http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q...eature=related

.

100-1? You're on!

.

You might be right. In my experience, most of Christian apologetics relies on special pleading. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the presupposition that jib and I disagree about is whether the special pleading regarding Christian claims is justified. I want to argue that it is not, because in fact the historical evidence for the Christian claim that Jesus is God in the flesh is thin. But jib seems to be trying to avoid this conversation.

One way to do this is by showing that almost any attempt to prove a claim like that based purely on historical evidence would be insufficient. That is, even if what the Bible claimed happened had very strong historical evidence showing that it did happen, because I have background beliefs that make it very unlikely that any human being is actually God, I probably wouldn't be convinced. Seemingly, jib doesn't have these background beliefs.

On the other hand, we can argue that in fact the historical evidence for this claim is itself very weak. That is, we actually have little reason based on the historical record to think that the events that supposedly provide evidence of Jesus' divinity actually happened.

This is why philosophizing is so unsatisfactory.

You can't examine claims without information and most people posting in this forum, indeed, most people throughout the world today possess incomplete information.

I suggest you read "Celebrating Jesus in the Biblical Feasts" for no other reason than Booker's explanation of the role of the Sadducees and how part of Judaism failed to connect with Christianity. Judaism by its existence really doesn't raise the objections to Christianity that many people today think it does.

Ok Jib, another reason to become a deist by looking at the nature of belief: Mormonism. Here is a religion where we KNOW that the founder basically made the **** up. There is uncontroverted evidence to that fact. And yet the religion carries on strong.

Well you know Arouet the bible warns against false teachers and if you read William Law's bio...not the earlier William Law but the later one...there are 2 of them famous in religion but the second one knew Joseph Smith and broke with him.

That's why the bible is so important. Its the only place you can become familiar with the nature of God and the ways he directs us to follow. Also Jesus is our root we have to trace religious practices back to him and see if what groups do line up with what he said and what the bible shows.

You should study up on counterfeits. Counterfeits aren't just in monetary currency but they exist in religion also. One of the reasons people study the bible so much is to be able to spot counterfeits.

Ok, but let's assume for the moment that the bible is not true and was made up in a similar fashion to what Joseph Smith did. Would it not make sense for the authors to warn followers that there will be those who will say other things and that they should not believe anything other than what's in the bible?

That's the problem with that argument, a con artist would use it just as effectively as a true believer.

Your response doesn't make any sense. I say nothing at all about Judaism in my post--I'm certainly not trying to argue for its superiority over Christianity. And the fact that some people possess incomplete information afflicts Christians as much as anyone else.

I think God's system of discipleship is self authenticating. If you read the bible it says we are suppose to be disciples of Jesus alone. All these religious group leaders are merely "starters".

We're suppose to graduate on to direct discipleship to Jesus himself via the Holy Spirit.

I'm sorry for the tangent. Its just when I see so many people over according respect to philosophy with incomplete information it is disturbing.

I'm starting to wonder if true "out of the box" thinking is impossible. A worldview is based on reality. You either think in God's paradigm or you think in the world's. The world's paradigm is even more diversified than religion's so you tend to think you are free thinking but maybe you're not. But I'm still considering all this atm so don't hold me to it.

Oh and you're right a lot of Christians are afflicted by incomplete information as well. All people are whether they are Christians or not. The world is a rather limiting place you have to work like all hell to acquire the best information.

We see exactly what we would expect to see surrounding Mormonism if Mormonism was made up, like people admitting under pressure they made it up, gross inconsistencies, etc.

We don't see this same pattern revolving around the early church. So Mormonism faults only go to validate Christianity, not the other way around.

One evidence you have to examine is the religion at its inception. Compare the roots of the religion.

For example, Christian religion has peaceful roots. The conquest was not by the sword in early Christianity. Later some swords came in after the devil tried to knock Christianity off course but not at its incipience. Christians went through 10 Roman persecutions as martyrs first.

source? this sounds like a fun read.

its not like the NT is wonderfully consistent either. Oh I'm sorry i forgot, the gospel accounts complement each other, not contradict.

I dont see how they fit John in there Jesus is really going crazy in that one.

But do you understand the point I was making? The authoris of the bible would very likely warn people to be wary of false prophets whether or not its true. L. Ron Hubbard did essentially the same thing with Scientology.

Well, Joseph Smith was caught because people discovered the original documents he ostensibly was translating, and gave them to real Egyptologists who said they had nothing to do with what Joseph Smith said they did. I don't believe he ever admitted it.

Re: your second point, Joseph Smith was caught in relatively modern times. My point is, even with all our modern abilities, and the difficulties in perpetuating frauds, people still believe in Smith.

This should make us question all similar types of belief. It's harder to evalutate 2000 year old data. There may have been people talking back then about Jesus or the NT being a fraud, but that evidence may have been burried. There are stories of jesus surviving into middle age that escaped the church's grasp. We know there were other accounts of Jesus that were surpressed.

Now, I recognize that we don't have evidence of this. I'm not saying we should read it in. I am saying, however, that we should be very wary of accepting these types of religious accounts. They are designed to play on a person's psychological makeup and are extremely manipulative (not saying that in a good or bad way- no one would argue that these religious documents are not meant to manipulate someone's beliefs- for good or ill).

I'm speaking more about the nature of belief.

Didn't it ever occur to you that the best, most flawless mind or thinking in the world today was bound to generate inferior copies?

The bible is the thoughts of God's heart. A lot of people try to imitate God both successfully and unsuccessfully but until you set both your heart and your mind on finding him you can't find him.

I believe John Wesley was right. There is an incorruptible seed. God gives us an intellect to differentiate between the groups sowing the corruptible and the incorruptible seed. God doesn't ever say you can't convert or change religious groups. Salvation is in Jesus not in the group. There are many levels of spiritual progression and understanding but the tendency of people to engage in "magical thinking" upsets that realization in a lot of people.

Can a mod please give splendour the undertitle, "i suggest you read..." (too long?)

There seems to be a pattern here of people like Arouet posting solid logical arguments, and Splendour responds with Biblical propaganda.

Not that I'm surprised by this or anything. In fact, there's nothing to see here, move on with the thread.

How about we all restrict ourselves to just bumping Original Position's posts, until Jibninjas feels obligated to give them proper attention?

Lol...its not biblical propaganda. Its analytically pinpointing where things go wrong.

Instead of looking at things from present times backwards try understanding the process of faith proceeding from its point of origin in time.

sounds like a good plan. i'd do it myself but im on my phone. lame how jib starts threads then all of a sudden is too busy to see them through.

Lol...he's so far out of his depth with Original Position that I suspect even he can see that he'll have to make some major concessions to get the cross-examination to stop.

Hence this thread will not die.

You need to differentiate between many aspects of history. A statement like " 'Claudius is a d-bag' said Brutus". It might be that the statement is historically reliable meaning that we do know that Brutus said the statement attributed to him. But that does not mean that it must be historically reliable that Claudius was in fact a d-bag. Do you understand why we differentiate here? You cannot just make the blanket statement saying this is either historically accurate or not.

An example from the NT would be that many historians would say that historically it is true that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans and buried in a tomb and that said tomb was empty three days later. But that does not mean that they believe one must conclude that Jesus was in fact resurrected.

Now do you understand what I am trying to say?


But there are two aspects to the historicity. You seem to be dodging the second.

I don't know anyone that says that. I think I am going to have to call strawman on this one.


Why would it be insufficient?

Sure, if you assume your conclusion from the start you are guaranteed to end up with your conclusion. This is what many atheists do. They demand a miracle to believe, but they discount the possibility of miracles. It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

*if everyone thinks OP has the best arguments and wants me to so badly respond to him, then that is what I will do. But I doubt that I will respond to anyone else. Otherwise the thread just gets too jumbled and if I am gone for a day I am left responding to 30 posts.