Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 01-10-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Depends on your reputation. I would think (just from the comments you write) that you are telling the truth (that you saw a person walking on water) but then I would think that there must have been something unusual going on. After all, magicians do some pretty neat things that make us think that they did something when they did not. Or maybe the water was super saturated with salt. The real issue is whether that person not only walked on water but healed people and claimed that he was God.

Initially, you would believe that I am telling the truth, but that there had to be a rational explanation for what I saw. In other words, you would be skeptical that I witnessed a miracle.

But not skeptical to think you were lying. So, if many more people also come forward with the same story, what am I to do? I think it prudent that I accept what people say until I can show what really happened. If all these people also said that the person who walked on water would be at the local restaurant giving out $1 million to everyone who shows up, would you go or stay home?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The real issue is whether that person not only walked on water but healed people and claimed that he was God.

No, this is part of the same problem. You and I did not witness this Galilean preacher heal anyone. We have stories that he did. These stories should be met with the same skepticism as my story of a neighbor who can walk on liquid water. The problem then becomes how can you prove what did or did not happen a couple of thousand years ago.

This is why I feel that agnosticism is justified.

No problem. Agnosticism can be justified but atheism cannot. The agnostic merely says that he doesn't understand what happened while the atheist says it never happened. The agnostic can understand the choice that is before him and understands that he is confronted with a choice that he must make.

Deus Ex · 01-10-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No problem. Agnosticism can be justified but atheism cannot. The agnostic merely says that he doesn't understand what happened while the atheist says it never happened. The agnostic can understand the choice that is before him and understands that he is confronted with a choice that he must make.

The agnostic claims that she cannot know what happened.

My point with all this is that agnosticism should be the default position when we are dealing with events in history that cannot be completely proven nor refuted. You seem to have dogmatic certainty that all of the sayings of Jesus in the bible are authentic. I am curious how one jumps from the default of agnosticism to absolute certainty that the stories of the bible are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and why you do not give the sacred scriptures of other religions the same benefit that you afford the Christian scriptures?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-10-2010, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Why do you presume that the Bible is not historical?

Why do you presume that the Bible is historical? Please provide specific evidence regarding why you believe that people should trust the Bible.

You can find some of my reasons for not believing that the Bible is historical in a thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=270530. The title of the thread is "Maybe the historical Jesus really did do miracles." The thread was started on June 25, 2009 by a Christian who went by the name of "freetrader." Please make a post in that thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Within the context of the Bible, there would be no legendary embellishments.

Why not? If there was a legendary embellishment, how would you be able to recognize it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The presumption would be that Jesus said the things attributed to Him absent information to the contrary.

Why is that? Do you make that claim for other books, or just for the Bible? If just for the Bible, why?

Is it your position that there are not any probable interpolations in the Bible at all?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-10-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As you read the Bible, it is pretty clear what Jesus said although there are some passages when it is not clear where Jesus stopped speaking and the author is adding information. For the most part, that which Jesus said is easy to identify.

No, it is not clear what Jesus said. The identities of the Gospel writers are unknown. The Gospels were written decades after the supposed facts. The Gospels writers almost never claimed to be eyewitnesses. They almost never revealed who their sources were. It is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark. You are making uncorrobated, speculative guesses, just like other inerrantists do.

avi · 01-10-2010, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Your argument is that referring to God as "the father" makes Jesus appear merely human like everyone else. Referring to God as "my father" makes Jesus different from everyone else, i.e., divine. Thus, "my" would have been intentionally added to reinforce the idea that Jesus was God.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, its an interesting hypothesis. Might someone else hypothesize that others removed "my" for the purpose of making Jesus merely a human agent of God since it seems that many people wanted to promote this perception. Thus, we would have the Byzantine side jealously guarding the Scriptures to ensure authenticity.

Thank you for this thoughtful reply.

Well, how should we proceed to solve this problem?

Clearly there are two possibilities to explain this dilemma with John 14:28.

a.) Someone inserted "mou" in the original text-->Byzantine bible.
b.) Someone deleted "mou" from the original text-->Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Then, our task is relatively straightforward. We simply need to decide upon the original text.

Oops. We don't have the original text. All we can do is surmise. Guess. Imagine. Think.

Which is more likely: The oldest extant copies are closer to the original text, or the copies which are at least a century older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are more faithful to the original text?

Faith. That's all I have. No evidence. Just faith. I believe. I accept the doctrine which proposes that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are more faithful to the original version, than any of the more recently written Byzantine texts.

Do I have proof? NOPE. Just faith.

avi

rhutchin · 01-11-2010, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you for this thoughtful reply.

Well, how should we proceed to solve this problem?

Clearly there are two possibilities to explain this dilemma with John 14:28.

a.) Someone inserted "mou" in the original text-->Byzantine bible.
b.) Someone deleted "mou" from the original text-->Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Then, our task is relatively straightforward. We simply need to decide upon the original text.

Oops. We don't have the original text. All we can do is surmise. Guess. Imagine. Think.

Which is more likely: The oldest extant copies are closer to the original text, or the copies which are at least a century older than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are more faithful to the original text?

Faith. That's all I have. No evidence. Just faith. I believe. I accept the doctrine which proposes that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are more faithful to the original version, than any of the more recently written Byzantine texts.

Do I have proof? NOPE. Just faith.

avi

Given the number of times that "the" father and "my" father appear, at least in the Byzantine text (I did not cross walk), I am not inclined to see a theological problem. I am not convinced that the math analogy is the best way to illustrate what is being said.

rhutchin · 01-11-2010, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As you read the Bible, it is pretty clear what Jesus said although there are some passages when it is not clear where Jesus stopped speaking and the author is adding information. For the most part, that which Jesus said is easy to identify.

No, it is not clear what Jesus said.

Within the Bible that we have and use, it is easy to determine what the writers attributed to Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The identities of the Gospel writers are unknown. The Gospels were written decades after the supposed facts. The Gospels writers almost never claimed to be eyewitnesses. They almost never revealed who their sources were.

True, but secondary sources (the writings of the church fathers) do provide more information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark.

Yes. So??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You are making uncorrobated, speculative guesses, just like other inerrantists do.

As we all must on both sides of the equation.

rhutchin · 01-11-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No problem. Agnosticism can be justified but atheism cannot. The agnostic merely says that he doesn't understand what happened while the atheist says it never happened. The agnostic can understand the choice that is before him and understands that he is confronted with a choice that he must make.

My point with all this is that agnosticism should be the default position when we are dealing with events in history that cannot be completely proven nor refuted. You seem to have dogmatic certainty that all of the sayings of Jesus in the bible are authentic. I am curious how one jumps from the default of agnosticism to absolute certainty that the stories of the bible are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and why you do not give the sacred scriptures of other religions the same benefit that you afford the Christian scriptures?

Given the abundance of documents supporting the Bible from manuscripts to quotations in the writings of the church fathers, I think it is difficult to say that we do not know what happened in the first century. I don't see that with other religious writings (but then, I don't look for it either).

Deus Ex · 01-11-2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

My point with all this is that agnosticism should be the default position when we are dealing with events in history that cannot be completely proven nor refuted. You seem to have dogmatic certainty that all of the sayings of Jesus in the bible are authentic. I am curious how one jumps from the default of agnosticism to absolute certainty that the stories of the bible are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and why you do not give the sacred scriptures of other religions the same benefit that you afford the Christian scriptures?

Given the abundance of documents supporting the Bible from manuscripts to quotations in the writings of the church fathers, I think it is difficult to say that we do not know what happened in the first century. I don't see that with other religious writings (but then, I don't look for it either).

The quotations of early church fathers are based off of the bible stories. Thus you have nothing but quotations of earlier hearsay accounts. Face the facts. Historical evidence can never prove the stories in the bible are true. Even if we have an exact reproduction of the autographs, it still does not mean that the autographs are true in what they are narrating.

Faith is the only methodology that you are using to determine that the bible stories are "authentic".

rhutchin · 01-12-2010, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Faith is the only methodology that you are using to determine that the bible stories are "authentic".

OK. But no one can say that they are not authentic except by faith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.