context; however, in certain circumstances it helps to read it in its original language. The main problem that I am seeing on this site is that people are not using the passages in context, for which there is no excuse.

 

No because Christianity rather uniquely makes the claim that people have no excuse before God if they didn't hear about him. If your eternal destiny is dependent upon whether you properly understand a text it would make sense that God would make it easy to understand, if he loves us, as is claimed. That you admit one has to be a Greek and Hebrew scholar to make it out cuts against the character of God. If you can't see this, I can't help you further.

 

 

Just telling me that the Bible is wrong is not the same as proving that the Bible is wrong. If you want me to just roll over every time you make an unproven assertion, then we will not be arriving at truth, just at your preconceived ideas. Second, I have changed my position on the evolution thread regarding life surviving the late heavy bombardment and I did the research to check myself and found out that I was wrong based on some recent findings. No one else pointed that research out to me to show that I was wrong in my statement. So, yes I am willing to admit when I am wrong and even to check my own facts. Now, if you have evidence that the Bible is wrong in certain places, you have to do more than assert that, you have to give evidence. And, if I think that your evidence is faulty, it is up to me to show evidence to that effect as well.

 

I don't know why you have to go on repeating your change of mind on evolution. Believe it or not I have changed my position many times. I used to be a Christian. You have had tons of evidence presented in this thread by others that the Bible is innacurate on many matters, yet you stubbornly cling to it. What you regard as "evidence" is the second or third hand accounts by people who have been dead for 2,000 years. The only evidence that is, is that people believed certain events happened enough to write them down.

 

 

That wasn't the question, the question was are you willing to jettison your ideas if the Bible is right? Now, you seem to have already made up your mind despite any evidence you may see that contradicts your view, so I will take that as a no.

 

If some incredibly persuasive event happened in the present that backs up the Bible, say Jesus appearing before me and working some miracles that contravened the natural order, maybe I would reconsider. Barring that, I can't see it. So No.

 

I have also been temporarily suspended for posting an argument, not a personal attack. Why are my ideas suddenly not mine just because I follow Jesus Christ? That doesn't logically follow.

 

Since I am not a moderator, and I didn't suspend you, I can't comment. Your ideas are not yours when all you can do is quote from the Bible. Those are the ideas of the people who wrote the Bible, not yours.

 

 

If you consider hell to be a threat, then there is a solution for that. Yet, you say it is ineffective as a threat, which means that it really isn't a threat. Real threats are generally effective in motivating a change in behavior.

 

It is a threat. I didn't say I believed it to be true. Just because it is ineffective does not mean it isn't a threat. You are being silly.

 

Scholars do use data to refer to information in a book. It is a technical term to be sure. Scholars, even skeptics, don't consider the Bible to be in the genre of fiction.

 

You like to use the word "scholars" without listing who these people are. I was remarking on your peculiar use of the word "data", not what groups of people do or do not believe about a text. I will grant that it isn't a work of fiction in the modern sense, but that still doesn't make it true. Even if I granted that the experts don't think its a work of fiction, here you go again with "if a majority believes it, it must be true".

[Antlerman]

The interesting thing is that you could not use reason, rational thought or logic if God didn't exist. The naturalist cannot get there since there is no independent mind, just biology. Think about that idea.

Have you thought about the idea? On top of it, how the heck can you conclude God out of this line of thought?

 

I would not accept your statement there is "just biology". But I do believe that "mind" is an emergent phenomenon, becoming a thing in itself that is tied to and dependent on biology - but not the same as biology. Mind is mind, just as cells are cells, but composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, etc. These are 'independent' in the sense that their "world" of existence at each level does not concern themselves with 'higher levels', or directly interacting with the 'lower levels'. But they are all interconnected going upward and downward. If you were to remove cells, you would remove all higher levels that emerged above it. But if you were to remove "mind", you would not remove the lower levels. Cells would still exist. Mind emerged, evolved, just as any other higher level, such as cells from molecules, and molecules from atoms.

 

Nothing in this demands God as an explanation. I do think there is something significant about the universe and its systems and dimensions, but it goes infinitely beyond the overtly simplistic reductionism of your theology. I will be generous however to say that what it talks about, symbolically expresses at times a certain perspective of all this, but certainly not some analytical explanation of it, nor literal definitions in any sense. Your theologies are just as limiting as what you criticize with the reductionist and determinist in looking at life. You make it a one or the other choice, and in the end are the same.

[agnosticator]

I pointed out to LNC that he was going against his biblical directives in utilizing the worldly heathens' rational philosophy, and then he responds with irony! He won't get the humor either, I bet. Faith really is blind since he can't see that philosophy threatens the irrational new testament christianity he embraces.

 

Paul is not arguing against using our rational minds or philosophy since he is using both in making the argument. All you you are overlooking the key differentiator that he uses, so let me put the verse here in total:

 

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Col. 2:8

 

The key as you see in the highlighted portion is that the philosophy Paul warns against is according to human tradition and the elementary spirits of the world. That is not the type of philosophy that I use. What I use is philosophy that is according to Christ. I am not a naturalist (which is philosophy according to human tradition), I am a Christian.

 

The "philosophy according to christ" isn't philosophy, it's religious beliefs found only in the bible. The "good news" is not speculation or changeable by discovery and discussion. It is not a discipline. Philosophy is. Preaching and persuading are not philosophy.

[agnosticator]

The interesting thing is that you could not use reason, rational thought or logic if God didn't exist. The naturalist cannot get there since there is no independent mind, just biology. Think about that idea.

Have you thought about the idea? On top of it, how the heck can you conclude God out of this line of thought?

 

I would not accept your statement there is "just biology". But I do believe that "mind" is an emergent phenomenon, becoming a thing in itself that is tied to and dependent on biology - but not the same as biology. Mind is mind, just as cells are cells, but composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, etc. These are 'independent' in the sense that their "world" of existence at each level does concern themselves with 'higher levels', or directly interacting with the 'lower levels'. But they are all interconnected going upward and downward. If you were to remove cells, you would remove all higher levels that emerged above it. But if you were to remove "mind", you would not remove the lower levels. Cells would still exist. Mind emerged, evolved, just as any other higher level, such as cells from molecules, and molecules from atoms.

 

Nothing in this demands God as an explanation. I do think there is something significant about the universe and its systems and dimensions, but it goes infinitely beyond the overtly simplistic reductionism of your theology. I will be generous however to say that what it talks about, symbolically expresses at times a certain perspective of all this, but certainly not some analytical explanation of it, nor literal definitions in any sense. Your theologies are just as limiting as what you criticize with the reductionist and determinist in looking at life. You make it a one or the other choice, and in the end are the same.

 

Well said Antlerman! LNC thinks that our minds cannot exist without god's independant-disembodied-ghost-brain, but he doesn't explain HOW it would be possible. I have never heard such ridiculous and twisted reasoning such as this!! I can't take him seriously any longer. Whoever said he's a troll is probably right. Otherwise, he's closer to insanity.

[Ouroboros]

Actually, the key point of Paul's admonishment is found in the words "of this world" and that is the differentiator between the philosophy to which I ascribe and that which Paul warns against.

So supernatural, out-of-this-world philosophy is okay? Philosophy through spiritual revelation perhaps? Sounds like Gnosticism to me.

 

The interesting thing is that you could not use reason, rational thought or logic if God didn't exist.

I don't know if that is "interesting" as you put it, since I'm not sure that it follows.

 

If God must exist for reason to exist. Then how can God reason?

 

You're consistently coming back to the idea of an ultimate source of everything. Not only first cause of the universe, using Gilbert's hotel paradox to argue the impossibility of an infinite past (in current time and space construct, mind you), but then applying the principle even to though, reason, rationality, logic... How does Gilbert's Hotel apply on logic to prove a First Cause of logic? It doesn't.

 

The naturalist cannot get there since there is no independent mind, just biology. Think about that idea.

I have. Many times. And my answer is emergence. I believe the universe contains the potential of having consciousness. The universe is far more complex and intriguing to just reduce it to mechanics. I don't believe consciousness is independent of nature. I think it emerges from Nature, and it is an abstract and latent function from the processes in nature.

 

Let me ask you, do you remember where you go when you sleep? Why does our consciousness go to sleep too, just like our bodies? How can it be that we can use chemicals, and electrical stimulus, to affect the consciousness? To me, there are so many things to point to that the consciousness and the mind isn't independent as you say, it is very much interlinked. One of my kids is on medication to help her focus, because her mind wanders a lot. How can pills influence the independent mind? It's your turn to think about that.

 

But on the other hand, lets say I agreed that we do have some supernatural, independent minds, which can think and reason logically independently of nature. Why would that require or prove God? An alternative explanation could be that our souls/minds are eternal, and part of an infinite ocean of minds. When we die, our minds go back to that ocean to be born into some other being in some other world, galaxy, or universe. To have some independent mind doesn't lead to God.

 

And the last thing, just because the naturalist, or biologist, or the philosopher, can't explain the "mind" satisfactory to you, do you really think that it's logically correct to jump to one specific conclusion? Is the explanation always you belief, or could the explanation be something else? What I mean is that just because an explanation is lacking, it doesn't immediately jump to be explained by your religion.

 

So I say you're using a non sequitur argument.

[Skankboy]

I worry that most of LNC's arguments are really just variations of the "god of the gaps".

 

"We don't know for sure how this occured so god did it!"

 

For me, that is a very shaky proposition to rest your faith (and your eternity) on.

 

My 2 cents,

[Mriana]

Whoever said he's a troll is probably right. Otherwise, he's closer to insanity.

 

*Mriana raises hand* Er... That would be me. There might have been another person beside me, but I called him/her a troll among other things. (One of my Lwaxana Troi v Ferengi moments. )

[Antlerman]

The naturalist cannot get there since there is no independent mind, just biology. Think about that idea.

I have. Many times. And my answer is emergence. I believe the universe contains the potential of having consciousness. The universe is far more complex and intriguing to just reduce it to mechanics. I don't believe consciousness is independent of nature. I think it emerges from Nature, and it is an abstract and latent function from the processes in nature.

This is great. We're thinking and speaking in the same vein again. This is exactly what I said in a different way.

 

LNC is saying there is no other explanation than God, and here it is. An explanation. A very good one. A cohesive one. If it follows that the emergence of mind, or reason, or consciousness demands that God have this form, then God must also be human as human beings are an emergent form as well. God must be an atom; a molecule; a cell; a plant; a cockroach; a gazelle; a society; a government; an idea; a thought; an eyeball; and so forth.

 

His argument that mind proves god has mind demands the reasoning follow out to conclude a pantheistic deity, not the deity he prefers to imagine which is more human than otherwise, a god created by man in his own image viewing the universe as a human universe.

[Ouroboros]

So if Ludemann is to be believed in one thing, why don't you believe him in another, LNC? You pick and choose?

 

Your first question is an interesting one, Hans, but the second strikes me as an odd for a freethinker to ask. Picking and choosing is what all my years of liberal education trained me for (thank goodness, after all the black and white fundamentalist brainwashing!). Picking and choosing is smart. It keeps us from mindlessly following gurus. It pushes us toward personal enlightenment, to understanding that we may deeply own and love and be responsible for and to. One would be a fool to accept everything a scholar said hook, line, and sinker based solely on a sound or impressive thing the scholar presented in the past.

The way picking and choosing usually works is basically using the fallacy of stacking the cards. If you start with an assumption, and only pick arguments and scholars to support your assumption, while rejecting arguments and scholars without consideration which contradicts your assumption, you are guaranteed to fail to find any truths at all. You have to look at the whole picture before you pick.

 

LNC considers Erhman and other scholars to be non-authoritative when it comes historicity of the Bible and interpretation of its contents, while easily demand that we all accept some obscure archeologist from 100 years ago. By stacking the cards that way, anything he wants can be made true. It starts with a belief, before evidence, instead of reversed.

 

So no, I disagree. I pick and choose too, but based on first assessing the whole picture and all sources.

 

Credibility of a scholar (gauged in part by previous sound ideas) is a wise guide as to where one might put one's attention in a world awash with more ideas on almost any topic than anyone could ever process in a lifetime. But, for those who truly wish to think for themselves on a topic, credibility goes no further. To carry credibility further is easy and comfortable (so tempting!), but is not thinking for oneself at all.

Well, picking a scholar based on his credibility is absolute a good thing to do, but dismissing all the others--not because or their credibility or authority in the subject, but based on relationship to ones belief--easily can lead you to wrong conclusions. We can pick all scholars, but analyze why they take a certain standpoint, and on what grounds, but to completely dismiss them because they don't agree with our personal opinion will not lead to knowledge.

 

For instance, in one of my philosophy classes, we read both sides of all the topics we analyzed. We didn't read the promoters or the deniers only, but we read for and against, and then made up our own minds. Also, in one of the English classes, we learned that a good article or essay should bring up counter-points and argue them too, otherwise it is incomplete. So a good analyze requires to look at all the arguments, not the ones we like to pick.

[centauri]

...However, even if it were written that late (a theory that only surfaced in the 18th century, post enlightenment I may add) it still has other prophesies for later events that are remarkably accurate (see, the 70 weeks prophesy).

The 70 weeks is not remarkably accurate as Christians try to use it.

 

Still there are huge problems with the late dating theory that make it weaker and only one reason to lead toward it and that is due to a naturalistic bias.

Perhaps you would like to e-mail a former Christian preacher and Bible school trained theologian and correct his errors:

Chronological Problems in the Book of Daniel

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTDanielChronProblem.html

[dagnarus]

Right back at you. All you need is a quick search of the internet to see the errors and fallacies in the Bible. We have argued with you till the cows came home and went back out again, providing numerous examples. You just give your typical LNC 'answering a question with 10' response and flat out deny there is a problem when it is starring you in the face. The flat earth and solid sky dome arguement you still haven't said jack on. Only die hard religious fanatics still cling to the ridiculous idea that the Bible doesn't state a flat earth with a solid sky dome covering it. Only die hard fanatics can say with a straight face that the Biblical flood and the creation myth are original and not at all copied from the nearly identical and older Babylonian myths. Only fanatics can say that Leviathan and Behemoth weren't monsters.

 

The is no difference between Christianity and any other religion being debunked. It's only you that continues to argue on and on to the contrary. Just like any mormon who still tries to hopelessly argue his/her faith

 

OK, let me ask you to be more specific with your questions. If you have specific verses or passages to address, please quote them rather than making these vague assertions. I know that these claims are all over the skeptic websites, but I will only address specific verses or passages as I have said in the past. Sorry if it requires you to do more work, but I am going to have to do the work of answering them, so it is only fair.

 

How do you know Medusa never existed, or that Poseidon doesn't have a trident or that Godzilla doesn't inhabit the interior of Neptune? Remember, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absense.

 

You ask Han to cite evidence that there wasn't an exodus out of Egypt. Well, just like with the slaughter of the innocents in the NT, something of that horrific magnitude would have been recorded by somebody somewhere. There would be evidence LNC, and you know it. It would be like the Holocaust going unrecognized and unrecorded in the last 60 odd years. I think it's very telling that the major and fantastic events and happenings in the Bible all leave you faithfull empty handed and without proof. That is the very heart of the Bible's claims, the fantastic and supernatural. Without that, it is just a scattering of vague accounts of trible life from the bronze age on up to the Roman era of Israel. The very core of the NT has no meaning if Jesus cannot be proven to be anything more than an ordinary man. Do you see what i'm saying LNC? Without any proof to the main events of the Bible, nothing seperates them from any other old writings or myths.

 

As you mentioned in another post, Pilate has now been found to have existed. So what? My head will roll only when proof of the Bible's supernatural and miraculous events can be validated. Proof of a person means nothing LNC. However, proof of the impossible happening is another thing entirely. Proof of a man named Jesus is nothing, proof that he rose from the dead and was born of a virgin and raised the dead and healed the blind, etc, and the dead went out and preached is earth shattering. But like i said in the above paragraph, all you christians have is ordinary bland stories without any substance or flare to set them apart from Aesop's fables.

 

OK, again, you don't provide me with one shred of evidence for your claim, just empty assertions. Can you tell me how many babies were killed in Bethlehem? Can you even tell me the population of Bethlehem at the time? You seem to think that this was some huge event that should have been wall-to-wall coverage on CNN Jerusalem, so maybe you can fill in those details for me.

 

Now, I provide you with corroborating evidence that verifies a story in the Bible, a person that skeptics at one time doubted the existence of, and you say "so what?" You see, there will never be enough evidence to convince you if you just reject the evidence that we have with a mere wave of the hand. You say, "proof of the impossible happening" which says that you have already made up your mind and that no amount of evidence will convince you that the "impossible" could happen, since that would be logically contradictory. Now, my question to you is how you know that these events are impossible. What proof do you have that these events are "impossible"?

 

Explain how the Israelites wondered through Egyptian territory for 40 years, Invaded an Egyptian territory, and then finally remained in an Egyptian territory without mentioning any Egyptians at all in their histories after the red sea. Is just that they didn't want to admit that after they'd taken the promised land they were still paying tribute to the Egyptians?

[Ouroboros]

LNC has said that he isn't an advocate for the inerrancy of the Bible. I can't recall him demonstrating this, however.

I see. So he doesn't support the inerrancy of the Bible, but he still consider it to be an accurate historical document? My argument was against that he called it "accurate", or "correct." What is the difference between accurate and inerrant? Does accurate means it is accurate mostly, but not always? I'm a bit confused how to keep those two sides at the same time.

 

How, if at all, did you resolve the contradiction when you were a believer?

I didn't, because my belief filtered reading of the Bible excluded any thoughts of potential errors. I didn't know about most of the contradictions in the Bible until after my de-conversion. They were never part of my exit. And for the few I did know about before, I practically just were in denial. I refused to accept them as contradictions, and then went on believing.

 

Ok, so say we establish that the Bible is not inerrant. Where there are conflicting accounts, our options are that both could be wrong or one could be correct.

I think that most Christians take the view that they are all partially true, but none of them completely.

 

Another interesting lead. No idea about a reference? Anyone?

The only "evidence" is a mound, called "Prophet Jonah," with a Muslim shrine dedicated to Jonah on site.

http://www.crystalinks.com/nineveh.html

http://www.bu.edu/brownstone/issues/McClain.html

 

The alternative is what this Christian site claims: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-iraq.html

That the revival was short lived, and I guess that would be the only potential explanation to why there's no record of it.

 

I find it hard to believe that some 100,000 people would turn to Judaism, and immediately turn back to their old gods, and there's no record of it. You always have lingering effects, like a few people who does not go back in faith, and leave traces. Unless there was a genocide, which isn't recorded either.