Continued Discussion With Lnc

[Ouroboros]

Yes, it most certainly does, because once again, like many Xians, he makes no sense.

And we know that there's another word for "no sense," which is "nonsense." Which is what Christianity really is, just plain old nonsense.

[mwc]

It all boils down to this argument:

 

1) I can't prove God does not exist.

2) It is then possible that God could exist.

3) Since God could possibly exist, then God is likely to exist

4) Because God is likely to exist, God must exist

5) Therefore God exists.

I simplified the argument down to how it usually winds up getting presented (and #1 isn't technically required).

 

Thanks for all the article quotes about the Bible original. It sounds like they're heading for multiple "originals" rather than just one. Right?

To quote from the linked footnote article:

Our earlier survey of the use of the term "original text" in text-critical handbooks permits the deduction that over several generations New Testament textual critics have been socialized into thinking of a single original text as their object. That approach, in turn, may suggest at first glance that the text-critical discipline, too, is necessarily concerned with authority. After all, in simpler times, this single "original text" was more often than not identified with the autographs, and the autographs with the canonical, authoritative New Testament text that was the standard for Christian faith and practice (as, for example, in Nolan [discussed earlier]: "the genuine text of the sacred canon"[105]). Recent and current views are making it clear, however, that no easy equivalence exists between "original" texts and "canonical" texts, because each term is multivalent. Thus, there is no more a single "canonical" text than there is a single "original"; our multiplicities of texts may all have been canonical (that is, authoritative) at some time and place. To paraphrase Parker, the canon of the New Testament should be viewed "as a free, or perhaps, a living canon" and therefore "the concept of a canon that is fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature has to be abandoned."[106]The same vitality, the same fluidity that can be observed in textual variation carries over to canonicity.

So which groups and which texts contained the "right" information and which contained the "wrong" information? The assumption has been to simply find the autographs of what was in the current NT and that would be "right" but how do we know? Such items may not even exist. There may be "originals" for our current NT but not autographs.

 

Can you see the distinction? It's subtle. Kind of like a revision. This may help. Think of Mickey Mouse. There's the original one from way back (I can't remember the date). And since then he's gone through a number of revisions. He's still Mickey Mouse though. You may even find a knock-off or two (until Disney sues those heretical mice out of existence). But was Mickey a truly "original" creation? We're told he was but at the same time we're told of Oswald Rabbit. Would Oswald be the proper "autograph" for Mickey? Meaning if really didn't know the story behind all of this and put these two characters side-by-side would you be able to say that Mickey came from Oswald? Or would the evidence be such that you'd note the similarities but ultimately have to dismiss it? You'd never find Oswald tracing through Mickey. You'd never find Mickey through Oswald. There's a little "gap." But all the Mickey's go back to that "original" Mickey and that's as close as you're going to get to that "autograph."

 

mwc

[oddbird1963]

 

To quote from the linked footnote article:

Our earlier survey of the use of the term "original text" in text-critical handbooks permits the deduction that over several generations New Testament textual critics have been socialized into thinking of a single original text as their object. That approach, in turn, may suggest at first glance that the text-critical discipline, too, is necessarily concerned with authority. After all, in simpler times, this single "original text" was more often than not identified with the autographs, and the autographs with the canonical, authoritative New Testament text that was the standard for Christian faith and practice (as, for example, in Nolan [discussed earlier]: "the genuine text of the sacred canon"[105]). Recent and current views are making it clear, however, that no easy equivalence exists between "original" texts and "canonical" texts, because each term is multivalent. Thus, there is no more a single "canonical" text than there is a single "original"; our multiplicities of texts may all have been canonical (that is, authoritative) at some time and place. To paraphrase Parker, the canon of the New Testament should be viewed "as a free, or perhaps, a living canon" and therefore "the concept of a canon that is fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature has to be abandoned."[106]The same vitality, the same fluidity that can be observed in textual variation carries over to canonicity.

So which groups and which texts contained the "right" information and which contained the "wrong" information? The assumption has been to simply find the autographs of what was in the current NT and that would be "right" but how do we know? Such items may not even exist. There may be "originals" for our current NT but not autographs.

 

Can you see the distinction? It's subtle. Kind of like a revision. This may help. Think of Mickey Mouse. There's the original one from way back (I can't remember the date). And since then he's gone through a number of revisions. He's still Mickey Mouse though. You may even find a knock-off or two (until Disney sues those heretical mice out of existence). But was Mickey a truly "original" creation? We're told he was but at the same time we're told of Oswald Rabbit. Would Oswald be the proper "autograph" for Mickey? Meaning if really didn't know the story behind all of this and put these two characters side-by-side would you be able to say that Mickey came from Oswald? Or would the evidence be such that you'd note the similarities but ultimately have to dismiss it? You'd never find Oswald tracing through Mickey. You'd never find Mickey through Oswald. There's a little "gap." But all the Mickey's go back to that "original" Mickey and that's as close as you're going to get to that "autograph."

 

mwc

Interesting stuff! You find a lot of inspiration from Mickey, don't you?

[mwc]

Interesting stuff! You find a lot of inspiration from Mickey, don't you?

I've had annual passes for Disney World and Disneyland (though far more often for the latter since it's less than an hour drive away). I went to WDW (Disney World) on my honeymoon (and hated it). Went back 10 years later (for our anniversary) and loved it. I mentioned it when I first got here but my avatar is a cropped photo from a WDW trip. I'm actually off to the side by myself (my wife took the photo) in front of a Star Wars Weekend billboard at MGM Studios (it's best I crop all those photos since I do not do well in the Florida heat and humidity...death warmed over is a compliment). I've been to Disneyland about a zillion times over the years (I get the annual pass so I can go, maybe ride one or two things or have lunch and leave...I rarely spend the day there because I hate lines and crowds).

 

Personally, I like Donald Duck better than Mickey.

 

Oh well, how's that for way too much info? I've got nothing else to do at the moment...

 

Edit: To prove I've nothing better to do I found a low-res image of the billboard at some website:

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Thanks MWC,

 

It's always interesting to read your input, since you back it up with real arguments and facts. And I like the MM analogy, it explains it very well.

[LNC]

 

How does this change in Luke completely change Luke's portrayal of Jesus?

I don't know why I should bother. Every time I bring up a variant or a bible verse that there's no evidence for, you say you don't need that part of the bible anyway. For someone who claims to believe in the historical accuracy of the great historian Luke, you seem to have such little respect for all these scriptures you keep discarding as being unimportant.

 

I think you misunderstood my point as I am not arguing about inerrancy or infallibility here. I am simply saying that given the variant, either reading of it does not really affect our overall view of Jesus when taken in the whole of Luke. I also argued that Ehrman makes a weak case for his reading given that it is the minority reading and not the one that the vast majority of scholars deem to be the original. However, either reading will not drastically impact our view of Jesus.

 

Second, there is a difference between arguing for inerrancy and arguing from the text as history. I thought that I made that clear, but apparently you didn't catch that in my explanation. For the purposes of arguing the text as history, which historians do, you cannot assume inerrancy as a part of the argument. In that case, questionable passages from a historical perspective (i.e., not multiply attested, later, or has a variant reading, etc.) are given lesser weight evidentially than those that are multiply attested, early, early, and without variant. I am simply approaching these texts by in that manner for the sake of argument and to avoid being accused of special pleading on the basis of inspiration or inerrancy. Is that fair?

[LNC]

If Erhman doesn't believe that we can get back to what was in the originals, then he is misleading millions of people in his enterprise to try to explain where the variants are and what is the proper reading of the original.

 

Proper reading? And that would be what? You're interpretation? You're dogmatic ideology of what they say? IMHO, that is not a proper reading of religious texts. That is a bias, twisted view of religious text, in particularly Xian texts. You do realize there were other denominations of Xianity before "canon" as created by humans that were killed or forcefully assimilated into one collective thought.

 

Apparently, you are not aware of the methods of textual criticism that are used to determine the best reading of the variants. It should have nothing to do with personal biases; however, I think that Ehrman has been caught on this a few times. BTW, denominationalism has nothing to do with textual criticism either. You apparently are not familiar with church history either. But maybe you could enlighten me as to what those denominations were that existed before the NT canon was established and point me to your historical evidence showing that people were killed or forcefully assimilated into one collective thought. BTW, The Da Vinci Code does not count as historical evidence - it is fiction.

 

Religious criticism. That is the textual criticism I use. I esp like to read The Journal of Higher Criticism, CSER, and alike journals. I am subscribed to some of them. I think proper depends on one's POV.

 

As long as one takes into account presuppositional biases that the critics bring to their work I have no problem taking these arguments into the whole scheme of data. What I mean is that if the critic brings in the presupposition that the supernatural does not exist and then interprets the Bible in light of that presuppositional bias, then the reader can interpret their interpretation in light of that bias. Those who also hold that bias will find their interpretation appealing, while those who hold that the supernatural is at least possible or even probable will find their interpretation to be problematic.

[LNC]

You think? Are you a scholar? Do you have a degree in history or textual criticism?

 

So far this is what I hear: LNC is best, LNC is great, LNC knows everything, and anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as LNC are wrong.

 

I am enough of a scholar to understand where presuppositions taint influence interpretations and skew the findings, yes.

 

I guess you think I am wrong, which means that you are better, you are greater, and you know more. Is that right? Otherwise, why write such a sentence?

 

London and Paris is mentioned in The Da Vinci Code, so it must be true.

 

Are you claiming that Paul was wrong when he talked about the "false teachers" etc, and that historians have concluded that there were alternative versions of Christianity before canon was established?

 

Oh, I see. It doesn't fit you, therefore they are wrong.

 

Obviously you're not familiar with church history either, neither textual criticism, since you are so far out on the left side with half of what you're saying and then claiming that scholars and historians are wrong, only because "you think so."

 

London is mentioned in the song "Werewolves of London" does that mean that song is true? The Simpsons live in Springfield, many states have a Springfield, should we go looking for Bart and Homer? What is your point?

 

The fact that there were false teachers doesn't mean that they were Christians, it means that they were not Christians. If I have a counterfeit dollar, does that mean that it is actually a dollar? Just because someone calls something they made in Adobe Illustrator a dollar doesn't mean that it is actually a dollar. Just because these people said they were Christians doesn't mean that they were actually Christians.

 

Why don't you just argue your point without making all the personal references, it makes me take your argument less seriously.

 

You have made an assertion about my knowledge of church history and textual criticism with no reasoning behind it, only more ad hominem arguments. I will take it that you have no real response here and will do so from now on when I see this type of response.

[Ouroboros]

I am enough of a scholar to understand where presuppositions taint influence interpretations and skew the findings, yes.

Do you have a degree?

 

I guess you think I am wrong, which means that you are better, you are greater, and you know more. Is that right? Otherwise, why write such a sentence?

No, the problem is that you think that YOU know more about the Bible and scholar work and history than Ehrman, Price, and many others.

 

It is you who claim to know these things better than them. Not me. If you have scholars in the Bible admitting to the errors of the Bible, then who am I to argue against them? There are pro and cons. There are for and against. But why would I disregard some of them which you have picked, and only believe and trust those you have chosen? You are in no position to really discern which one of them are right and which one are wrong, because you have been far out completely wrong at several times. (Even contradicted the Bible at times, and totally ignored to respond when it was pointed out to you. So do I trust you? Not one iota.--see, I know some Greek too!)

 

London is mentioned in the song "Werewolves of London" does that mean that song is true? The Simpsons live in Springfield, many states have a Springfield, should we go looking for Bart and Homer? What is your point?

It's how I hear you argue for the authenticity of the Bible. Because some facts in the Bible happens to be true, doesn't make all of it true. Still you believe it does.

 

The fact that there were false teachers doesn't mean that they were Christians, it means that they were not Christians. If I have a counterfeit dollar, does that mean that it is actually a dollar? Just because someone calls something they made in Adobe Illustrator a dollar doesn't mean that it is actually a dollar. Just because these people said they were Christians doesn't mean that they were actually Christians.

Right now it's you who is defining what a "true" Christian is, so of course every Christian who contradicts your position is in your view a false teacher, while some would consider YOU a false teacher. Because of this ambiguity of what a "true" or "false" Christian is, I can't take your word for more authoritative than the next.

 

If A calls B a liar, and B calls A a liar, then I prefer to stand on the sideline and make up my own mind.

 

Why don't you just argue your point without making all the personal references, it makes me take your argument less seriously.

You mean like you?

 

You have made an assertion about my knowledge of church history and textual criticism with no reasoning behind it, only more ad hominem arguments. I will take it that you have no real response here and will do so from now on when I see this type of response.

And I will continue to consider your presumptuous and supercilious attitude to be witnesses against your belief.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

Second, there is a difference between arguing for inerrancy and arguing from the text as history. I thought that I made that clear, but apparently you didn't catch that in my explanation. For the purposes of arguing the text as history, which historians do, you cannot assume inerrancy as a part of the argument. In that case, questionable passages from a historical perspective (i.e., not multiply attested, later, or has a variant reading, etc.) are given lesser weight evidentially than those that are multiply attested, early, early, and without variant. I am simply approaching these texts by in that manner for the sake of argument and to avoid being accused of special pleading on the basis of inspiration or inerrancy. Is that fair?

No, because I don't understand word you're saying because you're speaking complete gibberish and are completely contradicting yourself. You've repeatedly have said the gospels have no mythology and that's it's entirely accurate but when we point out inaccuracies and when YOU YOURSELF admit that the story of God raising the Jewish people from the dead is made up, you say you're not arguing for inerannacy but at the same time claim everything in the gospels are accurate while at the samee time admitting there's made up nonsense in it. You are a liar and and a hypocrite and I'm done debating with you until you can tell the truth.

 

Do you have a degree?

I thought LNC claimed before that he was a chemist but he's also magically a scholar at the same time? I call bullshit on him.

[LNC]

If you're talking about our-yours and my-personal experiences, it is better to keep them to ourselves. I'm sure you have examined them for yourself, as I have mine. If I knew you "in real life" it would be ok, though.

 

I am speaking about experiences that we test against reality to see whether they correspond. I am not speaking of purely subjective experiences.

 

What I mean by "faith" is the narrow religious term, which refers to an "unquestioning belief that doesn't require proof or evidence": the new testament view of god and salvation by faith, as Paul sees it. We don't know god as we do other people, so we take the leap of faith. The "glass is dark" and faith is blind. You may believe otherwise.

 

A strong belief or conviction can be based upon faith, but it is belief in the supernatural, not knowledge of it. Where does the new testament say that evidence is required and vital to faith? And I am not referring to "evidence of things not seen". Faith believes that which is "not seen" without being provable.

 

Jesus is not here for us to put our hands in the open wound in his side, nor to fly us up into the clouds. That evidence would convince HanSolo and myself. Even then, god would have alot of explaining to do about the amount of suffering that has happened over time. I think a god that was pantheistic/panentheistic or something similar would be more believable. Suffering and imperfection may have been unavoidable or a byproduct of making life possible with this type of god. This god would not require us to obey it or repent to for being born human.

 

That is why I stay away from the term "faith", it is often understood by skeptics in a way that doesn't match up with the way that the Bible uses the term. The NT authors would have never understood faith in the way that you do, it would not have made sense to them. Paul spoke of evidence, saying things like:

 

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 1 Cor. 15:14-19

 

That does not sound like an "unquestioning belief that doesn't require proof or evidence", instead, it sounds like a belief that is grounded in evidence. When Paul preached the gospel, he spoke of what he had seen and heard and the things that his audience often knew about as well. He didn't ever say to just believe and forget about proof.

 

When Paul speaks of seeing as through a glass dimly (or darkly)(1 Cor. 13) he is not saying that we see nothing, he just saying that we don't see as clearly as we will in the future. It is not a blind leap. Throughout Paul's preaching, he is preaching about things that that nobody knew about, he is simply explaining the things that they did know about.

 

Jesus told Thomas, a doubter, to stick his fingers in the holes of his hands and his hand in his side. He didn't tell him to just suck it up and believe. I think it is we, not God who have a lot of explaining to do. Which of us is free from guilt and in a position to accuse God? Not me, how about you? I also find a pantheistic/panentheistic god to be inadequate to explain things like the origin of the universe, morality, mind, and personality. These cannot come from a pantheistic/panentheistic god. These are some of the issues that I left with a friend of mine to explain as he recently left atheism and moved toward pantheism. I asked him how, from this perspective, he can explain the issues that I just listed and he so far has no explanation for them. Maybe you could let me know how you would as a pantheist/panentheist.

[LNC]

For God to talk to his most precious creation is putting false expectations of God? So, basically, you are saying: believe just because LNC says so. Why should I believe in your God? Give me one reason. Obviously God talks to you but not to me. So why is that? Ask him.

 

How is that putting false expectations on God? Wouldn't that be limiting God? I never say to believe just because I say so and never would, so you can stop throwing that canard out every time, it is getting rather tiresome. God speaks to me through his word because I read it regularly. Maybe he would do the same for you if you if you regularly read his word. It is worth a try if you really want to hear from him.

 

That's right. It was based on emotions and socialization.

 

I guess that was the problem then. Emotions and relationships change, but the evidence, if it is real, doesn't change.

 

Seriously, I don't know. But God can do anything, and he knows everything, and he knows why I don't believe, so he should be able to figure something out. Hey, didn't he create the universe? Oh, that was a piece of cake compared to figure out some way of proving himself to me.

 

Ah, I know. I have to believe WITHOUT proof or evidence, just like you. No way, you believe because you have evidence and not just blind faith. But nothing of what you have said have convinced me, because they're just words and stories. Just fantasies in your mind won't change my life.

 

Again, I never encourage belief without evidence, that is what led to your abandoning whatever faith you previously had. Maybe you can go back and study the evidence and call out to him again. But, give it time and really study the evidence. A friend of mine is doing that now and has, through his study, abandoned atheism as he believes it to be logically inconsistent. Now, you have said that you are not a philosophical atheist, but you could still study and find answers for some of the core questions, and to find answers that are consistent with reality.

 

Something that would have been out of the ordinary and miraculous. If I had seen a finger hovering in the air, writing text on the clouds in fire, and people around me seeing it too. I don't know. God would know.

 

Wait, there's an alternative. God could have spoken to me and told me all the arguments based on logic and science to prove that he existed, instead of sending YOU. Besides, your arguments are consistently flawed, so they don't really help, but rather keep on supporting my unbelief. So give some argument that holds water, instead of those half-ass Peter Pan stories.

 

People saw miracles in the NT times and still rejected Jesus, so I don't know that seeing a miracle would necessarily do it. As someone that I know said, even if Jesus showed up next to him he would be more inclined to think he was crazy than to think that Jesus was actually there.

 

You say that my arguments are consistently flawed, yet you have not shown me those flaws. What you have shown me has not stood up under scrutiny. You can address (by yourself, not by sending me to someone else's arguments) the Kalam & Leibnizian cosmological arguments, the argument from morality, the teleological argument, argument from the mind, argument from morality, and the minimal facts argument for the resurrection that I presented on the other thread. That should keep you busy for a while.

 

False analogy? It wasn't a false analogy at all, because it wasn't an analogy at all. It was a hypothetical question. Big difference to an analogy.

 

But thanks for the answer. You're telling me you would have to leave Christianity if the original text excluded the resurrection, which means, your whole belief is based on a few small pieces of text. Nothing else. You have no experience of God to prove you beyond the text. You have no other evidence except a few pieces of text you believe to be true. That's all... So why is it worth anything now? A piece of text is your God?

 

Actually, I said analogy and meant to say dilemma, sorry. The text represents the eyewitness evidence and without the eyewitness evidence, how would we know that Jesus rose from the dead? So, to say that all we have is a few pieces of texts is not a fair representation of what we have. It would be like saying that the foundation of our government is based on a few pieces of text, the constitution (which is actually fewer pieces of text than the Bible)

 

I see. So the parts that supports belief are part of the 100% original, because that's what they agree upon, and those parts which they don't agree upon are not part of the faith. Did I get that right?

 

No, the variants that best fit the criteria of textual critical argumentation are the ones that I believe are the originals. It has nothing to do with what I agree with, but what agrees with the evidence. You seem to believe that all I do is to make subjective decisions about my faith, and that is not the case. Why do you keep going back to this argument without evidence to back it up? Is that merely your subjective belief?

[Ouroboros]

How is that ...

Whatever.

[agnosticator]

That is why I stay away from the term "faith", it is often understood by skeptics in a way that doesn't match up with the way that the Bible uses the term. The NT authors would have never understood faith in the way that you do, it would not have made sense to them. Paul spoke of evidence, saying things like:

 

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 1 Cor. 15:14-19

 

Paul didn't base his faith on evidence, but a vision! When did he see christ risen? How is religious "faith" the same as having trust that my eyes see my friend sitting across the table from me? I trust my senses that he is there. I base that on all the evidence of my existence here on earth. This is not religious faith, but ordinary trust in reality.

 

That does not sound like an "unquestioning belief that doesn't require proof or evidence", instead, it sounds like a belief that is grounded in evidence. When Paul preached the gospel, he spoke of what he had seen and heard and the things that his audience often knew about as well. He didn't ever say to just believe and forget about proof.

 

"blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."-Jesus said this to Thomas after he put his fingers in his side. He is stating it is better to have faith, or to believe without evidence, than proof or evidence in order to confirm belief. That is biblical "faith". That's why Thomas doubted. He lacked Pauline "faith".

 

When Paul speaks of seeing as through a glass dimly (or darkly)(1 Cor. 13) he is not saying that we see nothing, he just saying that we don't see as clearly as we will in the future. It is not a blind leap.

 

It is myopic enough to be blind. We see by "faith" that the supernatural exists, and that the future heaven/hell will be.

 

Which of us is free from guilt and in a position to accuse God? Not me, how about you?

 

Why tell an agnostic this?

 

I also find a pantheistic/panentheistic god to be inadequate to explain things like the origin of the universe, morality, mind, and personality. These cannot come from a pantheistic/panentheistic god. These are some of the issues that I left with a friend of mine to explain as he recently left atheism and moved toward pantheism. I asked him how, from this perspective, he can explain the issues that I just listed and he so far has no explanation for them. Maybe you could let me know how you would as a pantheist/panentheist.

 

These are only issues to you. The universe is not perfection (and never was)like an idealist may want it to be. Those who wish to see reality as they want it to be can do so. But don't expect everyone to believe it.

 

I find the christian view of the universe to be grossly inadequate and anti-life.

 

(Edited because I decided to add this:)

 

Why must you have definitive answers for the origin of the universe, especially when experts don't? Sure, we humans always ask "why and how" things are the way they are. However, the universe and just IS. We don't know anything beyond that.

 

Morality, personality, and the mind from which they originate, are not exclusive to the human animal. They evolved or developed in other animals too. Homo Sapiens didn't drop out of the sky, so they aren't separate (and special) from other animals.

 

Your god boils down to a superhuman with special powers. But if god exists, god is a mystery, and anything you have to say is mere speculation, and inadequate. Yet you believe you possess special supernatural "knowledge" about a god/human with super powers that interacts inside and outside of the universe. And of course, that god communicates with you...

[LNC]

I don't know why I should bother. Every time I bring up a variant or a bible verse that there's no evidence for, you say you don't need that part of the bible anyway. For someone who claims to believe in the historical accuracy of the great historian Luke, you seem to have such little respect for all these scriptures you keep discarding as being unimportant.

 

Actually, this is a different argument. Ehrman says that this variant changes our understanding of Jesus and I am simply questioning how it does that. This has nothing whatsoever to do with inerrancy or infallibility, this is a question of transmission. Are you familiar with the difference between these issues? If not, I can explain.

[LNC]

This universe + Heaven + Hell + God's throne + the other 7 (or was it three?) Paul talked about going through = many universes, in other words, a multiverse... which you don't believe in. Interesting.

 

So basically you are telling us that Heaven and Hell and God, everything, exists within this Universe?

 

I don't believe that Paul discussed the concept of other universes. He did discuss being in the third heaven (1 Cor. 12:2), but I don't think he would equate that with an alternate physical universe as do those who promote multiverse. If you believe differently on this, maybe you can explain your hermeneutics that gets you to your conclusion. Again, I don't want to get into a discussion of the multiverse hypothesis as I believe that would take us way too far afield for this discussion. Maybe later we can set up a separate thread to discuss these concepts.

[LNC]

I walked in the sand, and Jesus walked next to me. Then I discovered that Jesus didn't leave any footprints, and I asked why. He told me, "because I'm only in your imagination."

 

Lets sort this out:

 

There is a difference between believing that Jesus was a historical character, a person, a human (not God), who said things, and people started a religion from.

 

Another thing is to believe Jesus to be alive today and being the son of God, talking in your head, and walking next to you.

 

So many historians and scholars believe Jesus existed as a human being in history.

 

But it's funny, that there are so many historians and scholars who DO NOT believe Jesus to be the Son of God or a spirit talking in their heads!!!

 

So, in other words, as usual, you mix up different concepts to misrepresent the issue. It would help our discussion if you stayed honest, but since you can't, it's impossible to have a reasonable argument with you.

 

Yet, that is not what your words above seem to indicate. You seem to indicate that Jesus is simply a figment of one's imagination. Now, whether you take this as far as to say he never existed, I guess you leave that open to interpretation, but, it is not out of reason to interpret this as Jesus never existed.

 

So, there are many historians who believe and scholars who do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and there are many who do believe this. However, when we take the evidence into consideration, even evidence that is generally accepted by the vast majority (high 90 percentile), it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead. Combine that with his statements of deity and his statements that he would rise from the dead, and it is reasonable to conclude that he was and is the Son of God as he claimed.

 

It is not I who has mixed up concepts, it seems to be you who has either misunderstood the case that I am laying out or is misrepresenting it. Why must you always resort to the accusation of dishonesty? That makes our conversation unreasonable and unfair. If you can actually show evidence of dishonesty on my part, that is one thing; however, you make accusations of me mixing up concepts, yet show no evidence whatsoever of this occurring. In the future, if you would like to bring accusation against me, I hope you will be more detailed in backing up that accusation so that we can be reasonable and fair to one another.

[LNC]

I saw the response you got from LNC and it made me think of an article I came across on some recent reading. I'll post a couple of bits here for you:

 

**Quotes removed for brevity**

 

Anyhow, I think this sheds a little light on things. It probably won't help any but like I said it came to mind when I read all this.

 

mwc

 

Thanks for posting this. I might also recommend an interview with an important figure in the debate, Daniel Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary, another important figure in the study of textual criticism, you can find the interview here.

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe that Paul ...

Whatever.

 

Yet, that is not what ...

Whatever makes you happy.

[LNC]

I don't quite get where "faith" fits in with LNC's christian beliefs. He seems to think his "conviction" is based upon evidence and not "faith" (i.e.,belief regardless of evidence). So, what evidence convinced him? I don't see it. Or maybe it is his own reasoning mixed with desire?

 

That is a good question, let me explain. It is having a proper understanding of what faith is according to the biblical authors. It was never a blind leap in the dark, but rather moving in the direction in which the evidence points and trusting where beyond the point where it ends. In other words, we cannot say for certain what happened in the distant past as none of us were there to personally witness the events; however, we can piece together what happened from the evidence and trust that the evidence when properly pieced together and understood will indicate what actually took place. It is the same thing practiced in forensic science. The scientist pieces together what occurred in a past event and makes inferences based upon that evidence. It is called inference to the best explanation. There is still faith involved, but it is an informed faith.

[Mriana]

I don't quite get where "faith" fits in with LNC's christian beliefs. He seems to think his "conviction" is based upon evidence and not "faith" (i.e.,belief regardless of evidence). So, what evidence convinced him? I don't see it. Or maybe it is his own reasoning mixed with desire?

 

That is a good question, let me explain. It is having a proper understanding of what faith is according to the biblical authors. It was never a blind leap in the dark, but rather moving in the direction in which the evidence points and trusting where beyond the point where it ends. In other words, we cannot say for certain what happened in the distant past as none of us were there to personally witness the events; however, we can piece together what happened from the evidence and trust that the evidence when properly pieced together and understood will indicate what actually took place. It is the same thing practiced in forensic science. The scientist pieces together what occurred in a past event and makes inferences based upon that evidence. It is called inference to the best explanation. There is still faith involved, but it is an informed faith.

 

According to "Biblical authors"? That means you are being TOLD what to believe. Evidence? What evidence?

[agnosticator]

That is a good question, let me explain. It is having a proper understanding of what faith is according to the biblical authors. It was never a blind leap in the dark, but rather moving in the direction in which the evidence points and trusting where beyond the point where it ends. In other words, we cannot say for certain what happened in the distant past as none of us were there to personally witness the events; however, we can piece together what happened from the evidence and trust that the evidence when properly pieced together and understood will indicate what actually took place. It is the same thing practiced in forensic science. The scientist pieces together what occurred in a past event and makes inferences based upon that evidence. It is called inference to the best explanation. There is still faith involved, but it is an informed faith.

 

So, you are saying that religious faith is exactly the same as everyday trust? And you are comparing forensic science's methods of discovering truth with discovering biblical truth and its' supernatural assertions. You said in another thread tonight that Jesus is both human (material) and god (ghostly); able to walk through walls and eat food. Both natural and supernatural exist together and you have evidence of this?

 

Your leap "beyond the point where it ends" IS a blind one-that's faith. Evidence leads to what is provable in reality. Mriana asks "what evidence?" The best explanation would be "the evidence is lacking". "Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible"!

[mwc]

Thanks for posting this. I might also recommend an interview with an important figure in the debate, Daniel Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary, another important figure in the study of textual criticism, you can find the interview here.

And what was I supposed to take away from this interview?

 

mwc

[LNC]

What LNC is doing is rationalization. Rationalization, in the sense of: a person having a certain belief (of various reasons) and try to make a rational reason to why they believe. In other words, because LNC is emotionally attached to the idea of God and Christianity to be true, and because he wants to make sense out of it(even though it doesn't), he tries really, really hard to find logical arguments and evidence for his belief, and now when he thinks he's found them, he's visiting us and insisting that we grab on to these same arguments and somehow he hope it will convert us, and put us into the same emotional position he has; reversing the actual process (reason->emotion, instead of emotion->reason). It won't work, but he doesn't get it, because he doesn't really understand that underlying reasons to his own belief.

 

That is a classic red herring fallacy. You assume, without a shred of proof (your continued error in these discussions) that I start with emotion and work my way to logic. This allows you to try to divert the discussion from the issue of dealing with the logical arguments by claiming that they are a crutch to support an emotional basis for my beliefs. Nice try, but you are not going to divert the argument away from the evidence by using fallacious arguments. If can't address the evidence, I understand.

[LNC]

Isn't it fascinating? I have been challenged several times with: "But it could be true." As in, "just because there isn't evidence for such-and-such, it doesn't mean it didn't happen." But at the same time if I say, "this could have happened." Then I get the response, "but there's no evidence for it, so it didn't happen." It all boils down to this argument:

 

1) I can't prove God does not exist.

2) It is then possible that God could exist.

3) Since God could possibly exist, then God is likely to exist

4) Because God is likely to exist, God must exist

5) Therefore God exists.

 

Argument from ignorance. And why? Why does people think this way? Not because it's logic, but because they want to. Why do they want to? Because of fear, hope, social learning, tradition, etc. In other words, mostly emotions and influence.

 

Thanks for all the article quotes about the Bible original. It sounds like they're heading for multiple "originals" rather than just one. Right?

 

I don't believe that anyone besides you has formulated the argument in this way. Now you have added a straw-man argument to your red herring. What other fallacious arguments will you add in future posts? We will read on and see.