Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

Holding is intelligent and well-read, but in this case, he missed the boat. Historians widely acknowledge many events that allegedly took place during Alexander the Great's life, but if ancient historians had claimed that Alexander walked on water, the majority of historians would not believe that, nor would Holding, and four allegedly independent sources would not be believed either.

rhutchin

It appears, then, that you accept Holding's point that the "anonymity" of the author, whether supernatural or secular, is not an issue. The issue is that which is claimed and not necessarily who makes the claim (and particularly where the author is anonymous).

GakuseiDon

I see nothing in Holding's article about the supernatural or miracles, Johnny. Did you link to the wrong article?

Johnny Skeptic

Of course not. Holding said that "critics never explain to us how their arguments would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned." I said "Historians widely acknowledge many events that allegedly took place during Alexander the Great's life, but if ancient historians had claimed that Alexander walked on water, the majority of historians would not believe that, nor would Holding, and four allegedly independent sources would not be believed either."

A key word is "equally." How in the world can evidence for supernatural claims be compared equally with secular claims? They can't since Holding is comparing apples to oranges, which gets back to the topic of this thread, which is "Supernatural claims are different from secular claims."

Holding mentioned critics' arguments. That obviously includes all arugments that skeptics use, including arguments about supernatural events.

Is it true that you do not believe that Jesus performed miracles, and physically rose from the dead?

GakuseiDon

Yes, I get that...

So, in other words, regardless of whether those allegedly independent sources are anonymous or not, the same arguments would apply? Is that is what you are saying?

Johnny Skeptic

The title of this thread is "Supernatural claims are different from secular claims." Obviously, authorship is not at all related to supernatural claims. I did not intend to discuss the issue of anonymity. If I did, I would have discussed it, but I didn't. Holding said:

If I had not quoted the entire paragraph, it would not have been as clear as quoting the entire paragraph.

Holding used the word "authorship," and he also used the word "authenticity." The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "authentic" as follows:

I assume that Holding did not intend to limit the issue of authenticity just to the issue of authorship, in which case my arguments are appropriate.

At any rate, it is well-known that many Christians have made an issue out of comparing the authenticity of the Bible with secular documents, including the authenticity of supernatural events. At this forum, as far as I recall, Roger Pearse once said something like "If we cannot trust secular writings of antiquity, then we cannot trust anything, let alone the Bible." If Roger said something like that, like Holding, he was comparing apples to oranges.

rhutchin

Christians argue that the Bible is authentic based on the tests of any ancient documents, whether supernatural or secular. The Bible contains many claims that are consistent within the context of the Bible and these same claims would not be found in secular documents. Given the authenticity of the Biblical documents, it behooves people to consider those things written in those documents recognizing the context in which they are written.

Johnny Skeptic

I have not discussed authorship in this thread. Please read what I said to rhutchin about authorship in my post #6. Still, I will answer your questions. In my opinion, anonynous authorship does not automatically discredit an ancient claim, but it is obviously helpful if the authors names are probably known. As far as this thread is concerned, if we assume that the authors of the Gospels are probably anonymous, and that the authors of ancient secular writings are probably anonymous, my claim still stands that "Supernatural claims are different from secular claims." In addition, if we assume that the authors of the Gospels are probably known, and that the authors of ancient secular writings are probably known, my claim still stands that "Supernatural claims are different from secular claims."

If four people who live in your neighborhood told you that they had seen a pet pig sprout wings and fly, would you believe them? If not, why not? You sources would be alleged, contemporary eyewitnesses who you know.

rhutchin

If four independent, reliable witnesses made this claim, we might conclude that they saw something whether it was a pig or something that looked like a pig. The question, then, is, so what? Why should we care if it were actually true? In this case, I would report it to the National Inquirer and forget about it.

Johnny Skeptic

That is not news to anyone at this forum, and it does nothing to advance discussions in this thread.

You have not provided any credible evidence that there are not any consistencies in the Bible. Many books and articles provide credible evidence of inconsistencies in the Bible. In addition, it is a virtual certainty that a global flood did not occur.

"It behooves people to consider those things written in those documents?" There you go again implying threats, as you have frequently done in the past with the fraudulent Pascal's Wager. You are a Calvinist. If Calvinism is true, it doesn't make any difference what anyone believes since God chose who he will save before the foundations of the world. Consider the following from a Calvinist website:

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

If you wish to argue with your fellow Calvinsts, go ahead. If you agree with them, then you need to consider the following that they said:

"When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God."

Your comment "It behooves people to consider those things written in those documents," which you meant as a threat since you have told skeptics on many occasions that God will punish them, is not compatible with the Calvinist website that I quoted, which says "When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist." If the elect cannot resist accepting God, why would it behoove skeptics at this forum "to consider those things written in those documents?"

At any rate, the claim that a global flood occured is false. Even many conservative Christian experts know that. In addition, there are many other false claims and inconsistencies in the Bible.