When you get to set up the rules, of course you can expect to win.

I am asking you to setup your own rules and apply them. Or throw them out altogether.

The only reasonable standard as I see it it as BobK said it...

If you don't accept this standard, could you explain what is wrong with it?


The "standard" I would use is historical inquiry, not self-evident truth


Would you believe in an entire document if it refered to some historical event?
eg.


I was at the Year 2000 NFL Superbowl and I saw a UFO swoop down out of the sky and suck somebody up and then disappear.


In this example the superbowl is sort of my anchor, a real event that everyone accepts, but it isn't even related to the point of the statement. Would you beleive that?

I'll ease up on the slander...



[This message has been edited by dmvprof (edited February 08, 2001).]

If you don't accept this standard, could you explain what is wrong with it?"

The problem is I have no idea what you mean by "holy book." If you mean, authoritative, then NO, I reject the notion. But if by "holy" you mean "perfect," then you have won the argument by presenting a tautology. Of course a "perfect" book must be "perfect."

How many times do I have to say the same thing? I don't think the Bible has to be inerrant to transmit spiritual, authoritative truth.

"Would you believe in an entire document if it refered to some historical event?"

Again, how many times do I have to say that I am not defending the doctrine of inerrancy. I doubt whether such a doctrine is historically provable. So, the answer to your question is no.

Your argument seems to be that because we cannot be absolutely certain about everything in the Bible, we have no right to be confident in anything in the Bible.

I disagree.

Well, it's not that simple really. Layman, you have to admit that to most Christians the Bible is a little more than a historical document. Otherwise, you would have to conclude that the only things that you can really be sure of in the Bible are those that meet your standard of historicity. Are the Pauline letters historical? They do reflect the writings of a historical person (Paul) and they do have a historical context (they were written to churches that actually existed). But the veracity of the theological claims cannot be shown by historical methods. Some Christians disagree with some of Paul's writing. I don't know if you fall into that category, but I'm sure you know it's true. The same is true with the resurrection of Jesus. Is there historical legitimacy to the fact that Christians really believed Jesus rose from the dead? Probably. Did he ACTUALLY rise from the dead? That is a question of epistemology, not history. And so any attempts to make Jesus' resurrection "historical" are misguided. There are a whole host of explanations as to why Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead. (This is just an example): Someone might have claimed to have seen Jesus. Then, all of a sudden, the rumor becomes: "Oh my gosh, Jesus rose from the dead!" People were reportedly doing all kinds of supernatural things in antiquity. Twelve or more people claim to have seen the book of Mormon delivered to Joseph Smith and their signed testimonies are at the front of the book. Were they right?

And last of all, and this is a general comment, if one wants to treat Bible like history, one has to use historical critical methods impartially. That means not taking texts, twisting them, contorting them and changing them until they say what a particular sect or person wants it to say. I'm not accusing Layman in particular of this, but it is a common practice in Christian circles.

I agree with "the feet". If I wrote a letter to Santa discussing Elvis's well being, would it be any more believable if the letter was adressed to the "North Pole Research Station"? Paul was discussing his THEORIES about christianity, with what facts he knew through in with the conjecture of the era.
It is interesting to note that every relegious leader of the era rejected these theories, and did their best to remove their influence on the ignorant. Jesus did not for the most part choose the educated as apostles. He chose the illiterate and the social outcasts.

"Jesus did not for the most part choose the educated as apostles. He chose the illiterate and the social outcasts."

Shame on Him! Ministring to and caring for the oppressed. What kind of messiah did he think he was anyway?

And, as the trend continues, you are wrong. Jesus did choose Paul, who was obviously well educated and well adjusted in the upper crust of society.

I thought god(the father) chose Saul, he gave him an offer he couldn't refuse,(get it, god-father), Saul was previously about to kill Jesus, and had no faith, god had to actually appear to him to give him proof. This is interesting since you are saying he is the educated one. The rest of the uneducated apostles didn't require any proof apparently, but the educated one did.

Would you agree that this in some way justifies the educated critical thinker in his skepticism. Saul's doubt was strong and unshaken even by Jesus, yet he was still pursued by God who intervened to remove his doubt.

So I ask you, what is the difference in me and Saul?

David

First, you have yet to demonstrate to me that you are educated. In fact, you seem quite uninformed about the historical issues before us.

Second, you are only speculating that all 12 disciples were illiterate. Matthew, at least, stands a good chance of having some degree of education.

Third, what are you talking about when you say that the 12 disciples needed no proof? They lived and travelled with Jesus for 2-3 years. The gospels are clear that they were skeptical, even after the reports started coming in. Thomas, in fact, refused to believe it until he could touch Jesus' scars himself. Arguably, therefore, they had MUCH more proof than Paul did.

Fourth, what makes you think that Paul's disbelief was justified? That is not part of the New Testament story. Jesus did not appear to Paul just to convince him, he appeared to him to give him a new mission, one of evangelism to the gentiles.

Therefore, your argument that Paul, the intelligent one demanded and received proof, while the ignorant, stupid disciples took it without any evidence is obviously incorrect. Now, judging from your trackrecord, you will not concede your error on this point, but instead shift to a new locus of questioning.

Have at it.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited February 09, 2001).]

Layman, you are a classic,

While I assured you I would not be personal anymore, your first statement is a personal insult. I'll still try to turn the other cheek....


Second, you are only speculating that all 12 disciples were illiterate. Matthew, at least, stands a good chance of having some degree of education.


I was using your rhetoric as my source, does this ring a bell.


Shame on Him! Ministring to and caring for the oppressed. What kind of messiah did he think he was anyway?


In this quote you seem to concede that in fact the disciples were basically uneducated. But I guess consistency from a christian is a little too much to expect. If you didn't think they were uneducated, then why didn't you defend them earlier?


Third, what are you talking about when you say that the 12 disciples needed no proof?


So if all of the Disciples needed proof, what is so strange about me needing proof?
Would the disciples have believed today as you do, or do you think they would have held out for the proof as they did then when it was right in front of them?

Your response only solidifies my point dude.


Fourth, what makes you think that Paul's disbelief was justified? That is not part of the New Testament story. Jesus did not appear to Paul just to convince him, he appeared to him to give him a new mission, one of evangelism to the gentiles.


Understood, but why would an all powerful god need to go through this trouble to get the Gentiles a message. Why such crude measures? Is his power so limited that that is the only he can get through to them? Why is there any struggle at all, it just doesn't make sense that an all powerful god would have to submit to crucifiction from mortal men to achieve any end.

I never said the disciples were all uneducated and illiterate, so I'm sure you didn't use me as a source. In fact, you raised the issue first as to the followers of Jesus. My comment about caring for and ministring to the oppressed says nothing about the disciples specifically (Jesus' ministry was much larger than them). And, as I noted, I was responding to your post.

I never said it was strange that you needed proof, did I? In fact, I'm quite sure I would never say that to anyone. So, if that was your point, then I never disagreed with it.

Your last point basically boils down to, God didn't do it the way you would have done it had you been God. Such a quasi-philosophical argument is almost possible to defend against, because you are probably right. If you were God you wouldn't have done it that way. I think this begs the question, however, of what, if anything God did do. The bottom line is that it worked. Christianity is the predominant religion on the planet. It spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire BECAUSE of the nature of the story of the crucifixion and resurrection. It has endured, with the focus on the crucifixion and resurrection, BECAUSE of its nature.

In a very real sense then, despite your complaints about its "crude" nature, the story, whether true or not, has established the most far reaching religion in the history of humanity. In other words, crude, but effective.

I don't agree with your characterization that Christianity "spread like wildfire" throughout the empire. I especially disagree with your characterization that it did so BECAUSE of the "story." Christians were small in number before Constantine and then(suprise!) Christianity got a big boom. Before Constantine, they seem to have been comparable with some other foreign cults such as Mithrasism and Isisism.

And what of Islam and its "fast pace?" Is it because of the dynamic story of Islam?