Friday, November 17, 2017

My email to Dr. Timothy McGrew

Dr. McGrew,

I have listened to your lectures and learned much.  Thanks for the work you do.

I was wondering whether you'd be willing to discuss with me, by blog or formal written debate, at any internet location of your choosing, any of the following propositions which I'm willing to defend, which are as follows:

1.       The argument to God from complexity is fatally flawed. 

2.       The first premise of Kalam is unscientific.

3.       If anything in the NT can be trusted as historically true, then it is more than likely that Jesus ‘miracles’ during his earthly ministry were not genuinely supernatural, but were more like those performed by Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff.

4.       Generously granting assumptions of traditional gospel authorship, there are no more the 3 testimonies in the NT to the resurrection of Jesus which have come down to us today in first-hand form; Matthew, John and Paul.

5.       Mark was the earliest published gospel.

6.       The author of Mark intended to end that gospel at 16:8, therefore, the earliest gospel strata on the resurrection of Jesus had lacked stories about his appearing to apostles.

7.       Mark’s silence on the virgin birth is best explained as either his not knowing Jesus was born of a virgin, or his believing such story was false; either conclusion does severe violence to the conservative Christian position that Jesus’ virgin birth was a literal fact of history.

8.       Peter’s knowledge of, but refusal to encourage, Mark’s gospel writing efforts, justify today’s unbelievers in dismissing Mark’s gospel as unworthy of serious attention.

9.       The problems surrounding Matthew’s identity are sufficiently extreme as to justify excluding the gospel of Matthew as disqualified from the realm of eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.

10.        The author of canonical Greek Matthew borrowed most of Mark’s text.

11.        Unbelievers are rationally warranted to conclude that because eyewitnesses typically do not use second-hand sources to the extreme degree that Matthew used second-hand sources, the author of Matthew was not likely an eyewitness.

12.        Canonical Greek Matthew did not likely originate with apostle Matthew.

13.        The ambiguity and paucity of Papias’ statement about Matthew’s authorship is sufficiently extreme as to rationally justify the unbeliever in dismissing it wholesale as utterly incapable of justifying any degree of confidence in one’s conclusions about what he meant.

14.        Some of the 11 apostles did not believe Jesus rose from the dead even after the story says they saw him alive after he died.

15.        Luke is guilty of giving a false impression for his forthrightly admitting his reliance on eyewitnesses while remaining silent about his reliance on hearsay.

16.        The Muratorian Fragment says John’s initial idea on how to obtain gospel material was to get it by way of starvation-induced vision, something utterly incompatible with the conservative Christian notion that John drew mostly on his own memories of literal historical events.

17.        If John wrote a gospel, he didn’t intend to limit his Christ-sayings to those words that the historical Jesus actually spoke.

18.        John’s account of Jesus’ baptism justifies the belief that the author of that Gospel had no problems setting forth visionary material as if it was literal history.

19.        There is nothing in the NT to indicate that Paul physically saw a resurrected Jesus, hence, Paul doesn’t qualify as an “eye”witness to a resurrected Jesus.

20.        The original 11 apostles disagreed with Paul on what criteria must be fulfilled for a person to qualify as a legitimate apostle.

21.        The apostle Paul confessed his willingness to misrepresent his true theological convictions to others, where he thought doing so would convince people to join his cause.

22.        Barnabas’ disagreement with Paul about table fellowship, given that Barnabas was personally chosen by the Holy Spirit to assist in Pual’s ministry (Acts 13:2) justifies suspicion toward Paul’s claims to divine inspiration.

23.        The shockingly immoral situation in Paul’s Corinthian church justifies the suspicion that Paul was willing to characterize unbelievers as true Christians merely because they joined his cause.

24.        James, the leader of the Council of Jerusalem, was a Judaizer.

25.        Peter was a Judaizer.

26.        Some of Paul’s doctrines constituted a perversion of the gospel of Jesus.

27.        Paul’s infamous and near total apathy toward the teachings of the pre-Cross Jesus justify the suspicion that he was knowingly changing original Christianity away from what Jesus intended.

28.        Assuming Jesus rose from the dead, a Christian’s rejection of everything written by Paul would have no effect on their spiritual growth.

29.        The failure of the church to preserve into the present the preaching of most of the 500 alleged resurrection eyewitnesses, is less likely a case of circumstances beyond their control causing their history to disappear, and is better explained as the 500 witnesses being a fabrication, or their having experienced something less convincing than a real resurrected Jesus.

30.        Some of the apostles’ actions after Jesus allegedly rose from the dead, indicate that their transformation was nowhere near the “amazing” thing most Christian apologists say it was.

31.        The evidence supporting the notion of apostles being willing to die for their faith is sufficiently weak and ambiguous, as to reasonably justify the unbeliever in dismissing this popular apologetics argument.

32.        Luke’s dishonesty as a historian is amply demonstrated from Acts 15.

33.        The anger of the Jewish apostles at Peter for having eaten with a Gentile believer (Acts 11:1-3) justifies the suspicion that the parts of the gospels portraying Jesus as having a Gentile ministry, are fabrications.

34.        The Acts 11:18 church viewing Gentile salvation as some shocking unexpected theological development they’d never have guessed without Peter’s recent divinely-induced trance, justifies the suspicion that the parts of the gospels portraying Jesus as having a Gentile ministry, are fabrications.

35.        If the better explanation for these things in Acts 11 is that the apostles “just didn’t get it”, this legitimately impeaches their general credibility as resurrection witnesses.  If they could get obvious reality wrong despite three years of Jesus teaching it to them, why do most Christian apologists tout the reliability of the resurrection testimony as beyond serious dispute?

36.        The first-century church, by their own admission, was far more prone to creating and nurturing false rumors about the apostles, than conservative Christian scholars allow.

37.        The historical and other errors of the early church fathers legitimately impeach their general credibility for matters of apostolic succession and authorship.

38.        Under NT theology, the only time sex within adult-child marriages could be “sin” in the eyes of the bible-god, is a) where it is prohibited by secular law or b) threatens the life of the female.

39.        Deuteronomy 21:10-14 constitute God’s approval for a Hebrew soldier to obtain a wife by means including forcible rape.

40.        Genesis 6:6-7, Exodus 32:9-14, and Samuel 15:35 make no logical room for the possibility that God is perfect or infinitely good.

41.        Several passages in the bible portray God as forcing people to sin against their wills, and thus make no logical room for the notion that he is intrinsically good.  If other bible passages teach god’s intrinsic goodness, the bible contradicts itself on the matter.

42.        Several passages in the bible portray God as causing men to rape women, thus leaving no logical room for the notion that he is intrinsically good.  If other bible passages teach god’s intrinsic goodness, the bible contradicts itself on the matter.

43.        Several passages in the bible portray God as requiring his followers to kill children and infants, despite the availability of other less drastic measures to solve the problem being dealt with, and thus leave no logical room for the notion that he is intrinsically good.  If other bible passages teach god’s intrinsic goodness, the bible contradicts itself on the matter.

44.        Several passages in the bible portray God as requiring his followers to burn children to death, and thus leave no logical room for the notion that he is intrinsically good.  If other bible passages teach god’s intrinsic goodness, the bible contradicts itself on the matter.

45.        If those Christians who deem themselves spiritually alive perceive possible moral contradictions between the OT Yahweh and the NT Jesus, such Christians cannot deny the reasonableness of those they deem spiritually dead for thinking the perceived contradictions are real.

46.        Unbelievers have reasonable and rational justification, in light of the ceaseless debates among conservative Christian NT scholars, to conclude that the biblical data really are fatally ambiguous and incapable of allowing reasonably certain conclusions on anything about Jesus beyond his basic biological historical existence.

47.        It is irrational for those Christian NT scholars who deem themselves spiritually alive, and who yet disagree with each other on nearly everything the NT teaches, to say that those they deem spiritually dead,  are ‘without excuse’ for rejecting “the” gospel.

I look forward to dialogue with you.
Barry

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WKbx0dTy_4

















No comments:

Post a Comment

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...