Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Jesus Resurrection

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    That is not what you wrote. Citing a Wiki article on a hypothetical source is not in keeping with these dogmatic two statements.
    I have no idea what you are talking about.
    My statement is nothing more than a casual summation of one branch of biblical criticism.
    But if this interests you more than thinking about why even one discrepancy would exist in
    an already team censored collection of books we call the Bible:

    Synoptic Gospels Primer - Glossary: Two Source Hypothesis

    virtualreligion.net › primer › 2source
    Mark is identified as the source of the narrative structure of the other two ... Thus, the first premise of the two source hypothesis is that Matthew & Luke each ...
    Synoptic Problem Website: Two-Source Hypothesis

    www.hypotyposeis.org › synoptic-problem › 2004/09 › two-source-hypot...
    Jun 16, 2005 - Overview. The Two-Source Hypothesis (2SH) has been the predominant source theory for the synoptic problem for almost a century and half.
    The Synoptic Problem and Q - Study Resources

    https://www.blueletterbible.org › faq › q.cfm
    The second and third Gospels relied on the previous Gospel(s) as sources. ... Unlike the previous theory, however, the Two-Gospel Hypothesis holds to Luke ...
    [PDF]
    Evidence to Support the Two-Source Hypothesis - Baker ...

    cdn.bakerpublishinggroup.com › files › original › hyperlink-04-06
    Evidence to Support the Two-Source. Hypothesis. The Synoptic Puzzle. Analysis of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels yields the following data:.
    The Synoptic Problem-the two source hypothesis and 'Q'

    www.awitness.org › bible_criticism_methods › two_source_q_hypothesis
    The two source hypothesis and 'Q'. An analysis of Matthew's gospel reveals that a good part of the 閃' source would have been a reactionary element in the ...
    Bible/King James/Two-source Hypothesis - Wikiversity

    https://en.wikiversity.org › wiki › King_James › Two-source_Hypothesis
    Jan 19, 2014 - The Two-source hypothesis (or 2SH) is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences between the three ...
    Q Source - Bible Odyssey

    https://www.bibleodyssey.org › tools › ask-a-scholar › q-source
    How many scholars believe that Q existed as a source for Matthew and Luke? ... Ask a Scholar. Home; Q Source. Add this: Two-source Hypothesis ...

    Challenging the two-source hypothesis: how successful ... - jstor

    https://www.jstor.org › stable
    by J Engelbrecht - ‎1996 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles
    By 1863 Holtzmann could formulate the so-called two- source hypothesis, stating that Mark was the first Gospel, and Matthew and. Luke used Mark as well as a ...
    Two-Source Hypothesis | Is That in the Bible?

    https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com › tag › two-source-hypothesis
    May 20, 2015 - Posts about Two-Source Hypothesis written by Paul D.
    The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical ... - Amazon.com

    https://www.amazon.com › Two-Source-Hypothesis-Critical-Appraisal
    Amazon.com: The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (9780865540965): Arthur J. Bellinzoni Jr., Joseph B. Tyson, William O. Walker Jr.: Books.
    Problems with the Synoptic Problem | Catholic Answers

    https://www.catholic.com › magazine › print-edition › problems-with-the-s...
    Mar 1, 1994 - “The `Augustinian' hypothesis assumed the order of composition to be ..... The perfection of the two-source theory came with Berhard Weiss ...
    The Synoptic Problem: The Literary Relationship of Matthew ...

    www.crivoice.org › Bible Topics › Issues in Interpreting Scripture
    In Matthew, Jesus simply calls to the two men, while in Mark and Luke he has the ..... That search led B. Streeter (1924) to modify the Two Source Hypothesis by ...
    The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal - Google ...

    https://books.google.com › ... › New Testament
    The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal. Front Cover. Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Joseph B. Tyson, William O. Walker. Mercer, 1985 - Religion - 486 pages.
    The Synoptic Problem & Proposed Solutions

    https://catholic-resources.org › Bible › Synoptic_Problem
    Oct 17, 2015 - The Four-Source Theory (the solution accepted by most scholars today): ... (a.k.a. Two-Document Hypothesis, from B.H. Streeter). Mark = the ...
    A New Two-source Solution to the Synoptic Problem ...

    https://www.jerusalemperspective.com › ...
    Jan 20, 2014 - Despite the continuing debate between Matthean and Markan priorists, some form of the widely-accepted Two-Source Hypothesis seems ...
    What are the strengths and weaknesses of the two-source ...

    www.markedbyteachers.com › historical-and-philosophical-studies › what-...
    The second half of the two-source hypothesis is of course 'Q'. I've touched on some evidence that would support the existence (and co-existence with Markan ...
    - Do for others as you would want them to do for you: this is the foundation of the Law of Moses and of the teachings of the prophets. -

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      That is not what you wrote. Citing a Wiki article on a hypothetical source is not in keeping with these dogmatic two statements.
      "The harshest critics of scripture agree that the texts were not written in different places at the same time and that
      the content was edited.The most liberal of critics believe all the different accounts were actually from the same single source."

      Once again, where are these critics and what sources are they citing as evidence?
      Biblical Criticisms, Criterias & the Two-Source Hypothesis ...

      https://quizlet.com › biblical-criticisms-criterias-thetwo-source-hypothesis-f...
      Start studying Biblical Criticisms, Criterias & the Two-Source Hypothesis. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
      The Two Source Hypothesis appears to be the current most popular ...

      https://www.******.com › AcademicBiblical › comments › the_two_source_h...
      Feb 15, 2018 - 2 posts - ‎2 authors
      There are also few specific arguments against Luke knowing Matthew, I think because the two source theory proponents were also arguing ...
      The Synoptic Problem: Analysis Of The Two-Gospel... | Bartleby

      https://www.bartleby.com › essay › The-Synoptic-Problem-Analysis-Of-Th...
      These explanations include, but are not limited to, the two-source hypothesis, four-document hypothesis, the two-Gospel hypothesis, the Farrer theory and the ...
      two source hypothesis.doc - Course Hero

      https://www.coursehero.com › Alamo Colleges › ENGL › ENGL 101
      View two source hypothesis.doc from ENGL 101 at Alamo Colleges. Notes: The Two Source Hypothesis (2SH) has been the predominant source theory for the ...
      Appendix Essay Answers

      www.us.oup.com › companion.websites › student › ans
      It is used to denote the hypothetical source from which Matthew and Luke drew ... The two- and four-source hypotheses are by no means the only suggestions ...
      The Two-Source Gospel Hypothesis - The Nazarene Way

      www.thenazareneway.com › textual_analysis › two_source
      The Two-Source Hypothesis is the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem among biblical scholars, which posits that there are two sources to ...
      Two-source hypothesis - Acronyms and Abbreviations

      https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com › Two-source+hypothesis
      Another anomaly unexplained by the two-source hypothesis and the existence of Q is that both Matthew and Luke (perhaps coincidentally) edit out some of the ...
      Two-Source Hypothesis – Holding the Line - Marc Minter

      https://marcminter.com › tag › two-source-hypothesis
      Dec 30, 2013 - Posts about Two-Source Hypothesis written by marcminter.
      What are the best arguments in favor of preferring the two-source ...

      https://www.quora.com › What-are-the-best-arguments-in-favor-of-preferrin...
      Feb 7, 2015 - Streeter's objection to the Farrer hypothesis of his day has never been convincingly answered, at least in the minds of most scholars: ""If then ...
      Articles on Synoptic Problem, Including: Markan Priority, Two ...

      jet.com › product › Articles-on-Synoptic-Problem-Including-Markan-Prior...
      Articles on Synoptic Problem, Including: Markan Priority, Two-Source Hypothesis, Synoptic Gospels, Secret Gospel of Mark, Helmut Koester, Herbert M.
      Two-source hypothesis - WikiVisually

      https://wikivisually.com › wiki › Two-source_hypothesis
      The two-source hypothesis is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, ...
      bg.txt: Bellinzoni[ed], The Two Source Hypothesis - Ibiblio

      www.************ › bgreek › archives
      Bellinzoni[ed], The Two Source Hypothesis. Brian E. Wilson (brian@twonh.demon.co.uk) Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:06:31 +0100. Messages sorted by: [ date ] ...
      The Synoptic Problem: Four Views - Review - History of ...

      https://historyofchristianitypodcast.com › 2017/09/11 › synoptic-problem-...
      Sep 11, 2017 - This is called the Two Source Hypothesis (also called the Four Source Hypothesis). This theory argues that Mark was written first and that it was ...
      The Holtzmann-Gundry Solution to the Synoptic Problem ...

      https://www.patheos.com › blogs › euangelion › 2012/05 › the-holtzmann...
      May 29, 2012 - While I think that the two (four) source hypothesis is basically correct, there are several features of the theory that need to be tweaked in order to ...
      - Do for others as you would want them to do for you: this is the foundation of the Law of Moses and of the teachings of the prophets. -

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        That is not what you wrote. Citing a Wiki article on a hypothetical source is not in keeping with these dogmatic two statements.
        "The harshest critics of scripture agree that the texts were not written in different places at the same time and that
        the content was edited.
        The most liberal of critics believe all the different accounts were actually from the same single source."

        Once again, where are these critics and what sources are they citing as evidence?
        Here are more sources as you request:

        Biblical Criticisms, Criterias & the Two-Source Hypothesis ...

        quizlet,com › biblical-criticisms-criterias-thetwo-source-hypothesis-f...
        Start studying Biblical Criticisms, Criterias & the Two-Source Hypothesis. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
        The Two Source Hypothesis appears to be the current most popular ...

        Red it,com › AcademicBiblical › comments › the_two_source_h...
        Feb 15, 2018 - 2 posts - ‎2 authors
        There are also few specific arguments against Luke knowing Matthew, I think because the two source theory proponents were also arguing ...
        The Synoptic Problem: Analysis Of The Two-Gospel... | Bartleby

        bartleby,com › essay › The-Synoptic-Problem-Analysis-Of-Th...
        These explanations include, but are not limited to, the two-source hypothesis, four-document hypothesis, the two-Gospel hypothesis, the Farrer theory and the ...
        two source hypothesis.doc - Course Hero

        coursehero,com › Alamo Colleges › ENGL › ENGL 101
        View two source hypothesis.doc from ENGL 101 at Alamo Colleges. Notes: The Two Source Hypothesis (2SH) has been the predominant source theory for the ...
        Appendix Essay Answers

        us.oup,com › companion.websites › student › ans
        It is used to denote the hypothetical source from which Matthew and Luke drew ... The two- and four-source hypotheses are by no means the only suggestions ...
        The Two-Source Gospel Hypothesis - The Nazarene Way

        thenazareneway,com › textual_analysis › two_source
        The Two-Source Hypothesis is the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem among biblical scholars, which posits that there are two sources to ...
        Two-source hypothesis - Acronyms and Abbreviations

        acronyms. thefreedictionary,com › Two-source+hypothesis
        Another anomaly unexplained by the two-source hypothesis and the existence of Q is that both Matthew and Luke (perhaps coincidentally) edit out some of the ...
        Two-Source Hypothesis – Holding the Line - Marc Minter

        marcminter,com › tag › two-source-hypothesis
        Dec 30, 2013 - Posts about Two-Source Hypothesis written by marcminter.
        What are the best arguments in favor of preferring the two-source ...

        quora,com › What-are-the-best-arguments-in-favor-of-preferrin...
        Feb 7, 2015 - Streeter's objection to the Farrer hypothesis of his day has never been convincingly answered, at least in the minds of most scholars: ""If then ...
        Articles on Synoptic Problem, Including: Markan Priority, Two ...

        jet,com › product › Articles-on-Synoptic-Problem-Including-Markan-Prior...
        Articles on Synoptic Problem, Including: Markan Priority, Two-Source Hypothesis, Synoptic Gospels, Secret Gospel of Mark, Helmut Koester, Herbert M.
        Two-source hypothesis - WikiVisually

        wikivisually,com › wiki › Two-source_hypothesis
        The two-source hypothesis is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, ...
        bg.txt: Bellinzoni[ed], The Two Source Hypothesis - Ibiblio

        ibiblio,org › bgreek › archives
        Bellinzoni[ed], The Two Source Hypothesis. Brian E. Wilson (brian@twonh.demon.co.uk) Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:06:31 +0100. Messages sorted by: [ date ] ...
        The Synoptic Problem: Four Views - Review - History of ...

        historyofchristianitypodcast,com › 2017/09/11 › synoptic-problem-...
        Sep 11, 2017 - This is called the Two Source Hypothesis (also called the Four Source Hypothesis). This theory argues that Mark was written first and that it was ...
        The Holtzmann-Gundry Solution to the Synoptic Problem ...

        patheos, com › blogs › euangelion › 2012/05 › the-holtzmann...
        May 29, 2012 - While I think that the two (four) source hypothesis is basically correct, there are several features of the theory that need to be tweaked in order to ...
        - Do for others as you would want them to do for you: this is the foundation of the Law of Moses and of the teachings of the prophets. -

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          That is not what you wrote. Citing a Wiki article on a hypothetical source is not in keeping with these dogmatic two statements.
          So now, can you explain how biblical discrepancies got past the editors of scripture? The people who compiled the various books into one volume?

          - Do for others as you would want them to do for you: this is the foundation of the Law of Moses and of the teachings of the prophets. -

          Comment


          • Induction

            Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
            "It is reasonable to expect tomorrow to be like today". On the Christian worldview, yes because God upholds the universe by his power (Hebrews 1:3) and has promised uniformity (Genesis 8:22). But on your worldview, this universe came into being out of nothing apart from a creator. It is undesigned, unpurposed, and unguided by any intelligence, just matter in motion. You've told me a lot about science showing that there have been these laws throughout the entire past and you therefore expect them to be the same in the future. That is what induction is. You are still begging the question when you appeal to the past. Remember, no one has experienced the universe's future. So when you use the past to try and know or predict future events, you are assuming that the future will be like the past which is the very thing in question. Your justification is still committing the same logical fallacy.
            On my world view the laws of nature are unchanging, with no exception for billions of years. I have far more reason to justify induction than you, given you believe God intervened to radically change the world several times during the creation week, as well as at the Flood and the Tower of Babel event, and you presumably expect him to do so again at the apocalypse.

            You and I have different worldviews. We all assume induction with regards to our memory. The problem is that such a presupposition is at odds with your worldview and only makes sense on the Christian worldview. I know that my memory is reliable because God created our minds and gave us that presupposition. By starting with the fact that the Bible is true, I have a basis for those preconditions necessary to know anything. The Christian worldview can and does account for the reliability of our memory. But your worldview doesn't. More on this below.
            But you are assuming your memory is reliable to do that. You think the Bible supports your claim, but that is based on your memory of what the Bible says. Your reasoning is therefore circular.

            Of course, this is a problem for me too, or indeed any worldview. We necessarily have to assume memory is reasonable reliable. If you want to say both our worldviews are flawed, then fair enough. Otherwise, we both get memory as a given.

            But according to your worldview, the brain is simply the accidental result of random mutations over millions of years. There is no fundamental reason to think that you brain could reliably remember the past.
            Of course there is. I have a life time of experience confirming that. Me relying on my memory is not based on where memory comes from or what it is. It is the empirical observation that it works.

            You appeal to survival as if it gives you reliable memory. Bacteria survive far better than us in terms of population and yet they don't have reliable memories. So, if mere survival is what you appeal to, then you still can't be sure that your memory is reliable since other things survive quite well without reliable memories. There is no justification for the reliability of your memory according to your worldview.
            I said evolution explains why we have a good memory, I did not say that is the reason why we can rely on it. We rely on it because we have a life of experience teaching us it is reliable.

            How do you account for us forgetting things or misremembering things? Did God mess up, and give us imperfect minds? Evolution gave us a memory that was good enough to help us survive, but not perfect.

            This gets to the return of Jesus Christ. No one knows of that day or hour (Mark 13:32). We know that he will come back after the gospel has been preached to all the nations. When? I cannot say. I live and do the best I can day to day until he does.
            What has any of that got to do with the discussion?

            The point is that Christianity is looking forward to a day when God will change the world. In your worldview God occasionally changes the world dramatically. There are several instances in the OT and one sometime in the future in Revelation. Your world view says that sometimes tomorrow is not like today.

            In contrast my world view says the laws of nature have remained unchanged for billions of years. My worldview justifies induction.

            Again, I don't know what the confusing of languages has to do with natural laws remaining consistent over time. Confusing language doesn't change natural laws. God has promised there would be uniformity in nature (induction) in Genesis 8:22.
            The issue is whether we can reasonably expect tomorrow to be like today.

            In my world view the laws of nature have not changed for billions of years, so I can reasonably expect that to be true tomorrow as well.

            In your world view we have several examples of God intervening to make the world dramatically different. Imagine if you woke up tomorrow unable to speak or understand English. That would be a dramatic change to your world. You might remember having this discussion, but you would no longer understand anything I had written - or even your posts.

            How can you justify induction when you believe God could alter your thought processes so dramatically?


            The Laws of Logic

            The laws of logic reflect the thinking of God. They come from his mind and he does not change. So, the laws of logic won't change. They are not the "extant" of God's thinking, they reflect the way he thinks. He does not contradict or deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13).
            You said that last time. What does it actually mean? Did you just copy-and-paste it from somewhere because it superficially sounds good?

            Where do you get truth without God?
            A claim is true if it matches reality. The claim "I am sat at my computer" is true because it matches reality.

            I do not need God for that to be so.

            After all, your thoughts are nothing more than the necessary consequence of chemistry acting over time. Is chemistry true or false? Neither, it just is. If that's all your thoughts are, then you have no rational reason to trust your own cognitive faculties to apprehend truth of anything.
            "I am sat at my computer" is just a bunch of pixels on the screen in front of you - on one level. On another level it is a statement about myself.

            I the same way, thoughts are chemistry in the brain (yours as well as mine; this is demonstrably true). On another level, thoughts hold ideas about the world that may or may not be true - and we both know this is true.

            No, they don't exist outside of him, they are an exhibition of his rational thinking. The reflect the way he thinks.
            A reflection is something that exists outside of the thing reflected. Perhaps you should consult God about what rational thinking actually is, because writing contradictory statements is clearly not rational.


            God is unchanging

            He does not change (1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8).
            Exodus 32:14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

            Jeremiah 26:19 "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves."

            Exodus 32:12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.

            Amos 7:3 The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

            Amos 7:6 The LORD changed His mind about this. "This too shall not be," said the Lord GOD.

            Jeremiah 26:3 'Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.'

            Jeremiah 26:13 "Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.

            Jeremiah 42:10 'If you will indeed stay in this land, then I will build you up and not tear you down, and I will plant you and not uproot you; for I will relent concerning the calamity that I have inflicted on you.

            2 Samuel 24:16 When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

            Jeremiah 18:10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
            If you want more evidence, I will look up all the times God gets angry and we can discuss them too. And that leads into that time he got angry because people had not spread across the world, after the nations had spread across the world... The Tower of Babel account.


            The Tower of Babel

            He didn't say to re-populate the whole earth in just a few generations, he said to fill all the earth. The problem was that they didn't even attempt to move out the way God said to. They stayed in the same spot and tried to build them a city and a tower in direct opposition to what God said. So, he confused the language.
            But prior to the Tower of Babel, the people had already spread out:
            Genesis 10:32 These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.
            11:1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.
            This leads into the Tower of Babel account. So according to the Bible, the people had spread across the earth already, and THEN God got angry with them because "They stayed in the same spot and tried to build them a city".

            So again, what was God expecting with a century of the Flood? There was a founding population of just eight people, and yet within a century they had already formed numerous "nations spread out over the earth", and still he gets upset that they had not spread across the earth!

            Induction wouldn't be suspect, God didn't change the natural laws. I have no problem with God acting in history.
            But he did directly alter the minds of a huge number of people. If he can stop them understanding one language and have them understand another then he can surely change your perception of the world and your memories of yesterday. How can you rely on anything if you believe God has that power and has exercised it at least once?

            First, none of those have to do with natural laws being unchanging. Second, I know that nature will be uniform because God has promised that it would be in Genesis 8:22.
            Did he promise that? Or did he alter your memories and perception to make you erroneously believe that that is the case? In your worldview, how can you know one way or another?


            Thought

            But you have no rational reason for such a belief if your worldview were true, that's the problem.
            See my comment at the very start of my last post.

            Here's how I look at that, the mind and the brain are correlated, but not the same. In this embodied state, of course affecting your brain can affect your thoughts, but when you are not in this embodied state, it doesn't. There have been people before who were clinically dead who have come back to tell about it. They can get information that they couldn't have otherwise known. Sometimes, someone will be dead for so long that brain damage is thought to be permanent and yet they still come back fully functional.
            And yet no one has ever detected a disembodied mind or soul. All the evidence points to the mind supervening on the brain, in the way software supervenes on hardware, or a story supervenes on a book. They exist as part of the physical entity, but at a higher level.

            But you have no reason for believing that your thoughts can apprehend truth, that's the problem. Chemistry isn't true or false, it just is. If that's all your thoughts are, then you have no rational reason for trusting that they could reliably lead you to truth.
            It is not all they are, as I keep pointing out.

            However, I do not believe in a God who can alter the mind to such a radical degree that you no longer understand the words you spoke yesterday, but know a brand new language no one has ever heard before.


            Inconsistencies in the Resurrection Accounts

            With regards to your first question, there is no mention of Jesus appearing to Judas. Judas hanged himself in Matthew 27:1-10.
            Paul claimed Jesus appeared to twelve disciples (John suggests that too):

            1 Cor 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.
            Did Paul count them wrongly? Or was there a twelve that excluded Judas (and it was Matthew who miscounted them)?

            Originally posted by The Pixie
            Did Jesus first appear in Galilee as Mark and Matthew claim? Or in Jerusalem, as Luke and John claim?
            To answer your second question, both are true. This is how eyewitness testimony works. Just because one author mentions one appearance in a particular place and another author mentions an appearance in another place doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive. Go here for details: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?article=730
            So you are claiming the resurrected Jesus appeared first in Galilee and also first in Jerusalem, three days travel away?

            Claiming "This is how eyewitness testimony works." does not magically allow Jesus to first see the disciples in two places. At best, it could explain why one account is wrong.

            Nope. The New Testament has zero contradictions whatsoever. Refer to the link I provided for a detailed explanation on the appearances.
            That article does not mention the Judas issue at all. It takes the view that we can pretend Mark and Matthew said something a bit different, and that Jesus appeared in Jerusalem first, and then went to Galilee. Were the sighting in Jerusalem, including the very first time the disciples saw the resurrection Jesus, not important enough for Mark and Matthew to mention?

            Let us suppose they are right... Do you think the Galilean appearances were before or after Jesus was seen by Thomas? Let us consider your options:

            Before Thomas: So Jesus appeared to ten or eleven or twelve disciples in Jerusalem, they all go to Galilee, three days away, see Jesus as described in Matthew, then three days back to Jerusalem, in time for the second Jerusalem appearance, where Thomas inspects Jesus properly, one week after the Empty Tomb. But wait, did Thomas go to Galilee? I guess not. So the eleven Matthew cites must include Judas, as it excludes Matthew. Is that right?

            After Thomas: Jesus says he is going on ashead, and will see the disciples in Galilee. That is like three days away, so they think otherwise, and that evening are still in Jerusalem, so Jesus appears to them, except Thomas. A week later they still have not set off for Jerusalem, so again Jesus appeared to them Jerusalem, this time including Thomas. Now at last they set off to Galilee, over a week late. Is that right?

            If you ignore what the text actually says, then great, we can resolve any inconsistencies. If we are playing that game, I am going to ignore all the bits that claim Jesus was resurrected.


            Just so you know, I am taking this out of order, bringing your last few paragraphs here, to bring the two sections on the one topic together.

            Here's how I explain them on my worldview, they are written by eyewitnesses. Let's say you have 4 reporters covering the same story and they are writing separate accounts, do you expect them to say the exact same thing in all the exact same details? Of course not. You are confusing "inconsistencies" with the fact that they have separate accounts. A better word would be "divergent details". I see this as a good thing because it means that we have multiple eyewitness accounts to the same event. If they said the exact same thing in the exact same way, we would consider them having conspired together to make up a lie. But this is not the case.
            We do not have multiple eye witness tests. It is generally believed there was an earlier text before Mark circulating within a few years of the crucifixion (and in my view based largely on guess work and scripture, as the disciples had fled after Jesus was arrested). All the accounts we have are based ultimately on that. Mark, the earliest, is probably the closest. Luke and Matthew clearly copied Mark, and anything extra in them are later embellishments. Whether John is based on Mark, the original text, or some combination of gospels debatable, but again ultimately it is based on the single account.

            These are not multiple eye witness accounts, these are a single story that has been embellished in different directions.

            Let's take the titanic as an illustration of what I mean. ...
            Sure, different eye witnesses see different things. But even the Bible does not claim Mark or Luke were eye witnesses. It is generally agreed that the gospels were all written decades after the event, that Luke and Matthew are based in Mark and that John dates to about 60 years after the event.


            Mercy and Justice

            There's the real issue. You object to God on moral grounds.
            That is part of the issue. If I thought Christianity was true, I still could not worship a god who causes billions to suffer. To be frank, I cannot understand Christians that do.

            How could you be happy in heaven knowing billions of people are being tortured in hell? Do you just think of them as sub-humans? Oh they are not Christians, lesser being that do not matter.

            It's the same issue that the vast majority of unbelievers that I have dialogued with have. It's never about the evidence, it's volitional. You don't want God because you don't want moral accountability.
            Wow, that is a huge leap. Seriously?

            What have I said that suggests I do not want moral accountability?

            My experience is quite the reverse. It is Christians who do not want moral accountability. Moral accountability for God, that is. How dare anyone question the morality of a God who tortures billion?

            Oh, and the whole thing about Christianity is that it promises that you can duck your moral accountability!

            I think it would be great if everyone got what they deserved. That is so far from what Christianity posits, where punishment and reward are based on whether or not you worship God, and not on how moral you are.

            You know, there's a very easy way you can be forgiven for your sins. All you need to do is put your trust in Jesus Christ, professing him as your Lord and Savior, and repent of your sins. It's that simple. Why wouldn't you just do that?
            Thanks for showing me how to avoid moral accountability!

            Hmm, looks like it is Christians who do not want moral accountability...

            Here's the bottom line. We have all done wrong. We have all sinned and are deserving of God's judgement as a result.
            Says who? God chose to set the bar so high that we all fail.

            Most people live basically good lives. Murderers, rapists, thieves, etc., these are a relatively small fraction of the population. But God has decided that there is no practical difference between the worst serial killer and the quiet guy down the street who envies his neighbour's perfect lawn. They both - in God's view - deserve to be tortured in hell.

            And Christians consider that to be infinitely merciful!

            And Christians consider that to be infinitely just!

            But God so loved that world that he gave his one and only Son Jesus Christ, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). God provided a way out of judgement.
            Cool, a way to avoid moral accountability! What every Christian wants!

            Christ took the punishment for your sins upon himself and now by putting your trust in him alone, you can be forgiven. But if you don't, the only other option is that you will be judged. It's simple. Why wouldn't you just accept Christ as your Lord and Savior?
            In what sense is justice served by that?

            In what sense is it infinitely merciful to make it conditional?


            Free Will and No Believing

            Originally posted by The Pixie
            It is the way I was made. God created me like this.
            Nope, that's not what the Bible says. Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. What has happened is that you and I and everyone on this planet have inherited that sin nature (Romans 5:12). Since we have all sinned, we are at enmity with God because he is righteous and holy (Isaiah 59:2). But God loved us so much that he sent Jesus Christ who paid the price for our sin on the cross. We are forgiven and justified through him alone (Romans 5:8-9). It's so simple. Why wouldn't you just confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that he died on the cross for your sins and rose from the dead three days later (Romans 10:9-10)?
            Just so you know, I was born - or created by God if Christianity is true - in the twentieth century, a long time after the supposed Fall. God created me with "a sin nature" as you described it last time. If God chose to have the sin nature of Adam and Eve get inherited by everyone, then that is his choice. I know I did not ask him to do it.

            Because of his choice I find Christianity very implausible. As you sad previously: "You have a sin nature, the same as all of us, and that makes your mind hostile to God." God chose for me to have that "sin nature", God chose for me to have a mind hostile to him. And, if you are right, he is going to punish me for that decision.

            Tell me, where is the moral accountability there?

            Comment


            • LeoTheLibrarian

              Lists consisting of blog sites, wiki, at least one rather "cuckoo" site, some mainstream Christian sites, several repeated reference to the same book, and a link to JSTOR with no journal or paper citation are not overly impressive and hardly equate with your contention that “The harshest critics of scripture agree that the texts were not written in different places at the same time and that the content was edited”.

              That remark suggests you had to hand a corpus of accredited academic literature, not the above motley collection.

              I realise now that your comment "The most liberal of critics believe all the different accounts were actually from the same single source" refers to Mark and the hypothetical Q source. I mis-understood what you had written and I thought you were alleging that all four canonical gospels were composed at the same time and in the same city.

              The Q source remains a hypothetical and nothing more, while the works of both Matthew and Luke are generally dated to a decade or more after that of Mark, although we cannot be exact. The general consensus remains that both Matthew and Luke worked independently and utilised Mark [or a variant of what we now have as Mark] as their source[s]. . It has also been suggested, given Ignatius’ reliance on Matthew, that the work may have been composed somewhere in either Syria or northern Palestine.

              However, regarding your first statement: "The harshest critics of scripture agree that the texts were not written in different places at the same time and that the content was edited." [my emphasis]

              From Mahlon [virtual religion net cited by you] "Simply put, the thesis is that the gospels of Matthew and Luke are independent compositions, each based on two earlier texts Mark and Q." [my emphasis]

              The site hypotyposeis discusses the Two Source issue from various different perspectives. There was nothing I could find in support of your contention that "the texts were not written in different places at the same time".

              Your JSTOR link requires a title. It is a huge repository of papers and journals, and you have cited Bellinzoni’s Two Source Hypothesis three times.

              As for the rest of your links, I have not looked at all of them but the ones sampled are not imparting anything new.

              I am therefore not entirely sure what you were endeavouring to prove by making such a dogmatic assertion that you have singularly failed to adequately confirm.

              As to your comment concerning the discrepancies in the bible, firstly the texts were all composed at different times and places, and secondly, the critical examination of text was not something the early Christian church or the ECFs did.

              Certainly the Greek and Roman world engaged in literary criticism but Christianity was [and for some still remains] all about unquestioning faith and belief not rational critical evaluation.
              CARM pearls of wisdom:

              "Historical facts are not an argument."

              "If history contradicts the Bible, history can take a hike."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                Nope, it's an objective fact.
                It is by no means an “objective fact” and no amount of belief will make it so.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                If the Bible wasn't true,
                Snipped for irrelevancy.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                I'll take that as a no. You don't believe God can act in history
                I would have thought that was patently obvious to you by now.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                You say this as if you don't have any preconceived beliefs of your own. Those are called presuppositions and they are the very thing I am challenging.
                No they are called historical sources and attested evidence.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                By the way, I don't care whether we have texts outside the New Testament that attest to the resurrection. I would say that we do from the early Church fathers like Polycarp and Clement of Rome who knew the apostles themselves.
                That is Christian tradition not evidence.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                But even if we didn't, it does not make a difference to me.
                Then do not maintain that your beliefs are “objective facts” when they are no such thing.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                The Bible is true. I know that Christianity is true because only the Christian worldview can provide those things necessary to know anything. You don't even bother addressing that argument. You are relying on Christian presuppositions in order to argue your case.
                I am not engaging in your faux philosophical sophistry because your contentions are nonsensical. Any believer in any theistic religion could make exactly the same points about their religion.

                Which of you would be correct?

                You would both contend only your religion and viewpoint was the true one.

                How would you both resolve the issue?

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                So, every argument you make already betrays your position. You need to repent of your denial of the God you know exists. You need to do that not only to have your sins forgiven, but also because Christ is the foundation for all truth and knowledge (Colossians 2:3-4). Apart from him, you don't have a sound basis for knowing anything you claim.
                I note you made this reply yesterday [a Sunday].

                I have often noticed a degree of increased preaching zeal from among some of my correspondents on a Sunday either in anticipation of their impending visit to their place of worship, or on their return from that institution.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                You try and argue that I have this same position
                Your example was of a flat-earther who ignores and rejects all attested evidence that contradicts her view that the earth is flat.

                You likewise ignore and reject all attested evidence that the two birth narratives contradict one another or that the Hebrew bible and the NT contain contradictions.

                Where is the difference between you and that flat earther?

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                but I will gladly point out that if your worldview were true
                Snipped for irrelevancy.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                Nope, the Bible is the inspired word of God. Everything it records regarding history is true in the sense that it actually took place. There is no "teasing" history out of them. It is completely true and I settle for nothing less.
                You may believe whatever you want.

                However, to repeatedly contend that everything in the Bible is attested historical evidence is utterly absurd.

                There are many Christians who recognise those texts for what they are and do not adhere to an inerrant and infallible bible. That degree of fanaticism appears to be found only among the fundamentalist branches of the religion.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                Nope, they record what actually happened as I've just explained.
                I recommend you read my reply to LeoTheLibrarian at post #843 regarding the “veracity” of your texts as you now have them.

                No one knows what the original authors intended because the original MSS have been lost.

                Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                Whether it was redacted in the sixth century or not doesn't make a difference to me.
                Your opinion is entirely immaterial to the fact that the two birth narratives contradict one another. Nor are they the only such contradictions to be found in the Bible.

                However, as you appear intent on repeating the same comments, I see no further reason to continue this exchange.
                CARM pearls of wisdom:

                "Historical facts are not an argument."

                "If history contradicts the Bible, history can take a hike."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  It is by no means an “objective fact” and no amount of belief will make it so.
                  Oh yes it is. Jesus Christ is the risen savior. That is absolutely true whether people believe it or not.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  I would have thought that was patently obvious to you by now.
                  Okay, then that's a preconceived belief that you hold. Also known as a "presupposition".

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  No they are called historical sources and attested evidence.
                  You examine historical sources and evidence according to your presuppositions. I don't agree with your presuppositions. That's why I challenge them.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  That is Christian tradition not evidence.
                  That's fine.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  Then do not maintain that your beliefs are “objective facts” when they are no such thing.
                  Oh yes they are objective facts whether you choose to believe it or not. The Bible is true because if it wasn't, you wouldn't have those preconditions necessary for knowledge.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  I am not engaging in your faux philosophical sophistry because your contentions are nonsensical. Any believer in any theistic religion could make exactly the same points about their religion.
                  No they can't. If someone professes another so called "deity" that isn't the Christian God, then they are not a theist, they are an idolater. I will refute them with the same method, by critiquing their worldview. I will show them that there worldview collapses on it's own presuppositions.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  Which of you would be correct?
                  Me. Only Christianity is true.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  You would both contend only your religion and viewpoint was the true one.
                  Sure we would and I would refute them by challenging their presuppositions.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  How would you both resolve the issue?
                  By challenging their worldview and showing them that it's false. I would challenge the various presuppositions that they have and show that they are mutually exclusive to one another.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  Your example was of a flat-earther who ignores and rejects all attested evidence that contradicts her view that the earth is flat.

                  You likewise ignore and reject all attested evidence that the two birth narratives contradict one another or that the Hebrew bible and the NT contain contradictions.

                  Where is the difference between you and that flat earther?
                  The difference is that the earth can be observed in the present to be round, whereas, past historical events can't be observed. You have to rely on historical records. But you examine historical records according to your presuppositions. Those are what I am challenging.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  You may believe whatever you want.

                  However, to repeatedly contend that everything in the Bible is attested historical evidence is utterly absurd.
                  No it isn't. The Bible is completely true and I know that because only the Biblical worldview can provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge. Jesus Christ is the foundation for all truth and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). You have to rely on biblical presuppositions to argue against the Bible.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  There are many Christians who recognise those texts for what they are and do not adhere to an inerrant and infallible bible. That degree of fanaticism appears to be found only among the fundamentalist branches of the religion.
                  If another Christian wants to say that the Bible is in error, I will correct them just as fast as I would anyone else. The Bible is completely true and I know that for reasons already given. You can't make sense of your presuppositions apart from the Biblical worldview.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  I recommend you read my reply to LeoTheLibrarian at post #843 regarding the “veracity” of your texts as you now have them.

                  No one knows what the original authors intended because the original MSS have been lost.
                  Then I guess we can't know what the original authors of Aristotle's writings or the writings of Josephus intended since we don't have their original manuscripts either.

                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  Your opinion is entirely immaterial to the fact that the two birth narratives contradict one another. Nor are they the only such contradictions to be found in the Bible.

                  However, as you appear intent on repeating the same comments, I see no further reason to continue this exchange.
                  When you say that the Bible has "historical contradictions", you are presupposing logic, something that I have pointed out your worldview cannot provide you. Logic is a Biblical presupposition and yet you try and use it to argue against the Bible. Your arguments betray your position. I sincerely hope that you repent of your sin against the God you know exists and put your trust in Jesus Christ. Apart from Christ, you have no basis for knowledge.

                  You are using what Josephus records to argue that the birth narratives contradict one another. But as far as I am concerned, we don't have the original manuscripts of Josephus writings wither and his writings have far less manuscript support than what the New Testament documents have. You want to take Josephus' writings, which are less reliable, to try and argue against the Bible which is more reliable. That's totally inconsistent. This comes down to your presuppositions. You have a presupposition that the Bible is wrong and argue from that. It's called "circular reasoning".

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post

                    Oh yes it is. Jesus Christ is the risen savior. That is absolutely true whether people believe it or not.



                    Okay, then that's a preconceived belief that you hold. Also known as a "presupposition".



                    You examine historical sources and evidence according to your presuppositions. I don't agree with your presuppositions. That's why I challenge them.



                    That's fine.



                    Oh yes they are objective facts whether you choose to believe it or not. The Bible is true because if it wasn't, you wouldn't have those preconditions necessary for knowledge.



                    No they can't. If someone professes another so called "deity" that isn't the Christian God, then they are not a theist, they are an idolater. I will refute them with the same method, by critiquing their worldview. I will show them that there worldview collapses on it's own presuppositions.



                    Me. Only Christianity is true.



                    Sure we would and I would refute them by challenging their presuppositions.



                    By challenging their worldview and showing them that it's false. I would challenge the various presuppositions that they have and show that they are mutually exclusive to one another.



                    The difference is that the earth can be observed in the present to be round, whereas, past historical events can't be observed. You have to rely on historical records. But you examine historical records according to your presuppositions. Those are what I am challenging.



                    No it isn't. The Bible is completely true and I know that because only the Biblical worldview can provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge. Jesus Christ is the foundation for all truth and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). You have to rely on biblical presuppositions to argue against the Bible.



                    If another Christian wants to say that the Bible is in error, I will correct them just as fast as I would anyone else. The Bible is completely true and I know that for reasons already given. You can't make sense of your presuppositions apart from the Biblical worldview.



                    Then I guess we can't know what the original authors of Aristotle's writings or the writings of Josephus intended since we don't have their original manuscripts either.



                    When you say that the Bible has "historical contradictions", you are presupposing logic, something that I have pointed out your worldview cannot provide you. Logic is a Biblical presupposition and yet you try and use it to argue against the Bible. Your arguments betray your position. I sincerely hope that you repent of your sin against the God you know exists and put your trust in Jesus Christ. Apart from Christ, you have no basis for knowledge.

                    You are using what Josephus records to argue that the birth narratives contradict one another. But as far as I am concerned, we don't have the original manuscripts of Josephus writings wither and his writings have far less manuscript support than what the New Testament documents have. You want to take Josephus' writings, which are less reliable, to try and argue against the Bible which is more reliable. That's totally inconsistent. This comes down to your presuppositions. You have a presupposition that the Bible is wrong and argue from that. It's called "circular reasoning".
                    All the above are you religious beliefs and very little else.

                    Your arrogance over your religion is amusing. Do you not imagine the other religious individual would challenge your presuppositions?

                    Neither of you could prove your religious viewpoint was the correct one because it comes down to belief and nothing else.


                    As to Josephus, the historical content of what he writes can be cross referenced from literary and other sources.

                    Or are you going to write that Titus' Arch is a later fake and the destruction of Jerusalem never happened?

                    Furthermore Josephus makes no mention of stars, Magi, shepherds, choirs of angels, or the slaughter of the innocents [although he lists all of Herod's murderous acts including the killing his own family members].

                    Irrespective of your irrational dogmatic viewpoint, the the two gospel birth narratives historically contradict one another and contain conflicting narrative details. Hence they cannot both be correct.
                    CARM pearls of wisdom:

                    "Historical facts are not an argument."

                    "If history contradicts the Bible, history can take a hike."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by America View Post
                      I don't understand, however, why you feel these 12 facts justify the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Lots of people's lives are transformed by belief in false things, so talking about what the disciples believed or how lives were transformed doesn't (in my mind) support the claim of supernatural resurrection.
                      In Christianity ... and in truth ... Jesus rose from the dead FIRST, THEN came the belief that He did.
                      THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by HRG View Post
                        Actually, they are also explained by a mass hallucination induced by Loki.
                        I somehow don't think Loki would be operating in Jupiter's territory.

                        In addition, wasn't he killed in a shootout with a fellow comrade?

                        Of course, that could have happened after he did his mass hallucination thing down in Israel.

                        But I doubt it.
                        THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          All the above are you religious beliefs and very little else.

                          Your arrogance over your religion is amusing. Do you not imagine the other religious individual would challenge your presuppositions?
                          If they want to challenge my presuppositions, I would tell them to give it their best shot. At the end of the day, only the Christian worldview can provide those necessary preconditions for knowledge.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Neither of you could prove your religious viewpoint was the correct one because it comes down to belief and nothing else.
                          ​​​​​​​
                          No, if the Bible wasn't true, then you couldn't prove anything at all. That's what it comes down to.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          As to Josephus, the historical content of what he writes can be cross referenced from literary and other sources.
                          ​​​​​​​
                          But we don't have his originals, that's the problem. So, I don't know what cross referencing a copy that is displaced from the original by hundreds of years can do you much good. You see, you're being inconsistent by accepting what copies we have of him as more authoritative than the manuscripts of the New Testament that date far earlier and have a greater abundance of manuscripts to compare.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Furthermore Josephus makes no mention of stars, Magi, shepherds, choirs of angels, or the slaughter of the innocents [although he lists all of Herod's murderous acts including the killing his own family members].
                          ​​​​​​​
                          Again, he is not near as reliable in terms of manuscript support. It's inconsistent to take a less reliable document to try and disprove a more reliable document. It comes down to your presuppositional bias against the fact that God can act in history. You even implicitly admitted to such a preconceived belief.

                          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Irrespective of your irrational dogmatic viewpoint, the the two gospel birth narratives historically contradict one another and contain conflicting narrative details. Hence they cannot both be correct.
                          Again, where do you get logical reasoning from on your worldview? After all, you have to use it to try and say that the birth narratives historically contradict each other and to say that my viewpoint is "irrational", but you wouldn't have logical reasoning if your brain is just the outworking of random chance processes over millions of years. If anyone's viewpoint is irrational, it's yours because your worldview cannot provide you rationality in the first place.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                            Again, where do you get logical reasoning from on your worldview? After all, you have to use it to try and say that the birth narratives historically contradict each other and to say that my viewpoint is "irrational", but you wouldn't have logical reasoning if your brain is just the outworking of random chance processes over millions of years. If anyone's viewpoint is irrational, it's yours because your worldview cannot provide you rationality in the first place.
                            The mistake you keep making and you keep ignoring my correction about, is that you think your worldview is the one that pertains and gives us logical reasoning. This means you can't dismiss what HA is saying on the grounds of her worldview and it's perceived consequences.


                            "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." JBS Haldane.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post

                              If they want to challenge my presuppositions, I would tell them to give it their best shot. At the end of the day, only the Christian worldview can provide those necessary preconditions for knowledge.
                              No doubt they would say exactly the same thing to you.

                              Where would such positions get either of you?

                              Historically such disagreements have been resolved by violence.


                              Originally posted by Christian7270 View Post
                              But we don't have his originals, that's the problem.
                              Not really. There is other evidence.


                              CARM pearls of wisdom:

                              "Historical facts are not an argument."

                              "If history contradicts the Bible, history can take a hike."

                              Comment



                              • Induction

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                On my world view the laws of nature are unchanging, with no exception for billions of years. I have far more reason to justify induction than you, given you believe God intervened to radically change the world several times during the creation week, as well as at the Flood and the Tower of Babel event, and you presumably expect him to do so again at the apocalypse.
                                You're still committing the same logical fallacy though when you appeal to the past. That's the problem. As for creation week, God was supernaturally speaking things into existence. It wasn't until day 7 that he ceased his work of creation, which is probably when nature was held in a uniform manner. As for the Tower of Babel, that has nothing to do with natural laws, it was a way for God to get people to spread among the earth. As for the coming apocalypse (the return of Jesus Christ), that will happen after the gospel has been preached to all nations, which hasn't happened yet. There are still people who haven't heard of Jesus Christ who need to hear of him. So, your supposed examples from the Bible don't affect induction. God has promised that so long as the earth endures, nature will be uniform (Genesis 8:22). The bottom line is that I have justification for the presupposition of induction according to my worldview. But on your worldview, you don't have any rational justification. Everything you've said to try and justify it apart from the Christian God has committed the same logical fallacy of begging the question.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                But you are assuming your memory is reliable to do that. You think the Bible supports your claim, but that is based on your memory of what the Bible says. Your reasoning is therefore circular.

                                Of course, this is a problem for me too, or indeed any worldview. We necessarily have to assume memory is reasonable reliable. If you want to say both our worldviews are flawed, then fair enough. Otherwise, we both get memory as a given.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                You misunderstand the argument. I know that we have to assume our memory is reliable. We both do it and take if for granted. That's the nature of a presupposition. The difference is that I have justification for such a presupposition according to my worldview, the fact that God created our minds to be able to reason and remember things, although not always perfectly because of the fall. But on your worldview, you don't have a rational justification. That's the point I am making. My worldview can and does account for such a presupposition, whereas, yours doesn't.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Of course there is. I have a life time of experience confirming that. Me relying on my memory is not based on where memory comes from or what it is. It is the empirical observation that it works.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                But you have no foundational reason to trust your memory on your worldview. That's the problem. I know we both assume it and that it is reliable, but one worldivew (mine) can account for that whereas the other (yours) cannot. Why trust a brain to have reliable memory if it's just the outworking of random chance mutations in an unintelligent process over millions of years?

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                I said evolution explains why we have a good memory, I did not say that is the reason why we can rely on it. We rely on it because we have a life of experience teaching us it is reliable.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Of course it's basically reliable although not perfectly. But on your worldview, there's no fundamental reason for trusting your memory. If you put together a brain through an unintelligent process over vast amounts of time, then it doesn't make sense to say that the brain can reliably remember things. After all, it's just blind chemistry acting over time.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                How do you account for us forgetting things or misremembering things? Did God mess up, and give us imperfect minds? Evolution gave us a memory that was good enough to help us survive, but not perfect.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                We don't remember things perfectly because we live in a fallen world and we are fallen human beings. Sin has affected has affected our being negatively as well as the creation.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                The point is that Christianity is looking forward to a day when God will change the world. In your worldview God occasionally changes the world dramatically. There are several instances in the OT and one sometime in the future in Revelation. Your world view says that sometimes tomorrow is not like today.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                I've already explained those instances you tried to bring up in the Old Testament. God acted for a specific purpose without changing the natural laws. So long as the earth endures, we can expect the future to be in some respects like the past.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                In contrast my world view says the laws of nature have remained unchanged for billions of years. My worldview justifies induction.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Your justification is a logical fallacy because you have to appeal to the past. At most, all you can do is argue that the natural laws were unchanging in the past, but how do you know they will be in the future unless you're already assuming that the future will be like the past (induction)? Your explanation doesn't cut it.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                The issue is whether we can reasonably expect tomorrow to be like today.

                                In my world view the laws of nature have not changed for billions of years, so I can reasonably expect that to be true tomorrow as well.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Only by begging the question, which is a logical fallacy.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                In your world view we have several examples of God intervening to make the world dramatically different. Imagine if you woke up tomorrow unable to speak or understand English. That would be a dramatic change to your world. You might remember having this discussion, but you would no longer understand anything I had written - or even your posts.

                                How can you justify induction when you believe God could alter your thought processes so dramatically?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                First, the Tower of Babel has nothing to do with natural laws. Second, people are spread all over the world now, which means that God won't nor needs to alter language again. Third, God has promised that nature will be uniform (Genesis 8:22).

                                The Laws of Logic

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                You said that last time. What does it actually mean? Did you just copy-and-paste it from somewhere because it superficially sounds good?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                This means that laws of logic reflect the way God thinks. God is the source of all truth (Proverbs 1:7) and God cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Our minds are made in the image of the great mind (Genesis 1:26-27). Let's look at it this way, you said that you agree that the laws of logic are universal, immaterial, and unchanging. God is also universal, immaterial, and unchanging. Do you think it makes sense for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic to be grounded in a universal, immaterial, unchanging mind?

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                A claim is true if it matches reality. The claim "I am sat at my computer" is true because it matches reality.

                                I do not need God for that to be so.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Oh yes you do need God. You know you are at your computer because your eye's see it. But how do you know that your senses are valid on your worldview? After all, your sensory organs are merely the result of accidental mutations that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past. Now, I know you will probably try and argue that your senses are reliable because natural selection would preserve those things that have survival value. Since your senses help you survive, you might think that justifies it, but not so fast. I would like to point out some things here. First, having reliable senses (leading to accurate perceptions of the world) does not equate to survival value. Most of the organisms in the world (plants, bacteria, etc.) don't have "senses" or perceptions at all, let alone reliable ones. They survive quite will without them. In terms of population, bacteria are doing far better than we humans, despite their lack of sophisticated sensory organs or brains to interpret the sensations. Second, apart from Scripture, there is no reason to think that our senses are reliable even if they did convey survival value. Perhaps our perceptions of the world are totally fiction (matrix world) - just the result of a complex chemical reaction that happens to have survival value in the real world.

                                So, you actually can't trust your own senses to accurately perceive the world around you if your worldview were true. Appealing to survival is not gonna cut it. The reliability of your senses is another Christian presupposition.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                "I am sat at my computer" is just a bunch of pixels on the screen in front of you - on one level. On another level it is a statement about myself.

                                I the same way, thoughts are chemistry in the brain (yours as well as mine; this is demonstrably true). On another level, thoughts hold ideas about the world that may or may not be true - and we both know this is true.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Computers are designed by people capable of rational thinking. Evolution, however, is a non-intelligent process. So you've made a false analogy. Try to put a bunch of random chemical reactions together and see how far you get in terms of them developing rationality.


                                God is unchanging

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Exodus 32:14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

                                Jeremiah 26:19 "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves."

                                Exodus 32:12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.

                                Amos 7:3 The LORD changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

                                Amos 7:6 The LORD changed His mind about this. "This too shall not be," said the Lord GOD.

                                Jeremiah 26:3 'Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.'

                                Jeremiah 26:13 "Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will change His mind about the misfortune which He has pronounced against you.

                                Jeremiah 42:10 'If you will indeed stay in this land, then I will build you up and not tear you down, and I will plant you and not uproot you; for I will relent concerning the calamity that I have inflicted on you.

                                2 Samuel 24:16 When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

                                Jeremiah 18:10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
                                If you want more evidence, I will look up all the times God gets angry and we can discuss them too. And that leads into that time he got angry because people had not spread across the world, after the nations had spread across the world... The Tower of Babel account.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Yes, I am very familiar with all of those passages. There's something you need to understand about the Bible, it's not written from God's eye view. It's written from the perspective of human beings. From the perspective of the writer here on earth, it looked as though God was changing his mind. But if we look at this from a philosophical standpoint, God is all-knowing. This means that God already knew how he would act in these situations. From the perspective of the writer, it looks as though God was changing his mind even though he already had it set out from the beginning. That's not a problem at all. That's why I went with the passages from 1 Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, and Hebrews 13:8. Looking at the definition of all-knowing, it means that God didn't change, it might have appeared that way, but he really didn't.


                                The Tower of Babel

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                But prior to the Tower of Babel, the people had already spread out:
                                Genesis 10:32 These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.
                                11:1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there.
                                This leads into the Tower of Babel account. So according to the Bible, the people had spread across the earth already, and THEN God got angry with them because "They stayed in the same spot and tried to build them a city".
                                ​​​​​​​
                                No, that's a misreading of the text. The author is saying that from Noah's sons and their descendants, the nations spread out over the earth. Genesis 11:1 then goes on to describe how that took place.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                But he did directly alter the minds of a huge number of people. If he can stop them understanding one language and have them understand another then he can surely change your perception of the world and your memories of yesterday. How can you rely on anything if you believe God has that power and has exercised it at least once?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Just because God can do something doesn't mean he will. Will he alter my memories and perception of the world? No because if he did, then I couldn't know anything. Since I'm thinking about this very topic right now, it shows that God didn't alter my perception or memories.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Did he promise that? Or did he alter your memories and perception to make you erroneously believe that that is the case? In your worldview, how can you know one way or another?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Here's how I look at that: Who made my mind? God. Who made my senses? God. If God altered my memories and perception, would I have any reason to trust them? No. God is my creator. If he's dishonest, then I couldn't know anything. So, the fact that I know I am thinking about this right now shows that God hasn't done that nor will he.

                                Thought

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                And yet no one has ever detected a disembodied mind or soul. All the evidence points to the mind supervening on the brain, in the way software supervenes on hardware, or a story supervenes on a book. They exist as part of the physical entity, but at a higher level.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                So, because we haven't detected it through empirical means, that means it isn't there?

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                It is not all they are, as I keep pointing out.

                                However, I do not believe in a God who can alter the mind to such a radical degree that you no longer understand the words you spoke yesterday, but know a brand new language no one has ever heard before.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                I don't have a problem with that. God did that for a specific purpose, to get people to spread over the earth. Since we are spread over the earth, there's no reason for him to do that again.


                                Inconsistencies in the Resurrection Accounts

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Paul claimed Jesus appeared to twelve disciples (John suggests that too):

                                1 Cor 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.
                                Did Paul count them wrongly? Or was there a twelve that excluded Judas (and it was Matthew who miscounted them)?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                It was a title. They were still called "the Twelve" even though Judas had already died at this point. It was the name that people recognized them by.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                So you are claiming the resurrected Jesus appeared first in Galilee and also first in Jerusalem, three days travel away?

                                Claiming "This is how eyewitness testimony works." does not magically allow Jesus to first see the disciples in two places. At best, it could explain why one account is wrong.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Why not?

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                That article does not mention the Judas issue at all. It takes the view that we can pretend Mark and Matthew said something a bit different, and that Jesus appeared in Jerusalem first, and then went to Galilee. Were the sighting in Jerusalem, including the very first time the disciples saw the resurrection Jesus, not important enough for Mark and Matthew to mention?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                I don't know why they chose to mention what they did nor do I really care. They were separate eyewitnesses and record it from their perspective. They chose to mention the sighting in Galilee and I don't have a problem with it. As a matter of fact, we know that the disciples didn't write every single thing that Jesus did because in John 21:25, John says that there were "many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written". They mentioned the stuff that they wanted to and thought important for reasons perfectly sufficient for them. That's good enough for me.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Let us suppose they are right... Do you think the Galilean appearances were before or after Jesus was seen by Thomas? Let us consider your options:

                                Before Thomas: So Jesus appeared to ten or eleven or twelve disciples in Jerusalem, they all go to Galilee, three days away, see Jesus as described in Matthew, then three days back to Jerusalem, in time for the second Jerusalem appearance, where Thomas inspects Jesus properly, one week after the Empty Tomb. But wait, did Thomas go to Galilee? I guess not. So the eleven Matthew cites must include Judas, as it excludes Matthew. Is that right?

                                After Thomas: Jesus says he is going on ashead, and will see the disciples in Galilee. That is like three days away, so they think otherwise, and that evening are still in Jerusalem, so Jesus appears to them, except Thomas. A week later they still have not set off for Jerusalem, so again Jesus appeared to them Jerusalem, this time including Thomas. Now at last they set off to Galilee, over a week late. Is that right?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                I don't see any problem with either option.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                We do not have multiple eye witness tests. It is generally believed there was an earlier text before Mark circulating within a few years of the crucifixion (and in my view based largely on guess work and scripture, as the disciples had fled after Jesus was arrested). All the accounts we have are based ultimately on that. Mark, the earliest, is probably the closest. Luke and Matthew clearly copied Mark, and anything extra in them are later embellishments. Whether John is based on Mark, the original text, or some combination of gospels debatable, but again ultimately it is based on the single account.

                                These are not multiple eye witness accounts, these are a single story that has been embellished in different directions.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Well, if you want to say that embellishments creep in that fast in history and consider the gospels unreliable, then you might as well throw out everything you think you know about ancient history because we have nothing else more reliable from that time for anyone else.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Sure, different eye witnesses see different things. But even the Bible does not claim Mark or Luke were eye witnesses. It is generally agreed that the gospels were all written decades after the event, that Luke and Matthew are based in Mark and that John dates to about 60 years after the event.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                I know you don't accept that they are eyewitnesses, which is why I originally went with the pre-Pauline creed that Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. You even agree that this creed dates very early to within a few years of Jesus death by crucifixion. But setting that aside, if you want to say that the gospels are too late and not written by eyewitnesses, then you can't trust any writing from ancient history. That's how you would have to be if you'r going to be consistent.

                                Mercy and Justice

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                That is part of the issue. If I thought Christianity was true, I still could not worship a god who causes billions to suffer. To be frank, I cannot understand Christians that do.

                                How could you be happy in heaven knowing billions of people are being tortured in hell? Do you just think of them as sub-humans? Oh they are not Christians, lesser being that do not matter.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Look, I've already explained what hell was and it is not a place where you are tortured for eternity. So, why do you continue to use language like that? Hell is separation from God. God is the only and ultimate source of goodness there is. So, tell me, what do you think happens when you separate yourself from the only and ultimate source of goodness?

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Wow, that is a huge leap. Seriously?

                                What have I said that suggests I do not want moral accountability?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Hell is a place that we all deserve and you object to it. That causes me to think you don't want moral accountability. I apologize if I was mistaken.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                My experience is quite the reverse. It is Christians who do not want moral accountability. Moral accountability for God, that is. How dare anyone question the morality of a God who tortures billion?
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Well, according to your worldview, we are all evolved pond scum, right? So, what's the problem?

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Oh, and the whole thing about Christianity is that it promises that you can duck your moral accountability!

                                I think it would be great if everyone got what they deserved. That is so far from what Christianity posits, where punishment and reward are based on whether or not you worship God, and not on how moral you are.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                You say you think that it would be great if everyone got what they deserved. Guess what? We all deserve God's judgement for our sin. That is hell. Then you want to object to the idea of hell. Which do you want? You can't have it both ways. Do you want people to get what they deserve or not?

                                The fact of the matter is we have all sinned. You can't get to heaven by doing good deeds or being moral because that's not gonna take away your sin. Only Jesus Christ can cleanse you from your sin.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Says who? God chose to set the bar so high that we all fail.

                                Most people live basically good lives. Murderers, rapists, thieves, etc., these are a relatively small fraction of the population. But God has decided that there is no practical difference between the worst serial killer and the quiet guy down the street who envies his neighbour's perfect lawn. They both - in God's view - deserve to be tortured in hell.
                                ​​​​​​​
                                Really? You think people live basically good lives? I've got just a few questions for you and if you answer them honestly, you will realize that most people are guilty of them including myself:
                                1) How many lies have you told in your life?
                                2) Have you ever stolen anything at all, the value of the object stolen is irrelevant?
                                3) Have you ever used God's name in vain?
                                4) Have you ever looked at anyone with lust (sexual desire)?

                                If you say yes to all of these as I have when they are applied to me, in God's eye's, we would be lying, thieving, blashphemous, adulterers at heart. Nobody is really good (Romans 3:12). We have all sinned and therefore fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). The only way that we can be cleansed of our sin is through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:8-9).


                                Free Will and No Believing

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Just so you know, I was born - or created by God if Christianity is true - in the twentieth century, a long time after the supposed Fall. God created me with "a sin nature" as you described it last time. If God chose to have the sin nature of Adam and Eve get inherited by everyone, then that is his choice. I know I did not ask him to do it.
                                Nope, that's not what the Bible says. Death passed to all men because all have sinned (Romans 5:12). By the way, God made the choice to come in and rescue us through his Son Jesus Christ. Don't forget that part.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Because of his choice I find Christianity very implausible. As you sad previously: "You have a sin nature, the same as all of us, and that makes your mind hostile to God." God chose for me to have that "sin nature", God chose for me to have a mind hostile to him. And, if you are right, he is going to punish me for that decision.
                                Nope, that's not what the Bible says.

                                Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                                Tell me, where is the moral accountability there?
                                The moral accoutability is going to come when you pass away (Hebrews 9:27), unless you repent of your sin and put your trust in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10). He can cleanse you of your sin.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X