An attempt to disprove Rice Brooks's argument (part 1)

[Aibao]

Nowhere could I find a critique of Rice Broocks's book, "Man Myth Messiah." So I thought maybe I would include you in the discussion of "disarming" the arguments of the author of this book and summarize it a bit so that you don't have to bother reading it if you don't want to.
When I finished writing this summary, it turned out to be very, very long and problematic, so I would like to divide the topic into parts, especially as there are many aspects of Christianity to be discussed.
In general, I wanted to "figure out" the author's statements and arguments, but I thought that at this stage it is worth asking you, because you have more experience with the passing of faith than I have, and maybe you have already dug into almost all possible sources of knowledge and you can provide clear, specific answers right away? Therefore, despite the fact that I am engaged in a solitary search for refuting arguments, I turn to you again as experienced colleagues of mine. I am also curious about your answers, and as I am sometimes irrational (e.g. when I am in a state of fear I can feel something that is not there) and I often have problems with logical thinking, the more I want to turn to thinking people.

 

Seeking the truth
From the very beginning, the author presents a certain approach to the issue of Christianity. Do you understand this approach? : scholars (non-Christian, of course) treat the Gospels as historical documents, even B. Ehrman relies on them to explain Paul's ministry, where he traveled, etc. - then why is the resurrection and Christianity in general rejected? Skeptical historians admit that Jesus is part of history, but refuse to grant Jesus authority over creation, to call him Lord (the allegation made by the author). The author also claims that we generally believe in crazy and absurd things, but reject credible and important things. He opposes people who believe in UFOs, in Elvis alive today, in non-believers in the Holocaust, and in the American expedition to the moon, while admitting that we must follow the evidence wherever it takes us - regardless of our own preferences. So that's what I do (or at least try to). In examining the evidence, the author claims that what matters is what voices you listen to on your journey of faith and truth-discovery. (yes, you have to listen to the voices for the truth of Christianity - I think that's what he meant here, and that's what he's trying to show in his book).
The important thing is that the author himself supports people who do not blindly believe, because they are told by their family or culture, but who test the evidence and their faith themselves. He also believes that if something is true it should pass through the scrutiny of historical, philosophical, and rational research, and that the theses of religion must be examined even in the light of science.
In examining the evidence, the author points out, our personal prejudices, cultural influences, hatred of Christianity (rebellion against God), and the upbringing of someone who has been brought up with the conviction that there are no supernatural phenomena will not believe in the resurrection are an obstacle, so we are not objective. But according to the author, God gives us enough evidence to let us trust Him for things that we cannot accept (I think it is about the resurrection thing). The author points out again that God wants us to trust Him not based on blind faith, but on how he has proved to be trustworthy in history and in our lives (do you have any examples?)
He also says that if Jesus is a myth or Christianity is doubtful we can live as we want, then we are our own masters, but if Jesus is the Messiah - we must subordinate our entire life to him (in addition, we must live a holy life, whatever that means).
The author believes that faith is not blind, that it is based on evidence and that we believe in God through reason, not against reason, and it is not a lack of evidence, but an abundance of evidence that prevents people from believing in God - I got lost, because then it turns out that atheists they fight without sense with the claims of Christians that they are trying in every possible way to refute something that should not be refuted, but ... is it really?
Broocks lists respected scholars and pastors who are said to be able to resolve doubts about God: Gary Habermas, Hugh Ross, John Lennox, Dr. W.L. Craig, Dr. Frank Turek and others, and J. Warner Wallace, who converted from atheism because he concluded that the Gospels are credible eyewitness documents - my question: how do these people get there? since there seem to be many arguments to refute Christianity how do atheists convert after all? even in my church, at least the authors of the gospel were not seen as the true authors of the gospel, but as names given to organize the books ...
The author also gives the example of a staunch unbelieving acquaintance who converted after a trip with the author to Israel, where he could see with his own eyes the places of Jesus' activity - but these are places like any other in my opinion, at least, although if he insists, they can actually be confirmation of the truth about Jesus, because the descriptions of these places can be found in the New Testament ???

[TABA]

2 hours ago, Aibao said:

I thought that at this stage it is worth asking you, because you have more experience with the passing of faith than I have, and maybe you have already dug into almost all possible sources of knowledge and you can provide clear, specific answers right away? Therefore, despite the fact that I am engaged in a solitary search for refuting arguments, I turn to you again as experienced colleagues of mine.

This is a good place to come to when you have questions about the truth - or otherwise - of Christianity.  Collectively we have a lot of knowledge and are happy to share it.  I am not the most knowledgeable among us by a long shot but it looks like I’m going to be the first responder, so here goes…. I don’t have time to respond to everything you brought up, and I hope to come back with more later.   Let’s get started…

 

2 hours ago, Aibao said:

scholars (non-Christian, of course) treat the Gospels as historical documents, even B. Ehrman relies on them to explain Paul's ministry, where he traveled, etc. - then why is the resurrection and Christianity in general rejected?

They are historical documents because they were written at a point in history - in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, and reflect their time, but they are NOT necessarily accepted by historians as dependable, factual, accounts.  They are above all promoting a message.  They include some real historical figures (Roman political types, mostly) and real places, but beyond that it’s very much in question to what extent the events depicted actually happened.  So no, the Gospels are not history books as such.  
 

2 hours ago, Aibao said:

Skeptical historians admit that Jesus is part of history, but refuse to grant Jesus authority over creation, to call him Lord

Most historians believe that some version of Jesus probably lived in the 1st century.  Others believe he is wholly mythical.  But the Gospels present rather different pictures of Jesus, when you compare Mark against John for example.  These two versions of Jesus are very hard to reconcile.  He grows in the telling.  More god, less man, as the older writings were succeeded by later ones.  Does this seem like a true account of a god who became man, or the beginnings of a myth?  I believe the latter, which is why, along with the rest of us here and many historians, I do not grant him authority over creation, or call him Lord.

 

OK, that’s just addressing some of it.  I’ll come back with more, unless some other heathen steps forward in the meantime.  

[walterpthefirst]

Aibao,

 

Any issues or interest you have about the New Testament, the resurrection and the validity of evidence all rely on the origin of Christianity being true.

 

If the origin of it is not true, then none of it is true.

 

Which is why I recommend that you take your focus off Jesus, the NT and anything written by Biblical apologists and deal with the issue of Genesis.

 

I have asked you to do so in your other thread.

 

Please consider my question to you there seriously and then answer it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Wertbag]

On 3/2/2022 at 7:53 AM, Aibao said:

J. Warner Wallace, who converted from atheism because he concluded that the Gospels are credible eyewitness documents - my question: how do these people get there?

One thing you will often find with apologists who claim to have been atheists, is that they were usually the apathetic type.  Nothing wrong with being an apathetic atheist, I have several friends who are that way but they haven't heard the arguments, wouldn't know who Frank Turek is and really don't care.  They write it off as fairy tales and happily get on with their lives.  Converting from that kind of atheist is not a great jump.  They go from knowing nothing, to hearing the apologetics from one side only.  With no knowledge of the counter arguments it all sounds very convincing, and when spoken with confidence by a charismatic preacher it is easy to believe what they are told.

 

What you find is they often revert to the religion they grew up with.  J Warner Wallace was raised in a Catholic home, and married a devout Christian lady.  He had been taught the "truth" from birth, and now had his wife asking him to attend church and be involved in that.  He already had one foot in the door.

 

On 3/2/2022 at 7:53 AM, Aibao said:

But according to the author, God gives us enough evidence to let us trust Him for things that we cannot accept

This is always a funny claim.  You look at the stories of the OT, where God appears as a burning bush, a pillar of fire, a voice from the sky, in human form, or sending angelic messengers.  He allows people to call plagues in his name, summon bears to defend bald men, calls fire from the sky and heals the crippled.  The world floods, Sodom is destroyed, Lot's wife gets turned into a pillar of salt, the red sea parts and miracle after miracle is claimed to show God's power.  Jump forward a couple of thousand years and what do we have?  An image in a piece of toast?  People getting vague feelings?  Look how pretty the flowers are?  

If any of the OT miracles could be repeated then we really would have evidence.  Currently all we get are these weak philosophical arguments. 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/1/2022 at 1:53 PM, Aibao said:

The author believes that faith is not blind, that it is based on evidence and that we believe in God through reason, not against reason, and it is not a lack of evidence, but an abundance of evidence that prevents people from believing in God - I got lost, because then it turns out that atheists they fight without sense with the claims of Christians that they are trying in every possible way to refute something that should not be refuted, but ... is it really

 

The author is a dim wit, basically. 

 

If you look in our debate section The Lion's Den, you'll find thread after thread of various dim wits trying to prove god via "evidence." It's a sure failure because it's not possible to do it. What these guys usually do is take some issue from science and claim that it proves god, when, clearly, it does not. But even more to the point, what prevents people from believing in god is that it's a very hallow claim that lacks in not only evidence but lacks reason and logic as well. 

 

We're ex christian, most of us, because we made a change at some point from blindly believing in the emotional based claims of others and started thinking for ourselves - applying logic and reason and concerning ourselves with what the evidence shows. 

 

On 3/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Aibao,

 

Any issues or interest you have about the New Testament, the resurrection and the validity of evidence all rely on the origin of Christianity being true.

 

If the origin of it is not true, then none of it is true.

 

Which is why I recommend that you take your focus off Jesus, the NT and anything written by Biblical apologists and deal with the issue of Genesis.

 

I have asked you to do so in your other thread.

 

I already gave you a link to my debate about the book Genesis as demonstrably false. Walter showed you the same thing in other thread. And illustrated very clearly that if Genesis is demonstrably false, then everything that depends on Genesis being true is false as well - the NT depends on taking Genesis literally. But it's demonstrable that Genesis is not literal. 

 

You have to give these arguments a fair shake and try to understand what's going on: 

 

 

Now if you can coax this book author to join our forum and try to debate any one of us here, we can dismantle the book author in real time and you can watch it unfold. I'm always willing to do that.

 

Because I've been debating with christians for the better part of 30 years. Systematically dismantling their arguments for three decades tends to reveal the frail and fragile nature of their world views. Especially where their 'foundations' are concerned. Their foundations "lie" in Genesis. 

 

That's why we're recommending that you get a firm grip on why Genesis can't be claimed as literally true by any stretch of the imagination. It all starts there. Whatever happens there in Genesis domino effects all the way to Revelation. 

 

On 3/1/2022 at 1:53 PM, Aibao said:

Broocks lists respected scholars and pastors who are said to be able to resolve doubts about God: Gary Habermas, Hugh Ross, John Lennox, Dr. W.L. Craig, Dr. Frank Turek and others, and J. Warner Wallace, who converted from atheism because he concluded that the Gospels are credible eyewitness documents - my question: how do these people get there? since there seem to be many arguments to refute Christianity how do atheists convert after all?

 

Here's a good example of William Lane Craigs arguments for the truth of Genesis. Walter completely dismantled the argument: 

 

 

People claiming to convert from atheist to christianity always boils down to people who did so for emotional, not evidential and logic-based reasons. It isn't logical. There's nothing logical about believing that the Genesis is true - the world is fallen, sin is literal, some god separate from the world and yourself exists out there, talking snake, 6 day creation, etc., etc. And yet, some people who used to technically be atheist because they didn't believe in god for whatever reason, changed their minds and started believing in god. 

 

It will always boil down to emotional, not logical or objective minded reasons. 

 

They start to age and find themselves facing a fear of their own mortality, that's one very common emotion reason. Another common issue is that they never really cared about religion, didn't know anything about it, and then joined eventually when their emotions took a different direction. They were atheist because their emotions went in one direction. When that emotional direction changed, they became theists. I know a lot of guys who rebelled in school but never gained any intellectual standing about religion and christianity. They later went right back to it when the rebellious streak was over. Those of us who actually went on to study about it and read all of the relevant literature, have not returned. 

 

Because we know that there's nothing to return back to! It's a "case closed" situation where truth seeking is concerned. The truth is out there yet to be discovered fully. It takes work and concentration to try and locate it. Christianity is demonstrably false. 

 

After extensive study and research, I've found christianity to be nothing more than a hallow void of poorly framed claims and arguments that make no sense by standard of science, philosophy, and spirituality for that matter. Christianity is very poorly presented when you understand the full scope of the religion. It's much worse than you can imagine right now being fresh off the boat in terms of questioning it. But it turns out to be every bit as bad as I'm describing when you take an objective minded deep dive into it. 

 

I'm trying to help you along and give you the opportunity to see it for yourself. You came here, we didn't seek you out. Once here, you're subject to facing the tough issues for christianity. 

[TABA]

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

One thing you will often find with apologists who claim to have been atheists, is that they were usually the apathetic type.

 

 

3 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Converting from that kind of atheist is not a great jump.  They go from knowing nothing, to hearing the apologetics from one side only.  With no knowledge of the counter arguments it all sounds very convincing,

This is absolutely right.  That’s why here at Ex-C we aim to bolster the deconverting person’s knowledge in a variety of fields.  It’s sometimes referred to as “building intellectual immunity” to Christianity, where you know so much that you couldn’t possibly get sucked back in.  It’s so important to building a happy and confident post-Christian life.  
 

In another current thread, @Joshpanterasays this:

”In the time frame beyond 2012 I started seeing people come here brand spanking new and within 1 or 2 years of leaving christianity attaining massive gains in knowledge”

 

 

Fact Check: True.  We have several members - myself included - who have gone from being devout Christians to being moderators here in just a handful of years…

 

 

[pantheory]

On 3/1/2022 at 10:53 AM, Aibao said:

Nowhere could I find a critique of Rice Broocks's book, "Man Myth Messiah." So I thought maybe I would include you in the discussion of "disarming" the arguments of the author of this book and summarize it a bit so that you don't have to bother reading it if you don't want to.
When I finished writing this summary, it turned out to be very, very long and problematic, so I would like to divide the topic into parts, especially as there are many aspects of Christianity to be discussed.
In general, I wanted to "figure out" the author's statements and arguments, but I thought that at this stage it is worth asking you, because you have more experience with the passing of faith than I have, and maybe you have already dug into almost all possible sources of knowledge and you can provide clear, specific answers right away? Therefore, despite the fact that I am engaged in a solitary search for refuting arguments, I turn to you again as experienced colleagues of mine. I am also curious about your answers, and as I am sometimes irrational (e.g. when I am in a state of fear I can feel something that is not there) and I often have problems with logical thinking, the more I want to turn to thinking people.

 

Seeking the truth
From the very beginning, the author presents a certain approach to the issue of Christianity. Do you understand this approach? : scholars (non-Christian, of course) treat the Gospels as historical documents..........................................

 

Regarding author and evangelist Rice Broocks:

His popular books have been: Man, Myth, Messiah; The Human Right; God’s Not Dead; and The Purple Book.

As you may know, Rice Broocks is an American Evangelist. He is a part of the “Every Nation” evangelical Christian church and related movement founded in the Philippines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Nation_Churches_%26_Ministries

You will rarely find any criticisms of religious writings by anyone other than by persons of other religions, as you may well understand since any such criticisms will be based upon the Bible itself. Nearly all religious scholars agree that trying to justify the writings of the Bible or other religious writings based upon verifiable historical evidence alone cannot accurately be done.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/bible-basics/how-do-biblical-scholars-study-the-new-testament.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

On 3/1/2022 at 1:53 PM, Aibao said:

Broocks lists respected scholars and pastors who are said to be able to resolve doubts about God: Gary Habermas

 

I have summed up Gary Habermas elsewhere:

 

 

Habermas never establishes anything, his entire approach is merely a drawn out thought experiment.  So drawn out that it gives the appearance of establishing a foundation.

[Joshpantera]

On 3/1/2022 at 1:53 PM, Aibao said:

Broocks lists respected scholars and pastors who are said to be able to resolve doubts about God: Gary Habermas

 

How about some fact checking Gary Habermas and getting a feel for his apologetic style: 

 

 

Habermas is credible???

 

Logical???

 

Reasoned???

 

Evidence based???

 

As I pointed out earlier, this is really, really bad apologetics. Terribly wrong, again and again. Point by point. And in the end, he's just plain dishonest. 

[Joshpantera]

Jordon Peterson has become an emotional basket case with age. This is a great example of the emotional, not objective, logical, or reason-oriented foundation for belief:  

 

 

Habermas isn't crying his eyes out, but he's on no different footing than Peterson. The footing and foundation are subjective and emotional. They believe what they believe not based on objective reasoning and applying logical thought processes. 

[Aibao]

 

Josh - thank you for the answer, I look at what you sent but as far as I know there are Christians who do not believe in the literalness of the Book of Genesis, and yet recognize the literalness of Jesus and the New Testament in general, so I don't know what to do here ... and in this Friendly Atheist video mentions that God even created poisonous plants and marijuana - but it can be explained that they became so after God cursed the earth after human sin, besides marijuana turns out to be a cure for brain cancer, it's not bad if used skillfully. ... but actually creating plants in front of the sun - yes, it's stupid, unless the order was simply irrelevant to God and everything would then start working,

 

TABA - exactly, I want to attain knowledge that will show me the falsehood of this religion if it is false. And I think it is, but I do not have the courage to say it openly, because I am still tormented by various doubts and fear.

As for Jordan Peterson, yes, I know him, but what kind of hell is he talking about? What kind of hell does he tell you to flee from? In front of one that we create for ourselves and others ... and the Bible seems to me to say something else: about hell by God's hand - how did it happen that hell suddenly became the fault and responsibility of only man? As if it was not God who created hell, but man? Peterson scares me somehow ... I wonder what led to his conversion, but maybe philosophy? He was very interested in philosophical issues and moral life ... he also had videos where he explained that Jesus was somehow a hippie or a pacifist and discussed the Book of Genesis in metaphorical terms - so he was susceptible to the Christian message because of this, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

found somewhere on the forum: is it true? that - "The most extreme example of this phenomenon is that when the Christian Church won the Roman Empire, it systematically eliminated any evidence it could find that contradicted its literal history of the Gospel Truth."

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/ask-a-scholar/jesus-and-caesar does this suggest that although the emperor did not know about Jesus and no one wrote documentation about him at the time of his activity, he found out after Jesus' death, so can the gospels be historically credible?

I have also heard that the victors write history - according to believers, if Christianity loses and is criticized, it must be true, historians simply do not want to accept this truth, so they are silent and ignore it ... oh ... it hurts from all this - and I have no rest during the day or night (well, now I take pills, so I have recently at night) - like in a lake of fire ...

[Aibao]

On 3/2/2022 at 12:15 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Aibao,

 

Any issues or interest you have about the New Testament, the resurrection and the validity of evidence all rely on the origin of Christianity being true.

 

If the origin of it is not true, then none of it is true.

 

Which is why I recommend that you take your focus off Jesus, the NT and anything written by Biblical apologists and deal with the issue of Genesis.

 

I have asked you to do so in your other thread.

 

Please consider my question to you there seriously and then answer it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Walter - in my previous post I answered what I think about the Book of Genesis. However, I am tormented most by the New Testament.Because yes - many things in the Old Testament sound like fiction, such as the story of Samson or Noah's ark. And I learned that the story of Noah was taken from an earlier myth of Gilgamesh, which also referred to the Flood - but the apologists have a clever explanation for this - for example, that these stories were prepared as the ground for true and only faith - so what for will you say it As for my arguments in mind, I lose to the apologists at the start of the Old Testament, but I am interested in the New Testament, because there are worse consequences and more difficult to refute - e.g. this challenge, overthrow the resurrection. The essence of Christianity is contained in the New Testament, not in the Old Testament, which is why I am interested in it (in the church where I was, the talks were mainly about the Gospels and Jesus' activities, sermons based on the stories from the Old Testament were not so frequent)

[Aibao]

Besides, I would like to thank everyone for every answer - each is important and valuable to me and will serve as a help and help me understand my path