I Challenged The Pastor Of My Church Today...

[Storm]

So, the pastor decided to contact one of his Scholarly buddies and have him reply to my points. He doesn't go into depth much, but he tries to refute my points in most of the cases. Anyone have any thoughts before I answer back to him? Here is the blog and Jeff is the guy responding to me.

Thanks for any help you might provide.

[Sheerbliss]

I just skimmed the blog entry. Even Christopher Hitchens believed that Jesus, as an eccentric preacher, might have existed.

As to whether Jesus was reading the same version of the old testament as exists today, I'm not sure how relevant that is. For the Christ story to be something remarkable, and enough to build a religion on, you have to believe in a lot of things that aren't based on fact: the creation story, prophecy, a virgin giving birth, and someone rising from the dead after three days. This, along with accepting all the other fantastic stories of the bible as true. Otherwise, what you have, at best, is an eccentric preacher dying for having been a troublemaker.

[★ Citsonga ★]

So, the pastor decided to contact one of his Scholarly buddies and have him reply to my points. He doesn't go into depth much, but he tries to refute my points in most of the cases. Anyone have any thoughts before I answer back to him? Here is the blog and Jeff is the guy responding to me.

Thanks for any help you might provide.

 

If I can get some spare time this evening, I may take a look at it and offer my thoughts. Up front, though, I'd simply caution that you pretty much have zero chance of "winning" a debate on your pastor's turf. He has too much at stake and will not let that happen. He and his buddy will say whatever it takes, regardless of how absurd or misleading it is, to "prove" that they're right, and the congregation will mostly just lap it up.

[Storm]

I just skimmed the blog entry. Even Christopher Hitchens believed that Jesus, as an eccentric preacher, might have existed.

As to whether Jesus was reading the same version of the old testament as exists today, I'm not sure how relevant that is. For the Christ story to be something remarkable, and enough to build a religion on, you have to believe in a lot of things that aren't based on fact: the creation story, prophecy, a virgin giving birth, and someone rising from the dead after three days. This, along with accepting all the other fantastic stories of the bible as true. Otherwise, what you have, at best, is an eccentric preacher dying for having been a troublemaker.

For the record, I think that a man named Jesus, who was an itinerant preacher likely existed. Sometimes I go the extra mile and push for the evidence. My understanding, which is limited, is that the bible Jesus read and the bible we have now aren't exactly the same. There are verses and other sections of scripture that Jews see differently and interpret differently. I agree with you, I don't see why it matters. The ways Jews lived and how they thought was very different than what christianity generally thinks.

I think that the entire basis of christianity is built on a shaky foundation at best. there are enough cracks IMO that make it completely unviable.

[Storm]

 

So, the pastor decided to contact one of his Scholarly buddies and have him reply to my points. He doesn't go into depth much, but he tries to refute my points in most of the cases. Anyone have any thoughts before I answer back to him? Here is the blog and Jeff is the guy responding to me.

Thanks for any help you might provide.

 

If I can get some spare time this evening, I may take a look at it and offer my thoughts. Up front, though, I'd simply caution that you pretty much have zero chance of "winning" a debate on your pastor's turf. He has too much at stake and will not let that happen. He and his buddy will say whatever it takes, regardless of how absurd or misleading it is, to "prove" that they're right, and the congregation will mostly just lap it up.

 

I agree with you. Arguing would prove fruitless in the grand scheme of things, but this is motivating me to research further and I enjoy a good discussion, so I will potentially find some value in it. I feel that the fact that the thread is moderated by the pastor is going to work against me. So, I am skeptical that anything would likely transpire. But I feel confident that I have enough cursory knowledge that I could at least make him think and present at least some resistance to his general assertions.

I would gladly accept any help you think you might be able to provide.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I read Jeff's replies.  As i said elsewhere, I think they are sort of a higher-level Josh McDowell.  It doesn't surprise me that Jeff's degree is in biblical studies from Loyola.  If he had been trained in ancient history at a secular university I think he would be more rigorous in attempting to weigh the value of the NT documents as HISTORICAL sources.  He goes so far as to say that the gospels and Acts are like ancient biography, but he neglects important differences: e.g. parallels between them and Homer and Euripides, for starters, or the percentage of the text that is devoted to dialogue.  Then the unreliability of ancient biography.  Much of what we get in ancient biography of philosophers, for example, is unreliable.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I read through Jeff's posts, and it's so loaded with fluff that it's hard to even know where to begin.

 

He says that you can be confident that the New Testament is 90-95% accurate, but that's just a number pulled out of thin air. Sure, they can come to a consensus of the most common or earliest available renderings among the extant manuscripts, but without the originals to compare to, it is entirely impossible to know what percentage of what we have now is the same as the original. But, hey, a high percentage sounds impressive, so the apologists go with it. (I am surprised, though, that he didn't say 99%, which is what I've seen in the past.)

 

He claims that contradictions are in the eye of the beholder, implying that people see what they want to see. If that was completely true, then I never would have seen the contradictions in the Bible. I did *not* want there to be any, but I eventually had to face the fact that there are. Though I do think that some skeptics overdo the contradictions claim (there are legitimate answers to some alleged contradictions), it is completely false to assert that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible. There are quite a number of them, as I am sure you're well aware. I analyzed several contradictions in detail in a letter I wrote a few years ago, which you're welcome to read if you'd like (it's available in post #13 in the "Letter To My Christian Parents" link in my signature).

 

When dealing with archaeology, he claims that it's just a matter of some parts of the Bible being supported by archaeological evidence and some parts that they simply haven't found evidence for. He is completely ignoring that there is archaeological evidence *against* some things in the Bible. "The Bible Unearthed" by Silberman and Finkelstein details some of the evidence.

 

He acknowledges that the epistles attributed to John may not have been written by John, but the problem with that seems to go over his head. Without knowing who wrote the books, what authority can they possibly have?

 

He also oversimplifies the historicity of Jesus. Like you, I don't claim that Jesus didn't exist, but there are serious problems that make it possible that he didn't exist. I don't think it's worth getting too caught up in that, though, since it can't be established and it doesn't matter all that much other than being interesting.

 

Jeff claims that Josephus wrote about Jesus in two locations, but that claim is also very problematic. The major Josephus passage about Jesus (known as the Testimonium Flavianum) is known to have been tampered with. This widely known and even Christian apologists admit that it is inconceivable that the whole paragraph was written by Josephus. Once it's known that at least part of it was forged, then without the original text written by Josephus, the whole passage becomes unreliable. I'm sure you're familiar with this one, though, so I won't go into any further detail at this time.

 

The other Josephus mention of Jesus is shorter and less contested, but even it has its own problem. Since it doesn't get discussed as much, I'll point out that what struck me about it was that the wording is the opposite of what it should be. In the Bible and elsewhere in Josephus' writings, whenever someone being discussed is identified as a relative of someone else, the primary subject is *always* named first, and *then* the relative he's identified by ("so-and-so the son of so-and-so," and such). That's simply the way it was done. Yet, this one reference is an exception. The clause in particular is referring to James, yet it reads, "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Antiquities 20.9.1). What impetus would Josephus have to deviate from the norm here and name the identifier (Jesus) *before* the subject (James)? I cannot think of any reason why he would do that. However, I can easily imagine a Christian interpolater wanting to honor Jesus by naming him before James. Thus, even this less contested reference to Jesus is also, in my estimation, not likely to be authentic.

 

Jeff also mentioned the 6,000 or so early copies of the New Testament. While he does also mention that some of them are "parts of copies," to my understanding a LOT of them are merely fragments. Even where there are complete books, the number is misleading because one complete manuscript of each NT book would add up to 27 manuscripts since there are 27 NT books, but that's not 27 copies of the NT, but is instead equivalent to one copy. Obviously, that alone can quickly inflate numbers. It is disingenuous for apologists to throw those large numbers out there to make it sound impressive when it doesn't really represent reality. Besides, even if there were 6,000 complete early copies of all the NT books, that would not prove that the Bible is true.

 

Most of what Jeff has written would be difficult to really tackle well without having a strong background in that field, but all that fluff doesn't even matter much to me anymore. All one has to do is study the Bible and be honest about its content to see that it is not what Christians make it out to be. It is full of problems, which I know you're well aware of, and many of which I wrote about in the letter I already mentioned.

 

Anyway, good luck if you proceed in the discussion.

[StillLooking]

I found an excellent answer on the historical Jesus from a quora answer. He basically opined there is a historical Jesus. History is not my subject at all (I am still researching his answer) but I find his answer compelling. He is an atheist, btw.

 

 

 

Scholars who specialise in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist.  The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  Many may be more cautious about using the term "historical fact" about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that.  But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.

 

http://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

The other Josephus mention of Jesus is shorter and less contested, but even it has its own problem. Since it doesn't get discussed as much, I'll point out that what struck me about it was that the wording is the opposite of what it should be. In the Bible and elsewhere in Josephus' writings, whenever someone being discussed is identified as a relative of someone else, the primary subject is *always* named first, and *then* the relative he's identified by ("so-and-so the son of so-and-so," and such). That's simply the way it was done. Yet, this one reference is an exception. The clause in particular is referring to James, yet it reads, "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Antiquities 20.9.1). What impetus would Josephus have to deviate from the norm here and name the identifier (Jesus) *before* the subject (James)? I cannot think of any reason why he would do that. However, I can easily imagine a Christian interpolater wanting to honor Jesus by naming him before James.

Good point, Citsonga.  Which words at AJ 20.200 do you think are interpolated?

[♦ ficino ♦]

I found an excellent answer on the historical Jesus from a quora answer. He basically opined there is a historical Jesus. History is not my subject at all (I am still researching his answer) but I find his answer compelling. He is an atheist, btw.

 

 

 

Scholars who specialise in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist.  The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  Many may be more cautious about using the term "historical fact" about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that.  But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.

 

http://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434

From having read various things, including contributions on other forums, by Tim O'Neill, I think so far that he isn't always reliable. He also tends to put a lot of energy into disparaging people's credentials and not just focusing on their arguments.  But I agree with him on the whole about this, i.e. that Jesus really existed.

[StillLooking]

 

I found an excellent answer on the historical Jesus from a quora answer. He basically opined there is a historical Jesus. History is not my subject at all (I am still researching his answer) but I find his answer compelling. He is an atheist, btw.

 

 

 

Scholars who specialise in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist.  The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  Many may be more cautious about using the term "historical fact" about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that.  But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.

 

http://www.quora.com/Do-credible-historians-agree-that-the-man-named-Jesus-who-the-Christian-Bible-speaks-of-walked-the-earth-and-was-put-to-death-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea/answers/863434

From having read various things, including contributions on other forums, by Tim O'Neill, I think so far that he isn't always reliable. He also tends to put a lot of energy into disparaging people's credentials and not just focusing on their arguments.  But I agree with him on the whole about this, i.e. that Jesus really existed.

 

 

Thanks. I will take what he wrote with a grain of salt.

[Storm]

I read through Jeff's posts, and it's so loaded with fluff that it's hard to even know where to begin.

 

He says that you can be confident that the New Testament is 90-95% accurate, but that's just a number pulled out of thin air. Sure, they can come to a consensus of the most common or earliest available renderings among the extant manuscripts, but without the originals to compare to, it is entirely impossible to know what percentage of what we have now is the same as the original. But, hey, a high percentage sounds impressive, so the apologists go with it. (I am surprised, though, that he didn't say 99%, which is what I've seen in the past.)

 

He claims that contradictions are in the eye of the beholder, implying that people see what they want to see. If that was completely true, then I never would have seen the contradictions in the Bible. I did *not* want there to be any, but I eventually had to face the fact that there are. Though I do think that some skeptics overdo the contradictions claim (there are legitimate answers to some alleged contradictions), it is completely false to assert that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible. There are quite a number of them, as I am sure you're well aware. I analyzed several contradictions in detail in a letter I wrote a few years ago, which you're welcome to read if you'd like (it's available in post #13 in the "Letter To My Christian Parents" link in my signature).

 

When dealing with archaeology, he claims that it's just a matter of some parts of the Bible being supported by archaeological evidence and some parts that they simply haven't found evidence for. He is completely ignoring that there is archaeological evidence *against* some things in the Bible. "The Bible Unearthed" by Silberman and Finkelstein details some of the evidence.

 

He acknowledges that the epistles attributed to John may not have been written by John, but the problem with that seems to go over his head. Without knowing who wrote the books, what authority can they possibly have?

 

He also oversimplifies the historicity of Jesus. Like you, I don't claim that Jesus didn't exist, but there are serious problems that make it possible that he didn't exist. I don't think it's worth getting too caught up in that, though, since it can't be established and it doesn't matter all that much other than being interesting.

 

Jeff claims that Josephus wrote about Jesus in two locations, but that claim is also very problematic. The major Josephus passage about Jesus (known as the Testimonium Flavianum) is known to have been tampered with. This widely known and even Christian apologists admit that it is inconceivable that the whole paragraph was written by Josephus. Once it's known that at least part of it was forged, then without the original text written by Josephus, the whole passage becomes unreliable. I'm sure you're familiar with this one, though, so I won't go into any further detail at this time.

 

The other Josephus mention of Jesus is shorter and less contested, but even it has its own problem. Since it doesn't get discussed as much, I'll point out that what struck me about it was that the wording is the opposite of what it should be. In the Bible and elsewhere in Josephus' writings, whenever someone being discussed is identified as a relative of someone else, the primary subject is *always* named first, and *then* the relative he's identified by ("so-and-so the son of so-and-so," and such). That's simply the way it was done. Yet, this one reference is an exception. The clause in particular is referring to James, yet it reads, "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Antiquities 20.9.1). What impetus would Josephus have to deviate from the norm here and name the identifier (Jesus) *before* the subject (James)? I cannot think of any reason why he would do that. However, I can easily imagine a Christian interpolater wanting to honor Jesus by naming him before James. Thus, even this less contested reference to Jesus is also, in my estimation, not likely to be authentic.

 

Jeff also mentioned the 6,000 or so early copies of the New Testament. While he does also mention that some of them are "parts of copies," to my understanding a LOT of them are merely fragments. Even where there are complete books, the number is misleading because one complete manuscript of each NT book would add up to 27 manuscripts since there are 27 NT books, but that's not 27 copies of the NT, but is instead equivalent to one copy. Obviously, that alone can quickly inflate numbers. It is disingenuous for apologists to throw those large numbers out there to make it sound impressive when it doesn't really represent reality. Besides, even if there were 6,000 complete early copies of all the NT books, that would not prove that the Bible is true.

 

Most of what Jeff has written would be difficult to really tackle well without having a strong background in that field, but all that fluff doesn't even matter much to me anymore. All one has to do is study the Bible and be honest about its content to see that it is not what Christians make it out to be. It is full of problems, which I know you're well aware of, and many of which I wrote about in the letter I already mentioned.

 

Anyway, good luck if you proceed in the discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to go through this. You bring up some good points and I would like to use them if a discussion ever gets started. But I suspect that wont happen. The blog is moderated by the pastor and if I start bringing up stuff that might crack the foundation of what Jeff believes or is presenting, the pastor is likely going to filter my information. So, as much as I would like the challenge him and have a pleasant discussion, I suspect that it wont happen on the blog page. I am up for the challenge to be sure and I have plenty of information to present to Jeff, but I don't think it'll happen.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

The other Josephus mention of Jesus is shorter and less contested, but even it has its own problem. Since it doesn't get discussed as much, I'll point out that what struck me about it was that the wording is the opposite of what it should be. In the Bible and elsewhere in Josephus' writings, whenever someone being discussed is identified as a relative of someone else, the primary subject is *always* named first, and *then* the relative he's identified by ("so-and-so the son of so-and-so," and such). That's simply the way it was done. Yet, this one reference is an exception. The clause in particular is referring to James, yet it reads, "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Antiquities 20.9.1). What impetus would Josephus have to deviate from the norm here and name the identifier (Jesus) *before* the subject (James)? I cannot think of any reason why he would do that. However, I can easily imagine a Christian interpolater wanting to honor Jesus by naming him before James.

Good point, Citsonga.  Which words at AJ 20.200 do you think are interpolated?

 

 

Thanks. I'm definitely not a Josephus scholar, and I can't say that the above quote I referenced was definitely interpolated, but it certainly seems to me like it probably was an addition (or at least an alteration in wording) by Christians.

 

Anyway, as far as "AJ 20.200", it looks like your reference is flawed. There are not 200 chapters in book 20, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm probably not the best one to ask anyway. I'm only really familiar with the two "Jesus" references that Christians cite, and both of them appear quite problematic and unreliable as historical evidence of Jesus.

[RipVanWinkle]

Storm: Tell the pretentious goon that each of his assertions are lies of omission, since he withheld from his potential readers the fact that  there are experts in the proper fields of study who have the opposite opinion on each of the goon's points. He wouldn't even have to admit that these experts (on your side) are accepted and highly respected in their respective fields, even though  (if he's really honest) he knows that's true. He could just suggest that his readers check the credentials of the experts on both sides and make their own judgment as to who is better qualified. A  CV for each

expert would speak  for themselves. In other words, call him on his weak points, If you really want to ram it down his through you can attach all  the CV's for your experts to your response and ask him to attach CV's for his experts. to you response. But I'm sure that is going beyond the call of duty. Rip

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

Hi Storm,

 

Debates on the veracity of the bible are interesting, perhaps, but  generally fruitless. Fundamentalists' faith cannot be penetrated by any amount of reason, and liberal Christians don't care about errors in the bible--the bible is meant to be interpreted "theologically," whatever the hell that means.

 

But there's always that chance that something you say might spark a little nagging question. I know my doubts about the bible were the start of my deconversion, and I'm not even sure how it happened, it was almost imperceptible. I guess miracles do happen.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Thanks. I'm definitely not a Josephus scholar, and I can't say that the above quote I referenced was definitely interpolated, but it certainly seems to me like it probably was an addition (or at least an alteration in wording) by Christians.

 

Anyway, as far as "AJ 20.200", it looks like your reference is flawed.

Hi Citsonga, there are two common methods of citing passages in Josephus.  Were you reading from William Whiston's translation, online?  I simply used a different method of citation!  Same James dude, the one with the bro Jesus.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

Thanks. I'm definitely not a Josephus scholar, and I can't say that the above quote I referenced was definitely interpolated, but it certainly seems to me like it probably was an addition (or at least an alteration in wording) by Christians.

 

Anyway, as far as "AJ 20.200", it looks like your reference is flawed.

Hi Citsonga, there are two common methods of citing passages in Josephus.  Were you reading from William Whiston's translation, online?  I simply used a different method of citation!  Same James dude, the one with the bro Jesus.

 

 

Oh, I didn't realize there were different numbering systems. That's strange and it shouldn't be the case, since it leads to confusion. (I recently came across a similar situation with the Koran; my physical book copy is numbered differently from online versions I've looked at.) Anyway, I have the works of Josephus in a book, but I didn't feel like going downstairs and getting it, so I just Googled for it. I'm not sure what version I was looking at, but it was online.

 

I guess my response pretty much answered your question, then. I can't make a concrete claim that it was definitely interpolated, but the deviation from the norm in the phraseology certainly makes the reference highly suspicious to me. It seems very unlikely that Josephus would have written it the way it currently appears. It's not impossible, of course, but it seems far more likely to me that the current wording reflects a change made by a Christian copyist, whether it was an addition to the text or a sequence alteration. Without having Josephus' original to compare to, the passage is simply unreliable as an authentic Josephan reference to Jesus, in my honest opinion.

[mwc]

Good point, Citsonga.  Which words at AJ 20.200 do you think are interpolated?

     I'm curious about this passage.  I find it odd since it assumes the reader is familiar with all involved and makes no attempt to refer the reader back to a previous section (ie. Josephus will say things along the lines of "As in my previous book," "As I stated before" or some such).  This is a naked reference to a minor set of characters.

 

     I'm even assuming the TF is fully legit in this case.  It's still two books back to a single smallish section.  It seems unusual.  Even if we assume it's all fully legit it's as-if we're missing information (which we know parts of Josephus are absent since he promises things we don't have) and maybe this lies there?  Or maybe it has been tampered with?  Or maybe it's legit?  I don't know.  As I said I find it unusual even giving it the full benefit of the doubt.

 

          mwc

[♦ ficino ♦]

If people are interested in Josephus and the reference to "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ/Messiah, James", maybe we should have a thread on it.  But just as a quickie, Richard Carrier published an article arguing that the "so-called Christ" phrase is interpolated.

 

I've read the paper, which I think does a responsible job of arguing that those words were put in by a Christian scribe who figured, who else could this Jesus and this James have been?  Carrier argues that the Jesus in question is Jesus son of Damneus, a priest.

 

I can't find a text of it online that is not behind some wall, but here's a reference to it on Carrier's blog:

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946

 

 

 

Tim O'Neill often criticizes Carrier and does so on this score, too:

 

http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-Richard-Carriers-article-Origen-Eusebius-and-the-Accidental-Interpolation-in-Josephus

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Hi Citsonga, there are two common methods of citing passages in Josephus.  Were you reading from William Whiston's translation, online?  I simply used a different method of citation!  Same James dude, the one with the bro Jesus.

 

 

Oh, I didn't realize there were different numbering systems. That's strange and it shouldn't be the case, since it leads to confusion. (I recently came across a similar situation with the Koran; my physical book copy is numbered differently from online versions I've looked at.)

 

Yeah, it's annoying, but not uncommon with ancient works, especially prose.  Poetry is usually cited by line numbers, but even with poetry, there can be confusion if someone cites the lines numbers of an English translation instead of the line numbers of the Greek or Latin.  But with prose, some printed editions of the Greek will use chapter and section numbers plus numbers that come from the pagination of some earlier printed edition.  For example, the first sentence of Aristotle's Politics begins, "Since we see that every city is a kind of community..."  One scholar might cite this as Politics 1.1. But that's not very precise, because it doesn't give you a line number.  In Bekker's edition of Aristotle, this corresponds to page 1252 front side, line 1.  So another way to cite the same sentence is 1252a1.  Some scholars will give both systems of citation, but many only use the Bekker numbers.  The smaller the piece of text identified by a system of citation, the more precise is the system.  The same phenomenon occurs with many other authors.

 

I do this stuff for a living (or used to, since I'm retired now), so that's why I know such minutiae.

[Storm]

Storm: Tell the pretentious goon that each of his assertions are lies of omission, since he withheld from his potential readers the fact that  there are experts in the proper fields of study who have the opposite opinion on each of the goon's points. He wouldn't even have to admit that these experts (on your side) are accepted and highly respected in their respective fields, even though  (if he's really honest) he knows that's true. He could just suggest that his readers check the credentials of the experts on both sides and make their own judgment as to who is better qualified. A  CV for each

expert would speak  for themselves. In other words, call him on his weak points, If you really want to ram it down his through you can attach all  the CV's for your experts to your response and ask him to attach CV's for his experts. to you response. But I'm sure that is going beyond the call of duty. Rip

I wish it were that easy. But it would likely end up being pointless. They're going to believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence.

[Storm]

Hi Storm,

 

Debates on the veracity of the bible are interesting, perhaps, but  generally fruitless. Fundamentalists' faith cannot be penetrated by any amount of reason, and liberal Christians don't care about errors in the bible--the bible is meant to be interpreted "theologically," whatever the hell that means.

 

But there's always that chance that something you say might spark a little nagging question. I know my doubts about the bible were the start of my deconversion, and I'm not even sure how it happened, it was almost imperceptible. I guess miracles do happen.

Truth!

 

I want to present the evidence, but since the blog is moderated by the pastor, I doubt I would get a fair shake. I am considering emailing him and calling him out on some of the obvious mistruths that he is propagating, but even then, it would likely result in nothing.

[mymistake]

 

Hi Storm,

 

Debates on the veracity of the bible are interesting, perhaps, but  generally fruitless. Fundamentalists' faith cannot be penetrated by any amount of reason, and liberal Christians don't care about errors in the bible--the bible is meant to be interpreted "theologically," whatever the hell that means.

 

But there's always that chance that something you say might spark a little nagging question. I know my doubts about the bible were the start of my deconversion, and I'm not even sure how it happened, it was almost imperceptible. I guess miracles do happen.

Truth!

 

I want to present the evidence, but since the blog is moderated by the pastor, I doubt I would get a fair shake. I am considering emailing him and calling him out on some of the obvious mistruths that he is propagating, but even then, it would likely result in nothing.

 

 

 

You are just an attack from Satan.

 

Really the only thing that will result is that the pastor will brag to his congregation about how he stood up to an attack from an EVIL atheist who was possessed by demons.

 

All the pastor has to do is ignore you and he is victorious.

[Storm]

 

 

Hi Storm,

 

Debates on the veracity of the bible are interesting, perhaps, but  generally fruitless. Fundamentalists' faith cannot be penetrated by any amount of reason, and liberal Christians don't care about errors in the bible--the bible is meant to be interpreted "theologically," whatever the hell that means.

 

But there's always that chance that something you say might spark a little nagging question. I know my doubts about the bible were the start of my deconversion, and I'm not even sure how it happened, it was almost imperceptible. I guess miracles do happen.

Truth!

 

I want to present the evidence, but since the blog is moderated by the pastor, I doubt I would get a fair shake. I am considering emailing him and calling him out on some of the obvious mistruths that he is propagating, but even then, it would likely result in nothing.

 

 

 

You are just an attack from Satan.

 

Really the only thing that will result is that the pastor will brag to his congregation about how he stood up to an attack from an EVIL atheist who was possessed by demons.

 

All the pastor has to do is ignore you and he is victorious.

 

The only reason I would challenge him is to show others that he isn't telling the whole truth. In some ways, my mission is to simply expose him and Christianity for what it really is: a sham. But because he moderates his blog, its highly unlikely that any serious challenges I could provide would ever actually show up on the blog. So, its not really worth my time. I know the truth about what he is stating, and it frustrates me that he does it. But I cant really do anything about it at this point. To say that I have lost all respect for the man is an understatement. I'm disappointed. But I am not sure why. He didn't react any differently than most people would in his situation.