SecWebLurker: We are searching out the possibility for that for which we have no evidence. No one assumes their impossibility because we have no evidence, contrary to your general belief that "Until something is shown to be possible, it is reasonable to think it is impossible."

penatis: You keep bringing up scientists and their endeavors. Perhaps you can explain why scientists are not attempting to demonstrate the existence of virgin births, angels, and holy spirits.

SecWebLurker: Because all of those involve elements that are not predictable - but either personal/transcendent agents, or events initiated by a personal being who transcends the universe.

penatis: In other words, science does not investigate imaginary things such as "transcendent agents or events that transcend the universe."

SecWebLurker: No, just what I said...The agents initiating the event are unpredictable and transcendent and therefore not able to be directly observed. The fact that God brought about such a miracle in the case of Jesus, who is intended to be a unique revelation of Himself to mankind, in no way suggests that such a thing will occur in the future, and in fact, suggests quite the opposite. And if such a thing did occur in the future, science, constricted by its a priori adherence to methodological naturalism, would be forced to just label it an unknown.

penati: Again, it is impossible until it is demonstrated that it is possible.

SecWebL: Only in the mind of penatis.

penatis: Hardly. I am logical. You are not.

SecWebLurker: Hahaha...right.

penatis: Thanks for agreeing.

SecWebLurker: I was laughing at you.

penatis: You believe in fairy tales, and you are laughing at me for not believing them? Wow!!! Far out, Dude!!

SecWebLurker: I'm laughing at you because you have 'freethinkeritis'. You think you're using "logic" when you reject miracles, but you have no logical argument whatsoever that demonstrates their impossibility. You don't know what "logic" means.

penatis: It is perfectly logical to presume angels, virgin births, fairies, demons, trolls, gods, heaven, hell, etc. are nonexistent until evidence demonstrates the contrary.

SecWeb: You can PRESUME they are NONEXISTENT, and that's just fine. What you cannot do is ASSUME they are IMPOSSIBLE, and then claim that this assumption is based on logic.

SecWebLurker: I wasn't agreeing. Quote a philospher or a textbook on logic that says something must be PROVEN before it is considered anything other than impossible.

penatis: Logically, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the BELIEVER, not the skeptic. I do not think virgin births are possible. You do. Prove they are!

SecWebLurker: Sorry, I don't have to have PROOF to hold a belief.

penatis: Very true, but why do you believe in absurd things?

SecWebLurker: Its not absurd by my standards. That God exists, that Jesus was the Messiah, that God has been with Israel in a special way throughout history, that God brought about Jesus' birth in a miraculous way in line with the Jewish tradition of such things, etc. None of these things are absurd to me. Sorry, they just aren't. :-( ...[shrug]...You're entitled to your opinion, just don't project your materialistic worldview onto me...

SecWebLurker: I've already discussed my reasons for believing in the VB. If you don't like them, I don't mind. I don't feel the need to convince you. As I've said fifty times now, my grievance is with your ridiculous assertion as concerns what is and isn't possible.

penatis: You have presented zero evidence demonstrating the existence of virgin births, and yet, you believe they occur. Why?

SecWebLurker: Been over this a thousand times, including in this very message.

SecWebLurker: No one had demonstrated that it was possible to get to the moon prior to the Apollo mission that made it. To claim that it was impossible before several major unsuccessful attempts would have just been idiotic.

penatis: You may characterize logical thinking as "idiotic" if you wish. That does nothing to change its correctness. Also, you continue to use a false analogy. You erroneously compare science with religion. They are mutually exclusive.

SecWebLurker: LOL@"You continue to compare science with religion"...Someone needs to see the Wizard about a brain...In ANY area -science, historical research, theology, etc., we NEVER *know* something is impossible because there is, as yet, no PROOF of it, unless of course we either a) make metaphysical assumptions or b) deem it "logically impossible", which means it entails some sort of logical contradiction.

penatis: Yes, someone needs to see "the Wizard" and find out what science thinks of virgin births and angels and dreams of virgin births and holy spirits.

SecWeb: Science itself doesn't have anything to say about any of these things, and plenty of scientists believe in their actual occurence.

penatis: There may be men/women who have been trained as scientists, but they are not believers of superstitious things as a result of scientific observation. They are just as superstitious as you are.

SecWebLurker: Actually there are several physicists and astronomers who have done work or research on anthropic "fine-tuning" and concluded that it is evidence for divine design. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies was promoting atheism prior to such a "conversion" of thought.

penatis: You seem to believe everything you read. BTW, what does this have ot do with the virgin birth myths?

SecWebLurker: Nah...I really don't believe everything I read. But when I see a multitude of eminent astronomers, physicists, and philosophers of science in agreement as concerns the existence of what they see as evidence for what you would consider supernatural, I'm inclined to take notice.

SecWebLurker: The most we can say is "This usually doesn't happen...".

penatis: WE CAN SAY THAT VIRGIN BIRTHS NEVER HAPPEN.

SecWebLurker: You can say it as an article of faith, but you have no evidence for this claim. All you know is that you "ain't ne'er seen one", but that isn't really evidence of anything.

penatis: I have never said "ain't ne'er seen one." That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I have repeatedly said there is no evidence demonstrating they exist.

SecWebLurker: No, you have said they are IMPOSSIBLE, not just that there is no evidence for Virgin births. And the only evidence you have for their impossibility is "I ain't ne'er seen one".

penatis: I suppose you get a giggle out of repeating "I ain't ne'er seen one" over and over, but I have never said it, nor do I think it. It is a misrepresentation of my argument. But, if it gives you a little giggle, keep repeating it.

SecWebLurker: Indeed, 'I ain't ne'er seen one' is the entirety of your evidence for the alleged impossibility of a VB.

tic toc...

SecWebLurker

SecWebLurker: Sorry, I don't have to have PROOF to hold a belief.

So you could believe in fairies, or Zeus, or Trolls, or anything of your choosing. Wow!

penatis: Very true, but why do you believe in absurd things?

SecWebLurker: Its not absurd by my standards. That God exists, that Jesus was the Messiah, that God has been with Israel in a special way throughout history, that God brought about Jesus' birth in a miraculous way in line with the Jewish tradition of such things, etc. None of these things are absurd to me. Sorry, they just aren't. :-( ...[shrug]...You're entitled to your opinion, just don't project your materialistic worldview onto me...

You are entitled to your opinions, but don't project your superstitious worldview on me.

penatis: You seem to believe everything you read. BTW, what does this have ot do with the virgin birth myths?

SecWebLurker: Nah...I really don't believe everything I read.

You have already said you don't need proof to believe something.

SecWebLurker: But when I see a multitude of eminent astronomers, physicists, and philosophers of science in agreement as concerns the existence of what they see as evidence for what you would consider supernatural, I'm inclined to take notice.

This is laughable.

SecWebLurker: The most we can say is "This usually doesn't happen...".

penatis: WE CAN SAY THAT VIRGIN BIRTHS NEVER HAPPEN.

SecWebLurker: You can say it as an article of faith, but you have no evidence for this claim. All you know is that you "ain't ne'er seen one", but that isn't really evidence of anything.

penatis: I have never said "ain't ne'er seen one." That is a misrepresentation of my argument. I have repeatedly said there is no evidence demonstrating they exist.

SecWebLurker: No, you have said they are IMPOSSIBLE, not just that there is no evidence for Virgin births. And the only evidence you have for their impossibility is "I ain't ne'er seen one".

penatis: I suppose you get a giggle out of repeating "I ain't ne'er seen one" over and over, but I have never said it, nor do I think it. It is a misrepresentation of my argument. But, if it gives you a little giggle, keep repeating it.

SecWebLurker: Indeed, 'I ain't ne'er seen one' is the entirety of your evidence for the alleged impossibility of a VB.

You believe in virgin births because...Well, just because.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
I think a critical historian has no vested interest in proving the NT is historically or not historically accurate. Are some atheists capable of doing this? Yes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Since an historian that discovered that the NT was true would be compelled to convert to Christianity, how would you prove that this hypothetical historian of yours would not have a vested interest in not wanting to convert? Do you know the heart or mind of these men?

I told you what I think a critical historian is. No, I do not know what goes on inside the minds of men. To my knowledge, the heart pumps blood.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Second, do you think a Jew can treat the New Testament in an unbiased manner?
I think non-Christians (including Jews) are less biased when dealing with the NT than are Christian theologians.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Prove this.

You asked a question. I told you what I think. I don't have to prove shit to you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Third, since the historians you have cited would not make such a claim, why do you?
What claim? Don't say that I have ever said that anyone is totally neutral or unbiased. I have repeatedly pointed out that there are degrees of both.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Then demonstrate how a Jew would be less biased about the NT than would a Christian. Then do the same for an atheist.

I answered your question. I don't have to prove shit to you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Snip Grant quote}
(Michael Grant, Jesus, London, 1972, pg. 2)[/i]
Nomad: Considering the fact that Grant is an atheist, why can't you accept that he is right here? You have pointed out (quite rightly) the limitations of the Christian, yet denied that you or your (and ANY) historians suffer from the same malady. Why is that?

You presume that since you are highly biased, everyone else must be as well. That is not the case.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Prove it. Grant disagrees with you penatis.

Grant does not disagree with me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I honestly do not care if the NT is one hundred per cent fiction or nonfiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Oh? Really? Prove this.

This is a rather curious request. I think I gave you my opinion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ONLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: No you don't.

Oh, so now you know more than I know about what I know. Very interesting.

Nomad: Stop with the assertions penatis. Each time you make one I will simply reply in kind.

What assertions?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My aspirations are consistent with those of critical historians
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: So long as you will not have to believe that the NT could be true, you might do this.

You certainly have a right to your biased opinion.

Nomad: But I doubt it.

Who cares!

Nomad: Thus far you have demonstrated all the open mindedness of a dedictated fanatic.

Ah, yes, another ad hominem.

Peace and Love, Nomad.

As promised.

jmcanany. I mentioned this post in my response to your question about applying the criterion. As I said, I haven't had the time or ability to cover the entire New Testament. However, this should show you how I have used at least some of the criteria

To attempt to paraphrase a biblical scholar, it is not that the ancients told dumb stories and at the Enlightenment we got smart and realized it.

It is the fact that the ancients told powerful, metaophorical stories and we got dumb at the Enlightenment and took them literally!

Nowhere in the ancient world will you find an argument between pagans and Christians pitting the uniqueness of Jesus' life and deeds against the impossibility of the same. Those in the first century lived in a world where they believed in virgin births and miracle deeds: their argument was about which of their guys was better--Jesus or, say, Ceasar.

Today fundamentalist/evangelical types will say "Well, granted that a virgin birth doesn't happen very often and I agree that if my daughter tries to pull one on me when she returns from college I will not believe her--but such an event DID happen ONCE in history with our JESUS."

Such a stance and attitude would be laughable and dismissed as nonsense in the first century, because they could not, did not and would not pit impossiblilty against uniqueness.

When rationalism split into two great pieces in the 19th century, they were fundamentalism and secularism. Both have been arguing a dead end: secularism has become sterile and literal and fundamentalism has become dishonest and full of fantasy. By dissipating the debate in Christianity to questions about divinity, we have sidestepped the issue of the historical Jesus and what he meant by the Kingdom of God.

Very good rebuttal, SingleDad.

It appears that Layman started this post, but then left it to founder. I'm just wondering if Layman is ever going to respond to the problems with:

1. the criterion of embarrassment, since it is unfalsifiable and can be explained by other things;

2. the criterion of "coherence" and why it should be valued since it is highly subjective;

3. the criterion of "dissimiliarity" and how it differs from creativity or simple error;

4. the argument from authority (overused);

5. the disconnect between large numbers of followers and proving a historical truth;

6. the difference between magic and miracles;

7. the fact that differences in Matthew and Luke do not demonstrate independence;

Perhaps you could elaborate on your objections.

Do you deny the utility of the criterion of embarrassment in general? Or, is there a specific application in this post that you objected to. If so, which one? If you object in general, why should your opinion matter more than John P. Meier's?

I understand and agree with some of the objection to the Coherence argument. However, I believe that it is at its strongest in this case when explaining the disciples adherance to Jesus, even after his death and their persecution. There were other leaders who claimed to be disciples and promised miracles. When they died, their disciples abandoned them. Even John the Baptist's disciples did not carry on.

The criterion of dissimilarity. Again, do you deny the utility of this criteria overall, or just in specific applications? And if you do, why should your opinion carry more weight than E.P. Sanders? And you are wrong that it does not take into account the creativity of the author, that is precisely what it does.

The miracles v. magic difference is a good question. I need to follow up on that.

As for the differences of M and L. You fail to address the independence of Q, Paul, Mark, and John. You also fail to discuss Josephus and the Talmud. As for M and L. It is not just that they are different, it is that they rely on separate sources. Of course, if you are fluent in Koine Greek, perhaps you could refute Robert Van Voorst's or Kim Poffenroth's conclusions as to their independence.

As for my use of authority, guilty as charged. Not being an expert in this field, I do believe that reference to them is appropriate. However, if you believe that I Have incorrectly or inaccurately referred to authority on a specific point (such as the independence of L and M), I would be happy to adress your concern.



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited March 21, 2001).]

Unnecessary. SingleDad made the objections, and elaborated inside his response. That was on Feb 16th, almost 35 days ago. Where is your response? What is the delay, oh deLayman?

I happen to agree with him, but I will (as they say) "yield my time" to SingleDad.

The fact remains that you have (yet another) case of unfinished business to attend to.

So get busy.

Yawn.

As I said, your obligation here is to address the items that SingleDad brought up. However, I will provide the following information from The Oxford History of the Biblical World :


[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 21, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited March 21, 2001).]