Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Omnedon1: So what's it gonna be?

Its gonna be declared that you just don't get it. Turtonm and EJ get it. Ask them to explain it to you.

The possibility of miracles is a philosophical issue, not a historical one. You want to muddy the waters by combining the two. The fact that you absolutely refuse to present a positive case for your alleged criteria speaks volumes.

If you want to discuss this topic any further with me, then please refrain from the discussion of miracles.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> As to replying to your recent post - I'm still waiting for you to show the probability math for your 90% and 95% claims. A 95% claim is a strong claim for solid proof.

Blah… Blah… Blah… I presented a case with supporting arguments to demonstrate the likelihood of my claim that Jesus taught in parables. You? Well, you haven’t even presented a case using any examples. Neither have you rebutted any of the supporting arguments in my claim. Normally when a person (in this case we’re talking about you) wants to rebut their opponent’s argument they actually make counter-arguments against their opponent. So that means you should try to show why some of my supporting arguments are not good. As I’ve said before, a person doesn’t win debates by shouting, “You’re wrong !! You’re wrong !!”. Some day we’ll get you to be a good debater. My first few lessons to you are free, after that I’ll start sending you a bill. Please directly address my specific argument and tell us why I am wrong in claiming that it was “highly probable” that Jesus taught in parables. Here is my argument as previously posted:

“Jesus most likely taught in parables. Here’s why…

The earliest traditions, which date to within the generation living at the time of Jesus, claim that Jesus taught in parables. We have multiple attestation for this claim in Q, Mark, Thomas, M, and L. There is no evidence that the earliest Christian missionaries taught in parables making it unlikely that the earliest Christians would have attributed this habit to Jesus. There is no reason not to believe Jesus taught in parables. Many of his parables consist of a rural agricultural background more at home in the setting of Jesus than in Christianity’s later (post 50 C.E.) concentration in cities. This again argues against a claim of fabrication by the early Christians and gospel writers. Teaching in parables fits with the idea of a subversive message aimed against religious and/or political authorities while also offering a critique of the status quo which would lead to the authorities seeing such a person as a threat. This is a possible contributing factor to the reasons for the execution of Jesus.

That is my case for believing it to be “highly probable” that Jesus taught in parables. I’m sure I’ve left out some supporting arguments, but it should suffice.”

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So again your options are: a. provide the data b. modify the claim c. retract the claim

The data was provided a long time ago. You’ve just been ignoring it while providing absolutely none of your own..

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> We don't believe in the miracles. But we are using your own "six criteria" here to beat you. By giving you an example that satisfies your busted six criteria, you and deLayman have a decision to make. You must concede that the case is much stronger for Sai Baba, than for Christ.

Did you just say something? You’ve done nothing of the sort. Proving that one example is false does not prove an analogous one to also be false. Do you know what fallacy that is? I’ll give you a dollar if you know. Proving something is an impostor does not mean the real thing does not exist.

If you don’t like getting a lesson from a theist on how to debate, then go half-way up page 4 of this thread and read “EJ’s” post about 10 times until it makes sense to you. Maybe EJ charges less for lessons than me, too.

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp:

You have yet to answer my question.

You have yet to provide standards by which you could identify gods/sons of gods/etc. if ever someone/thing showed up and claimed it was a god/son of god/etc.

What are your standards for identifying gods/sons of gods/etc.?

How would you know if someone who claimed he is Jesus--THE Jesus--IS THE Jesus?

Also, since the Bible has warnings about false prophets and false god-claimants, here is another question for you.

How would you know that a being claiming to be a god is a god and not a demon?

What are your standards for identifying gods/sons of gods/etc. in contrast to demons/sons of demons/etc.?

How can you prove that the Bible is the work of gods and not demons?

Layman - Let me put it this way, the evidence is sufficient to convince me.

What evidence convinces you of what? Your historical methods can only sufficiently arrive at most probably such and such claims were made. Not whether those claims are true or not. Not even to the point of saying those claims are probably true (the Jews thought Christ's messianic claims were false even if they believed that he performed miracles). And without being able to establish the truth of the claims via your methodology (which is not objective or foolproof by any means), it turns out your faith is as much fideistic as is mine.

Thank you ej

And welcome to the Boards.

Nomad

"I am not impressed by appeals to authority, especially when the so-called authority is a small circle of bible scholars who want the principle of methodological naturalism suspended just for them."

Which Bible scholars would those be? I thought I made it clear that most of them operated under methodological naturalism. Need I remind you that E.P. Sanders agrees with you that miracles are impossible. Both Graham Stanton and J.P. Meier agree that history cannot "prove" that miracles happen.

And every scholar I have relied on is a leader in the field, respected by their peers.

A note on this "deLayman" jab. I strive to answer questions comprehensively. Such as the miracle worker post, such as my responses to your accusations about the Josephus reference to miracles, and the latest one regarding his independence, as well as questions about the Talmud. I go back to the books, evaluate the evidence, and try and give comprehensive posts with supporting references. This takes time. Much more time than pretending we can't know anything about history and refusing to answer ANY question asked of you be a theist.

So, despite the obvious vitriol that has developed between us, surely you can be fair on this one, little, issue?

I asked you why you believe. Are you going to ignore the question? I'm really tired of the ONLY ASK QUESTIONS AND REFUSE TO ANSWER ANY tact.

Welcome Aboard.

And thanks for salvaging my opinion of skeptics.

A scientific left-brain sifting of biblical evidence CANNOT HELP BUT LEAD to a radical reassessment of the Bible, Christainity and other religious traditions.

The consequence of this--as shown throughout this thread--is that material judged to be unhistorical is quickly discarded to be valueless. Or that material describing "miracles" is equated with faith itself and stubbornly held on to.

Traditions can have a religious value irrestpective of whether they are historical or not.

It seems to me we have an argument between two varieties of fundamentalists, using "proof-texting" to prove superiority. There is a larger truth which highlights the opposition of opposed ideologies and this is expressed in myth. I am using myth in the sense of weltanshauung--a German word which conveys a comprehensive view of the larger world in which we argue these points.

Myth is the closest we can come to a sense of absolute reality. To be understood properly, we must move away from the scientific and fundamentalist views of the world (which are really the twin poles of rationalism) and embrace the poetic, the deep metaphorical and the parable. Neither fundamentalists nor scientific rationalists do this.

If myth is the conventional wisdom of our time, then parable by its very nature subverts that wisdom. Very little attention is paid to the structure and nature of Jesus' parables--especially by Christians and the church. They are radical and world-shattering and even after two centuries of oral tradition, translation and interpretation, there are very unsettling linguistic and thematic elements within them which point to something ("the Kingdom of God"?) after the mind loses its conventional grasp.

When the idea of myth comes to be clearly recognized and the historical and mythical components seperated from each other, one might see that myth--far from being valueless--is of unique importance to religious faith.

Polycarp:
You’ve set up a false dichotomy. If Jesus rose from the dead, then he is not on earth, but in heaven. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then his bones have long since rotted away. Either way, you won’t have the type of proof which you demand.

You have presented a false assumption. Why assume that because someone has come back to life after dying he/she would go to "heaven?" Please explain why Jesus could not have come back from the dead and remained on earth.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited March 24, 2001).]

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob K: You have yet to answer my question. You have yet to provide standards by which you could identify gods/sons of gods/etc. if ever someone/thing showed up and claimed it was a god/son of god/etc. What are your standards for identifying gods/sons of gods/etc.? How would you know if someone who claimed he is Jesus--THE Jesus--IS THE Jesus? Also, since the Bible has warnings about false prophets and false god-claimants, here is another question for you. How would you know that a being claiming to be a god is a god and not a demon? What are your standards for identifying gods/sons of gods/etc. in contrast to demons/sons of demons/etc.? How can you prove that the Bible is the work of gods and not demons?

I have answered your question. Now you ask me four more questions. I’m through answering questions until some of you start answering the ONE I’ve been asking for the last 4 or 5 days. I ask ONE question and NO skeptic will answer it, and then you and Omnedon have the audacity to try to claim that I’m the one who refuses to answer questions. My ONE question is for a skeptic to take one of the claims I made and show me how they would use their criteria to evaluate the claim. Layman and I have answered most of your questions, while you two refuse to answer ours. I guess you went to the same debating seminar that Omedon attended.

I told you that my belief in god will not be confirmed as true or false until after I die. Hello? What part of that do you not understand? You are trying to change the topic away from the issue at hand – the historical method. Since you are in the habit of asking a question, reading my answer, and then asking more questions, I will not go off on these red herrings you throw out in a vain attempt to change the topic. Until you discuss the topic of the historical method, I’m not going on to other topics.

Two of the claims I made are taught in every class on Greek philososphy. First, Aristotle wrote “Metaphysics”. Second, Plato wrote “Phaedo”. Omnedon scoffed when I told him that his criteria would lead to the abolition of vast numbers of history classes in our universities. Funny, but neither he nor you (or anyone) ever made a defense of either of these two basic claims taught in those very classes which would be abolished. This demonstrates the usual tactics of you and Omnedon – a refusal to offer any argument for your assertions.
Instead, you just stand on the sideline shouting, “You’re wrong. You’re wrong” at the top of your lungs. Let me know when you want to get in the game...

Peace,

Polycarp