Orthodox_Freethinker

Craig effectively demonstrates Paine's opinions on the resurrection to be false.

RaisingPaine

Paine would disagree that there is "no substantial inconsistency" and "slight contradiction" is something of an oxymoron. Again, I've covered JP's objections (which are very detailed) along with detailed replies in the link previous.
It's unclear how the Church can testify to authorship of works that are "essentially anonymous".

I'm not sure what the contradiction would be between Paine's view of Creation as the Word of God and evolution. Given Paine's committment to the advancement of science, he no doubt would have embraced Darwin's theory. No one can be sure, of course, but I believe Paine would view evolution as only further evidence of God's munificence.

RaisingPaine

Orthodox_Freethinker

Paine is using an unjust standard. The Gospels all agree with each other that the resurrection is a historical fact. The differences is in the small details, which only shows that their authors did not collaborate in their testimony.
For example, all the accounts of Hannibal's invasion of Rome contradict in the small details but scholars at least agree that it happened.

Though the Gospel writers do not directly name themselves in the text, they've always been referred to as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The problem is that science cannot prove faith which is why natural philosophy is a falsehood.

Amaleq13

Only if "always" means "since the mid 2nd century".

Orthodox_Freethinker

You and I both know that we'll never know the authorship of the Gospels with absolutely certainty. We've been over this. What I care for is what's reasonable to believe.

Wayne Delia

Aside from your strange ideas about proof, we have a few corresponding details and a few contradictory details about the crucifixion and resurrection; it seems there are quite a few contradictory details. You claim the contradictions "prove" that the authors did not collaborate. Couldn't it be possible that they actually did collaborate on the parts that generally agree - the anonymous authors either plagiarized, or agreed to present parts of the story which turn out to be false? Also, what if the "slight" contradictions are a result of the authors not collaborating with each other, as you suggest, but that one author could be right while the other three made it up. Consider the detail of the inscription on the wood sign nailed to the top of Jesus's cross, identifying Him as King of the Jews. The Gospels have it reading four different ways. If it actually happened, and was actually as important as Christians make it out to be, that would be a detail which one would think would at least be consistent: it was just a few important words on the sign. When there are four contradictory accounts of a certain fact (such as the writing on the sign), one of them might be right (or might not), but the rest are definitely wrong. The problem is, we are not sure exactly which one is right, so all four anonymous authors are not necessarily correct, just by virtue of being included in the Bible. That's called "impeachment of credibility."

So, on the one hand, we have "similarities = verification, contradictions = lack of collaboration," but on the other hand, we have "similarities = plagiarism, contradictions = at least one actual error, and impeachment of credibility." You've indicated that the former is "proof" of lack of collaboration, but the latter is certainly plausible. Humans plagiarize; humans lie; humans get confused; humans stretch the truth. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, but we know they were human, and prone to such defects. (If you want to claim God inspired the authors, whoever they were, fine: God inspired contradictions, and is therefore either dishonest or schizophrenic.)

So what? Overwhelming consensus of sacred and secular scholars have arrived at the conclusion that the Gospels and some of Paul's Epistles are most likely anonymous; and the Church has a tradition in which they pretend, without support, that the Gospels were written by the actual attributed disciples or other early Church figures. I'm more likely to go with the non-biased overwhelming consensus. The Church has a vested interest in pushing their own tradition.

I'm not sure what your point is; "Intelligent Design" certainly IS a crock of shit, but that's because it's based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Absent the Bible, creation is as it is, and Paine's characterization is that it is quite amazing enough as it is without the need to attribute it to the necessarily perfect God as described in the Bible. That aside, you haven't even whispered the reason that Paine's argument is "fatally flawed."

There are basically two huge fundamentally different general denominations of Christianity, which divides it roughly in half: Catholicism and Protestantism. The schism is based entirely on a difference of opinion of what the Holy Spirit has revealed. Couldn't the Holy Spirit have done a better job of communicating using this imagined "higher authority" to everyone?

WMD

Wayne Delia

...and there are parts of Christianity which define "good scholarship" as "anything agreeing with what the Church teaches." I was fascinated to learn about the Church's reaction to Paine's book - condemnation, without actually refuting any of the arguments. Exactly what is the refutation you seem to think is available?

WMD

Wayne Delia

That doesn't answer my question. Where in the web site is the name "Paine" or the title fragment "Age of Reason" occur? It appears to be a long article, which I won't bother to read if it's as irrelevant as it seems. What was Craig thinking when he set out to refute Paine without even mentioning the author's name? That's why I have the feeling it's just an irrelevant website.

WMD

Wayne Delia

"Only shows?" I proposed another plausible possibility, that the Gospel authors got together and corroborated their big-message story which turned out to be false. The differences could have been intentional, to create exactly the impression you've bought into, but the differences impeach the credibility of each of the anonymous authors.

Bad example; bad analogy. There's nothing supernatural, paranormal, or metaphysical about Hannibal's invasion of Rome that is in any way equal to the proposed resurrection of Jesus, nor are we threatened with eternal punishment in hell if we fail to believe it. Hannibal's invasion is extraordinary, to be sure, but certainly not implausible. So, on the one hand (Hannibal's invasion of Rome) we have minor errors and a plausible outcome; on the other hand (Jesus's resurrection) we have minor errors and a completely implausible outcome.

I don't, and I am aware of many others who also don't make that identification, so you're trivially wrong. In fact, when discussing Bib Crit & Hist, it is bad form to say "In Chapter x, Matthew writes..." because it leads to derailments about whether Matthew the Tax Collector actually wrote anything in the Gospel According to Matthew. Generally, it's safest to say "In chapter x, the author of Matthew writes..." unless you know some huge secret that has escaped centuries of dedicated Bible study.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate. (Asserting your conclusion without any support will get you laughed off the stage.)

WMD

Amaleq13

Your assertions here do not follow from what you wrote. I agree with your first statement but you have consistently asserted that you do know who wrote them. In addition, my rebuttal against your assertion does not suggest or imply anything about knowing the authorship of the Gospels with any degree of certainty. I was simply correcting your factually inaccurate assertion.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have not "always been referred to" as the authors and you know it. To say otherwise is simply false.

They have been referred to as the authors of the extant Gospels since the middle of the 2nd century.

Our recent exchanges make me wonder if you really know what that means since you have consistenly refused to answer questions of or challenges to your repeated assertions. There is nothing "reasonable" about continuing to repeat an assertion when questions have been asked and challenges against the claim have been offered.

You have offered no "reasonable" basis for believing your assertion: "Though the Gospel writers do not directly name themselves in the text, they've always been referred to as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."