tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20682704163345244502024-03-09T18:46:59.731-08:00turch is rongThe purpose of this blog is
a) to refute arguments and beliefs propagated by Christian "apologists" and
b) to restore my reputation after one homosexual atheist Christian apologist trashed it so much that he got slapped with four libel-lawsuits.barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.comBlogger520125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-11015976016095816872023-12-19T14:38:00.000-08:002023-12-19T16:15:22.176-08:00Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5<div><span style="font-size: large;">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 Engwer of Triablogue tries desperately to justify an interpretation of those texts that won't attack the VB. Jason loses. I explain why. These are my two replies to Engwer's two articles at Triablogue.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">At the outset, there are several skeptical arguments that render Engwer's trifles moot. One is that nobody in the history of Christianity can show that any NT bullshit applies to us today. Ignoring the bible is about as dangerous as ignoring the Apocrypha. So skeptics who really hate the bible, need not bother with Engwer's ceaseless trifles. They can be reasonable to completely ignore the bible.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-response-to-bart-ehrmans-webinar.html" target="_blank">A Response To Bart Ehrman's </a></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-response-to-bart-ehrmans-webinar.html" target="_blank">Webinar Against The Virgin Birth</a></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><div>Ehrman is still citing passages like Mark 3:21-35 and John 7:1-10 as evidence against the virgin birth. See here for a post I wrote a couple of years ago that responds to Ehrman's use of that argument. Remarkably, he claimed in his webinar today that Jesus' brothers didn't know Jesus was "anything special" in John 7 (first presentation, 47:00). That passage comes just after Jesus' miraculous feeding of thousands of people and other highly public miracles, including ones done when his brothers were nearby (John 2:1-12). The "works" Jesus' brothers refer to in John 7:3-4 surely at least included miracles, given the immediate surrounding context and the nature of Jesus' public ministry in general up to that point. So, the brothers (like Mary in Mark 3) weren't objecting to a lack of miracles. </div></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>One wonders why Jason is not a presuppositionalist,</span> after all, the bible tells him Jesus did miracles, so that launches Jason all the way past any possibility of suggesting that John lied about some things and told the truth about others. Well, for numerous reasons we over here in skeptical-land do not accept biblical inerrancy. Nor do we presume that the testimony of a single witness will always be either lies or truth, instead, we remain open to the possibility that the testimony contains some truth and some lies.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The skeptical position is that the reason Jesus' brothers don't believe in him is because they think his miracles are purely naturalistic stunts, i.e., John is telling the truth about their unbelief, but he is lying about Jesus' miracles. Incidentally, Jesus himself reluctantly admits that his followers were not following because of his miracles, but only because of the free food (John 6:26), which justifies us to suppose those followers did not think the miracles were genuinely supernatural. There is nothing unreasonable in alleging that some "facts" in the gospels are less consistent with Christian theories and more consistent with skeptical theories. There is no rule obligating anybody to assume that ancient writers with a theological agenda told only truth, so that the only theories to account for their statements must be limited to theories that uphold them as honest authors. Engwer continues;</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><div>As my response to Ehrman linked above explains, the Mark 3 passage likewise explicitly refers to Jesus' performance of miracles, even his enemies' acknowledgement of some of his miracles. </div></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>But again, when we skeptics say the reason Jesus' brothers thought him insane (Mark 3:21) was because they thought his 'miracles' were total bullshit, we are not violating any normative canon of historiography or hermeneutics. Jason's defense seems to be that because other things in Mark 3 say Jesus' enemies acknowledged the</span><span> miracles, today's unbeliever is forced to discard any explanatory theory of 3:21 that says the miracles were fake. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sorry, we don't live in Jason's head. We readily acknowledge that a theory that Jesus' miracles were purely naturalistic would not harmonize with the Pharisees "acknowledging" that Jesus does miracles by the demonic power. But we don't assume that Mark always tells the truth, and in this we break no established rule of historiography or hermeneutics. My view is that Mark is simply creating fiction by having Jesus' enemies 'acknowledge' his employment of supernatural power.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We can also go at this from the other direction and ask how absurd it would be to trifle that in 3:21, the brothers merely think Jesus is insane <i>because he is misusing supernatural power.</i><i> </i>In other words, Engwer thinks the brothers' attitude was something like "god has given you the ability to work genuinely supernatural miracles, but you are abusing that gift". Several reasons justify the skeptical rejection of that transparently ad hoc theory:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">First, 1st century Judaism was an honor/shame culture, in which personal slurs were taken far more seriously than they are in modern America. To accuse another of insanity is to accuse them of being possessed by a demon (John 10:20). If Engwer's theory is correct, then Jesus' brothers and thus somebody whom Engwer thinks later became apostle James, committed the unpardonable sin before Jesus died (Mark 3:29-30). Nice going.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Second, for them to acknowledge that Jesus' miracles were genuinely supernatural, <i>but to also refuse to believe in him</i>, sounds a lot like the brothers' knowledge of Deut. 13, which says even false prophets could sometimes do genuinely supernatural miracles. This means the brothers, under pressure to avoid dishonoring Jesus, had decided that because Jesus was teaching contrary to Mosaic law, his doing of miracles either meant nothing, or meant demon possession. Did Jesus' brothers think Jesus was a false prophet?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Third, it was Jesus himself who clarified that his own relatives refused to properly honor him (Mark 6:4). So they were probably feeling constrained in that honor/shame culture to defend Jesus against such accusations, but they found the evidence of his dishonesty too overwhelming and decided that interests of honor required that they denounce him.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Fourth, we can be reasonable so assume that in such honor/shame culture, the starting presumption of the family was that Jesus was an honorable person. So if they took a position that he wasn't honorable, they probably did not merely give in to echos of rumors from enemies...they would have attended a few of his magic shows to verify for themselves whether Jesus 'miracles' were genuinely supernatural or merely staged tricks. In light of Mark 6:4 and his family becoming his 'enemies', we can reasonably conclude that they only became his enemies because they thought Jesus' miracles were purely naturalistic (i.e., he was a first century Benny Hinn). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I now respond to Engwer's longer article on the subject:</span></p><blockquote><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2021/12/michael-shermer-and-bart-ehrman-on.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Michael Shermer And Bart Ehrman On Christmas And Christianity</b></span></a></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Michael Shermer recently had Bart Ehrman on his YouTube channel. There are too many problems with the comments made by both of them for me to interact with everything.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then Jason forfeits the right to complain if counter-apologists think his articles raise too many points so that they won't interact with the majority of such points. </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">After acknowledging that the absence of any mention of the virgin birth in Mark's gospel isn't a persuasive argument that Mark was unaware of the concept,</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span> Then I disagree with Ehrman. Jesus did not teach about his birth to his disciples, so if Peter is the inspiration behind Mark's gospel, we would not expect Peter to talk about the VB. But if the VB is true, we would expect that Mark, likely not writing earlier than 63 a.d. or 30 years after Jesus died, would have heard the VB stories. T</span><span>he VB would certainly have supported Mark's theory that Jesus is the divine Son of God. The notion that Mark knew about the VB, thought it true, but merely "chose to exclude it", is transparently founded on a blind presumption of bible inerrancy, in which Engwer simply cannot allow that two biblical authors disagreed on any bit of Jesus' history. Sorry, Engwer's committment to bible inerrancy does not obligate non-Christians to first exhaust all inerrancy-favoring explanations of Mark's omission of the VB story before we can become reasonable to employ a skeptical explanation for this omission. It isn't like bible inerrancy is a major tenant of historiography, or demanded by historians. And i show elsewhere that Josh McDowell and John Warwick Montgomery lied about "Aristotle's Dictum". So no, there's not even any requirement that we presume the ancient witness is telling the truth until we can prove them wrong. The more objective procedure when dealing with third-party testimony is to neither believe it nor reject it, but suspend judgment until the veracity of their statements can be evaluated. Exactly how much evidence that should be, is not up to Engwer.</span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Ehrman appeals to Mark 3:21-35 to argue that Jesus' family shouldn't have reacted to him as they did in that passage if the virgin birth had occurred. (Ehrman refers to Mark 2, but the passage he has in mind is actually the one I just referenced in chapter 3.) That's a bad argument that's been circulating among critics of the infancy narratives for a long time. It ought to be abandoned. Earlier in Mark's gospel, we read about Jesus' performance of miracles as an adult, and the verse just after the opening one in the passage under consideration refers to those miracles again (Mark 3:22). The passage just cited not only refers to miracles, but also refers to the acknowledgment of those miracles by Jesus' opponents. </span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">In light of 3:21, I hold that Mark's report about the Jews acknowledging the supernatural character of his miracles to be fiction. If I wrote in a letter to my church that even the barbarians down here in South America acknowledge that I employ genuinely supernatural power, what fool would pretend that this must stand as true until proven wrong? Answer: Engwer and other dolts who think Josh McDowell's "Aristotle's Dictum" is a bit of historiographical objectivity. They are high on crack too.</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">So, it wasn't a situation in which they didn't think there were any miracles occurring in association with Jesus.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>And there you go again, blindly pretending that the only plausible explanations for a comment by Mark are those that presuppose his accuracy and honesty, when in fact we are outsiders who don't know jack shit about Mark's actual level of honesty or credibility, and no rule of historiography obligates anybody to presume truth until something Mark said is refuted. Does Engwer believe every statement ever made by a stranger, a person whose history of honesty or dishonesty is totally unknown to him? If the checkable parts of a stranger's </span><span>story square up with history, does that obligate us to believe the non-checkable parts? Gee, I didn't know it would be so easy to find a murder suspect innocent in a circumstantial case: the checkable parts of his story proved true (he was near the store at the time of the robbery), so we are obligated to trust in the non-checkable parts (like his statement that he did not kill the store clerk).</span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">People weren't opposing him because of a lack of miracles.They were opposing him for other reasons (his failing to be the sort of Messiah they wanted, the problems he was causing with the Jewish authorities, etc.).</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">But as I already explained, in such honor/shame culture, the brothers would have felt compelled to investigate the spectacle Jesus was creating, they would not have simply heard that he did miracles, and then dismissed it as mere misuse of divine power. </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> It would be absurd to suggest that Jesus' miracles as an adult didn't persuade these people, but that they would have been persuaded if a virgin birth or some other miracle had occurred a few decades earlier. After verse 22, the passage goes on to refer to Jesus' response to the charge that he's empowered by Satan and some comments he made about the blasphemous nature of what his opponents were doing in dismissing his miracles as demonic. That's the context in which his relatives behaved the way Ehrman mentioned.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Correct: And Mark was lying when putting the "demonic miracles" excuse in the mouth of the Jews, for all the reasons I've listed, and there was never any legitimate rule of historiography, still less one universally accepted among historians, that says I'm stuck with presuming the truth of an ancient story unless I can prove it wrong. So if a skeptic chose to completely ignore the bible as opposed to trifling with Engwer about details of Mark's wording, they would be perfectly justified.</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> You could argue that the relatives were unaware of the miracles the other people in the same passage were aware of (even as far away as Jerusalem, as verse 22 tells us), but that's an unlikely scenario. It wouldn't make sense to claim that people other than Jesus' relatives could oppose him in spite of his miracles, yet his relatives wouldn't. We have reason to think it's likely that the relatives opposing Jesus knew of his recent miracles as an adult, but even if we didn't have reason to believe that, the possibility that they would behave as they did in Mark 3 while knowing of miracles associated with Jesus is more plausible than Ehrman suggests.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> That is total bullshit. They were obligated in the honor/shame culture to personally check out Jesus' miracles, so when they call him insane, it's likely after they've conducted an examination, and drawn the conclusion that his miracles were purely naturalistic tricks. That's a good explanation for why his relatives would call him insane...doing non-supernatural tricks to convince people you are the messiah, would have been sufficiently dishonorable so as to explain the specter of Jesus' own family thinking him insane and refusing to believe in him.</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> If you want to read more on this subject, I've responded to Ehrman's objection at length, as it was formulated by Raymond Brown, here and here. Shortly after the segment just mentioned, Ehrman goes on to cite John 8:41 as evidence that Jesus' opponents were implying that he was conceived out of wedlock, which allegedly suggests that the author of the fourth gospel wasn't aware of the concept of the virgin birth or rejected it. Actually, if John 8:41 is meant to imply Jesus' illegitimate conception, that would be corroboration of the infancy narratives, which report that the pregnancy was premarital.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">No, the Jews in John 8:41 by implying Jesus was concieved outside of wedlock would not have left open an option that maybe his father was God. They would have meant Jesus was sired by a human being out of wedlock. But no, Engwer grasps at any straw he can possible trifle with to make it seem like disagreement with his fundamentalist view doesn't leave the skeptic any other option except intentional stupidity. </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> You'd expect at least some of Jesus' enemies to accuse him of being illegitimate under such circumstances.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">And we don't expect limited stories about Jesus to include every possible accusation that his enemies would have hurled at him. </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> It doesn't follow that the author of the fourth gospel was unaware of the virgin birth or opposed the concept. </span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>That's right, and nobody is saying "it follows", rather we argue that our conclusion is <i>reasonable</i>. It is a very popular mistake in Christian apologetics to misrepresent the skeptic as pretending that his conclusions necessarily follow from the evidence. Nobody seriously thinks their theory necessarily follows from the evidence...except apologists who live inside their own heads, like Jason Engwer, who thinks </span><span>his </span><span>being </span><span>wrong in his working presuppositions is equally as intolerably foolish as the possibility that God might become an atheist.</span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Ehrman is interpreting John 8:41 in a way that supports a traditional Christian view of the infancy narratives, yet he's acting as though his interpretation is evidence against such a view. (I'm agnostic about whether John 8:41 is alluding to an illegitimate conception of Jesus. I think the evidence is ambiguous.)</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then you cannot balk if somebody else interprets the evidence differently than you. But yes, I'd expect you to post 1000 articles about it since you worship the inerrancy of your own mind. All anybody has to do is Google triablogue and Einfield Poltergeist to see just how fanatically trifling you can get in your eternal quest to always have the upper hand in an argument. We would be justified to say Jason Engwer deliberately violates Paul's word-wrangling prohibition in 2nd Tim. 2:14.</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">...Given how much Jesus differed from what many ancient Jews wanted the Messiah to be,</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">No, how much Jesus differed from the messiah the OT predicted, a military messiah. </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> how Jesus and the early Christians were treated by the Jewish and Roman authorities, etc., it's easy to see why many people would prefer to reject Christianity. The same Jews who opposed Christianity in the ancient world also acknowledged Jesus' performance of miracles (which they often dismissed as demonic),</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">No, we can be reasonable to say Mark was putting fiction in the mouths of the Jews when pretending they acknowledged the supernatural character of his works. </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> acknowledged his empty tomb,</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Because the bible tells you so. But the original empty tomb story was nothing more than the women noticing an unidentified man near the open tomb, then running away when the stranger said Jesus is risen and continues on toward Galilee. So the later 3 gospels with their more detailed resurrection appearance narratives are merely embellishing the earlier and simpler form of the story.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> The fact that the disciples considered the women's story bullshit (Luke 24:11) is a case of first century eyewitnesses who find the story of an empty tomb to be bullshit. Luke was probably including some truth in that verse, but lying about nearly everything else <b><span style="color: red;"><i>because there is no rule of historiography that obligates anybody to first believe everything in testimony until some of it can be proved wrong</i></span></b>.</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Though Shermer and Ehrman make much of Jewish rejection of Christianity, they don't address the fact that the Jewish rejection was anticipated in the Old Testament and predicted again in the New Testament, such as when Paul wrote that "a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25). And that's what's unfolded in the history of the world. There's been an ongoing rejection of Jesus among the Jewish people as the kingdom he established has gradually grown in the Gentile world (Psalm 110:1, Daniel 2:35, Matthew 13:31-32).</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">There you have it folks, Jason Engwer, apologist extraordinaire, knows that something about Jesus is true <i>because the bible tells him so</i>. But the fact that plenty of Jews rejected Christianity in the first century sufficiently explains why they did later. How hard would it be for even a stupid ancient historian to predict that a religion that was attacked in his own day would be attacked in the future? LOL. </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">So, we've got a couple of skeptics talking about a Jewish Messianic figure who's had a major influence on their culture, and they're having that conversation during a month-long season of celebrating his birth that billions of Gentiles participate in every year.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>And the vast majority of those Gentiles couldn't give a fuck less about the Jesus-component of Christmas unless it happens to be connected to their child's school-</span><span>play, or a story that somebody reads them.</span><span> </span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> They're objecting that this Jewish Messianic figure has been rejected by the Jewish people, something both the Old Testament and Jesus' earliest followers predicted.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">And a prediction that even a stupid person could make. </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">4 comments:<br />TheFlyingCouch12/09/2021 9:46 AM☍<br /><i>"Ehrman goes on to cite John 8:41 as evidence that Jesus' opponents were implying that he was conceived out of wedlock, which allegedly suggests that the author of the fourth gospel wasn't aware of the concept of the virgin birth or rejected it."</i><br />And Ehrman's a scholar, right? Is John really not thought to be capable of writing down what opponents thought?</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yes he was, and we are reasonable to assume he doesn't mention the VB because he thought it false. It would have served his purposes to allege that the Holy Spirit caused the logos to become human. But Christian scholars cannot even agree on whether John was aware of the Synoptic traditions before he wrote.</span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> Is stating what opponents thought only capable of being what John thinks himself, but in someone else's mouth?</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">No, but again, we have reasons to say John created fictional dialogue. And that's after I've read everything in Lydia McGrew's "Eye of the Beholder". </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Jason Engwer12/09/2021 10:42 AM☍<br />There's a lot of bad reasoning during the program on a lot of topics. And Shermer and Ehrman have been prominent skeptics, often interacting with Christianity in the process, for decades.<br /></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span> And because Engwer is demonstrably too chickenshit to debate those men live </span><span> Engwer happily confines himself to the backwaters of "posted blog piece" despite knowing that the vast majority of people prefer a living voice over written argument.</span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Jason Engwer12/20/2021 1:02 PM☍<br />Erik Manning has produced a good video overview of the issues surrounding Mark 3 and the virgin birth. It's less than five minutes long, but covers a lot of ground.<br /></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> So if the skeptic says he covers too many points, you forfeit the right to balk, since your yourself refuse to answer videos that make a lot of points.</span></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-57698921972780439002023-12-09T12:28:00.000-08:002023-12-09T13:51:39.130-08:00My Response to J. Warner Wallace on the argument from the martyrdom of the apostles<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>This is my reply to J. Warner Wallace's regurgitating the "they would never die for a lie" martyrdom-argument article entitled</i></b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-commitment-of-the-apostles-confirms-the-truth-of-the-resurrection/"><b>The Commitment Of The Apostles </b></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-commitment-of-the-apostles-confirms-the-truth-of-the-resurrection/"><b>Confirms The Truth Of The Resurrection</b></a></div><br /><blockquote>Many of us, as committed Christians, would rather die than reject our Savior.</blockquote></span><span style="font-size: large;"><p>That's also true of Christians who deny that Jesus is God. Should I be impressed?</p><blockquote>Around the world today, Christians are executed regularly because they refuse to deny their allegiance to Jesus or the truth claims of Christianity. </blockquote><p>Which is a sad testament to how easily religion can persuade people to contradict their own natures and prefer death. What you don't tell your readers is that those executed also include Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, and others who deny the Trinity.</p><blockquote>But their deaths, while heartbreaking and compelling, have no evidential value. </blockquote><p>God might disagree with you. God probably thinks that because his enabling grace is the reason they chose death over life, their deaths constitute evidence for God's operating in the world today. </p><blockquote>Many people are willing to die for what they don’t know is a lie. Martyrdom doesn’t confirm the truth, especially when the martyrs don’t have first-hand access to the claim for which they’re dying. But this wasn’t the case for the disciples of Jesus. They were in a unique position: they knew if the claims about Jesus were true. They were present for the life, ministry, death and alleged resurrection of Jesus. If the claims about Jesus were a lie, the disciples would have known it (in fact they would have been the source of the lie). That’s why their commitment to their testimony was (and is) so compelling. </blockquote><p>You are assuming the NT gives us their resurrection testimony. That's mostly false. First, historians use their best evidence, and the best possible evidence-type for Jesus' resurrection is eyewitness testimony. The only resurrection testimony that has any hope of coming down to us today in firsthand form is Paul, John and Matthew. And even then, this is forgetting for the moment all the disagreements Christian scholars have with each other on to what degree Matthew and John contributed to the final canonical form of those gospels. It's also forgetting how reasonable the arguments are that a prima facie case for apostolic authorship of those gospels cannot even be made.</p><p>If we are reasonable to say there is no reasonably reliable way to distinguish apostolic from non-apostolic contributions to those 2 gospels, then the only firsthand testimony you'll have for Jesus' resurrection is Paul, who was a duplicitous liar. Yes, Paul was declaring eyewitness status in 1st Cor. 9:1, but that is falsified in the book of Acts. Nothing about Paul's experience of Christ on the road to Damascus (Acts 9, Acts 22, Acts 26) expresses or implies that he physically saw the risen Christ. So if the most explicit accounts of that experience do not justify drawing the inference that Paul physically saw the risen Christ, we are well within the bounds of reasonableness to characterize the eyewitness claim in 1st Cor 9:1 as a lie, and deny to Paul the status of "eyewitness". So if the question is "From the New Testament, how much eyewitness testimony to Jesus' resurrection comes down to us in firsthand form?", we are reasonable, even if not infallible, to answer "none". </p><p>So if it be true that historians insist that historians use their best evidence, then you fail the first evidentiary hurdle. You cannot make your case from first-hand accounts. Maybe you should write an article arguing that only the devil wants people to think hearsay is less credible than firsthand testimony? Which would then obligate you to argue that the devil has been deceiving America's legal system for centuries. </p><blockquote>Unlike the rest of us, their willingness to die for their claims has tremendous evidential value.</blockquote><p>Not if we can reasonably argue that the resurrection appearance stories in the gospels are late fabrications. We can. We are reasonable to agree with most Christian scholars that Mark is the earliest gospel, and agree with them further that text written authentically by Mark stops with 16:8. You will trifle all day every day that surely Mark had given a resurrection appearance narrative and it was lost very early. But we are reasonable to go with the scholars who say there is nothing unnatural about Mark intending to end at v. 8. The only thing unnatural about it is that when he ends at v. 8, this creates headaches for apologists 2000 years after the fact, who have bible inerrancy on the brain, and who would rather be martyred than admit the tales of Jesus' resurrection are late fabrications. </p><p>And it wouldn't matter if Jesus rose from the dead: Deut. 13 admits that even false prophets can possibly perform genuinely supernatural miracles. So Jesus rising from the dead is not the end of the problem but the beginning.</p><p>And according to Mark 3:21, 6:4 and John 7:5, Jesus' own family found his miracles so unconvincing that they saw him as crazy and as giving no reason to put faith in him. If his own family thought his miracles were fake, we are reasonable to agree with these indisputably contemporary eyewitnesses on the point. So if Jesus in fact rose from the dead, it was a deceptive crazy person who rose from the dead, and likely one of those "the Lord God is testing you with a false prophet" things in Deut. 13:3.</p><blockquote> In fact, the commitment of the apostles confirms the truth of the resurrection. </blockquote><p>And you are apparently aware that talking all confident about stuff that is out of your league, will cause other tithing mammals to spend their money on your stupid bantering bullshit.</p><blockquote>The traditions related to the deaths of the apostles are well known.</blockquote><p>They are also late and contradictory, which justifies us to completely ignore them if we so choose. And you are showing weakness here, since you've now required your readers to go evaluate late and contradictory church traditions about the death of the apostles. If you seriously held to Sola Scriptura (the bible is alone sufficent for faith and practice), you would not waste your customers' time trying to stuff their heads with non-canonical traditions. You would regard biblical resurrection testimony as sufficient...then you would <i>act </i>like it was sufficient. You are not acting like it just now.</p><blockquote> According to local and regional histories, all of the disciples died for their claims related to the Resurrection: Andrew was crucified in Patras, Greece. Bartholomew (aka Nathanael) was flayed to death with a whip in Armenia. James the Just was thrown from the temple and then beaten to death in Jerusalem. James the Greater was beheaded in Jerusalem. John died in exile on the island of Patmos. Luke was hanged in Greece. Mark was dragged by horse until he died in Alexandria, Egypt. Matthew was killed by a sword in Ethiopia. Matthias was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem. Peter was crucified upside down in Rome. Philip was crucified in Phrygia. Thomas was stabbed to death with a spear in India. As a detective (and a very skeptical one at that), I don’t necessarily accept all these traditions with the same level of certainty. </blockquote><p>Which is puzzling since your commitment to Sola Scriptura means you don't think you need extra-canonical stuff to help your case. If those post-biblical traditions about the apostles' death are of varying degrees of historical value, then what? Are you asking your paying customers to become professional historians? If not, aren't they taking a chance that when they make an amateur judgment about the value of this extra-canonical testimony, they might get it wrong? </p><blockquote>Some are better attested than others; I have far greater confidence in the history related to Peter’s death, for example, than I have in the claims related to Matthias’ death. </blockquote><p>But you are forced to think Jesus' account of Peter's martyrdom is the best possible historical evidence on the subject, and Jesus made it clear that Peter would be <i>un</i>willing to die:</p><p></p><blockquote>18 "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you <b><u>where you do <span style="color: red;">not </span>wish to go.</u></b>" 19 <u>Now this He said, signifying by what kind of <span style="color: red;"><b>death </b></span>he would glorify God</u>. (Jn. 21:18-19 NAU)</blockquote><p></p><p>And if he remained as fickle after Jesus' resurrection as Galatians 2 says, we can be reasonable to infer that Peter in any trial would have denied Jesus like he did before, and similarly to how he denied his true convictions in Galatians 2:12.</p><p>Mike Licona, a far greater scholar on the resurrection of Jesus than you, has little confidence in the traditions about Peter's death:</p><p>"Clement reports that Peter and Paul suffered multiple attacks and most likely refers to their martyrdoms, <b><i>although the latter is not without question</i></b>...I must add that Clement of Rome is of limited use in our investigation, since we have assigned a rating of possible-plus in terms of the strength of this document as a source that reliably preserves apostolic testimony...The accounts regarding the remaining apostles are interesting and may contain historical kernels, but they are anecdotal and cannot be accorded too much weight."</p><p>Mike Licona, <i>The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach</i> (IVP Academic, 2010), pp. 367, 369, 370. <i>Possible-plus?</i> Well gee, I have no rational option but to throw dust and ashes on my head, amen? Why don't you just honestly admit that if it weren't for Sean McDowell's ph.d thesis that deals exclusively with the deaths of the 12 apostles, you wouldn't have been able to write this article?</p><p>You want people who are not professional historians to make judgment calls on disputed matters of history that not even professional historians agree on? What are you gonna do next? Demand that your customers decide which accounts of the battle of Troy are reliable and which aren't?</p><blockquote>But I am still confident these men died for their claims, even if I may be uncertain about precisely how they died. Here’s why: There were two quick ways to end the upstart Christian religion in the first century (and both the Jewish and Roman leadership would have been eager to accomplish this task). First, the enemies of Christianity could simply have dragged the body of Jesus through town to demonstrate he was still dead. Second, they could have forced the alleged eyewitnesses to recant. </blockquote><p>You are assuming the apostolic preaching was considered by the secular authorities to be something demanding their attention. I don't think the book of Acts is anywhere near as historically reliable as you think it is. I say it is lying in nearly everything it says because it was intended less as historically reliable and more as edifying fiction. And yes, I say this after having read Sir William Ramsay's <i>The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament</i> (1915). </p><blockquote>Neither of these two things ever occurred. </blockquote><p>Probably because the ruling secular authorities did not view the Christian preaching with anywhere near the panic that Acts says they did. The issue is not whether YOU can be reasonable to characterize Acts as the equal of videotape. The issue is whether SKEPTICS can be reasonable to say Acts is full of lies. We can. If a witness's story contains nuggets of historical truth, you still don't know if that means <i>honest author</i>, or if it means <i>dishonest author who is trying to make a false story "ring true"</i>. Yet you and all conservative Christian apologists simplemindedly insist that the presence of historically accurate details automatically necessitates the conclusion of <i>honest author</i>. Sorry, you lose. </p><blockquote>You may not be aware, but we do have ancient accounts of recanting on the part of Christians. Pliny the Younger was Roman lawyer and magistrate who lived from 61-113AD. He served as the governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now located in modern Turkey) under Emperor Trajan, and he conducted trials against those who had been identified as Christians. In a letter he wrote to Trajan in 111-113AD, he said the following: “…in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished… Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.” </blockquote><p>So his basis for killing some Christians wasn't a hatred of Jesus or attempt to snuff out their religion, but that "I had no doubt that, <b><span style="color: red;">whatever the nature of their creed</span></b>, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished..." Pliny cares less about what exactly they are preaching, and cares only to suppress stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy.</p><p>What you don't tell the reader is Trajen's response, which forbade Pliny from seeking out Christians: "They are not to be sought out." See <a href="https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a>. It is reasonable to conclude that this important ruler didn't perceive the spread of Christianity to be a significant threat. The larger point is that you are misleading your readers by talking about what the ruling authorities could have done to put a stop to Christianity. You falsely assume the spread of Christianity caused the ruling authorities to panic and try to suppress this growing cult. They generally didn't. So if they aren't putting Jesus' corpse in a wheelbarrow and then going on an expensive first century tour through Rome and Palestine, its not because they <i>couldn't</i>, but because they didn't think Christianity was sufficiently significant to justify spending resources on.</p><p>Really now, Mr. Warner, how much effort have you put into refuting any heretical miracle claims you think are false? What shall we say about the Protestant christian apologist who never gets around to providing reasons why some Catholic miracle claims are false? Shall we assume you don't make such efforts because you know the miracles are true? Or should we assume you don't both exposing such error because you simply don't give a fuck? </p></span><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>Not every early Christian was willing to die for his or her beliefs. Here we have excellent evidence of second generation Christians recanting their claims to stay alive in the Roman Empire.</blockquote><p>That effectively counter-balances any historical evidence that select leaders of the movement, likely with an agenda to make the world a better place, were willing to die. </p><blockquote> One thing is certain: The Roman authorities recognized the importance of their efforts to obtain denials from early Christians. Pliny’s work in this regard (recorded very early in history) are evidence of this. </blockquote><p>And Trajan's response, which you didn't quote, forbids Pliny from seeking out Christians. Whatever "importance" they thought there was in suppressing Christianity, it wasn't as extreme as you pretend. </p><blockquote>Many second generation Christians (who were not eyewitnesses of the Resurrection) recanted their membership in the Christian family to stay alive. Yet there isn’t a single ancient document, letter or piece of evidence indicating any of the Christian eyewitnesses (the apostolic disciples) ever changed their story or surrendered their claims.</blockquote><p>But Galatians 2:9 is reasonably interpreted as evidence that the original apostles disobeyed the risen Christ's Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. Is there a significant difference between disobeying the risen Christ, and recanting one's resurrection testimony? No, because you would argue that by seeing the risen Christ, they were "amazingly transformed".</p><p>You also have another problem: You act as if Jesus' resurrection is supposed to be some unprecedented act that, if true, would have blown the socks off of Jesus' followers. Sorry...Matthew 10:8 has Jesus requiring his disciples to perform resurrections during one of the missions. If that is true, then it doesn't make sense to pretend that Jesus' own resurrection was deemed by them to be an unexpected game changer. It is senseless to pretend that disciples who had themselves performed resurrection miracles, would later become so utterly mesmerized by Jesus' own resurrection. Perhaps that explains why they disobeyed the risen Christ's Great Commission. And Matthew 28:17 says some of those who saw the risen Christ "doubted". I've examined the arguments of the fools who pretend this only means "hesitant", and I maintain that "doubted" means they didn't think what they were seeing was a truly resurrected person. There is no rule of historiography that obligates anybody to harmonize Matthew's account with John's story of doubting Thomas. So it doesn't matter if you can be reasonable to attempt that harmonization anyway, the question is whether skeptics can be reasonable to refuse such harmonization scenario. They can. You lose. </p><blockquote> Given the reasonable expectation of this Roman effort and the evidence from history confirming the trials of Christians, it’s remarkable none of the eyewitnesses ever changed their claims.</blockquote><p>What's more remarkable is your gullibility in leaping from "we have no evidence they changed their stories" over to "none of the eyewitnesses ever changed their stories". Do you seriously think that if any of the apostles had changed their stories, the burgeoning Christian church would have desired to preserve this embarrassment for posterity? Gee, how often do religions preserve testimony prejudicial to their cause...and how often do religious get rid of testimony prejudicial to their cause? Aren't you curious as to why letters from the Judaizers were never preserved? Or will you insist that no such letters ever existed? You are required by the book of Acts 15:23 to believe that the leaders of the Judaizers thought sending letters was an acceptable way to deal with the problem of Paul. And I'm pretty sure you are aware that between the 1st and 2nd centuries, various leaders demanded the destruction of Christian works they deemed "heretical". And from Paul's lament that his entire Galatian church had apostatized and adopted the Judaizer gospel (1:6-9), we can be confident that they didn't achieve this solely by word of mouth, but also by letters to each other critical of Paul. Paul's own example of letter writing indicates it was consistent with zealous Judaism to send letters to address local church problems. So yes, we are reasonable to say the lack of 1st century sources critical of Christianity is not due to their never existing, but due to their being destroyed. You are a fool to leap from "we have no evidence the apostles ever changed their story" over to "the apostles never changed their story". Apostle Matthew was the author of the Great Commission in 28:19. If Galatians 2:9 is true, we reasonably infer that he changed his story and stopped telling the world that the risen Christ required him and the orignal apostles to evangelize the Gentiles. If Peter as resurrection eyewitness was as fickle as Galatians 2 says, then he most definitely changed his story, likely several times, at least when facing persecution. If he feared "they of the circumcision" despite their presenting no threat of death, how likely would he fear "they of Rome" who were much more likely to execute him?</p><blockquote> Our willingness (as non-witnesses later in history) to die for what we believe has no evidential value, but the willingness of the first disciples to die for what they saw with their own eyes is a critical piece of evidence in the case for Christianity.</blockquote><p>So sources that are late, contradictory and are assigned widely varying levels of historical value by professional historians, are "critical" pieces of evidence in the case for Christianity? LOL</p><blockquote> The early tradition of the Church related to these deaths is bolstered by the lack of any ancient record of apostolic denial, </blockquote><p>then you need to phone Lydia and Tim McGrew. They are conservative Christian apologists who burn in effigy all fools who argue from silence. Nice to know there's no end to the divisions in the body of Christ. </p><blockquote>especially given there exist other ancient accounts of public persecution and denials by early Christians.</blockquote><p>Which are late, contradictory, and subject to widely varying value judgments from professional historians. </p><blockquote> The commitment of the disciples to their claims is compelling. </blockquote><p>But not so much as to render those who reject the gospel unreasonable. </p><blockquote>Unlike the rest of us, their willingness to die for what they witnessed has tremendous evidential value.</blockquote><p>Paul was not an eyewitness, and yet that apostle's resurrection testimony is the only one the NT passes on to posterity in firsthand form.</p></span>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-79194886859775096272023-11-18T14:59:00.000-08:002023-11-18T14:59:12.399-08:00Jonathan McLatchie's fallacies in explaining away Divine Hiddenness<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>This is my reply to Dr. Jonathan McLatchie's article at crossexamined.org entitled</i></b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/" target="_blank">GRAPPLING WITH DIVINE HIDDENNESS: WHY DOES GOD NOT MAKE HIS EXISTENCE MORE OBVIOUS?</a></div></span><div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/" target="_blank">MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2021</a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/" target="_blank">By Jonathan McLatchie</a></div><blockquote>One of the most challenging objections to the existence of God is the problem of divine hiddenness. Closely related to the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness asks “Where is God?”; “Why doesn’t God make His existence more obvious?”; “Why does God leave any room for doubt?” Surely God, if He existed, would not need apologists to make the case for His existence — couldn’t He have made it more immediately apparent? Related to these concerns is the problem of unanswered prayer. Why do so many peoples’ prayers go unanswered, often despite years of persistent prayer? The problem is even connected to the problem of evil, since one may ask why God apparently fails to show up to put an end to evil and unjust suffering in our world. These are indeed difficult questions that deserve to be taken seriously and thoughtfully considered. <br /></blockquote><p>So if your article doesn't persuasively refute the hiddenness objection, we can reasonably deduce that even after you tried your best, you couldn't show the alleged fallaciousness or illegitimacy of the hiddenness objection.</p><blockquote>The Biblical authors also recognized and grappled with divine hiddenness. For example, the Psalmist asked “Why, O LORD, do you stand far away? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?” (Ps 10:1). Another Psalm likewise says “Awake! Why are you sleeping, O Lord? Rouse yourself! Do not reject us forever! Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression? For our soul is bowed down to the dust; our belly clings to the ground. Rise up; come to our help! Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love!” (Ps 44:23-26). One could continue in a similar vein for some time.</blockquote><p>Which is why you Christians are accomplishing nothing if and when you quote something in the bible in response to the divine hiddenness objection. The biblical authors offered nothing more serious than the persistence of their faith. Gee, God really exists, because <i>nothin's gonna stop us now?</i> LOL. </p><blockquote> The problem of divine hiddenness is, in my judgment, one of the best arguments against the existence of God. </blockquote><p>You are a 5-point Calvinist who says presuppositionalism isn't biblical. Your presuppositionalist brothers in Christ think you are sinfully deaf to the Holy Spirit, because neither the bible nor god will allow that some atheist arguments are "better" than others. Is there a reason why you don't just say "you can't account for the pre-conditions of intelligibility" and then wait to see the world come to a grinding halt? That's what your friends Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, James White, Jeff Durbin and Sye Bruggencate do. Does God want you all to disagree on how robust some atheist objection is? Does God want his followers to disagree with each other on whether presuppositionalism is biblically justified?</p><blockquote>It has its most articulate and erudite defense, to my knowledge, in the work of Canadian philosopher John L. Schellenberg (see his book The Hiddenness Argument — Philosophy’s New Challenge to Belief in God).<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn1">[1]</a><br /><br />The problem is particularly difficult on an emotional level. Schellenberg draws the analogy of a friend describing his parents: “Wow, are they ever great — I wish everyone could have parents like mine, who are so wonderfully loving! Granted, they don’t want anything to do with me. They’ve never been around. Sometimes I find myself looking for them — once, I have to admit, I even called out for them when I was sick — but to no avail. Apparently they aren’t open to being in a relationship with me — at least not yet. But it’s so good that they love me as much and as beautifully as they do!”<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn2">[2]</a> This analogy should give a sense of the impact of this argument, rhetorically and emotionally.<br /></blockquote><p>The analogy indicates that the only way you are ever going to justify pretending some "god" wants a "personal" relationship with us is if you radically redefine "personal", when in fact your solitary basis for doing so is to avoid having to admit the Christian religion is false. You know? This is sort of like radically redefining "billionaire" so a homeless destitute man can still "plausibly" claim to be financially secure.</p><blockquote>While it may be admitted that the argument from divine hiddenness is one of the most perplexing issues for the theist to come to terms with, especially emotionally, the real question that needs to be addressed is that of whether it offers sufficient ground to overhaul the powerful cumulative positive reasons to believe that God exists and that He has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. I will argue in this article that the answer is ‘no’.<br /></blockquote><p>Then you missed the forest for the trees. If God does not do what would fall within the parameters of "desire a personal relationship with us", then his existence is rendered irrelevant. A man with a bright orange hat no doubt truly exists somewhere in Sudan right now. But his mere existence is hardly sufficient to justify inferring that he wants to be in a personal relationship with you. Some neo-evangelical fuckheads will say the "personal relationship" stuff is merely the fruit of apostate Christianity, and true discipleship consists solely of prayer and obedience. But we call victory if we can justify ignoring the most popular version of theism/Christianity.</p><blockquote>A Lack of Obviousness Does Not Mean Poor Evidential Support<br /></blockquote><p>Yes it does. The more obvious something is, the more evidential support there will be. The less obvious something is, the less evidential support. It is far from obvious that Bigfoot is a genuine cryptid, there is a remarkable lack of evidential support that this thing being a real animal. Your statement might be reasonable if you are talking about just any evidence that might blow in from any direction. But if you are talking about seriously "authenticated" evidence, then your maxim is most certainly false. How much of the evidence in favor of Bigfoot being a genuine cryptid, is seriously "authenticated"? The vast majority of BF fanatics are not willing to assert their claims under penalty of perjury, and one might be reasonable to say such unwillingness means the evidence in question is not properly authenticated. We might have higher standards of evidence than the average fool on the internet, but so what? Having high standards of evidence only means you are forced to come up with a seriously good case, it doesn't mean we are being "unfair". Otherwise, any guilty criminal suspect could complain the standard of evidence he is being forced to meet by the prosecutor's grilling questions on the stand is "unfair" and the standard "should be" lower. Not on your life. Furthermore, it is precisely the failure to have a higher standard that is responsible for many people being defrauded and conned. When we are dealing with an unknown and thus a possible fake, the only people who complain that our standards are too high are the fools who cannot justify their own lower standards.</p><blockquote>Why does God not make His existence more obvious?</blockquote><p>We say it is for the same reason the tooth-fairy doesn't make her existence more obvious. The only difference is that one is clearly limited to children, the other appears to be a fairytale intended for adults. </p><blockquote> The first point I will make in response to this question is that God’s existence not being obvious does not entail that it is not well evidentially supported. We know from physics, for example, that a physical object like a table or a chair is comprised of mostly empty space. This is not at all obvious (in fact it would seem to be almost obvious that it is not the case) and yet we have good evidential support that it is so.</blockquote><p>This means that "obvious" may be grounded in mere perception, or study. Before the age of enlightenment, a person would have been reasonable to think a chair was a "solid" object and to insist that the theory of the chair being mostly empty space lacked evidentiary support. Similarly, before the age of enlightenment, a person might have been reasonable to attribute certain natural phenomena to "god". What's "obvious" reasonably depends on the current state of knowledge.</p><blockquote> One may reply that whereas we know scientifically that the chair is mostly comprised of empty space, we nonetheless still live our lives as if though it is not — our day-to-day choices and beliefs are not based on how we scientifically understand things to be, but how we experience them in our daily lives. However, I can think of counter-examples where we do act against what we feel in accord with the available evidence, even when we are putting our lives on the line. For example, despite being a frequent flyer, I get anxious about being on an airplane. Even though I know rationally that flying is the safest way to travel (statistically, your odds of being involved in a fatal plane crash are less than 1 in 12 million), flying – especially in turbulent conditions – just doesn’t feel like it is safe to me. Nevertheless, I frequently overcome my fear of flying by stepping onto an airplane, often for very long distances. In that case, I am literally committing my life to what my rational faculties tell me, and disregarding what my emotions and feelings tell me, because I know that generally my rational faculties are a more reliable gauge of what is actually true than my feelings.<br /></blockquote><p>Statistics don't tell you what is actually true, that's why they change all the time. All they do is highlight trends. You've heard the expression "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics".</p><blockquote>Someone recently asked me why God cannot be more like the force of gravity, which we experience directly. However, while we do have direct experience of the effects of gravity, it is not immediately obvious what causes things to gravitate towards the ground. </blockquote><p>The point is not being able to figure out the mechanism, but being able to prove that some such mechanism must obviously be present to account for the phenomena. God could cause severe headache or body ache to all persons when they are 1 minute away from committing a crime. We would then notice that those who wish to commit crime exhibit this trend, and we could deduce a moral creator from it even if we couldn't fully explain how the non-physical god manages to influence the movement of physical things like neurons.</p><blockquote>The law of gravity was not articulated before Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Indeed, in attempting to explain why unsupported bodies fall to the ground, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle put forward the idea that objects simply moved towards their ‘natural place’, the center of the earth (which in Aristotle’s cosmology was the center of the Universe), and that objects fall at a speed proportional to their weight. So perhaps gravity is less ‘obvious’ than one might think (though something which nonetheless enjoys strong evidential support). I would argue that the evidence of God is all around us, so we do in a sense experience God in a similar way to how we experience gravity. Just as we observe the effects that gravity has all around us but do not see the gravitational force that actually causes those effects, we also see the many things that God has made all around us, even though we do not see the being who actually caused those things to exist.<br /></blockquote><p>Not at all. Science continues coming up with sufficient purely naturalistic explanations for phenomena previously unexplainable. Abiogenesis is next on naturalism's hit-list.</p><blockquote>One may still object here that it should not take us a lot of work to discover that Christianity is true. Rather, the truth of the gospel, granting what is at stake, should be readily apparent. I shall return to this objection in due course. However, I will note here that I do not think God requires more than it is reasonable for a serious enquirer to give to an issue of this much importance.</blockquote><p>Then because I can reasonably justify ignoring the gospel, that is the point where your apologetics break down, and thus the point where you walk away defeated. </p><blockquote> Some enquirers are better placed than others, and God looks for us to exert ourselves according to the light we have been given.</blockquote><p>You <i>must </i>be talking solely to Christians, you cannot just sneak in what you think is a biblical "truth" (we are accontable to God based on how much "light" he has allowed to us) and expect it to be found persuasive by a non-Christian. </p><blockquote> I have heard, for instance, many stories of Jesus revealing Himself to people in dreams and visions in Muslim-majority countries, presumably since those are parts of the world where it is harder for people to otherwise hear the gospel. In the west, we have ample access to the gospel and to the tools needed to do our due diligence in investigating its claims.<br /></blockquote><p>But visions and dreams are more persuasive than historical evidence. How many people would be denying Christianity if God gave a Jesus-vision to everybody? You lose.</p><blockquote>I think we have to trust the goodness of God, </blockquote><p>Yup, you have no intention of addressing unbelievers at that point.</p><p></p><blockquote> since presumably God, in his omniscience, knows what every person would have done had they had more evidence — i.e. whether they would have chosen to enter into a relationship with God or to reject Him. </blockquote><p></p><p>So because Matthew 11:21 has Jesus saying earlier civilizations surely "would have" repented had they been allowed to see the miracles Jesus was doing for 1st century people, we are forced to the conclusion that even when God knows that more evidence "would have" resulted in more being getting saved, God will still withhold that evidence, i.e., God does not wish to save everybody, i.e., totally consistent with your Calvinism...thus making everybody wonder why the anti-Calvinist Dr. Frank Turek would ever let a person like you represent his crossexamined.org ministry. Maybe you are one of those "Calvinists" who think God wants to be surprised and find that several non-elect people managed to get saved anyway? </p><blockquote> We know from plenty of Biblical examples that not everyone who is presented with conclusive evidence for God (whether by miracles, predictive prophecies, or direct manifestations) submits to Him.</blockquote><p>Then Matthew 11:21 is a serious problem for you. Jesus said those earlier civilizations "would have" repented had they seen the miracles Jesus was doing. There is no "maybe" in Jesus' dogmatic words there. </p><blockquote> If God knows that a given individual is not going to enter into a good, lasting relationship with Him, then why would God ensure the person believes?</blockquote><p>But if God is all-powerful, he can cause the most incorrigably stubborn unbeliever to become a believer. The strongest biblical case in point is Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul had not previously repented, he was still whole-heartedly persecuting Christians when God allegedly decided to give him both theological barrels right to the face. If the biblical god is serious in his boasts that "all things" are possible for him (Matthew 19:26), then spiritually regenerating a determined atheist would be a piece of cake...just like keeping safe the toddler who refuses to move from the middle of the street is a piece of cake, because the power we have as their caretakers is greater than their stubbornness. Love requires that we force them against their wills when we reasonably foresee that allowing them to have their way will likely result in disaster.</p><blockquote> Furthermore, Scripture also indicates that people are judged in accordance with the amount of light they have rejected (e.g. Mt 11:21-22; Jn 12:47-48). </blockquote><p>Another proof that you are not addressing atheists or unbelievers, so that you cannot complain if such groups find your arguments pathetically weak. </p><blockquote>Even many contemporary public atheists have essentially said that no amount of evidence could change their mind. For example, Richard Dawkins <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoQurwEZmmQ">was asked in a conversation with Peter Boghossian</a> what it would take for him to believe in God. Dawkins said that not even the second coming would be enough evidence. When Boghossian asked him whether any amount of evidence could change his mind. He replied, “Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming.” It could, therefore, be seen as an act of mercy for God to withhold from them more evidence if they were going to reject it anyway and thereby bring upon themselves greater judgment. </blockquote><p>But if God foisted on Dawkins that efficacious telepathy God boasts of having in Ezra 1:1, Dawkins would no more likely resist doing what God wanted than pagan idolator King Cyrus would resist conforming to what god wanted. Maybe we should change Romans 1:20 so that it says "God is without excuse, because when he really wants to, he can cause even the most stubborn unbeliever change their mind and become willing to obey the divine intent".</p><blockquote>This adds yet further plausible motivation for God not to ensure that everyone had greater access to evidence for His existence, which would thereby render them more culpable.</blockquote><p>Except that Jesus in Matthew 11:21 assured us that prior civilizations "would have" repented if they had seen more evidence. So from a biblical perspective, God is not withholding evidence because he wants to lessen their culpability...he is withholding evidence because he doesn't want them to repent. </p><blockquote> This point has been independently made by Travis Dumsday in a paper in the journal Religious Studies.<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn3">[3]</a></blockquote><p>He is trumped by the word of God. That's enough to convince you.</p><blockquote>This last point may be challenged by the skeptic by pointing to the existence of non-resistant non-believers. As Schellenberg puts it, “If there exists a God who is always open to a personal relationship with any finite person, then no finite person is ever nonresistantly in a state of nonbelief in relation to the proposition that God exists.”<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn4">[4]</a> However, I would contest that there is such a thing as long-term non-resistant nonbelief. My own view is that the evidence for Christianity is such that anyone who is fully informed and takes it upon himself to impartially examine it — with a heart open toward accepting God as Lord — will, in the long term, come to find Christianity to be true and well supported.</blockquote><p>Perhaps your desire to continue believing in such a blind hopeless way about unbelievers explains why you reject a lot of debate invitations from them, like when you rejected mine for reasons that were outrageously irrelevant to the merits, see <a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2021/06/apologist-dr-jonathan-mclatchies.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><blockquote>In any case, human psychology, particularly at the subconscious level, is so complex that I doubt that it is demonstrable that any nonbeliever is completely nonresistant.<br /></blockquote><p>Your first concern is your bible, not human psychology, and there, God apparently wants people to think that his sovereignty over the choice-making abilities of human beings is aptly illustrated by the analogy of hooking a fish and forcing it to go in a direction it didn't wish to go. See "hook in your jaws" in Ezekiel 38-39. What is so unreasonable in taking that metaphor to mean God not only has the capability of forcing people against their will, he is also willing to actually do it? Bible inerrancy is rejected by most Christian scholars, so you can hardly pretend that an unbeliever is under some type of obligation to presume that the only interpretation of a bible verse that can possibly be correct is the one that harmonizes with everything else in the bible. There' nothing the least bit unreasonable in concluding that Ezekiel's hard determinism contradicts what other biblical authors believed. </p><blockquote>Couldn’t God Have Given Us Stronger Evidence?<br /><br />A related objection is that it is possible for the evidence for Christianity to have been stronger than it in fact is. Surely, if God existed, He would have given us the strongest possible evidence. However, I do not think that we need expect something that goes beyond perfectly adequate evidence for the serious inquirer.</blockquote><p>I have no patience for this type of red-herring. We are not asking you whether the evidence available to the modern day atheist is "sufficient" to justify holding them accountable on Judgment Day. We are asking whether God could have provided more and better evidence. The answer is yes, and Matthew 11:21 ensures that God knew prior civilizations would surely have repented had they been given more evidence. But a better rebuttal would argue that your god's problem is not whether he could provide better evidence, but why he refuses to foist on today's idolators that coercive telepathy that he foisted on King Cyrus to ensure he would obey the divine will, Ezra 1:1. Whenever the bible asserts that God made somebody willing, or "stirred up their spirit", they ALWAYS do exactly what he wants them to do. Yes, we need to change Romans 1:20 so it says "god is without excuse, he could avoid any need to bitch about people about sinning by simply preventing them from sinning". </p><blockquote> Many atheists are under the mistaken impression that God wants people to believe in Him no matter what they are going to go on and do with that knowledge.</blockquote><p>No, you are creating a completely fabricated problem: If God foisted his saving grace on everybody, they would not merely get saved...they would also use that knowledge in whatever way God wanted them to. God is without excuse. </p><blockquote> It is never contended anywhere in Scripture that it is a commendable thing to believe in God yet reject a relationship with Him.</blockquote><p>And it is never contended anywhere in Scripture that God might cause somebody to believe in him but still reject a relationship with him. The power that cause belief also causes willingness to enter a relationship. God is without excuse. </p><blockquote> In the Old Testament, the Jews had no doubt that God existed – they had seen many miracles performed before their eyes – and yet they went off time and again into idolatry. </blockquote><p>That analogy doesn't work with atheists, because we deny that such Jews ever saw any miracles in the first place. That's why they found it impossibly difficult to fear YHWH enough to stay separate from the Canaanites. </p><blockquote>Even those who saw Jesus’ miracles before their very eyes didn’t believe in Him (e.g. John 12:37) and wanted to put Him to death – e.g. see the reaction of many after Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:45-53). </blockquote><p>The bible correctly reports that some people thought Jesus' miracles were total bullshit...but it incorrectly reports that those miracles were genuinely supernatural. In this I violate standard of historiographical convention no more than does the jury who decides that some portions of a witness's testimony are truthful and other portions are lies. </p><blockquote>The eighteenth century lawyer and Christian thinker Joseph Butler (1692-1752), in his Analogy of Religion, put forward the idea that our time on earth is a period of probation.<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn5">[5]</a> </blockquote><p>You are a Calvinist. You think God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and infallible. In that case, there can be no "probation" because God is not waiting to see what we will do. If God doesn't think we are capable of doing anything other than what he infallibly foresees us doing, then our internal sense of unpredictability and autonomy is genuinely illusory...there was never any "if" about it in the first place, and therefore, putting us on "probation" in this life would be about as sensible as putting a toddler on probation in front of a trigonometry textbook to see "if" they will get the right answers. Only a fool would expect obedience when by other means he already infallibly knows it will never happen. Most Christians will agree with me that there is straight up irreconcilable contradiction between Calvinism's doctrine of God's revealed will and Calvinism's doctrine of God's secret will. Nothing is more dishonest than the Calvinist bitching at people for sinning, because Calvinism says their sins were in perfect conformity to God's will (secret will). The utter stupidity of such a God is clear from Paul's inability to coherently answer that problem in Romans 9:20. </p><blockquote>For some people in particular the form that that probation may take is a form of testing whether they are willing to engage in the intellectual inquiry that is necessary to give themselves a fair examination of the evidence.</blockquote><p>"whether"? If God already knows infallibly how they will react to the test, then its not really "probation", is it? If you know infallibly that an imprisoned man will rape soon after being put on probation, then your releasing him isn't really "probation", is it? Probation only makes sense when the person in charge has hopes that we will pass the test, and cannot the outcome beforehand.</p><blockquote>An objection I sometimes encounter is that, if God exists, then there should not be any reasonable arguments against His existence at all. However, this complaint, it seems to me, boils down essentially to the dubious claim that, if Christianity is true, there cannot be any puzzles that require mental effort to work out.</blockquote><p>The objection is wise, it shows that if God exists and yet it isn't obvious, then this God apparently prioritizes toying with people above seriously wanting them to avoid spiritual disaster. If God is playing hide and seek with us, either we are not in spiritual trouble, or this God is sadistic, because it is precisely this game that causes some people to allegedly endure eternal conscious suffering in an afterworld. Had God been a bit more serious, there wouldn't have been any hide and seek, God's will would have been as obvious as the existence of trees, and we have no right to pretend that the level of sin in that world would still be equal to the level of sin in the present world where this god desires to play hide and seek.</p><blockquote> Another point to bear in mind is that many people are not even presented with these as puzzles that seriously compromise the evidence that they already have. For some people, working through the problem of evil is part of their probation here in this life. </blockquote><p>Some would argue that insulating a child from rape is more important than some adult's "Probation" in this life. The only reason any fool insists that "God is an exception" are those who refuse to give up belief in god's "goodness". </p><blockquote>And if they are diligent, they will work through it.</blockquote><p>This is blind denial of the obvious truth that many Christians are diligent and yet don't work through it, and often de-convert. </p><blockquote> Even if they cannot find adequate and satisfying answers to why there exists so much suffering in the world, they can learn to trust in the goodness of God, and find in the problem of evil insufficient ground to overturn the positive confirmatory case for Biblical theism.</blockquote><p>We aren't using evil to disprove theism. We are using evil to disprove the doctrine of God's "goodness". </p><blockquote> Either they will find adequate answers, or they will find enough positive evidence to make the fact of their inability to find those answers not, in the end, sufficient to undermine their faith.<br />Why Does God Require of Us So Much Work?<br /></blockquote><p>Again, you address only Christians. The unbeliever would never concede that god requires anything of anybody.</p><blockquote>I often hear the objection that in order to really be compelled by the evidence for Christianity, one has to take a very deep dive into esoteric scholarship. Surely, if God were real, the truth of the gospel should be a lot more self-evident. Indeed, this is actually also an objection to my epistemology that I frequently encounter from some Christians as well – namely, that my hard line evidentialism implies that Christians cannot be rational in believing the gospel unless they become an academic and invest hundreds of hours in the study of the evidences for Christianity. Since not everyone has the aptitude and access to resources necessary to undertake such deep study, so the objection goes, this cannot be God’s normative way of imparting rational confidence to believers that the gospel they have entrusted is indeed true.<br />However, I want to be careful here to draw a distinction between what I call an explicit rational warrant and what can be called an implicit, or tacit, rational warrant for Christian faith. </blockquote><p>Mere reasonableness of the Christian view cannot itself displace or disprove the reasonableness of the atheist view, because two opposite viewpoints may possibly be equally reasonable. It's the reason why not all equally reasonable people on a jury will agree, so that they end up in deadlock. Reasonableness does not work the way accuracy does. </p><blockquote>Every Christian, I would argue, can have at least an implicit rational warrant for believing that God exists and that He has revealed Himself in the Bible. Romans 1:20 teaches that God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” The Greek word translated “without excuse” in this verse is ἀναπολογήτους (literally, “without an apologetic”). Furthermore, the Psalmist wrote that “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork,” (Ps 19:1). I do not think the Scriptures are envisaging people having to do PhDs in astrophysics or molecular biology, or master probability theory, in order to see the hand of God revealed in nature. Every time we step outdoors and behold the things that God has made – especially living organisms – we intuit that things have been made for a purpose, even if we couldn’t explicitly express why that is the case. Indeed, throughout history, the vast majority of people who have lived have been theists.<br /></blockquote><p>And the vast majority of people in human history lived before the age of science. The progress of science is precisely why church attendance dwindles every year and Christians come back from college with liberal or no faith. If the internet had existed in the first century, Christianity would never have gotten off the ground. </p><blockquote>This implicit or inarticulate sense of the case for theism explains, I think, why some people come to believe that there must be a God when they hold their newborn child in their arms for the first time – they see the incredible design and elegance that is inherent in the process of development from a fertilized egg to a new born infant. They recognize, even if only implicitly and intuitively, that this is a process that required a high level of foresight to bring about – since it involved a high-level objective – which points to the involvement of a conscious mind in the programming of developmental pathways.<br /></blockquote><p>And the vast majority of people who behold their newborns, lack advanced education in abiogenesis and philosophy. </p><blockquote>Those with an implicit rational warrant for belief in God may not be able to hold their own in a debate with a learned atheist scholar. This is why we hear so many ill-formulated attempted arguments for God that are along the right lines but not sufficiently nuanced to pass for sound argumentation. </blockquote><p>But at least they tried. You? You don't even dare tangle with somebody who directly challenged you in a scholarly polite manner. </p><blockquote>But I would argue that they nonetheless have sufficient rational warrant for their belief that God exists. Over time, as a believer matures, I would argue that the rational warrant for belief that was in the first place implicit should become more and more explicit and articulate.<br /></blockquote><p>Unfortunately, that cannot be the case, with all these older mature Christian apologists running around, who do not have cases for theism any more mature than the implicit warrant arguments you just mentioned. Turek's typical <i>I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist</i> lectures do little more than confirm to me that Christianity's best efforts cannot survive scrutiny. Although I have massive respect to him for being willing to answer random questions during Q&A.</p><blockquote>In fact, even a biologist as staunchly atheistic as Francis Crick (co-discoverer with James Watson of the double-helical structure of DNA) said that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved,”<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn6">[6]</a> Richard Dawkins similarly said at the beginning of The Blind Watchmaker that “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose,”<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn7">[7]</a> Dawkins then spends the remainder of the book trying to argue, in my opinion unsuccessfully, that this design is not real but only apparent.<br /></blockquote><p>I have a tougher version of atheism. I don't argue God doesn't exist. I argue that God is irrelevant. By taking that position, not only do we spare the audience 90,000 pages of pointless ID back-and-forth, we jump right to the one thing that you couldn't prove even if necessary to save your life...that god is relevant.</p><blockquote>People also have a moral compass and have an implicit sense that there are objective moral norms and duties in the world – something which makes much better sense if theism is true than if atheism were true.</blockquote><p>Probably because most of them have not engaged in the study of moral philosophy. They are totally caught off guard by the "why is child rape wrong" or "why is causing sexual pain to a child wrong" questions and blindly commit to the notion that only "god" can explain why it is wrong. </p><blockquote> Besides general revelation (i.e. what may be known about God from the created Universe), this sense of objective moral norms and duties also provides people with an additional witness, even if only implicit, to the existence of God.<br /></blockquote><p>Which hasn't accomplished much more in the world than causing Christians to disagree about abortion, gun control, mandatory minimum prison sentences, whether god wants Christians to transform the government into a Christian form of control, whether god still wants gay people to be executed, and the worst moral problem facing Christians: the immorality of adopting heretical theology, and Christians, even those limited to the Trinitarians, constantly point the finger of heresy at each other, no need to involve the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons.</p><blockquote>People can have a similarly implicit rational warrant for believing that God has revealed Himself in the Bible. This is not something that you need a PhD in Biblical Studies to discover.</blockquote><p>I fail to see the point. The fact that all Catholics, Calvinists and KJV Onlyists believe in God does precisely nothing to dissuade them from condemning each other. </p><blockquote> I think for many believers they read through the Bible and encounter the cumulative force of various prophetic passages like Isaiah 53, recognizing Jesus in them.</blockquote></span><span style="font-size: large;"><p>Sorry, the "servant" was nobody living 700 years later, it was Israel itself. Read all the passages from Isaiah 41 through 56.</p><blockquote>They might not be able to express the argument explicitly enough to debate a learned Rabbi. But they nonetheless, I would argue, have an implicit rational warrant. Likewise, they might read through the New Testament accounts and perceive implicitly some of the hallmarks of verisimilitude, such as the criterion of embarrassment, </blockquote><p>Yes, the NT statements that Jesus' biological family thought his miracles were purely naturalistic (Mark 3:21, 6:1-4, John 7:5) fulfill the criterion of embarrassment while staetments that Jesus did miracles do not, thereore, we have an objective basis to grant more historical weight to the skeptical position than to the believing position. </p><blockquote>or unexplained allusions, or undesigned coincidences.</blockquote><p>Will God protect me from dying and going to hell while I take the next year to sort through Lydia McGrew's wordy gossipy screeds? </p><blockquote> They might begin to recognize the evidential value of the testimonial evidence we have in the New Testament in regard to events such as the resurrection.</blockquote><p>Not if they previously concluded that Jesus' own family being skeptical of his miracles has more historical weight than testimony of resurrection "eyewitnesses". </p><blockquote> Many of those categories of evidence are actually not at all hard to grasp and may be perceived through common sense.<br /><br />This is what, I suspect, many Christians in fact are talking about when they say that they just know that Christianity is true. I think often-times Christians can confuse an implicit rational warrant for belief in Scripture (which is based on evidence) with some sort of mystical inner-witness that Christianity is true. For example, one may have an inarticulate sense of the power of the whole case for Christianity without realizing that it is, in fact, a rational response to a cumulative case argument.<br /><br />So, where am I going with this? I would argue that discovering evidence for God is not actually that hard. Rather, it has been made artificially hard by bad scholarship and poor standards that insist that the simplest answer cannot actually be the correct answer.</blockquote><p>"God" is not the simplest answer. If God is "infinite" then the "god" answer is the most complex possible answer, and must always violate Occam's Razor more than any purely naturalistic explanation. </p><blockquote> This is true in science as well as Biblical scholarship. A lot of the ink spilled on these issues, therefore, is ink spent answering really bad arguments that should never have gotten traction to begin with but, because they provided an excuse for unbelief, they have become widely accepted and highly esteemed, even among academics who should know better.<br /></blockquote><p>If academics who should know better are deceived by such reams of spilled ink, that justifies the non-academic unbeliever to disregard those reams of spilled ink, whether those reams originate with unbelievers or Christians. I would like to know what book god wants me to read next, but how stupid would it be to seek the will of God from a person who doesn't have the first clue? </p><blockquote>Where is God?<br />A common objection to God’s existence is that, if the God of Scripture exists, then He would be reasonably expected to still be working in the world today. The skeptic reasons, then, that the failure to observe God working in a tangible and detectable way in the world today should be taken as not merely evidence against Christianity but, more than that, as a defeater of any evidence that may be offered from ancient documents. </blockquote><p>You fallaciously presume that because the ancient documents exist, unbelievers are forced to make a decision about them one way or the other. But that is <i>your</i> claim, and you cannot establish it. </p><blockquote>I wonder though what sort of evidence the skeptic would accept as sufficient reason to think that God is still working in the world in a tangible way. Would it need to be a direct personal experience, or would he or she accept reliable testimony from others that they had the sort of direct personal encounter that he or she is seeking for?</blockquote></span><span style="font-size: large;"><p>Easy: either god doing today the same miracles as recorded in the bible (there would be far less skeptics if God did for them today what God did for Saul on the road to Damascus), or, I don't need evidence because God has simply chosen to change my attitude solely by coercive telepathy (Ezra 1:1). Apparently, apologetics is only "necessitated" because God is refusing to use his telepathic abilities to remove unbelief. Blame it on God, he could have done better. </p><blockquote>Testimony, popular atheist protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, is a valid form of evidence.</blockquote><p>But there is no rule of historiography, heremeneutics or common sense obligating anybody to give a shit about matters solely limited to 2000 year old testimony. So when we disregard the resurrection testimony in the NT, we cannot possibly be unreasonable, as we aren't breaking any applicable rules. </p><p>And whether testimony is "valid" evidence is not decided by you, it is decided by the authentication standards of the person who bothers to listen to the testimony. Christians are forever disagreing amonst themselves as to just how authenticated the resurrection testimony is. Most Christian scholars refuse the fundamentalist believe that Matthew and John are the sole creators of the canonical gospels now bearing those names. Arguments that Mark 16 surely had an original resurrection appearance narrative have less to do with serious evidence and more to do with speculative trifling. Nothing in Acts indicates Paul was an eyewitness of a risen Jesus. </p><blockquote> When any person makes a claim to have witnessed an event, there are three – and only three – categories of explanation for that claim. Those are (a) they deliberately set out to deceive; (b) they were honestly mistaken; and (c) their claim was actually correct. I think those broad categories of explanation are mutually exhaustive (though I can imagine some situations in which they might be at work in combination). As either one of the two former claims becomes less plausible as a result of the evidence one adduces, this leads to a necessary redistribution of the probabilities, leading to option (c) becoming more probable than it was previously. </blockquote><p>Fair enough. </p><blockquote>This, then, provides evidence confirming scenario (c). The greater the extent to which options (a) and (b), in any given case, are disconfirmed by the evidence, the greater support is enjoyed by option (c). This method can be applied to modern claims just as well as it can be applied to ancient ones. An individual’s track record of habitual trustworthiness and reliability can count as evidence against the hypothesis that they were deliberately setting out to deceive.</blockquote><p>Except that you don't know the extent to which Matthew and John are responsible for the canonical text of the gospels bearing their names. So if you notice that they never made any historical mistakes, you don't know of that trend is a result of their own honesty, or the result of very early scribes correcting the mistakes similarly to how most Christian scholars think Matthew and Luke corrected Mark. And since dishonest deceptive people realize that surrounding their lies with nuggets of historical truth will cause most people to infer that the story "rings true", you cannot automatically deduce "honest author" from nuggets of historical truth in the gospels. This could also be a dishonest author who includes those nuggets to make led verisimilitude to the lies. </p><blockquote> The plausibility of the hypothesis that they are honestly mistaken will depend on the particulars of the case.<br />I am not talking here about testimonies of healing that are easy to explain by some kind of sensory illusion or sleight of hand, or that plausibly would have gotten better anyway. I am talking about cases that seem to defy naturalistic explanation. Dr. Craig Keener has compiled a two volume set on claims of such miraculous occurrences.<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn8">[8]</a> </blockquote><p>And I've already exposed what Keener wanted and didn't want to achieve in publishing that book. See <a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/06/craig-keener-failing-again-to-take.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </p><blockquote>To take one example, he discusses a friend of his, Leo Bawa, the former director of research at Capro, a prominent Nigerian missions movement. One intriguing miracle (of several) that he told Dr. Keener about is that “among some tribes in Adamawa and Taraba State, I had instances where no interpreter was available and the Lord gave me understanding and ability to speak the people’s languages, a feat I never performed before or since after that incident.”<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn9">[9]</a> Keener notes that “Other accounts of this phenomenon exist, though many of these are secondhand”<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn10">[10]</a>. In a footnote, Dr. Keener elaborates<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn11">[11]</a>,<br />“I have direct accounts in which others recognized the languages from Dr. Derek Morphew (Nov. 12, 2007); Pastor David Workman (Nov. 12, 2007); Pastor David Workman (April 30, 2008); Dr. Medine Moussounga Keener (Aug. 12, 2009, secondhand about Pastor Daniel Ndoundou); my student Leah Macinskas-Le (April 25, 2010, regarding her Jewish mother becoming a believer in Jesus because she understood the Hebrew prayer of an uneducated pastor’s prayer in tongues); Del Tarr, personal correspondence, Sept. 30, 2010 (noting three cases he has witnessed, including a recent one involving Korean; cf. also Oct. 5, 6, 2010).”<br /></blockquote><p>And all Christians who identify as Cessationist cry "foul". And the skeptics remind you that if theological accuracy is so critically important to us avoiding eternal concious torment in an afterword, then it is not for you to decide how high their standard for evidence "should" be. THEY are taking the risk. THEY are the only persons who can properly pontificate on how high the standard should be. You will balk at a very high standard that would make it almost impossible for any bit of Christian evidence to be good enough, of course, but can you be <i>too </i>careful when the risk is as high as today's fanatics insist it is?</p><blockquote>I have heard about this sort of phenomenon from others as well, and it does not seem to be the type of thing that could be explained naturalistically. </blockquote><p>Keener disregarded my challenge to make his best case. </p><blockquote>I trust Dr. Keener and I presume that he trusts his sources since these are personal contacts of his (the fact that the phenomenon is multiply attested helps as well). So, it seems unlikely in these cases that Keener’s sources are all lying to him, and these also seem to be phenomena about which it would be quite hard to be honestly wrong.</blockquote><p>I say they are all lies.</p><blockquote>Now, one might object at this point that in this case the testimony is coming from someone whom they do not know personally. With public figures such as Dr. Craig Keener, though, one can, to a certain degree, evaluate whether this is someone who is likely to make stuff up.</blockquote><p>He's a Pentecostal. He naturally seeks to justify modern day miracle claims.</p><blockquote> This is true especially of high-profile scholars such as Dr. Keener since one can get a sense, through careful reading of their academic work, whether they are careful and reliable in their reportage of information. </blockquote><p>Catholics are careful in their miracle reports...do you insist the bible is correct when it teaches taht God's doing a miracle through somebody means God is approving of their theology (John 10:37-38)?</p><p>You are also avoiding Deut. 13:1-5, which warns that even false prophets can do genuinely supernatural miracles. So if we cannot deny the miraculous element of some bit of miracle testimony, how much effort should we put toward trying to figure out whether the miracle-worker is holy or unholy? Should we cancel plans to take a child to a birthday party just so we can make more time to Google this bullshit? The answer would seem to be "yes" if Jesus was serious in saying spiritual blessings awaited those who gave up custody of their own kids just to make more time to follow him around (Matthew 19:29). </p><blockquote>Dr. Michael Brown (another public figure and Biblical scholar) has also told me (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqTQ7THWOz0">on public record</a>) about similar events to those described above, both that he was a witness to and testimonies of friends of his (including one individual, who was a cessationist and therefore not predisposed already to believe in miraculous events, who reported the incident to Dr. Brown in shock). The fact that this sort of occurrence is multiply attested by different credible sources leads me to think that something miraculous is indeed going on here.</blockquote><p>And since it could still be from the devil, skeptics can be reasonable to just completely ignore it the way they completely refuse to personally handle very old unstable dynamite. If you can guarantee it won't blow up in our faces, we'll handle it. Deal? And yet you cannot make that deal. Paul was responsible for most of the Galatian Christian converts, and yet they apparently concluded that Paul's gospel blew up in their faces because they apostatized (Galatians 1:6-9).</p><blockquote> I chose this particular category of miracle claim as an illustrative example since this is one type of phenomenon that seems to defy naturalistic explanation and also seems to be something that it would be very difficult to be honestly wrong about having witnessed.<br /></blockquote><p>And since miracle claims have helped motivate people to stay within heretical beliefs like Catholicism, there is so much risk involved in investigating this bullshit that it becomes reasonable to just avoid it completely.</p><blockquote>There are also accounts from sober-minded people whom I trust of radical experiences of the presence of God (e.g. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_-BEQUdKzU">see this one from Paul Washer</a>).<br /></blockquote><p>I'm not going to consider that unless God promises to protect me from dying and going to hell for the time it takes for me to investigate Washer's claim. Will God make that promise, and if he did, how would I know?</p><blockquote>My question, then, to the skeptic is, as I said above, is the only type of evidence that may be admitted for God acting in the world today a direct personal encounter, or would one be prepared to accept testimonial evidence from other people?</blockquote><p>I've already justified disregarding ancient testimony, and I've also proven that how high the evidentiary standard for miracles "should" be is nobody's call except the person who has chosen to investigate a miracle claim. Their standard might be higher than what typical historians recommend, but the risk of being wrong about the War of Troy is far less than the risk of being wrong about Jesus. Since you can never be too careful when the stakes are possible eternal conscious torment in the afterlife, the tougher standard is likely to be more reasonable. </p><blockquote> If one is only prepared to accept a direct personal encounter but not testimonial evidence, I would argue that that is not a rational approach.</blockquote><p>How rational is the approach that says I will change my mind and obey the divine will just as soon as God foists his attitude-changing telepathy on me like he did with pagan idolater Cyrus in Ezra 1:1? Would expecting god to use his abilities be so unreasonable? </p><blockquote> On the other hand, if one is willing to accept testimonial evidence that such encounters do indeed exist, then I would ask what the qualitative difference is between the testimonial evidence that is available in the present day and that which is present in the 2000 year old documents we know as the New Testament. Presumably the same principles of evaluation would pertain to those.<br /></blockquote><p>I've already explained the problems and risks of bothering to become involved in trying to figure out which miracle testimonies are reliable and which aren't. </p><blockquote>What About Unanswered Prayer?<br />As for unanswered prayer, this is a recurring thing that comes up in my conversations with ex-Christians – that is, that answered prayers do not seem to be distinguishable from chance and the act of prayer often feels like talking to the wall or the ceiling. </blockquote><p>Exactly. Nothing fails quite like prayer. You'd achieve statistically similar results if your prayers had been directed to a barbie doll. You ask about enough things enoug times, you are going to eventually find yourself in circumstances that "answer" that prayer.</p><blockquote>This feeling during prayer is something I can relate to myself experientially, so it is not simply a theoretical issue for me. If Christianity is true, however, this entails that prayer is legit. Our belief in prayer should not be predicated on our evaluation of our feelings while praying or on our later examination of the result of prayer. </blockquote><p>Which is about as stupid as saying conclusions should not be reached on the basis of an examination of the evidence. When prayers fail, that counts. </p><blockquote>To do this is not to evaluate prayer in a manner consistent with what Scripture teaches us concerning prayer.</blockquote><p>You are definitely not addressing skeptics here, so you would be irrational to expect skeptics to find your worries about staying within biblical parameters the least bit convincing. </p><blockquote>Nowhere in Scripture are we promised that prayer will be accompanied by an internal sense of being heard.</blockquote><p>On the contrary, according to Mark 11:24, all prayer arising from confident trust and belief <i>will </i>be granted, and praying for God to give you an internal sense of being heard is certainly a reasonable prayer request, and cannot be likened to the idiot who prays for a really expensive car.</p><blockquote> Rather, prayer is supposed to be accompanied by a conviction that our prayers are heard in Christ, since it is through Him that we have access to God.<br /></blockquote><p>But prayer in Mark 11:24 is about getting things, so you cannot circumnavigate around the problem of unanswered prayer by pretending that prayer is primarily about trusting in God. </p><blockquote>We are also not in a position to determine whether something is providentially caused by God or not.</blockquote><p>That's probably another reason why your Calvinism is laughed at by real Calvinists like James White. True Calvinism requires that all human choices were providentially caused by God. </p><blockquote> The Biblical view is not to look around for obviously miraculous causes and give God credit for those only, while presuming non-miraculous events would have happened anyway. Rather, we should view God as sovereign and credit Him with providential control over all things. So greatly has a twenty-first century naturalistic bias permeated our thinking that we in fact often fail to give God sufficient credit for His daily providence.<br /></blockquote><p>Then your god has providential control over all things...one example being the "thing" we call sinful human choicemaking. The speed metal group <i>Deicide</i> already told you this years ago, but apparently, you need to be reminded of the obvious: <i>blame it on god.</i> </p><blockquote>Prayer, then, should not be evaluated on the basis of a mystical sensation of being heard, or our impression of miraculous divine action in response to prayer. To do so is to judge prayer by a criterion which we were never given by God. How, then, should we evaluate the validity of prayer? We should evaluate it by the validity of the work of Christ and our faith in Him.</blockquote><p>Then don't expect to ever notice when a failed prayer constitutes a valid reason to deny the possibility of divinely answered prayer. </p><blockquote> If we are trusting in Christ then we have true and valid prayer.</blockquote><p>You are making valid prayer much more narrow than Jesus did in Mark 11.</p><blockquote> There is more that can be said, of course, about limiting our appreciation of prayer to when God says “yes” to a request, but my point here is simply that evaluating prayer by these standards is a problem from the start. Our belief in prayer stems from our beliefs in Christ and the two should never be separated. If we believe in Christ because of the evidence for His resurrection, then we are being inconsistent to fail to believe in prayer.<br /></blockquote><p>Tell that to the 8 year old Christian girl whose prayers for the rapist to stop raping her go unanswered.</p><blockquote>Another thing I will say about prayer is that there is, I think, what I would call an epistemic asymmetry when it comes to prayer. An epistemic asymmetry is where making an observation might be strong confirmatory evidence for your hypothesis but not making that observation is only weak, or even negligible, evidence against it. To take an illustration, imagine I see a spider crawling along my desk as I sit here and type this article. That would be excellent evidence for the hypothesis that, somewhere in my apartment, there is a spider. But suppose I do not see a spider in front of me. That is only very weak, even negligible evidence, that there is no spider in my apartment (since there are many other places where a spider might be). That is an example of what I call epistemic asymmetry.<br /></blockquote><p>We break the epistemtic asymmetry by noting that we've been challenging Christians for centuries to come up with prayer answers that more reasonably imply the divine than some naturalistic cause, and you keep coming up short. There are billions of theists in the world. The law of large numbers is alone sufficient to explain why, if you go looking long enough, you will find a case of prayer that was answered in a very unexpected or "lucky" way implying "god".</p><blockquote>So, how does this relate to prayer? I would argue that specific answers to prayer are relatively strong confirmatory evidence but apparently unanswered prayer is only comparatively weak disconfirmatory evidence.</blockquote><p>If a little Christian girl is paying or God to make the rapist stop raping her, and that prayer goes unanswered, then we return to my main point that God is irrelevant. Normal people simply insist that rape is never justified, period, end of story. Only mentally deranged fools insist that rape can be justified is God is allowing it for the sake of a greater good.</p><blockquote> The reason for this is that there could be many explanations for why your prayer went unanswered. Perhaps God, in his omniscience, said ‘no’ because He knows (better than you do) that what you asked for is not good for you.</blockquote><p>Like, maybe it would be bad for the little girl if her rapist stopped raping her just as soon as she wanted him to. </p><blockquote> Or perhaps there is unconfessed sin in your life. Both the Old and New Testaments teach that sin can hinder our prayer life. For example, Proverbs 28:9 says, “If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.”</blockquote><p>So raise the age of the raped girl to 12, which is safely past what most consider the age of accountability. In this case, maybe God isn't answering her prayer to make the rapist stop immediately, is because she had sinned in the past, and the punishment via rape is not yet complete. </p><blockquote> 1 Peter 3:7 says, “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” There could thus be any number of reasons why your prayer was not answered and it is not necessarily particularly improbable that, if Christianity is true, many of your prayers will not be answered in the way that you desired.</blockquote><p>Leaving the raped little girl not a lot of reason to give a fuck about Jesus anymore than she gives a fuck about a mother who sometimes does and sometimes doesn't rescue her from danger. </p><blockquote> We have plenty of Biblical examples of prayers going unanswered. David’s prayer for the life of his illegitimate child by Bathsheba was unanswered (or answered negatively, depending on how you prefer to classify it).</blockquote><p>And your irrational god tortured David's baby for 7 days with a very painful condition before allow it to die. 2nd Samuel 12:15-18. Why don't you just conclude that because God is a just god, the reason he tortures babies to death is because he thinks they "deserve" it, the way he thinks they "deserve" to be born stained with original sin? If God's ways are infinitely mysterious, can you really put it past god to place culpability where no human would dare? If God punished Jesus despite Jesus not "deserving" it, I think your moral goose is cooked, buddy.</p><blockquote> The same is true of Jesus’ prayer that the cup might pass from him in the Garden of Gethsemane.</blockquote><p>Right...the second person of the Trinity requesting to avoid doing the will of the first person of the Trinity. Matthew 26:39. Is it sin or not sin when you know the Father's will and you still ask to be excused from it? </p><blockquote> In the latter example, Jesus’ prayer included the qualifier “If it is possible…” And the answer was, “No, that can’t happen.” It would probably be classified as the most spectacular unanswered prayer of all time by the atheists, except for what happens afterward with Jesus being raised from the dead.<br /></blockquote><p>If Jesus knew the prayer could never be granted, why did he bother making that prayer?</p><blockquote>The answered prayers, on the other hand, depending on their level of specificity, can in principle be relatively strong confirmatory evidence for Christianity. Even if you cannot point to specific examples in your own life, there are writings by other people that would potentially document such examples (presuming them to be accurately reported). For example, George Müller (1805-1898) was a Christian evangelist and the director of the Ashley Down orphanage in Bristol, England. There was a time when the orphanage at Bristol had run out of bread and milk.<a href="https://crossexamined.org/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/#_ftn12">[12]</a> Müller was on his knees praying for food when a baker knocked on the door to say that he had been unable to sleep that night, and somehow knew that Müller would need bread that morning. Shortly after, a truck carrying milk broke down, directly in front of the orphanage door. There was no refrigeration. The driver begged Müller to take the milk, which would go bad if it were not consumed. It was just enough for the 300 children in the orphanage.<br /></blockquote><p>When you give me all the evidence pertaining to that story, I'll evaluate it for reliability. Deal? Or did I miss that bible verse that says the unbeliever has an obligation to investigate every answered-prayer allegation that comes down the pike? </p><blockquote>Conclusion<br /><br />To conclude, while the problem of divine hiddenness is, on first inspection, a thorny issue, further analysis reveals it to be not as weighty a concern as it first appeared. Given the existence of plausible explanations of divine hiddenness (e.g. God’s knowledge, in His omniscience, of how different individuals will respond to the evidence of His existence), I would argue that the problem of divine hiddenness, though a complete answer eludes us, is not sufficient to overturn the extensive and varied positive confirmatory evidences of Christianity.</blockquote><blockquote>Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. </blockquote><p>And he rejects scholarly politely worded challenges. See <a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2021/06/apologist-dr-jonathan-mclatchies.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p></span><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. </blockquote><p>Christians believe Jesus told them everything they need to know to get saved and grow spiritually at a rate acceptable to God. Jesus never expressed or implied that he wanted any of his followers to use any of God's time in their lives to achieve educational prominence in the study of earthly phenomena. Think of all the preaching and discipling McLatchie could have done if he had foregone worldly pursuits and had become content to just preach and teach 'da bable.</p><blockquote>Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.</blockquote><p>That's exactly why I have high hopes for my own future public counter-apologetics tours. If McLatchie can so eaisly miss the forest for the trees, I suspect it is because a better justification for divine hiddenness cannot be made.</p></span></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-44347613880449388732023-11-05T11:04:00.004-08:002023-11-05T11:05:06.780-08:00Lydia McGrew is wrong to say Development Theories of Mark's gospel are "bunk"<p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>This is my reply to Lydia McGrew's YouTube video </i></b></span></p><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKNKZ868MI" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">Development Theories of the Gospels Are All Bunk 3:</span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKNKZ868MI" target="_blank">The Misuse of Mark and the Resurrection</a></div></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia's video description there says:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Development theories about the resurrection stories usually start with the observation that, if the longer ending of Mark is non-canonical, Mark "doesn't have" any appearance stories. This assumes, further, that Mark originally ended after verse 8 (which I'd say is probably false). But it also treats the alleged absence of appearance stories as if Mark was denying appearances. Not only is this the worst kind of argument from silence, it also runs contrary to other indications right in the undeniably canonical text of Mark itself.</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">As always, the issue is not which theory of Mark's ending is <i>correct</i>, but which theory of Mark's ending is <i>reasonable</i>. Lydia is up against a brick wall here. The fact that most Christian scholars take Mark's long ending to be non-canonical, is entirely sufficient, alone, to render reasonable the person who says Mark originally ended at 16:8. Since most Christian scholars also believe Mark was the earliest gospel, we are equally reasonable to adopt the theory that the earliest gospel lacked a resurrection appearance narrative. While the view of the scholarly majority doesn't determine "truth", it certainly determines reasonableness. Few indeed are the instances in which a scholarly majority are so clearly in the wrong that the majority view is rendered unreasonable. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Some fool will say this doesn't make sense because it raises the possibility that we can be reasonable to adopt an ultimately false theory. I realize Christian legalists fallaciously think truth and reasonableness are synonyms, but they are wrong. If they weren't wrong, they'd have to declare the unreasonableness of every Christian with whom they disagreed upon some biblical issue. After all, to disagree is to assume the other person is "wrong", and the legalist thinks "wrong" and "unreasonable" are synonymous. Thankfully, most people are not stupid legalists, they realize that truth, especially <i>biblical </i>truth, doesn't always make itself clear to those who sincerely seek it. Otherwise, the legalist would have to say the reason somebody missed or misinterpreted a biblical truth is because they didn't sincerely seek it during their bible studies. So the stupid legalist is forced to say unreasonableness and insincere pursuit of truth are two traits that necessarily inhere in every Christian she disagrees with on some biblical matter. That's fucking absurd.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">By the way, Lydia has disabled comments for that video. I say it is because she is aware of how easy it is to defend the reasonableness of the skeptical position, so instead of admitting that uncomfortable truth, she takes the proper steps to ensure that the best possible rebuttals cannot be linked to her argument, her fans will simply have to google the issues she raises to see if any skeptic has provided a response.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Before launching into her arguments, her summary has her saying she thinks one of the assumptions in the development-theory is "definitely" false. If Lydia considers herself a scholar, then she should know that in cases where a historical truth has nothing to support it beyond "testimony", there is no 'definiteness' about whether the testimony is true. Yes, this humble attitude imposed by the non-absolute nature of historiography does indeed clash with Lydia's firm religious convictions, but that's her problem. The more Jesus wanted his followers to be sure that some testimony was definitely true, the more he wanted his followers to shun the sort of historiography that Lydia and other Christian scholars routinely employ. Historicity determinations are an art, not a science.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia clarifies that the use of Mark's short ending to attack Jesus' resurrection is "illicit".</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia's first point is her admission that the long ending of Mark (16:9-20) is not original to the gospel of Mark. Fair enough. But I could refute her even at this early point: what if she was being prosecuted for murder on the basis of a written bit of testimony that has all of the authorship, genre and textual problems Mark has? Would she insist on calling experts to testify that such a literary mess can still possibly be historically reliable? Or would she say such written testimony is so inherently unreliable that no jury could possibly find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What if the part of the written testimony saying she murdered somebody, was agreed by the experts to not be present in the original? Would she seek to have experts educate the jury on how the lack of originality in the most important part is negligble? Or would she say this flaw prevents any jury from finding her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia's next point is to mention that she hasn't read a certain book that argues for the originality of the long ending, but that she is open to changing her mind. That's fine, but if she doesn't want to be a hypocrite, she must allow skeptics the same freedom to disagree with a position argued in a book and remain open to possibly changing their minds later. Like disagreeing with the arguments in her books. However, it is unlikely Lydia would allow this. She thinks that the fact that she has written several books, puts the skeptics to task and demands either rebuttal, or concession. Otherwise, she would have to allow that a skeptic could possibly be reasonable to disagree with an argument in her book despite making a choice to avoid that book. If Lydia can be reasonable to turn away from a criticism of her views, her critics can be reasonable to turn away from her criticism of their views, book or no book. Fair is fair.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia tries to soften the consequences of the short ending (i.e., no resurrection story = no resurrection in history) by characterizing the short ending as unexpectedly "abrupt". She does this in an effort to make it seem like the author surely had more to say and simply chose not to say it. She argues that it seems like there should be something more. No, the only person who thinks there should be something more is the bible-believing Christian who has already concluded that the resurrection narratives in Matthew 28, Luke 24 and John 20-21 are historically true. If the person reading Mark is, however, an unbeliever with no vested interest in making the gospels harmonize, or doesn't have knowledge of the other 3 gospels, she will not notice any abruptness in Mark's short ending. Somebody will say God wanted us to read all 4 gospels together, but that's about as historically certain as Luke's preference for spicy food. You lose.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia next argues that certain information in canonical original Mark creates a probability that there was more to the story beyond the short ending. That would be a more proper objective way to get a resurrection narrative out of Mark, but those "data points" are hardly convincing. She says the question is why Mark, having an interest in telling what happened to the women, didn't round off the ending in a smoother fashion. She argues that the change in style between the abrupt ending and the longer ending implies there was something else that was there. But that is absurdly speculative. The change in style only exists because an early scribe decided to append something else to Mark after 16:8. That is, Lydia is trying to justify a resurrection narrative in Mark on the basis that a later editor adding something. Her point seems to be that the editor's dissatisfaction with the short ending convincingly argues that he thought the true ending went beyond 16:8. But it could just as easily be that he added the ending because he didn't like the fact that Mark ended so abruptly. Trying to get "he knew Mark said more" out of "he added something to Mark's ending" is without force. She concludes from such "data" that Mark did originally end with a resurrection appearance narrative, but this became lost and replaced by the longer ending in vv. 9-20. I'm sorry, but this is a very weak justification for saying Mark originally ended with a resurrection appearance narrative. It most certainly doesn't reduce the reasonableness of those who say Mark never wrote a resurrection appearance narrative.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Furthermore, a standard textual rule of thumb is that the text form producing the difficulties is likely original, because later copyists tend to smooth things out, not complicate them. So the fact that Mark ends so abruptly is precisely what argues that the short ending is original. This wouldn't be a rule of thumb if the mere fact that Mark could possibly have smoothed things out in a now lost ending forced reasonable people to forever avoid drawing skeptical conclusions. The rule of thumb does not have to be an absolute requirement, or infallible, to render reasonable the person who says the more difficult shorter ending is, on present evidence, more likely how Mark intended to end the gospel.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Mark also infamously does not express or imply that Jesus was virgin-born, even though such a story would most certainly support his apparent goal of establishing Jesus as the Son of God. We are thus reasonable to assume the VB is absent from Mark because he either didn't know about it (implying it is late fabrication), or he thought it was false. The notion that he simply chose to exclude the VB while believing it was historical truth, is absolutely unacceptable. That would be akin to YOU having evidence that your mother, currently being prosecuted for murder, is innocent, but for reasons unknown, you made no effort to bring that evidence of innocence to the Court's attention. It doesn't matter that you can dream up reasons for saying silent, we normally do not expect such silence, so until the day that somebody explains why you remained silent in circumstances we'd be expecting you to scream in, we are going to be reasonable to say the reason you stayed silent is because you didn't know of any evidence that your mother was innocent, <i>that's </i>why you didn't say anything. The point is, the apologists who so aggressively attempt to impute Matthew's knowledge to Mark cannot do so with such force as to render the skeptical position less reasonable. There is no rule of historiography that obligates anybody to always assume harmony and always exhaust all possible harmonization scenarios before adopting the inconsistency-theory. Just like when police determine whether probable cause for arrest exists, they are not required to first ensure that all possible evidence of innocence in his alibi is considered or falsified. They can lawfully arrest and have sufficient probable cause even when there remains a real possibility that the suspect is innocent. Likewise, we have probable cause to arrest Matthew, Luke and John for lying, upon the probable cause established by Mark's resurrection silence, even if that silence cannot operate to conclusively falsify the resurrection testimony in the other three gospels. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia then argues that it is an argument from silence, indeed the worst sort, to argue that Mark ends at 16:8 because he didn't know of any resurrection appearance tradition. Not true. We are reasonable to assume that the gospel authors did not expect their originally intended audiences to read all 4 gospels together. They would have realized all the conundrums we see today when trying to do that, and they would more than likely have simply produced their own gospel harmony like Tatian's <i>Diatessaron</i>. Their refusal to testify in a way that clearly harmonizes all 4 accounts justifies us to say they intended their accounts to be read as stand-alones, or separate from other accounts. In that case, there is no need for a skeptic to "argue from silence". Reading Mark separately from the other 3 gospels, the epistemological situation is "Mark ends by saying the women ran from the tomb with great excitement and an anticipation that the disciples will see the risen Christ in Galilee". The epistemological situation cannot be "why didn't Mark mention somebody seeing the risen Christ?", because that would presuppose that Mark wanted his originally intended audience to harmonize his gospel with other gospels, which is an assumption that cannot be established. Indeed, the patristic testimony is that the Church in Rome requested that Mark reduce Peter's preaching to writing because they needed such a thing, forcing the logical deduction that they didn't have such a thing previously, thus, Mark was not likely expecting them to read his gospel in the light of some other gospel. In other words, when we ask why Mark doesn't mention the resurrection appearances we see in other gospels, we are asking a question that would not have occurred to the Mark's originally intended audience. The question only pops up because Christian apologists of today are aware of 3 other gospels that mention resurrection appearances, and they would rather die than admit the 4 gospels contradict each other. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia then gives the analogy showing it is reasonable to question one relative's silence if another family member speaks on the same matter and supplies more details. Ok...are Matthew, Luke and John members of Mark's "family"? No, for as established earlier, Mark in all likelihood did not expect his originally intended audience to harmonize his gospel with another gospel. So we are not obligated to explain why it is that Mark is silent about a fact that is mentioned in the other gospels. Such a harmonizing concern is an artificial dilemma not consistent with Mark or his originally intended audience. It is a problem created solely by people who are so used to seeing all 4 gospels packaged together that they unreasonably demand a harmonization theory. You lose.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia mocks the fact that skeptics ratchet up Mark's resurrection silence as if it held great significance, but it clearly does possess great significance: Mark is not silent about mere details...he is silent about the one event that Christians think is the crown of Christianity. This is why the argument from silence, if we need to use it, operates legitimately here: it is when you would naturally expect the author to mention X, that you are justified to offer a theory for why he remains silent about X. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And what Lydia doesn't mention is that the argument from silence, as described above, is still allowed in criminal court cases. From the U.S. Supreme Court in Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 US 231, 239 (1980):</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">The petitioner also contends that use of prearrest silence to impeach his credibility denied him the fundamental fairness guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We do not 239*239 agree. <b><u>Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted.</u></b> 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1042, p. 1056 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). Each jurisdiction may formulate its own rules of evidence to determine when prior silence is so inconsistent with present statements that impeachment by reference to such silence is probative.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Once again, reasonableness does not require that we answer questions about how all 4 gospels could possibly be harmonized. We are reasonable to read Mark in isolation from other gospels and from the concerns of modern apologists, in which case we can accept Mark's ending at 16:8 without issue. Again, the only people making an issue are those who insist the 4 gospels must be harmonized, therefore, there must be a question as to why Mark doesn't have a resurrection appearance narrative when the other 3 gospels do. Sorry, that's not an issue for those who lack a harmonizing agenda.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The way Lydia carries on this video, you'd think embellishment didn't exist until after the book of Revelation was published.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What Lydia also neglects to mention is that a purpose of embellishment can be found in some gospel authors, such as my arguments that Matthew has embellished one of Mark's pericopes, see <a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/12/synoptic-problem-1-matthews-dishonest.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Lydia then says skeptics commit to the premise that Mark itself is already "developed". Not sure what her point was, but apparently she is arguing that if we skeptics date Mark to 70 a.d., we are likely going to say this was the result of much development, he didn't just sit down and write an entire gospel all at once. Yes, we certainly do not pretend the patristic explanations of gospel authorship are inerrant. We have no trouble using redaction criticism to justify classifying the early church fathers as liars or misinformed. The large majority of Christian scholars similarly reject the patristic testimony that Matthew was written first, in favor of Markan priority. So apparently, even</span><span> spiritually alive people do not think something an early church father said is the end of the matter.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia then says a skeptical scholar does not believe the details in Mark 16:1-8 are true. That is a fundamentalist caricature and hasty generalization. But even so, we are justified, after all, the original apostles characterized the experience of the women at the tomb as a 'vision'. Luke 24:23. No, you cannot trifle that "vision" can still possibly refer to events in physical space-time, because you must combine the vision-descriptor with the other belief of the original apostles, that the resurrection testimony of the women returning from the tomb was "silly talk" (Luke 24:11). When so combined, it is reasonable to say the apostles meant "only in your head" when saying the women had seen a "vision".</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia then asks what point skeptics are trying to make in using Mark to cancel the resurrection testimony of the other three gospels, when in fact skeptics think nearly all of Mark's resurrection story is fiction. Our point is that we are presuming Mark's historical accuracy solely for the sake of argument. That is, even if you assume Mark is historically accurate, his silence spells doom for the resurrection appearance narratives in the later gospels. If you wish, then yes, we could argue against the supernatural and preempt any need to use Mark as a sword.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>She mocks the skeptical position because it says Mark makes up angels but requires him to "draw the line" and refuse to make up a resurrection appearance story. Not at all, Mark is full of fiction and embellishment. We do not allege that Mark "drew the line" at all, we merely insist that the original form of the story simply lacked a resurrection appearance narrative in the first place. Again, why it is that Mark doesn't mention resurrection appearances is a false dilemma created by apologists who insist on harmonizing Mark with the other 3 gospels. We would arrive in the same position</span><span> as the skeptic if we read Mark in isolation, as he likely intended. Instead of saying "the other 3 gospels have embellished on Mark's more primitive tale", we would simply have no reason to think anybody ever actually saw a risen Jesus. That makes us lack a resurrection belief just as much as skeptics lack it.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia overlooks other concerns skeptics have with Mark 16, for example: the women include those who tagged along with Jesus since the time-frame mentioned in Luke 8...but if they heard Jesus predict his own resurrection and saw him do real miracles for at least a year before he died, how are they so sure that he remains dead on this third day, the day he said he would rise? Why are they seeking to embalm a corpse? Might it be reasonable for skeptics to infer from such details that the women did not find Jesus' miracles or predictions very credible? If some of Jesus' own followers didn't find his miracles too convincing, isn't it only a fool who would expect more of somebody living 2000 years after the fact?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia's final argument of any significance is the tactic of saying the content Mark <i>did </i>include, strongly suggest that he intended for the reader to draw the conclusion that a few people really did see the risen Christ. This is the contention of most apologists including N.T. Wright. In Mark 16:7, the angel at the tomb says the disciples will see Jesus in Galilee. I'm not seeing the point. If I end my testimony in a criminal complaint saying "the mugger then told me to meet him in St. Louis", are the police obligated to think such a meeting actually took place? Of course not.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The bigger problem for Lydia is why Mark was willing to get so close to saying anybody actually saw the risen Christ, but stops short of providing such appearance-details that were apparently so important to later gospel authors. We'd surely expect that if Mark thought this future meeting of Jesus and disciples took place, he would mention some details, given how interested he was in promoting the pre-resurrection Jesus. A risen Christ would deserve an even more detailed treatment. Lydia will say this is why she thinks Mark's original <i>did </i>describe such appearances, and that ending was lost. Once again, that theory is not so forceful as to render the skeptical take unreasonable. For example, the fact that Mark expects resurrection eyewitnesses but doesn't actually narrate them, can also argue that he didn't know of any traditions of disciples actually seeing the risen Christ. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And the more Lydia pushes the "lost ending" thesis, the more she concedes that significant chunks of important gospel text could be lost so early in the transmission process that the extant ms. tradition cannot document it. We wonder how many other important bits of gospel text became lost in the very early stages where falsifying or verifying such a hypothesis is now impossible.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Lydia asks why we think Mark is deliberately excluding. That's merely one possibility. The other possibility is that t</span><span>he latest resurrection traditions at the</span><span> time Mark wrote did not say anything beyond the angel's reminder that the disciples would meet Jesus in Galilee. Lydia doesn't explain why she thinks this type of ending strongly implies the tradition at the time also asserted that the meeting actually took place. But we know why she pushes that theory: there are 3 other gospels that say such a meeting actually took place, and god wants Lydia to harmonize all the details of all 4 gospels. That's why.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lydia chides the skeptic as harboring a "completely bogus" theory that is "at odds with the text of Mark itself", but a) we are assuming Mark's accuracy solely for the sake of argument, not because we trust that anything Mark said was true history, and b) we do not believe the gospel authors were honest, so we don't exactly lose sleep when we realize one of our theories contradicts some assertion in the gospels.</span></p><p></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-31101619594476009212023-10-28T15:47:00.000-07:002023-10-28T15:47:03.993-07:00My reply to J. Warner Wallace on the gospels as hearsay<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>This is my reply to an email I received from J. Warner Wallace on October 28, 2023, on the issue of the gospel and "hearsay"?</i></b><br /><br /><blockquote>Are the Gospels Unreliable Hearsay?</blockquote><p>Objection: Confused question. Hearsay is not "unreliable" by definition. It is rather a claim to knowledge that is based on another person's assertions of fact. Lots of hearsay is no doubt true. But the reason the Courts generally forbid hearsay and require testimony to be based on personal first-hand knowledge is because hearsay increases the probability of jury-misleading far more than Courts feel comfortable allowing. There are also many exceptions to the hear-say exclusion rule, which again shows that hearsay is not definitionally false stuff. Unfortunately for apologists, they never justify why they pretend that the rules governing evidence in a modern American court case are the rules bible readers "should" apply to the bible's historical claims. </p><blockquote>Some critics attempt to undermine the reliability of the gospel writers as eyewitnesses, </blockquote><p>Most Christian scholars think Mark is the earliest gospel. They also agree that Mark's long ending is forgery. Therefore today's unbeliever is manifestly reasonable to infer that the earliest gospel did not contain a resurrection appearance narrative. Most Christian scholars say Matthew and Luke depended extensively on Mark's text. So we can be reasonable again to infer that their two resurrection appearance narratives constitute "embellishment". All attempts to get Mark to somehow admit the risen Christ was seen by others, are not so powerful as to render the skeptical position unreasonable. Mark's refusal to even mention the virgin birth despite his agenda to prove Jesus was the Son of God, likewise makes us justifiably suspicious that the VB story likely didn't exist until after Mark wrote, since if it existed before Mark wrote, Mark likely would have known about it, and he would hardly have "chosen to exclude" this apparently convincing proof, when in fact all patristic sources agree that his purpose was to exactly repeat previously established Christian truth. If then Peter was Mark's source, then we raise the spectre of either a) Peter not knowing Jesus was virgin born, or b) Peter of it but thought it false, or c) Peter knew of it but never communicated it to Mark.</p><p>The Matthew-author's resurrection narrative refers to the 11 apostles in the third person. It doesn't matter if one of those apostles could possibly have later reasonably chosen to refer to his own group in the third person, what zealous apologists intentionally forget is that referring to one's own group in the third person is not typical or usual. If YOU were part of the group you describe as experiencing something, <b><i>a</i></b><i><b>nd YOU intend for the reader to take your claims as "eyewitness testimony",</b></i> we have the perfect right to a) expect that you'll refer to your group in the first person plural ("us", and "we"), and b) not expect you to refer to your own group <i>solely </i>in the third person plural ("they" and "them"). And yet, Matthew was supposed to be a tax-collector, committing apologists to the propositioin that this apostle knew exactly who to word an account so that it properly claims personal knowledge. He would also have known that some sort of identifying mark was necessary to tie the testifying party to their staements, yet nothing in the history of Matthew's gospel or its manuscripts expresses or implied he ever signed his own alleged testimony, even though the need for a signature or personal touch was paramount in the opinion of other Holy Spirit filled people who were addressing people they previously conversed with (2nd Thess. 3:17).</p><blockquote>while others seek to have this testimony “tossed out” as unreliable “hearsay” before it can even be evaluated.</blockquote><p>But since the mere existence of the gospels today does not obligate anybody to give a shit about them, smarter skeptics, like me, take the third position that there is nothing to "toss out" in the first place. The writings of Homer exist...does this obligate us to either deal with them or toss them out? No. But regardless, my arguments allow you all the authentic apostolic gospel authorship you want, and allow you to date them to less than 6 months after Jesus died...and I would still prove that those who reject Jesus' resurrection are reasonable to do so. So don't think the justification for skepticism forces us to resort to hearsay objections. Far from it.</p><blockquote> They argue the gospel accounts fail to meet the judicial standard we require of eyewitnesses in criminal cases. </blockquote><p>They would be correct, but again, you've never justified applying modern American criminal law principles to the gospels in the first place. What exactly do you recommend an atheist do with a Mormon who has failed to make their case? Keep asking? Or walk away? </p><blockquote>Witnesses must be present in court for their testimony to be considered in a criminal trial.</blockquote><p>Which is one reason why your marketing gimmick of applying modern American criminal court rules to the gospels is absurd.</p><p>And it wouldn't matter if you could resurrect Matthew and put him on the witness stand today, most Christians who specialize in actual scholarship as opposed to "apologetics" refuse to credit Matthew with any specific narrative or Christ-saying in the gospel attributed to Matthew, thus we are reasonable to say Matthew is not responsible for the text we call canonical Matthew. If you read a Christian commentary and notice a statement to the effect of "Matthew authored everything in this gospel", you KNOW you are reading the work of a fundamentalist who is more concerned about apologetics than about scholarship...which is perfectly sufficient to justify tossing the commentary in the garbage. If you don't trifle to the person who recently received Jesus that just because a skeptical book gets something wrong doesn't justify tossing the entire book, then you cannot trifle to a skeptic that just because a fundamentalist book got something wrong doesn't justify tossing the entire book. </p><p>But regardless, my attack on Jesus' resurrection is so powerful, I don't need to waste time trying to distance Matthew from that gospel. I could allow his authorship solely for the sake of argument and I'd still be perfectly reasonable and academically rigorous to call the author a liar about Jesus' resurrection. Yes, I'm well aware of how incapable you are of providing any compelling biblical or patristic evidence that any apostle continued to preach despite seriously believing doing so would likely result in their death. Goodbye to that piece of dogshit called "martyrdom apologetic". What screws the patristic evidence is the biblical proofs that the post-resurrection apostles were unwilling to die.</p><blockquote> This often presents a problem for me as cold-case detective.</blockquote><p>And the problem would disappear just as soon as you stop anachronistically applying a modern American evidentiary standard to a 2000 year old religious book, fool. </p><blockquote> I have a few unsolved cases because key witnesses died and are unavailable to testify in court. Though these witnesses may have described their observations to a friend or family member, I can’t summon these “second level” witnesses into court, as their testimony would be considered “hearsay.”</blockquote><p>Then it is your problem that this American criminal evidentiary standard you wish to apply to the gospels (i.e., "Cold Case Christianity") has a standard that would render the gospels inadmissible. But since marketing gimmicks and word-wrangling are your specialty, I'm sure this wouldn't bother you in the least. </p><blockquote>The statements of friends or family members would be inadmissible because the original witness would not be available for cross-examination or evaluation.</blockquote><p>Oh, so did you suddenly discover that certain traits of the modern American criminal evidentiary standard are not good to apply to 2000 year old religious documents?</p><blockquote> This exclusion of hearsay testimony from secondary witnesses is reasonable in criminal trials; as a society, we believe “it is better that ten guilty persons escape … than that one innocent suffer.” For this reason, we’ve created a rigorous (and sometimes difficult) legal standard for eyewitnesses.<br /></blockquote><p>So did you suddenly discover that certain traits of the modern American criminal evidentiary standard are not good to apply to 2000 year old religious documents? Or did God tell you that only certain parts of such standard would "apply to" ancient religious documents?</p></span><span style="font-size: large;"><p>If our spiritual destiny is more important that our earthly circumstances, then the evidentiary standard we apply to spiritual stuff should be even MORE rigorous, since in spiritual matters, getting something wrong can possibly result in eternal conscious torment in the afterworld, which is far worse than merely spending a lifetime in an earthly jail. And yet Wallace doesn't have the first clue how to draw up evidentiary criteria for spiritual matters where the criteria are more rigorous than those applicable to earthly legal criminal cases. I guess we have some sort of obligation to bow our heads and acquiesce to the desperate fools who insist that we, who are taking the entire risk of hell, "should" be satisfied with less than perfectly authenticated evidence, even though getting some spiritual bullshit wrong carries far graver consequences that if we were to get some earthly bit of criminal evidence wrong. </p><blockquote>But this standard is simply too much to require of historical eyewitness testimony. </blockquote><p>So did you suddenly discover that certain traits of the modern American criminal evidentiary standard shouldn't be applied to 2000 year old religious documents? Or did God tell you that only certain parts of such standard would "apply to" ancient religious documents? If you can't justify that standard from the bible, wouldn't that mean your standard has less authority than a biblically necessitated answer? How obligated are we to believe Jesus was a man? How obligated are we to believe apostle Thomas was martyred?</p><p>If historical testimony is dictating what one must do to avoid spiritual prison, it isn't up to Wallace to decide what should be considered a sufficiently rigorous standard...it's up to the individual person how rigorous the standard must be. When its MY ass on the line, you don't decide what "should" suffice for me, I do. If my standard seems too high in your opinion, I don't exactly experience nightmares merely because another imperfect person disagreed with me.</p><blockquote>The vast majority of historical events must be evaluated despite the fact the eyewitnesses are now dead and cannot come into court to testify.</blockquote><p>Where are you getting that from? What rule of historiography even gets near telling anybody that they "must" evaluate historical events? Your apologetics desperation is starting to show.</p><blockquote> The eyewitnesses who observed the crafting and signing of the constitution of the United States are lost to us.</blockquote><p>A loss that inflicts great damage, since the Courts, like Christianity, have subsequently interpreted the Constitution in a progressive way that departs from the original intention of the fathers, just like modern Christianity departs from the intent of the original biblical authors, or so seems to be the battle cry we hear when equally authentically born again Trinitarians point the finger of heresy at each other. </p><blockquote> Those who witnessed the life of Abraham Lincoln are also lost to us.</blockquote><p>And nothing "requires" any adult to care, except for those adults who wish to teach U.S. History. The modern American who is completely apathetic toward Abe Lincoln is doing nothing unreasonable.</p><blockquote> It’s one thing to require eyewitness cross-examination on a case that may condemn a defendant to the gas chamber; it’s another thing to hold history up to such an unreasonable necessity.</blockquote><p>And it's another thing to tell an unbeliever that they "should" be satisfied with a less-than-perfect authentication standard for testimony that allegedly has the power to cause them irreversible eternal conscious torment...something much worse than merely a false criminal conviction on earth. That higher standard for spiritual matters might make your apologetics case impossible to make, but that higher standard remains reasonable nontheless. Reasonableness isn't limited to whatever supports Cristian apologists. Reasonableness might possibly be found in something that makes Christian apologists hate their jobs.</p><blockquote> If we require this standard for historical accounts, be prepared to jettison everything you think you know about the past.</blockquote><p>I'm not seeing the downside. Ignoring ancient history is about as dangerous as ignoring a jelly stain in a landfill. When you can prove that any biblical bullshit "applies to us today" (mission impossible), you can talk to me further about the risks of ignoring ancient history.</p><blockquote> Nothing can be known about history if live eyewitnesses are the only reliable witnesses we can consult.</blockquote><p>And why should anybody outside of historians and Christian apologists give a fuck what might have happened 2000 years ago? You can't show that anything in the bible "applies to us today". </p><blockquote> If this were the case, we could know nothing with certainty beyond two or three living generations, including two or three living generations of your own family. <br /></blockquote><p>That's not a problem for anybody except those who do ancient history as a hobby or job, and and problem for Christians who realize there is no Holy Spirit in the first place, and so their case for Christ really does evaporate once the historical evidence is justifiably marginalized.</p><blockquote>Learn more about the nature of eyewitness testimony in the new, updated and expanded version of Cold-Case Christianity.<br /></blockquote><p>Shame on you for trying to draw away Christians from their <i>Sola Scriptura</i> security blankets. If they are serious that the bible "alone" is "sufficient" for faith and practice, that means they don't need J. Warner Wallace's marketing gimmicks anymore than the 4th century church fathers did.</p></span>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-40404139244644422892023-10-28T13:33:00.002-07:002023-10-28T13:36:18.638-07:00My response to Bellator Christi on bible inerrancy<p><span style="font-size: large;"> See </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">https://bellatorchristi.com/2023/10/26/s7e8-inerrancy-does-it-matter/</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In case my post gets deleted, here's a screenshot proving the post was made, followed by the actual text:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhaztPyhjPsKWilH3IkBysg9xhzICgLkKqiBOPxmXJ80eTgLCtQ3KUDqI68mJ6f1lJDzhX1GUDoyprutQptQnKWJxHwhVAwtuGUg9lCfZ3sIluhNenFhOzqmrNXpmAOqBtjNtPGXSCIbSy2-yswdw5rs4q3QMdiANQr573Q_bmHd-FBWlPiCmOUex97UhY" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"><img alt="" data-original-height="743" data-original-width="919" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhaztPyhjPsKWilH3IkBysg9xhzICgLkKqiBOPxmXJ80eTgLCtQ3KUDqI68mJ6f1lJDzhX1GUDoyprutQptQnKWJxHwhVAwtuGUg9lCfZ3sIluhNenFhOzqmrNXpmAOqBtjNtPGXSCIbSy2-yswdw5rs4q3QMdiANQr573Q_bmHd-FBWlPiCmOUex97UhY=s16000" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Text:</span><p></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">What I offer here is not proof that you are unreasonable, but that Christians who reject bible inerrancy are reasonable.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">First, I have't studied your own views enough to detect what you think about this, but I will assume that you think inerrancy arises either naturally or logically, or both, from divine inspiration, on the grounds that "god cannot lie" (i.e., Geisler-flavored inerrantism, i,e., "The bible is God's word, God cannot err, therefore the bible cannot err".). So your problem is in explaining why you think the mere fact that the author is "divinely inspired" somehow necessitates that whatever he wrote during such inspiration, was inerrant. You cannot deny that the author of Revelation was divinely inspired, and yet it was WHILE he was divinely inspired that he committed the capital offense of idolatry twice, with the angel rebuking it as a sin that is to be avoided (19:10, 22:8). So if somebody wanted to stay open to the possibility that other NT authors engaged in acts of sin/imperfection while they were in the process of writing the text of their NT books, you could not rationally insist that this is completely out of the question.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">Second, if you deny Geisler's version of inerrancy, then you have a version of inerrancy that is far less clearly "biblical", which might require that you stop characterizing as unreasonable those Christians who think inerrancy is modern day Phariseeism.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">Third, you cannot theologically separate inerrancy from divine inspiration. You would never say that maybe Romans could be inerrant while also lacking divine inspiration. Since your position views divine inspiration as necessary to biblical inerrancy:</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">1 - What bible verse or verses most strongly support(s) the divine inspiration of the NT? <span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 1em; letter-spacing: inherit; line-height: 1.6;">To make things easy, feel free to provide your proofs in the same order as the order of the NT canon: Proof that </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.6;">Matthew </em><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 1em; letter-spacing: inherit; line-height: 1.6;">is divinely inspired, proof that </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.6;">Mark </em><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 1em; letter-spacing: inherit; line-height: 1.6;">is divinely inspired, etc. The less clear the divine inspiration of NT books is, the less unreasonable will be those who reject NT inerrancy. And yet something tells me that when you meet another Trinitarian Christian who denies biblical inerrancy, you think they are not presently experiencing all of the spiritual growth potential that god has made possible for them to presently experience.</span></p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">2 - Is your inerrancy-favoring interpretation of those NT verses so clear and compelling that those who disagree with you on the point must be unreasonable to so disagree? Or could disagreement with you on the point possibly be reasonable?</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">3 - Most conservative and fundamentalist churches have a statement of doctrines they consider "essential to salvation", very few of them express or imply that belief in the inerrancy of the NT is essential to salvation. That is an awful lot of spiritually alive people who are failing to notice how crucial the inerrancy of the NT is, reasonably suggesting their view does not arise from ignorance, but from the non-existence of the doctrine in the first place. This renders the outsider reasonable to conclude that rejection of NT inerrancy iis not anymore unreasonable than is rejection of Preterism.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">4 - Could a Christian do absolutely everything which Jesus in the 4 canonical gospels required of them, while sincerely believing the whole time that the doctrine of NT inerrancy is false? I say yes, their trust that the 4 gospels correctly convey Jesus' commands, does not demand they assent to gospel-inerrancy, only that they assent to the historical reliability of the gospels. As as I'm sure you are aware, most Christian apologists insist that belief in bible inerrancy is by no means necessary before a person can be reasonable to say Jesus' resurrection is the one theory that best explains the NT evidence..</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">I'm not saying inerrantists are unreasonable. I'm merely saying <em style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.6;">those who reject NT inerrancy can be reasonable to do so</em>. Contrary to popular belief, reasonableness for one group does not dictate the limits of reasonableness for another group. And yet the humble attitude that says your opponent could possibly be equally as reasonable as you, is not only nowhere allowed in NT theology, but is explicitly condemned by Paul who seems to think that disagreement with him automatically justifies anathematizing the opponent (Gal. 1:6-9), or insisting that they "know nothing", and worse (1st Tim. 6:3, Titus 3:9-11). That is, if you refuse to become an intolerant bigot in your theological views, you are willfully disobeying apostle Paul's demand that you imitate him (1st Cor. 11:1).</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">If spiritually alive people cannot even agree on such spiritual things, you can hardly expect spiritually dead people, like me, to manifest more accurate discernment of such spiritual things.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">Hope that helps.</p><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 10px;">==================end</p><div class="jetpack-comment-likes-widget-wrapper jetpack-likes-widget-loaded" data-name="like-comment-frame-122038952-1666-653d6f9a55413" data-src="https://widgets.wp.com/likes/#blog_id=122038952&comment_id=1666&origin=bellatorchristi.com&obj_id=122038952-1666-653d6f9a55413" id="like-comment-wrapper-122038952-1666-653d6f9a55413" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.6; min-height: 31px; position: relative; width: 668px;"><br /></div><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-45423990617836982942023-10-02T12:39:00.003-07:002023-10-02T12:39:47.765-07:00J. Warner Wallace warns against Christians being "teachers" likely because he knows it will create controversy and interest<div><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b> This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled</b></span></p><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/stop-teaching-young-christians-about-their-faith/" target="_blank">Stop Teaching Young Christians About Their Faith</a></b></div></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/stop-teaching-young-christians-about-their-faith/" target="_blank">By J. Warner Wallace, Published3 days ago</a></b></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>In a prior post, I summarized the studies and publications that describe the flight of young people from the Church. A compelling cumulative circumstantial case can be made to support the fact that young college aged Christians are walking away from Christianity in record numbers. What can we do about it? What can be done? </blockquote><p>Blame it on God. God could have given them a road-to-Damascus experience like he did with Saul who wasn't even a Christian at the time, but very anti-Christian (Acts 9, 22, 26). If such a spectacle succeeded with such a violent anti-Christian, such experience has even more likelihood of persuading when the people to be convinced are already Christians. When God doesn't do his best, it demonstrates real limitations of his love. Just like if you could have saved a drowning child by putting more effort into it, but you <i>solely by choice</i> refrained from exercising all of your ability to save the child, this necessarily implies there was a limit to the amount of love you had for that child.</p><p>When you trifle that maybe God knew better than us, then you are admitting that the reason God doesn't do anything about young people leaving the church is because he knows what's best. If God isn't doing his best to prevent young people from leaving the church, you cannot be more godly than to follow God's lead. NO, you are not following God's lead with your apologetics bullshit. In the bible, God's "leading" of somebody caused them to speak infallibly...that's how you got your inerrant bible, remember? Having fun trying to show anything in the bible saying God in the last days will only inspire his followers to a less intensive extent than he did the original followers. it doesn't exist. Therefore, if in fact you carry on Christianity without possessing infallible teaching authority, we have to seriously consider that this is because God wants unbelievers to classify you as a heretic.</p><blockquote>Whenever people ask me this question, I always say the same thing. STOP TEACHING YOUNG CHRISTIANS. Just stop it. Whatever Christendom is doing in its effort to teach it’s young, the effort appears to largely be a failure.</blockquote><p>Is this the part where the atheist reminds you that god's ways are mysterious, and if you can survive a debate with a "well maybe god....", so can the anthesit? Like, maybe God is working great wonders through the youth in the church of today, but for his own sovereign mysterious reasons, he doesn't want you to detect it? How is that any less persuasive than "well maybe god has a sovereign mysterious purpose for allowing evil and we just can't see it yet"? </p><blockquote> In fact, Ken Ham (in his book, Already Gone:Why Your Kids Will Quit Church and What You Can Do To Stop It) found that young Christians who faithfully attended Bible classes were actually more likely to question the authority of Scripture, more likely to defend the legality of abortion, same-sex marriage, and premarital sex, and more likely to leave the church! What’s going on here? I think I know. It’s time to stop teaching our young people; it’s time to start training them. There’s a difference between teaching and training. Training is teaching in preparation for a battle. Boxers train for upcoming fights. In fact, boxers are sometimes known to get fat and lazy until the next fight is scheduled. Once the date has been signed, fighters begin to train in earnest. Why? Because they know that they are going to eventually get in the ring and face an aggressive opponent. We train when we know we are about to encounter a battle. Imagine for a moment that you are enrolled in an algebra class. If the teacher assured you that you would never, ever be required to take a test, and that you would pass the class regardless of your level of understanding, how hard do you think you would study? How deeply do you think you would come to understand the material? How committed do you think you would be to the material? The problem we have in the Church today is not that we lack good teachers. There are many excellent teachers in the Church. The problem is that none of these teachers are scheduling battles. </blockquote><p>Then none of those teachers are filled with the Holy Spirit, a perfect reason for atheists to generalize that such teachers are too suspect to justify listening to them on any biblical subject, including evangelism.</p><blockquote>Make no mistake about it, there are battles looming for each and every young Christian in the Church today, but church leaders are not involved in the scheduling of these battles.</blockquote><p>Because they are not filled with the Holy Spirit, a perfect reason for unbelievers to steer <i>entirely </i>clear of them. If they cannot even know what God wants them to do with young Christians, we are reasonable to avoid trifling about what they do know, and to view them with enough suspicion to justify absolute apathy toward every other bit of biblical bullshit they spout. Did Paul ever tell anybody to avoid the parts of a heretic's theology that are wrong, and to pay attention to those parts that are correct? no. if they are heretics, they are to be ENTIRELY disregarded, regardless of whether some of their teachings are "correct". A lot of things Mormons teach about the bible are correct...would you suggest that people disregard the Mormons entirely? Or would you recommend they put forward effort to disregard Mormon errors and only pay attention to Mormon truth? </p><blockquote>The battles are waiting for our sons and daughters when they get to University (or enter the secular workplace). The Church needs to be in the business of scheduling battles and training our young people for these battles. </blockquote><p>Wow, J. Warner Wallace wants young spiritually immature Christians to train for "battle"? Doesn't your religion teach that spiritually immature people are not supposed to directly battle the devil? You've shown multiple times that you have no more of the Holy Spirit than any Roman Catholic, and yet you are going to train spiritually immature people for spiritual battle? LOL. </p><blockquote>Teaching without a planned battle is little more than “blah, blah blah.” </blockquote><p>Then Paul's epistle to the Corinthians was "blah blah blah" because not only did he refuse to train them for battle, <i>he was determined to know nothing among them except Christ and him crucified</i>. 1st Cor. 2:1-2. Knowing nothing but Jesus and him crucified does not constitute "battle teacher". And yet the fucking fool also told them how to more properly present themselves when manifesting spiritual gifts (ch. 14), never dreaming for a single second that the fact that they were presenting themselves improperly during this Voodoo was a good argument that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with their manifestations in the first place.</p><blockquote>This is the problem with traditional Sunday School programs. </blockquote><p>Then unbelievers have been reasonable every single time they denied an invitation to attend a traditional Sunday School. What fool would trifle that merely because they err about battle doesn't necessarily mean they err about salvation? It is not your prerogative to decide what an unbeliever should be satisfied with. If the unbeliever is unwilling to take any chances on a Christian who manifests no in-filling of the Spirit, that does not represent unreasonableness on her part, that is YOUR problem. You can refute this argument when you take a razor and slice out of your bible all of those bigoted paranoid statements about how perilously risky it is to become a Christian (viz. you might get a nasty surprise on judgment day, Matt. 7:22-23; just because you start out converting to Paul's gospel is not the slightest guarantee against God cursing you in the future for denying the true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). No infallibility? No obligation to give a fuck.</p><blockquote>They are often well-intended, informative and powerfully delivered. But they are impotent, because our young people have no sense of urgency or necessity.</blockquote><p>Did Jesus exhibit a sense of urgency or necessity when he reclined in that chair as the center of attention at the party Levi threw for him (Matt. 9:10)? Probably not. Your hype that Christians need to push evangelism and apologetics as urgent is every bit as much of the marketing gimmick today as it was for any fool preaching the same in the NT.</p><blockquote> There is no planned battle looming on the horizon and the battle of University life is simply too far away to be palpable. It’s time to address the problem not with our classes but with our calendar. It’s time to start scheduling battles so our teaching becomes training. Years ago, as a youth pastor, I started taking annual trips to Salt Lake City and Berkeley. Why? I was scheduling theological and philosophical battles to help prepare my young Christians for the larger looming battle they would someday face on their own.</blockquote><p>Then why have you put so much effort into avoiding the challenges that skeptics like myself have been confronting you with for years? Let me know when you are ready to engage with me in a debate just as live as those debates you now claim to have attended in Salt Lake City. You've deleted my responses for so many years, you know perfectly well who I am and how to get a hold of me. So accept this battle-challenge, or shut the fuck up, you duplicitous pussy.</p><blockquote>If you want to teach your young people theology, there is no better method than to put them in direct contact with people who believe in a very sophisticated heresy.</blockquote><p>And if you want to test the skills and knowledge of your chosen apologetics teacher, there is no better method than to put them in direct contact with skeptics who have been challenging such apologists for years. </p><blockquote> Mormons use the same terminology as Christians but deny the basic tenants of our faith. </blockquote><p>And Arminians use the same terminology as Calvinists (freewill, divine sovereignty, atonement, preservation, etc) but deny the basic tenants of Calvinism. You will never explain how it is that somebody could be filled with the Holy Spirit sufficiently to be "saved" but at the same also<i> lack the Spirit sufficiently to remain deceived about such important doctrines as Jesus' atonement and God's sovereignty.</i> </p><p>And you couldn't justify "essential doctrine" from the bible anyway. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any NT author, expressed or implied that belief in several doctrines were "essential to salvation". That is merely the by-product of the canonization of the NT, therefore, your "essential doctrine" doctrine is no less an exercise in elevating human tradition to the level of scripture, than Roman Catholicism is. </p><blockquote>In order to dialogue with Mormons effectively, we first have to understand what we believe. </blockquote><p>If you were filled with the Holy Spirit, you wouldn't have to understand:</p><p></p><blockquote><p> 19 "But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.</p><p> 20 "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. (Matt. 10:19-20 NAU)</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Was that intended only for first century Christians? Gee, I wonder how many other teaching of Jesus he did not intend to be mirrored by modern Christians? How crooked of a road will we encounter if we start trying to answer that question? Or did I forget that doctrinal division in the body of Christ on what Jesus meant with his sayings, is no more significant to you than division in the church on how to make pancakes?</p><p> Or maybe you suddenly discovered that 1st Cor. 14:25 is false? Gee, how will Wallace ever correctly balance the magical fantasyland of the 1st century with the undeniably naturalistic reality of the 21st century? Jesus not only told his original followers to perform miracles as part of their evangelism efforts (Matthew 10:8), he also said future believers were to obey <i>everything </i>he had commanded of the original disciples (28:20). So because you have never raised the dead nor done a single miracle in your entire life, I have solid biblical basis to say it's probably because God is refusing to bless your efforts (which implies you are a false teacher), or this whole bible-fronting lifestyle is total bullshit. </p><p>No, there is nothing in the NT clearly and unequivocally asserting that in the last days, God will pour out his Spirit upon true believers to a lesser extent than he did the original believers. You merely speculate otherwise because such speculation is the only basis you have to 'explain' why it is that nobody today can do what the bible says the original disciples did. And Paul's speculations about "when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part will be done away" do not bother me in the least: the fact that he was far less clear than he could have been tells me he intended this solely for the originally intended recipients, and you will NEVER make a convincing case that anything in the NT "applies to us today". FUCK YOU. </p><blockquote>When we train young people in preparation for an evangelism trip to Salt Lake City, we give meaning and purpose to the content of our teaching. In a similar way, our evangelistic trips to Berkeley (where we contact notable atheist speakers and atheist groups on campus) require us to prepare ourselves to answer the myriad of atheistic objections we will inevitably encounter. </blockquote><p>Except that you've never even bothered to try answering ME. I have more powerful arguments against your religion than you'd normally get from college atheists. Put up or shut up. </p><blockquote>Once again, the content of our teaching in preparation for this trip takes on purpose and meaning when we know the level of our understanding will eventually be tested. If we want to do our young people a service, we need to stop teaching them. It’s time to start scheduling battles so we can turn teaching into training.</blockquote><p>What would you say to the Christian couple who want their 6 year old daughter to perform exorcisms? Wouldn't that qualify as "training"? or did you suddenly discover that your absolutist language is errant, and there are plenty of exceptions where teaching without training would be preferable?</p><blockquote>CLICK TO TWEET These trips are not easy, but they are essential. </blockquote><p>No, nothing in the bible requires Christians to take their children to battles with unbelievers. Fool. </p><blockquote>They require us, as leaders, to become good apologists. </blockquote><p>Then you need to step down, because your "apologetics" are laughably weak, as I've demonstrated countless times at this blog. </p><blockquote>They require us, as pastors, to prioritize our calendars to make room for the trip and for the important training that will take place for months prior to the trips.</blockquote><p>Can you produce a New Testament verse that tells pastors to take their followers to secular learning centers to train them for battle? No. YOU are the heretic. You cannot manifest miracles, yet you still want 1st century Christianity to be true and applicable in this modern age, when the bible has absolutely nothing to say about whether Christianity would remain binding upon people 1900 years after the first century. </p><blockquote> One last thing; I’ve learned the importance of this approach first-hand. </blockquote><p>It doesn't matter, your approach contravenes the biblical model. What you found in your own experience does not have biblical authority. </p><blockquote>My first year as a youth pastor was perhaps my toughest. As a former designer with a strong interest in the arts, I spent my first year focusing on the artistic nature of the Sunday gathering. I incorporated music, video, art and drama to create compelling Sunday experiences that were more entertainment than content. </blockquote><p>Then your level of spiritual immaturity was so great, we'd be reasonable to say its probably because you had never gotten "saved" in the first place. </p><blockquote>The kids who graduated from my ministry that first year were not prepared for what they encountered in college and all but one walked away from their faith. This impacted the way I did ministry from that time on. I began to schedule battles and train young people for these important tests. I don’t think I’ve lost a student since.</blockquote><p>You don't have the first clue how many of those who read your Cold Case Christianity crap subsequently fell away from the faith. But my exposure of the weakness of your apologetics suggests there were probably thousands. Your repackaging of the "historical reliability of the NT" stuff is nothing but marketing scam run amok, just like your "crime scene" stuff that never answers the question of what makes you think Jesus or Paul wanted their religions to continue applying to people after the 1st century, a question you cannot answer with the bible. And if you tried to answer it with some NT "prophecy" you think is coming true today, I'd sic the Christian "preterists" on you, and presto, whether any biblical "prophecy" predicted anything happening today, is yet another division in the body of Christ. </p><blockquote> If we want to do our young people a service, we need to stop teaching them. </blockquote><p>You are a false teacher. The bible could not be clearer that the job of the Christian pastor is to "teach":</p><p>1 Tim. 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, <b><u><span style="color: red;">able to teach,</span></u></b></p><p>1 Tim. 4:11 Prescribe <b><span style="color: red;"><u>and teach</u></span></b> these things.</p><p>1 Tim. 6:2 Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. <b><u><span style="color: red;">Teach</span></u></b> and preach these principles.</p><p>2 Tim. 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men <b><u><span style="color: red;">who will be able to teach others also.</span></u></b></p><p>2 Tim. 2:24 The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, <b><u><span style="color: red;">able to teach</span></u></b>, patient when wronged,</p><p>Heb. 5:12 For though by this time <span style="color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">you ought to be teachers</span><u style="font-weight: bold;">,</u><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.</p><p>-------------</p><div>Your insistence on ceasing to teach and starting to train overlooks and denies the reality spoken of in Hebrews 5:12, that some Christians have fallen behind in their knowledge and must be <i>taught </i>again. Since they fell behind, they are not spiritually prepared for "battle", so that this verse is forbidding the readers from "training" such immature believers.</div><blockquote>It’s time to start scheduling battles so we can turn teaching into training. </blockquote><p>And you couldn't produce a NT verse to justify that methodology, to save your life, you scheming mass-marketing heretic. Why don't we find Paul scheduling battles for his churches to participate in? Are you a liberal who thinks Paul should have scheduled the Galatians to do battle with the Judaizers rather than merely "teach" the Galatians through an epistle? FOOL.</p><p>The NT authors whom you believe wrote infallibly, have never done anything for the church after the first century except "teach", and yet you, despite denying you yourself possess infallible teaching authority, demand that your followers do better than the NT authors did? FUCK YOU. </p><blockquote>For more information about strategies to help you teach Christian worldview to the next generation, please read So the Next Generation Will Know: Training Young Christians in a Challenging World. </blockquote><p>Yeah, because the Holy Spirit's work in the mind of the sincere authentically born again person who is reading the bible, is not enough. But try to remember that although my books are not the bible, still, you "need" them. And remember, your "needing" my books doesn't conflict with your <i>sola scriptura</i> belief that the bible is ALONE sufficient for faith and practice. </p><blockquote>This book teaches parents, youth pastors and Christian educators practical, accessible strategies and principles they can employ to teach the youngest Christians the truth of Christianity. </blockquote><p>Because as we all know, not only is the bible the word of a God who always honors his promise to enlighten his true followers, but the bible is also "perspicuous" or clear, meaning, if we are true followers, we can determine what a bible verse means <i>without purchasing the bells and whistles of fools who explicitly disclaim infallible teaching authority</i>...like J. Warner Wallace.</p><blockquote>The book is accompanied by an eight-session So the Next Generation Will Know DVD Set (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case. </blockquote><p>Because as we all know, not only is the bible the word of a God who always honors his promise to enlighten his true followers, but the bible is also "perspicuous" or clear, meaning, if we are true followers, we can determine what a bible verse means w<i>ithout purchasing the bells and whistles of fools who explicitly disclaim infallible teaching authority</i>...like J. Warner Wallace. </p><blockquote>WRITTEN BYJ. Warner Wallace J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured cold-case homicide detective, popular national speaker and best-selling author.</blockquote><p>Which can only be a testament that most of today's Christians are abysmally ignorant. Just like the more popular Benny Hinn is, the more embarrassment to Christianity.</p><p></p><blockquote> He continues to consult on cold-case investigations while serving as a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He is also an Adj. Professor of Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, and a faculty member at Summit Ministries. He holds a BA in Design (from CSULB), an MA in Architecture (from UCLA), and an MA in Theological Studies (from Gateway Seminary).</blockquote><p>And despite all of that fancy knowledge, he cannot produce a single bible verse to support the premise that God thinks it legitimate for one of his true followers to try to beef up their teaching authority with references to how they graduated from formal Christian institutions. In the first century, the best learning institution was the original apostles who walked and talked with Jesus...but Paul explicitly disclaimed he had obtained a single thing from them, and in the same verse discounted the significance of their authority. Gal. 2:6. While fundagelical commentators insist Paul likely obtain plenty of gospel info from the earlier apostles, it remains a problem for them that Paul never actually comes right out and admits that he depended on them for any gospel knowledge.</p><p></p></span></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-12095926803372162312023-07-12T14:59:00.003-07:002023-07-12T15:00:51.940-07:00The basic dishonesty of Jeff Durbin and Apologia Church<p><span style="font-size: large;">Jeff Durbin is a 5-point Calvinist apologist who co-pastors a church with Dr. James White. Durbin also has a YouTube channel, Apologia Studios, and operates the https://apologiastudios.com website.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For years I've been posting comments on the videos Jeff Durbin uploads to YouTube. Since I'm usually signed in, I always see my previous comments. No issue.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then one day I signed out, then went back to the comments, and suddenly, all of my comments from the past few years were gone. Apparently, YouTube stupidly wants people who are signed in, to have the impression their comments are still present even if in fact the channel-operator has deleted them. You have to sign out of your email and YouTube accounts, then go back and look, before you notice that the prior comments were deleted in the past.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My posted criticisms of Durbin have never alleged any falsehood about Durbin, they merely point out how Durbin is both incorrect and hypocritical in so many ways despite his natural propensity toward dogmatism.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am therefore reasonable to conclude that if anybody thinks Durbin is a great apologist, its because he does a consistent job of destroying the evidence indicating how very deceived he is.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Gee, how easy would it be to look smart if you were always destroying proof that other people were criticizing you?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What if I had a YouTube channel, posted many videos critical of Christianity, and none of the thousands of comments was significantly critical because I constantly delete the criticisms I cannot answer?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Would you continue to rave about how smart of a counter-apologist I am? I'm guessing "no".</span></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-50950899918096677492023-04-26T16:48:00.003-07:002023-04-26T16:48:29.838-07:00My objections to Lisa Cooper and Christian Research Institute about Sandy Hook and theodicy<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>This is my reply to an article in the CRI Journal entitled <br /></i></b><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://www.equip.org/articles/was-god-at-sandy-hook-elementary-that-day/" target="_blank">School Shootings and the Problem of Evil</a></b></div><b><a href="https://www.equip.org/articles/was-god-at-sandy-hook-elementary-that-day/" target="_blank"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>(Was God at Sandy Hook that day?)</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Lisa Cooper, Article ID: JAF1422, Apr 3, 2023</b></div></a></b><blockquote style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"><br />To give a Christian apologetic response to school shootings, it is important to address the problem of evil. How is it possible that a perfectly good God who is in control over all things would allow such heinous acts of violence carried out against innocent children?</blockquote>Easy: you redefine "good" so that it no longer precludes acts that it normally precludes when used in typical everyday speech. Making us wonder what criteria you use to decide when typical everyday speech is and isn't sufficient to meaningfully discuss "god".<blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Of first importance is the philosophical answer to this question. By focusing on the well-received argument put forth by Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga concerning mankind’s free will to do both good and evil, it becomes evident that God can be good even though evil exists.</span></blockquote><p>So apparently Lisa wants us to side with her against Calvinism....when we know that Calvinism v. Arminianism is one of Christianity's more pernicious in-house debates. </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> This response, however, does not always reach people who are hurting.</span></blockquote><p>If quoting a bible verse to a grieving person doesn't help them, blame it on God, who often boasts that his word is powerful and sufficient. Really now, what is the Holy Spirit doing when you quote Romans 9:20 to a grieving mother who responds to her son's murder by questioning god's goodness? Is the Holy Spirit NOT using that word of God for his own glory? If he is, then the failure of a bible quote to calm the grieving parents of murdered children probably has less to do with 'wisdom' and more to do with "bible quotes are nothing but hot air in the first place". </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> Christian philosopher Angus Menuge offers an existential response to the problem of evil. He uses Jesus’ death on the Cross as a starting point, showing that God knows what it means to have a child die, </span></blockquote><p>He should, God is the one who killed his own son by his own "hand":</p><p></p><blockquote><p><i> 27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,</i></p><p><i> 28 to do whatever Your <b><span style="color: red;">hand </span></b>and Your purpose predestined to occur. (Acts 4:27-28 NAU)</i></p></blockquote><p></p><p>Lisa continues: </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">and Jesus, having died for us,</span></blockquote><p>except that Christian Calvinists deny that Jesus died for absolutely all sinners...a point which causes non-Calvinist Christians to deny the Calvinist god's goodness...something us unbelievers can exploit.</p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> has suffered every pain we as humans could suffer in this life. </span></blockquote><p>False, there is no evidence that Jesus ever suffered the pain of losing a biological child or being divorced by a spouse that suddenly became unloving, or became paralyzed from the neck down in an accident and then had to endure the next 50 years of his life experiencing severe depression at his inability to move, and experiencing the guilt of becoming a significant burden on those who took care of him. </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Further, a biblical approach to suffering</span></blockquote><p>What about unbelievers who don't accept the doctrine of full biblical inerrancy? Can they correctly interpret a bible verse about God's morality without worrying about whether that interpretation harmonizes with everything else in the bible? </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> reveals that, in the midst of all of this pain, God works all things together for the good of those who love Him (Rom. 8:28), even when we receive no direct answer about how this happens.</span></blockquote><p>You know it's true because "the bible says". My heart is already skipping from the great sense of guilt I have about my sin. </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> It is true that our suffering conforms us to the image of Christ.</span></blockquote><p>The hope of the hopeless. One wonders what orientalisms about morality in the NT would have been different if life in the 1st century hadn't been as rough on Christians as it was.</p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> While we live this side of heaven, we identify with Jesus in His suffering. <b><span style="color: red;">When He comes again</span></b>, we will identify with His resurrected and glorified self — perfect and sinless, without sadness or suffering, and forevermore participating in the Son’s holy and loving relationship with the Father.</span></blockquote><p>What about preterism, you know, the eschatological doctrine that says Jesus completed his second coming before the close of the 1st century? How long does God want me to compare your futurist eschatology with Christian historicist eschatology, before He will start expecting me to discover which one is the truth? Would John the Revelator agree with most conservative Trinitarian inerrantists of today that his words about the <i>eschaton </i>constitute non-essential theology? Wow, he sure seemed all fired up about the whole business.</p><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"></span><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Therefore, in ministering to those affected by gun violence, we are called to a ministry of patient listening and faithful presence.</span></blockquote><p>Would you be exercising patience by informing them that God in Deuteronomy 32:39 and Job 14:5 takes personal responsibility for all human murder? How would the Holy Spirit use your references to these texts to further His intentions toward the grieving survivors? </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> We simply should not try to present fully formed analytical answers to those who are lamenting the loss of a child. What we can do is be present in the day-to-day wrestling, listening to them in their distress, and pointing them to how Jesus has already-but-not-yet accomplished the end of suffering.</span></blockquote><p>"already-but-not-yet"? I don't think hitting the grieving parents of murdered children with theological contradiction is the best way to "minister" to them. Perhaps that's because I'm an unbeliever and I don't recognize any force in the "god's ways are mysterious" excuse?</p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">When the news of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, was posted on my Facebook account, I was eight months pregnant with my first son. Having grown up in the town next to Newtown, I knew those streets; I knew that parking lot; I knew some of the people in that community. I sat at my laptop, aghast at the live feed. </span></blockquote><p>Aghast at G<i>od performing his will </i>(Job 14:5)? How could something you are supposed to pray for ("thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven") be something you were 'aghast' at? Maybe I didn't notice that CRI is so anti-Calvinist that they take the Arminian approach absolutely for granted? </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Aerial views of the school, panicked parents searching the crowds for their kids, kids’ faces flushed red from crying; it was all too much to take in.</span></blockquote><p>Perhaps you are spiritually immature to pray that God perform his will, then find it too much to take when you God starts answering that prayer? </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> I kept reminding myself to breathe. All the while, a phrase repeated in my mind: “How can I bring a child into this world?”</span><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">People can be so utterly evil. How can I allow this child to exist in a world where sin has so infected people that a twenty-year-old man could think it was a good idea to murder first his own mother and then as many children as he could before turning the gun on himself?</span></blockquote><p>You can't, because you are a good person. So the only way "god" could allow it is if you redefine "good" so that it doesn't preclude acts that it normally would preclude in typical daily conversation. Remember: God must always be a special exception to the rules...that's the only hope you have of salvaging any theodicy.</p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">In the news since that horrific day, December 14, 2012, we see murder after murder, school shooting after school shooting. Educators are heard relaying hiding tactics to news reporters, while others have died protecting students, having used their bodies as human shields.1 According to the K–12 School Shooting Database, since January of 2013, the month following the Sandy Hook shootings, there have been 328 incidents of gun violence on school premises. Not all of these incidents involved an active shooter, but in the active shooter incidents, there have been 132 injuries and fatalities including the shooter, with a whopping 92 of those taking place from 2018 to now.</span></blockquote><p>Then why don't you praise God for acting like God and deciding for himself when it is time to terminate a person's earthly life? Could it be that there will always be a contradiction between your mammalian desire to preserve life, and your more philosophy that says some higher being is always good whenever he kills anybody?</p><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"></span><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">And yet I, along with the historic Christian church, have the audacity to believe in a sovereign God who rules over all of this? Even more outrageous, I call this sovereign God good!</span></blockquote><p>"Outrageous" is correct. But in reality the issue is not that you are foolish to call such a bloody god "good", but rather whether unbelievers can be reasonable to say such a god is evil.</p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">First, the philosophical question must be addressed: how can God be good if evil like this exists?</span></blockquote><p>I prefer to first ensure we are talking about a real god before we start wading into the muddy waters of what he is <i>like</i>. That's how I fuck up most Christian apologists. If I refuse to discuss the traits of the toothfairy until I am sure she exists, I'm reasonable. Nothing about the bible's existence imposes the slightest obligation to either refute it or agree with it. </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> Next, the practical issue: how can Christians bring the gospel to those who have been affected by school shootings?</span></blockquote><p>In other words, <b><span style="color: red;">how can we manipulate the grieving surviving family members of murdered children so that these tragedies become opportunities to promote our religion? </span></b></p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> The problem of evil consistently has been an issue for apologetics and evangelism. In America, however, due to the rise in school shootings in recent years, it has become a politically charged national conversation. As time goes on, with each incident, more people have connections to these shootings, and so these attacks have started reaching us on a personal level.</span></blockquote><p>Just tell yourself that the god who takes personal responsibility for causing all murder (Job 14:5) is "trying" to reach those people on a personal level. Problem solved. Spiritually mature people always happily praise god when he works his will in the world, since to become upset at what god is doing would contradict the witness of the Holy Spirit, correct? </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> In the years since the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, I have known two people directly who have been the targets of random gun violence, and four more indirectly (relatives or friends of friends). For me, as for many, unjustified evil has become a serious philosophical prohibition to the spreading of the gospel in our culture. </span></blockquote><p>Then you aren't remembering who you are or what you believe. Your biblical world view does not allow you to believe in "unjustified" evil. See Deut. 32:39 and Job 14:5. If some crazy person walks into an elementary school and shoots dead several kids, your theology does not call this unjustified evil. Your theology says "God is calling them home". </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Nonbelievers, rather than merely considering whether or not God exists, are now asking whether or not God is simply absent, woefully neglectful, or even overtly evil.</span></blockquote><p>But because the bible says God is "good", there is potential to reasonably conclude that no "good" god would allow such evils, therefore, god may exist, but the biblical description of him is wrong therefore he cannot possibly exist as described. </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> And now, due to the prevalence of these shootings, even people who have not been tied personally to an injury or death caused by a school shooting are asking these questions. Christians must be prepared to engage both abstract questions about the nature of God and to practice practical evangelism with tact, proper listening, and continued care.</span></blockquote><p>"Christians must be prepared"? Where are you getting that from? I see nothing in the NT indicating anything therein "applies to us today". Shall I wade through in-house Christian debates on which parts of the NT do and don't apply in 2023 (eschatology, dispensationalism, theonomy)? If so, what source imposes any moral, spiritual or intellectual obligation on me to so wade? And how do you know that source is talking about anybody living in the year 2023?</p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">THE PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL</span><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">If God were truly all-knowing (omniscient), truly everywhere (omnipresent), truly powerful (omnipotent), and truly good (omnibenevolent), why would He not intervene and stop these shootings from happening?</span></blockquote><p>Just tell yourself that "goodness" for god isn't always the same as "goodness" for human beings, and presto, behold the magic that can be achieved by simply defining a problem out of existence. </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> He could part the clouds and strike the gunman dead. He could have caused the gunman never to have been born. He could have created a universe in which this shooting did not occur. But He didn’t. </span></blockquote><p>The toothfairy also didn't do anything to stop those murders. Maybe the toothfairy's ways are higher than our ways? </p><blockquote><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">He gave us these children, and then He let these precious children die.</span></blockquote><p>Because he wanted them to die (Deut. 32:39, Job 14:5), and you are forced to concede that every act of God is "good". Sounds like your problem, not mine, it's not even near a problem for unbelievers. Your only possible explanation would be that God has the right to take life as he chooses, but the fact that such answer is comforting to you doesn't dictate that it be reasonable for unbelievers.</p><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"></span></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">The Logical Problem of Evil</span><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">In response to the question of evil and suffering in this world, the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga demonstrates in his book God, Freedom, and Evil that there is no logical contradiction in saying that God is good while evil persists. The set of three propositions, “(1) God is omnipotent; (2) God is wholly good; and (3) Evil exists,” is neither explicitly nor implicitly contradictory. </span></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sure, if you define "goodness" for God different from how you define "goodness" for human beings. But all that would prove is that if you give a lawyer long enough, he can turn night into day by clever use of words. We do not presuppose that "god" exists, nor that he is "good", nor that his alleged power suddenly renders his maximally wise in everything he does. We interpret Genesis 6:5-6 literally as opposed to your non-literal and knee-jerk reactionary "anthropomorphic" interpretation, which is necessitated by absolutely nothing but a need to make that passage harmonize with everything else in the bible in the name of inerrancy. We have atheist philosophers who insist your three propositions do result in contradiction. See J. L. Mackie, "Evil and Omnipotence," Mind, New Series, Vol. 64, No. 254. (Apr., 1955), pp. 200-212.</span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">What’s more, Plantinga sets forth a Free Will Defense, which negates any supposed inconsistency between the aforementioned set of propositions, and shows that any world with significantly free creatures necessarily has potential for those creatures to choose evil. He contends, “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all.”</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Except that there are two biblical paradigms that show that your god could have actually achieved a sinless world full of sinners, i.e., the world is not full of sin because we are sinners, its full of sin because God merely wants it to be that way when he doesn't "need" it to be that way:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">a) Numbers 23:26, God causes the pagan prophet Balaam to refrain from cursing Israel, and since it is biblical, however that happened must surely be harmoninous with God's ideas about the need for human freedom. Therefore if your god is all-powerful, he could similarly prevent similarly unbelieving people today from sinning.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">b) Did God take away somebody's freewill in Daniel 4:33? If I did to you all that was necessary to cause you to start doing what that king did after being cursed by god, would most Christians say I took away your freewill?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">c) In Ezekiel 38:4 and other passages before chap. 40, God's level of sovereignty over the wills of unbelievers is taught with the metaphor that says God puts hooks in their jaws and turns them around. The mental image of a fisherman forcing a fish into the boat against its will after hooking it, is perfectly consistent with the apparent intention of the metaphor. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Should you start balking that ancient Semitic people typically exaggerated for rhetorical effect, you throw into question most conservative Evangelical, Reformed and Catholic beliefs about God, each of which rest upon a decidedly literal interpretation of a theological statement in the bible. If the book of Revelation says God is "omnipotent", is that literally true, or is that just an ancient Semitic exaggerated way of saying God has massive power? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Other philosophers attack Plantinga's Freewill Defense. See Justin Ykema, <i>A Critique of the Free Will Defense A Comprehensive Look at Alvin Plantinga’s Solution To the Problem of Evil</i>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Through his Free Will Defense, Plantinga does not seek to give an explanation of God’s motives behind allowing the suffering or evil that He allows.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then Plantinga leaves open the logical possibility that "god" has morally bad motives. </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> Rather, Plantinga works to find a logical ground for why God does not necessitate only morally upright actions from the people He created.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Good luck finding anything in the bible to support the view that "God does not necessitate only morally upright actions from the people He created." When you find a bible verse that says God asked anybody to do morally evil things, let me know how you felt about converting to Calvinism. </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> In addition to this, he shows that it is logically consistent that those evil actions chosen by significantly free creatures do not reflect the will of God who created them, for, “He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.”</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then how does Plantinga explain God forestalling moral evil, such as Numbers 23, the case of pagan prophet Balaam, whom God restrained from cursing Israel? Maybe all Christian commentators are wrong, and Balaam's willingness to say whatever YHWH wanted is because he was a true follower of YHWH? Then what could possibly have made Balak think Balaam was a good candidate for cursing God? Did Balak go to the wrong tent?</span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Surely in some Christian circles, Plantinga’s emphasis on significantly free moral action would be considered problematic.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">What is the Holy Spirit doing as he flutters above the head of the sincerely praying Calvinist? Is the Holy Spirit "trying" to make the Calvinist see the light, but the divine intent is held back by Calvinist stupidity?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Or maybe you'd say the divine is held back by the Calvinist's unwillingness to see truth?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Gee, what fool Christian couldn't hurl that accusation at another to account for heresy? </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> Luther, for example would say that in matters of faith, no moral action that merits salvation can be done outside of faith in Christ; however, he would affirm that moral action can be done spontaneously in terms of civil action. Plantinga makes no such distinction. The theological concerns here do not undermine the significance of the logical argument that Plantinga puts forth. In showing that God, being good, can exist and rule over a creation in which evil exists, he is not making a systematic theological argument but rather a logical one.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sure, but if God has mysterious higher good reasons for allowing evil, then it becomes problematic to continue characterizing the evil in question as "evil". Do we ignore the good that an "evil" brought about, and insist it is still fully evil, merely because of philosophical necessity? Or only because modern democracy demands that we refrain from reclassifying certain "evils" as good? Is the murder of a child evil because it breaks a biblical commandment? Or good because it is God who caused it (Deut. 32:39)? What would Dr. Frank Turek think of the fool who said the murder of a child is both good and bad depending on whether the perspective is divine or human? Wouldn't he jump out of his moral absolutist skin and insist that god thinks the murder is evil too? </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> Indeed, even atheist philosophers concede that Plantinga solved the logical problem of evil, showing that there just is no logical inconsistency between orthodox theism and the facts of evil and suffering we experience in the world.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">But the problem of moral subjectivity and relativism comes to stay permanently just as soon as you say "An act can be evil for us to do, but can be good for God to do". When we say child-rape is "evil", we usually don't mean "from our perspective", we mean it is absolutely evil period.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">However, Plantinga acknowledges that his Free Will Defense is not the appropriate response to offer people in the midst of suffering. In the case of real-life evil, misery, and hardship, he calls one to seek pastoral care, not philosophical explanations.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">And pastoral care cannot be more spiritual than to quote the bible in an effort to justify god at all costs. </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">GOD’S SON WAS MURDERED</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then because it was God's "hand" that caused people to kill Jesus (Acts 4:27), that makes God guilty of murder no less than the truthful statement that it was your "hand" that caused somebody else to murder. What fool would say "My <i>hand </i>caused that person to commit murder, but I am not responsible for that murder"?</span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">The existential approach put forth by Christian philosopher Angus Menuge in his article “Gratuitous Evil and a God of Love” is centered on the coming of Jesus Christ in history to suffer for us.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion, and is worthy only for the flames. </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> Menuge argues that discussion of the problem of suffering begins and ends with the person and work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, for “Christ is God’s answer to the problem of evil” (emphasis added).</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Except that smart people don't care about a person's attributes, until they become convinced that the person is actually real. Except in the case of parents who explain tooth-fairies to toddlers. And the case of Christians who jump at any chance to "show" that their concept of God is free from internal conflict. And the case of atheists who might be in the mood to toy with apologists.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> He explains that the problem of evil affects all of our hearts and minds, and “since evil is an immersive, existential condition, God answers by actions of love” (emphasis in original). The answer is therefore not abstract but utterly real, historical, and is revealed in the bloody God-man, Jesus Christ, suffering and dying for us on the Cross.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Hot air. Dismissed.</span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">God knows what it is like to have His Son die unjustly. </span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">So? How could it matter that it is possible for God to sympathize with us, when he is the one inflicting all the misery (Deut. 28:15-63? How could it matter that a man sympathizes with a kidnapped child...if that man <i>is</i> the kidnapper? </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Jesus suffered the pain of a brutal death on the Cross. This is the difference between the Christian God and other gods: God came down from heaven and endured the pain of this world in order to save His creatures from eternal death — the very creatures at whose hands He would die.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Hot air. Dismissed.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> This can offer profound comfort for those who have suffered the loss of a child to gun violence, or for those of us who suffer from the anguish of seeing another suffer. The kind of anguish we face in this life is not foreign to God, and suffering is precisely the means by which God accomplished salvation for us.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Mormonism has an excellent track record of providing comfort to those who are grieving. So apparently, the ability of the sophistry to provide "comfort" does precisely nothing to justify pretending the comforting words are "true".</span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">THE NOW AND THE NOT YET</span><br /><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Scripture speaks to the problems of suffering, pain, and premature death, but it even more robustly offers eschatological hope.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">So do the Jehovah's Witnesses. </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> When discussing the nature of our lives here on Earth, this side of heaven, the distinction between the now and the not yet is imperative. It is true that Jesus died on the Cross to reconcile us, to rescue us, to forgive us, and bring us into union with God; and it is true that those who believe enjoy some of these benefits now, but not to their full extent. The faithful must wait for Jesus’ return to receive them in full.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">You just alienated all Christian preterists from the body of Christ.</span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Life in the now is characterized by suffering. We have been united to Christ in His suffering, not only in that He has suffered on our behalf but that we also, like Christ, cannot escape suffering in this world. Through suffering, furthermore, we are being molded and shaped to be more like Jesus. </span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Hot air, dismissed. </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">However, we must be careful not to assure people of some assumed moral improvement as a result of suffering. In speaking to a parent of a child who had been murdered, we cannot approach them with, “Take heart! God is making you better,” or some such platitude.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then you disagree with most Christian apologists who rely on God's mysterious good higher purposes to explain evil. </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> Menuge condemns this, saying, “When God allows his creatures to suffer, it is not primarily because he has calculated some moral improvement that he can achieve for this life (although that may happen), but because he ‘desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim. 2:4).”</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: large;">Then according to the reasoning of Menuge and apparently yourself, when God allows a little girl to be raped to death, it is because God ‘desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim. 2:4).” Nice going.</span></span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Jesus says, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). The Christian cannot choose his or her cross. “He must leave that to God (1 Pet. 3:17; 1:6), for God alone knows which cross is beneficial and only God gives the strength needed to bear the cross (1 Cor. 10:13).”15 Our understanding is limited (Isa. 55:8–9). </span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Does God give the strength the little girl needs to endure a rape that ends with her hemorrhaging to death? If so, what would such a rape situation look like if God had <i>not</i> given her such strength? Would she have died the second the man threw her on the bed?</span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">We cannot fathom why God has allowed us to endure the specific suffering that we must face.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sure we can: God is equally as pleased to inflict rape, kidnapping and parental cannibalism on disobedient people, as he is pleased to inflict prosperity on obedient people. Deuteronomy 28:15-63, see esp. v. 63, the "delight" is the same in both cases.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> We are not called to know the intricacies of what God is doing, but we are called to trust Him.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">But if the guy in charge is killing people, his followers will either demand to know the intricacies, or they will quit following him. Is this the part where you tell me that God is always the special exception?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> And, in that vein, we can trust that God is working all things together for the good of those who love Him (Rom. 8:28). </span><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">However, Scripture shows us that the sufferings we endure are for us a promise of the eternal glory awaiting us, and assurance of our union with Christ (Rom. 8:17). Jesus, in His Revelation to John, explains that God Himself will dwell with His people in glory, and that “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:3–4). In glory, we too will be glorified. In glory, there will be no more fear of premature death, no more concern to protect our children from violence, and no more mourning.</span></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">If you are going to quote the bible to make a point, why waste space with an article? The bible says God is good, righteous and holy, so shouldn't that be the sufficient answer to anybody's problem with evil?</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">EVANGELISM IN A TIME OF DESPAIR</span><br /><br /><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;">Various philosophical approaches to the problem of evil can and will be entertained by our minds as we consider the impact of school shootings and whether or not God, being infinite in love and knowledge and power, could allow them to happen.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">You forgot about another option. Truth doesn't limit us to giving an answer that will help somebody reconcile reality with their religion. It doesn't matter if God exists, the only way the "good" god of the bible and real evil could exists is if you redefine "good" so as to allow for crimes that we normally don't allow to be possible with any "good" (i.e., you will redefine "good" solely for the sake of ensuring there's no contradiction between your god and the reality of evil). </span></p><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #d9d2e9;"> But, there is a point where these approaches wax silent, and ministry begins. There is a moment you find yourself in a conversation about how gun violence in schools has affected a person’s own mind, soul, and spirit.</span></span></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sure, it was God, causing the gunman to kill the kids, so it was God who wanted to affect the minds, souls and spirits of the survivors. Deut. 32:39.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I skip the rest of the article because it is nothing but preaching to the choir. Lisa's article does nothing to render unreasonable the unbelievers who explain evil by God's non-existence, his apathy, or his evil desire to hurt people.</span></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-39141519363877987332023-04-20T19:51:00.003-07:002023-04-20T20:24:12.447-07:00Update on "Does your God approve of sex within adult-child marriages?"<p><span style="font-size: large;">I've been publicly attacking the biblical inerrancy doctrine since 2003. The vast majority of inerrantists presume that the bible-god views pedophilia as a sin. So to attack that view, I've been arguing for the last 20 years that this understandably popular doctrine has no support in the Mosaic Law. The inference, that Christians seek to avoid like the plague, is that God doesn't condemn sex within adult-child marriages as sin, because he doesn't think such activity is sinful in the first place. The whole notion that god thinks an act to be sin, <i>but has nowhere plainly declared so</i>, is theologically problematic.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The attack comes mostly in the form of arguing that Numbers 31:18 is not merely authorizing Hebrew soldiers to use underage girls as "house servants", it is also authorizing Hebrew soldiers to both marry and sexually consummate such marriage to such underage girls (i.e., sex within adult-child marriages, i.e, pedophilia).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> 18 "<u><b>But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves</b></u>. (Num. 31:17-18 NAU)</span></p></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As you can imagine, Christian apologists have for more than 20 years been hitting me with everything they can possibly think of to justify their tendency to create god in their own modern western democratic image, in their effort to show that by some strange coincidence, the Old Testament YHWH just happens to hate pedophilia equally as much as today's Americans do.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The link-fixes that appear below are some of my reasons why such attempts to avoid biblical moral disaster fail, and therefore, my view (that YHWH had, in the days of Moses, approved of sex within adult-child marriages), remains reasonable.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">These arguments do not prove that Christians are wrong in how they interpret the bible. The arguments only show that us atheists/skeptics can be reasonable to interpret the bible the way we do. That is, these arguments refute the Christians who characterize my view as "unreasonable". They may hate that view, but they are absolutely paralyzed from proving it to be unreasonable. None of my views arise from improper exegesis. Thus they are forced to say the view is reasonable no matter how distasteful or religiously incorrect they think it is.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If you disagree, then your job is not to show that I'm "wrong" (because I don't claim I'm right), your job is rather to show that my arguments fail to establish the <i>reasonableness </i>of the interpretation I advocate. That's a much more difficult goal to reach, for daily reality tells us we can possibly be reasonable even if wrong. Only a stupid fool insists that everytime somebody gets something wrong, it is because their method of truth-seeking, if any, was unreasonable. No, sometimes we make innocent mistakes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Reasonableness can arise from accuracy, but it by no means demands accuracy. Therefore, "you are wrong" is not sufficient to show my views to be unreasonable. You must show that my exegesis is so poor that no person concerned for truth could possibly condone it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If you can't do that job, then you must live with the knowledge that yes, at least some atheist bible critics, even if not all of them, can possibly be reasonable to view the biblical YHWH has having approved of sexual relations within adult-child marriages back in the days of Moses.</span></p><p><a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 1: sin is transgression of God's law</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">-------In this entry, I argue that Romans 7:7 forbids the notion that we can know sin without the Mosaic law, therefore, if in fact the Mosaic law doesn't clearly condemn pedophilia, then you have no biblical justification for saying God thinks sexual acts within adult-child marriages are sinful. The truth is that Romans 7:7 is itself false, but as a Christian, you don't have the option of winning the debate that way, you are forever stuck with what Paul meant with his words.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia_14.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 2: We can know what sin is by our conscience?</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">------In this entry, I argue that because the bible founds the human conscience upon the Mosaic law, it is reasonable to deny that the OT YHWH thinks "conscience" is a way, <i>independent of Mosaic law</i>, to establish any act as sinful. Thus if your conscience bothers you when thinking of pedophilia in 2023, we are reasonable to conclude this "pang", even if it came from the NT God, did not come from the OT YHWH.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 3: We can know what sin is by intuition?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">----forthcoming</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia_92.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 4: "In non-essentials, liberty"</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">----In this entry, I argue that if my opponent is the type of Christian who believes in the popular conservative maxim <i>"In essentials, unity; <b>in non-essentials, liberty</b>; and in all things, charity"</i>, then because the Mosaic Law fails to clearly condemn pedophilia, what a Christian in your congregation thinks God's opinion is concerning sexual relations within adult-child marriages, constitutes nothing more important than a "non-essential". Thus if a Christian in your church in 2023 thinks God doesn't condemn sexual relations in adult-child marriages, we are reasonable to view you as under an obligation to give that Christian liberty of conscience on the subject, meaning, we are reasonable to condemn you if, because of his viewpoint on the subject, you ever disfellowship or excommunicate him.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Does your god approve of pedophilia? Part 5: God establishes all the secular laws</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">----forthcoming</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia_18.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">Does your God approve of pedophilia? Part 6: God expects Hebrews to use their "common sense"</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">----In this entry I argue that nothing in the bible indicates God ever expected anybody to use their "common sense" to fill in moral gaps created by omissions in the Mosaic Law. Thus we are reasonable to presume that silence in the Mosaic Law means silence from YHWH...a god that seems to have a need to condemn nearly everything he sees.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/06/does-your-god-approve-of-pedophilia_71.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: large;">Does your God approve of pedophilia? Part 7: Ezekiel 16 establishes nothing except more apologetics embarrassment</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">------In this entry I argue that, contrary to the hopes of many apologists, nothing in Ezekiel 16 renders unreasonable my view that the <i>in the days of Moses</i>, YHWH approved of sexual relations within adult-child marriages.</span></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-31889367446038826442023-04-19T21:01:00.005-07:002023-04-20T09:40:58.546-07:00My reply to Jonathon McLatchie on Numbers 31:18 and rape<div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>This is my reply to an article by Dr. Jonathan McLatchie entitled</i></b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/" target="_blank"><b>Does the Bible Support Sexual Slavery? </b></a></div></span><div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/" target="_blank"><b>An Analysis of Numbers 31:15-18</b></a></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/" target="_blank"><b>December 24, 2021</b></a></div></span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>More than two years ago, I <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yVeowGbdl8">participated in a debate</a> in Oxford, England, with atheist YouTuber Alex O’Connor (who goes by the online alias Cosmic Skeptic). The subject was “Why I Am / Am Not a Christian,” which was quite broad. Given the short time constraints of the debate and the breadth of the topic, we were regrettably unable to pursue an explication of our differences with the depth that I would prefer. </blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>And when I challenged you with a list of possible topics worded in a polite respectful manner, being the very first communication I ever sent to you, you </span><span>absolutely </span><span>refused to debate me for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with my ability or inability to significantly challenge you on the merits of your beliefs. See <a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2021/06/apologist-dr-jonathan-mclatchies.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">Nonetheless, I very much appreciated my interaction that evening with O’Connor, including the dinner we enjoyed together before the event.</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">You enjoyed having dinner with an atheist? What fellowship hath light with darkness? <i>And you call yourself a bible-believing Christian? </i> Then so is John Dominic Crossan.<br /><blockquote>I have long viewed O’Connor as one of the more philosophically nuanced atheist thinkers, and I have valued our ongoing private discussions subsequent to our initial public dialogue. </blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And what about the opinion of those other people in your Calvinist group, like Sye Bruggencate and Jeff Durbin, or their teachers Van Til, Greg Bahnsen and John Frame, who think anything an atheist has to say in defense of any non-Christian tenet is pure blasphemy? Wow, I didn't know you valued blasphemy. Or did I forget that Calvinism and presuppositionalism are houses divided no less than Protestantism is? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><span>My positive argument in the debate concerned the evidence for Jesus’ resurrect</span><span>ion, while O’Connor focused on moral critiques of the Bible. </span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Then such a lopsided debate likely had the convenient effect of allowing one side to avoid having to answer the more difficult questions, while had you both been debating a single solitary proposition, the cross-examination would have been more comprehensive.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>In his portion of the cross-examination, O’Connor chose to focus on the issue of slavery in the Old Testament. The last of the texts we discussed was Numbers 31:15-18, which was interpreted by O’Connor to endorse sexual slavery. At the time, this was not an issue that I had researched with great depth, though I recognized it as a difficult text. My preparation for the debate had largely been on the evidences for New Testament reliability, and its epistemic relevance to developing a robust case for the resurrection. I therefore acknowledged it as a difficult text without offering any detailed response. </blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>If you weren't such a cessationist, you would not have needed time to prepare for the subject matter anymore than would the people Jesus described as puppets in Matthew 10:20. You worry too much. Just let go and let</span><span> God. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If you are <i>not </i>a cessationist, then why didn't the Holy Spirit do for the unprepared you, what He allegedly did for the apostles when they needed to give answers? Maybe you didn't pray enough? Maybe you had secret or unconfessed sin in your life? Or must I assume, contrary to the NT, that the spiritual world had nothing to do with you being less prepared than you wished to be?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div></div><blockquote><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Earlier this week, Alex O’Connor <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oe8_vXdCbY">uploaded the clip from our debate</a>, in which this text was dis</span><span>cussed, to his Cosmic Clips spin-off channel. I therefore thought it an appropriate time to publish an article offering my current perspective on this difficult text. Here is the passage under discussion (Num 31:15-18):</span></span></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The first thing to note about this text is that it is not technically God who gives the instructions. Thus, on the worst case scenario, one may interpret this text as being descriptive of Moses’ command, rather than it being an act endorsed by God. Nonetheless, even supposing (as I think is more likely) that Moses’ instruction carries with it God’s approval, I do not believe it to be as problematic as it might appear on first impression.</span></div><div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Good save: God told Moses to take "full" vengeance on the Midianites (Numbers 31:2), so it was intended to be a genocide.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>O’Connor believes that this text gives permission to the Hebrew soldiers to rape Midianite war captives.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">He's not going far enough, Numbers 31:18 constitutes Moses' advocating <i>marital pedophilia</i>. O'Connor didn't hit you as hard as he possibly could have. You should thank him for having mercy on you.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">However, such an interpretation would fly in the face of every piece of clear moral legislation on sexual relations that we have in the Hebrew Bible. </span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">How do you expect your "scripture interprets scripture" rule to be the least bit impressive or obligatory on an unbeliever who clearly denies biblical inerrancy and biblical consistency?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Do you the juror demand that the prosecutor reconcile all of his theories of the case with everything the suspect said on the witness stand? No.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">There is no universally recognized rule of historiography, hermeneutics or common sense that obligates anybody to presume moral consistency in a text of theocratic rules that allegedly began in somewhere between 1400 b.c. and 650 b.c., the original text of which most scholars think has been altered numerous times over the centuries, with definite anachronisms? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">There is nothing the least bit unreasonable in the unbeliever-hermeneutic that says that on account of the Hebrew texts admitting they fell into idolatry nearly every day, charging them with inconsistent legislation is about as worrisome as charging the Canaanites with inconsistent legislation.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div></div><blockquote><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">For example, in Deuteronomy 22:23-27:</span></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. [emphasis added]</span></div></div></blockquote><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">According to this text, the crime of rape is so serious that it is punishable by death.</span></div></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Your excluding vv. 28-29 was apparently intentional, because it restores the moral depravity you so desperately try to remove:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote><div> 28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, <b><u>and seizes her </u></b>and lies with her and they are discovered,</div><div> 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (Deut. 22:28-29 NAU)</div></blockquote><div></div></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The moral depravity here is in forcing the rapist to marry the victim, when in fact this particular legislation does not express or imply that the victim is allowed to deny the marriage. Trinitarian inerrantist scholars explain that v. 28 is also describing the man taking the woman by force, so that the victim in v. 28 was forced to marry the rapist even though she was forced into the sex act:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US"></span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="EN-US"></span><span lang="EN-US"></span><b><span lang="EN-US">22:28–29</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> At first glance the next example, the rape of an unbetrothed girl, might appear to have been a lesser offense than those already described, but this was not the case at all. First, he seized (Heb. </span><span style="font-family: BibliaLS;"><i><span lang="X-TL">tāpaś</span></i></span><span lang="EN-US">, “lay hold of”) her and then lay down (</span><span style="font-family: BibliaLS;"><i><span lang="X-TL">šākab</span></i></span><span lang="EN-US">) with her, a clear case of violent, coercive behavior.</span><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span style="vertical-align: super;"></span></a>
</span><div>
<div id="ftn1"><div style="margin: 0in; text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span style="vertical-align: super;"></span></a><span id="__spanCitationData">Merrill, E. H. (2001, c1994). <i>Vol. 4</i>: <i>Deuteronomy</i> (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 305). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.</span></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div id="ftn1"><div style="margin: 0in;"><span><span id="__spanCitationData" style="font-size: large;"></span></span></div></div></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">What fool would trifle that the victim of a "clear case of violent, coercive" rape was also somehow "willing"? I do not argue that Merrill's view is necessarily correct, only that its existence prevents YOU from justifiably accusing my more negative appraisal as unreasonable.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>If the woman failed to scream for help when she was in the city and could be heard, the Jewish law viewed the situation as consensual sex rather than rape, since the woman could have cried out for someone to rescue her but didn’t.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">A bit of unforgivable stupidity since common sense dictates that the man could either prevent her screaming by muffling her, or threatening her life.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>Thus, both parties were guilty. However, if the sexual assault took place in a rural area where the woman had no chance of being heard, the Jewish law gave the woman the benefit of the doubt and she was not to be considered culpable.</blockquote>Which is also stupid since nothing about the place the sex act occurred would say anything authoritative about whether she was willing.<br /><blockquote>One might object here that women captured in war were not afforded the same rights as women belonging to the people of Israel, and thus this consideration offers little help with regards to the text of our study. However, the previous chapter in Deuteronomy concerns the rights of women who are captured in war (Deut 21:10-14):</blockquote>A text that neither expresses nor implies that the woman had any right to refuse the marriage. You quote as follows:<br /><blockquote>10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her. [emphasis added]</blockquote><div><span>McLatchie continues:</span></div><div><blockquote>Therefore, while the Hebrew soldiers were permitted to marry female war captives, they were not permitted to rape them or treat them as slaves.</blockquote></div><div>The "Good News" Translation of v. 14 makes plain that this rite involved rape:</div><blockquote>14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you <b><u><span style="color: red;">forced her to have intercourse with you</span></u></b>, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.</blockquote>See <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021%3A14-16&version=GNT" target="_blank">here</a>. McLatchie continues:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"> The woman was also to have a month to mourn the loss of her kin prior to getting married. </span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">Oh, ok, so if I kidnap your 18 year old daughter and deal with her exactly as Deuteronomy 21:10-14 allowed a Hebrew man to deal with a female war-captive, then you'd conclude I was treating her "right"?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>Daniel Block notes, “This monthlong quarantine expresses respect for the woman’s ties to her family of origin and her own psychological and emotional health, providing a cushion from the shock of being torn from her own family.” </blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Then that is respect for pagan theology and idolatry, since the woman's family ties would have been formed in idolatrous contexts. Gee, is tolerance for her family ties what was meant by a Mosaic author whose purpose in killing her family was his intolerance of idolatry?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">[1] Indeed, as John Wenham comments, “In a world where there are wars, and therefore prisoners of war, such regulations in fact set a high standard of conduct.” </span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">Some would say that making her shave her head and remove her clothes merely adds unnecessarily to the humiliation. Your idea that this is supposed to be a "nice" thing is absurd, and you'd never conclude any such foolishness if somebody kidnapped your 18 year old daughter today and followed out all the permissions and requirements in that passage. You only make excuses and hem and haw because nobody has subjected YOU to such degredation.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>[2] Furthermore, by becoming part of the people of Israel (and possessing full status as a wife), the women would be delivered from pagan idolatry and exposed instead to Israelite religion concerning the true God, thereby having opportunity to attain salvation.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Meaning: we should be amazed at how the Hebrews who killed her family, acted nice to her after kidnapping her and forcing her into a marriage with one of the people who killed her family. Sorry, I'm not feeling that. Try again.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>The historical context of the war against the Midianites is also important to bear in mind as we evaluate our text. Numbers 31:16 indicates that the Midianite women “were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.” </blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Then we wonder why Moses didn't also kill off the children of the Hebrew soldiers who sinned there, no less than he ordered the killing of the children of the Midianites in Numbers 31:17. But sometimes, demanding consistency from a dictator is out of step with the barbarisms of the ANE. My bad.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>This is an allusion to Numbers 25:1-9, in which we read of an occasion where the Midianites devised a plot to entice Israel into pagan worship involving making sacrifices to Baal and ritual sex. According to Moses, the Midianite women were among those who “enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord” (Num 31:16). Thus, the women who were permitted to live and marry into Israel (that is, those who had not known man by lying with him) were presumably those who had not been involved in enticing the men of Israel into sexual impurity.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Moses is a hypocrite: he kills the Midianite babies apparently because he ascribed to some type of corporate-responsibility ethic, but he does NOT kill the babies of the Hebrew men who participated in that sin. How convenient.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>Another consideration, often overlooked in discussions of our text, is that we are not informed what happened to young woman who were brought into the Israelite camp but who did not wish to marry the men who had just slaughtered their kin. </blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">No, the text that allows the Hebrew soldier to marry the daughter of parents he recently killed, neither expresses nor implies the girl had the least bit of choice in the matter. If the Hebrews were stupid enough to kill her family, we can hypothesize they were also stupid enough to give her as much say in whether to marry, as they gave to her parents on whether to die.</span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">We can hypothesize that they were forced into it anyway, but we can equally hypothesize that they were allowed to make themselves useful as virgins until such a time as someone more suitable presented himself. </span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">What fool would seriously tell himself that where women of a cult tempt other men to sin sexually, surely the virgins in that cult couldn't possibly be culpable? <i>Did the Hebrews think only vaginal intercourse counted as sexual sin?</i> When Moses spared the women who were still virgins, wasn't he taking a chance that in the spared group were a few virgins who had engaged in forms of sex that leave virginity intact, such as fellatio, cunnilingus, anal sex, i.e., participating in the Midianite sin but preserving their virginal status?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If he really was taking a such a chance, how can we be unreasonable to say he was just a stupid gullible dictator without any god to make actual truth known to him?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">You also have the option of saying they were not dolts, and the reason they deny culpability to the still virgin girls is because the Hebrews honestly didn't see anal sex, fellatio or cunnilingus as adultery or fornication...but you aren't in the business of making concessions that open the door for today's Christians to fornicate without fornicating, right?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>This is simply not stated or even intimated in the text. Thus, if there were women who were averse to being married to an interested Israelite soldier, we just do not know what happened.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If you don't know what happened, you cannot render improbable the possibility that they were forced into the marriage.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>Moreover, even if on occasion something bad happened — and there is no reason to deny that sometimes it may have — it is not something we are told was done by command of God.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But if there was any forcing, it would have been justified by appeal to Deuteronomy 21:10-14. So, Jonathan....do you believe that passage is the inspired inerrant word of God, yes or no?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">When Moses gave the requirements as recited in that passage, was God speaking through him, yes or no?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>In conclusion, though Numbers 31:13-18 is undoubtedly a difficult text, especially from the vantage point of our twenty-first century western culture, the text becomes, upon closer inspection, significantly less problematic than it appears at first impression. </blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">You can save your campaign speech until after you have shown the Good News "rape" Translation of Deut. 21:14 to be unreasonable or incorrect. You highly doubt you'll ever do that, right?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>The Pentateuch outlined the rights of female war captives, and they were not allowed to be treated as a slave or sex object.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Those who killed a girl's parents forced her to marry one of the guilty Hebrew soldiers, in a way that wasn't quite as barbaric as would have been allowed in pagan cultures. Congratulations. I'm experiencing a heart attack right now because of how guilty I feel about my sin. Nice job. Do you have any dust and ashes I could borrow?</span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">The Pentateuch also takes a very negative view of rape.</span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">According to the Good News Translation of Deuteronomy 21:14, God must have intended this rite to <i>result </i>in rape.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>Most likely, the women who were spared were not involved in enticing Israel into sexual impurity during the incident at Peor. Finally, we are not informed by the text what the arrangements were for women who did not wish to marry an interested Israelite soldier, and so any suggestion of what may have happened is mere conjecture.</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But my conjectures cannot be shown to be unreasonable. Your assumption that the multiple authors of the Pentateuch were honestly trying to give future readers exactly what Moses wrote, is also mere conjecture. If the Hebrews were as prone to corruption as every page of the Pentateuch says, we have no reason to pretend their scribes were any exception. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">Footnotes<br />8 thoughts on “Does the Bible Support Sexual Slavery? An Analysis of Numbers 31:15-18”<br /><img src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/46d2f1674d2cdb8ff189cf08caa9d41c?s=50&d=mm&r=g" /><br /><br />JOHN RICHARDS<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1886">DECEMBER 24, 2021 AT 12:49 PM</a><br /><br />Labelling the Numbers text as ‘difficult’ reveals your point of view – that of a presuppositionist.<br /><br />I don’t find it at all difficult!<br /><br />It also reveals your assumption that the Bible is a reliable source of information…<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1886">Reply</a><br /><img src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e6939ce3afd3378fbdf318d21c3e795d?s=50&d=mm&r=g" /><br /><br />KEVIN ROSS<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1891">DECEMBER 24, 2021 AT 9:57 PM</a><br /><br />Of course you don’t find it problematic. Your presuppositions ensure that any misunderstanding of the text remains a live option.<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1891">Reply</a><br /><br /><img src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/818b76d1dbf0fdeaffd5abf014394df8?s=50&d=mm&r=g" /><br /><br />JMCLATCHIE<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1898">DECEMBER 25, 2021 AT 4:18 PM</a><br /><br />John Richards: Anyone with a cursory familiarity with my work knows of my staunch opposition to presuppositionalism. Contrary to the insinuation of your comment, it is not an entailment of evidentialism that, for one to be rational in holding a belief, that belief can admit no difficulties.<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1898">Reply</a></span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">-----------------turchisrong replies, April 19, 2023</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Then you, McLatchie, must confess that it is possible for an atheist to be rational in holding to atheism, even if atheism presents "difficulties".</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">============================continuing:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">PETER<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1887">DECEMBER 24, 2021 AT 2:53 PM</a><br /><br />Definitely appreciate addressing this. It really is an uncharitable reading that doesn’t even make sense (e.g. Kill the Canaanite non virgin women and Isrealite men for inappropriate sexual acts, and keep the Virgin women so you can… Do more inappropriate sexual acts!??!?), so it’s nice to see a complete response to it.<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1887">Reply</a><br /><img src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5c6b1de23716436c0d53a32f9307a0d3?s=50&d=mm&r=g" /><br /><br />JESSE<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-2675">JULY 22, 2022 AT 2:00 AM</a><br /><br />Remember the sexual idolatry of Balaam’s sin led Israel to experience a plague, for which Moses killed many Israelites, both to punish the sin and to stop the spread of disease. Notice the emphasis on the cleansing rituals to ensure they did not carry back to the camp any plagues; ie STD’s. Sexual idolotry. Orgies. Even with children. Remember these tribes which surrounded Israel were accused of cannibalism and human sacrifice of children as well as incest and bestiality, and archaeological findings do support those claims.<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-2675">Reply</a><br /><br /><img src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/53399417d3b6fcbd378468ba22b8c5b8?s=50&d=mm&r=g" /><br /><br />DAVID MADISON<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1907">DECEMBER 26, 2021 AT 10:02 PM</a><br /><br />The world in which God revealed Himself was very different from today’s world. It was a world in which warfare was common and the consequences for defeated peoples were often terrible. Marrying the men who had conquered you is not a particularly attractive option but it is better than the alternative. What we often find in the Old Testament is a way of doing things that limits harm.<br /><br />Atheists are dismissive of this. Their usual response is to ask why God didn’t just come along and impose modern values on the people who lived 3000 years ago. This is remarkably shallow. Life was brutal 3000 years ago. The reason why it was brutal is that this is what human nature is capable of. And it still is. Christianity offers us the hope of deliverance from our corrupt nature but this hope is not something we have any right to expect.<br /><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/does-the-bible-support-sexual-slavery-an-analysis-of-numbers-3115-18/#comment-1907">Reply</a></span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">----------------------------------------turchisrong replies, April 19, 2023</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>Their usual response is to ask why God didn’t just come along and impose modern values on the people who lived 3000 years ago. This is remarkably shallow. Life was brutal 3000 years ago. The reason why it was brutal is that this is what human nature is capable of. And it still is. </blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Then how do you explain God preventing the pagan prophet Balaam from cursing Israel in Numbers 22:38, 23:8, 12? Wasn't life during Numbers 22 equally as brutal as it was in Numbers 31?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">What we find here is that your God has no excuse: Not only can God prevent pagans from sinning, the fact that he did so at least once proves that he is far more willing to violate human freewill than today's freewiller Christians wish to admit. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And God can cause pagans to both know his will and obey it even if they are idolaters. See Ezra 1:1.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So the skeptic is reasonable to say that your god is sadistic: he clearly does have a viable way of preventing humans from sinning, but no, he prefers to take the route that causes unnecessary misery and bloodshed. Sort of like the fool who has a choice between drawing money out of his account to pay the rent, or robbing the bank to pay the rent, and he chooses the latter despite the former being entirely sufficient to the purpose.</span></div></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-14996898477717866712022-12-23T14:46:00.008-08:002022-12-23T14:58:33.824-08:00My answer to email from Christian apologist Frank Turek<p><span style="font-size: large;"> I received more ads from Turek in my email, and one of them summarizes his position, so I respond in kind:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">It's that time of year again! You're sitting around with family at the Christmas dinner table, and Uncle Joe insists on picking apart your Christian faith. What's the best way to respond? Ignore him while you play with your mashed potatoes? Or do you try to refute his objections?</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I'd say play with the mashed potatoes, since otherwise, to engage him would be to enable him to listen to himself respond, which creates a vicious circle of self-validation.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">You know you need to give the reason for the hope that you have, but how can you engage with his statements without starting a family feud? </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">No, Christians of today do NOT "know" that they need to give a reason for the hope they have. All that crap is found in the NT, and you couldn't prove that any of it applies to modern people if your life depended on it. There are perfectly sufficient purely naturalistic explanations for the survival of the bible into modern times, otherwise, you'd have to say the Apocrypha and Dead Sea Scrolls "apply to us today". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">In this week's episode of I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, I explain that every objection to the Christian faith assumes a standard beyond the person who is making the objection.</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then you are wrong. The criticism that god was evil in the OT arises from morality that goes no higher than the atheist's own genetic predispositions and his environmental conditioning. The only reason you succeed at this scheme of yours is because most atheists and skeptics do not have a degree in moral philosophy, and therefore are not themselves straight about why it is that a human being classifies the actions of somebody else as "evil". Your scheme doesn't work on atheists who know what they are talking about, like me, because I correctly discern that my basis for saying the Nazis were "wrong" is not "transcendant", but goes no deeper than my own genetic predispositions and environmental conditioning.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"> I also provide examples of simple questions you can ask Uncle Joe (and others like him!) to place a seed of doubt in his assertion that something is wrong with the Christian worldview. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I promote atheism the same way. Here's a seed of doubt for you: Why do you automatically leap from "the NT applies to 1st-century unbelievers", over to "the NT applies to 21st century unbelievers"? Exactly how "clear" is it that anything in the NT "applies to us today", and why shouldn't spiritually dead unbelievers balk at such a notion on the basis that even spiritually alive Christians have been ceaselessly embroiled in disagreements for 2,000 years on whether something in the NT does or doesn't "apply to us today" (i.e., Dispensationalism, Cessationism v. Charismatics, Lordship Salvation v. Easy Grace)?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What would be unreasonable about deducing from the fact of sincere persistent doctrinal disagreement among serious born again conservatives that if there is any god running the show, he doesn't give a shit that his people disagree about doctrine? Sure, that would fuck up a few things you believe about your classical theist god, but that's the price you pay if you criticize a reasonable viewpoint held by many unbelievers.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The show addresses some of the most common objections to Christianity, including: God does immoral things in the Old Testament </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As an atheist who knows what he is talking about, as opposed to the bumbling youngsters you meet in colleges, my accusation that god did evil in the OT arises from the philosophical contention that if we don't call that god evil, then we will be forced to the absurd contention that we can no longer call pedophilia evil, NOW, we have to hedge and say "it depends on perspective: it's evil from a human perspective, but from god's perspective, maybe god knew through his ripple-effect that allowing a man to rape a child today will be necessary to make sure some yak in Ethiopia hears the gospel in the year 2805."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">There's too much evil in the world </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I would never make that objection, as the book of Job makes clear that God intends all the evil in the world, because its reasonable to assume from Job that the reason bad things happen to good people is because they are mere pawns in an ego-war between God and the devil. You need to stop assuming God cares, because otherwise this leads to the difficulty of why a caring god would allow evil. From Job, it is clear that God cares more about proving the devil wrong than he cares about our physical and psychological well-being. And yet Frank Turek NEVER tells anybody Job's explanation for why god allows bad things to happen to good people. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Christians are hypocrites and do evil things </span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">That doesn't prove god doesn't exist. It only proves that God's promises of spiritual maturity to those who sincerely seek him are false, otherwise, you'd be forced to take the bigoted position that if any Christian is hypocritical in some way, this is because they aren't truly born again, or they aren't sufficiently sincere toward god. Under that logic, you'd have to accuse Paul of lacking salvation or sincerety since he confessed to having a "thorn in the flesh".</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Christianity is too exclusive </span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">That's a moral criticizm of fundamentalism. And Frank Turek says everybody gets their moral sense from god, so, what would be unreasonable in saying "Christianity is too exlcusive" seems true to a lot of people because that is precisely what god is telling them?</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">God doesn't show himself enough </span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">The more refined version of the argument is that if God had anywhere near the level of concern to save me as is manifested by fundamentalist evangelists, he would NOT stay "hidden" behind this "bible is historically reliable" dogshit anymore than he would have stayed silent toward Saul and expected that Pharisaic fool to recognize the need to exegete the OT in Christ-o-centric fashion. You have your "god's ways are mysterious" trifle, but your error is in assuming that because that excuse makes YOU reasonable, it must create the logical consequence of causing those who disagree with you to become unreasonable. Reasonableness doesn't work the way accuracy does, therefore reasonableness for you doesn't dictate the limits of reasonableness for somebody else...especially if we move beyond banal modern daily life into esoteric bullshit like 3,000 year old theology. Otherwise, you could just as easily characterize the Christians who doctrinally differ from you as being "unreasonable", and there you go: you become a bigot again, and the way your brain fizzes dictates what reality says to the brains of other people. You either become a bigot, or it can possibly be reasonable to disagree with your views about theology.</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">The Bible doesn't recognize LGBTQ+ rights</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">because when the bible books were being formed, maintaining family was paramount...and that could never have been done if half the Jews were gay. In the ancient world, gay means to disappear from the gene-pool, thus apparently nature has determined that gay is no good. The fact that modern technology enables gays to thwart nature without nature's effects (to always avoid heterosexual intercourse is to disappear from the genepool) no more justifies fags than would the argument that says modern technology enables pedophiles to thwart nature without experiencing nature's intended effects (the adults in the village seeking to kill him). Gays need to learn: we can tell what would count as "defect" in the human population. Since heterosexuality is and always has been normative, gay becomes the defect no less than does the hermaphrodite. My own opinion is that modern society would have a lot less sexual sin if it never created ways to thwart nature. If you always see naked women from childhood, you tend not to lust, and ancient American indians were noted by white explorers for lacking lust. If we never enabled birth control, we'd refrain from sexual intercourse unless we intended to produce children. Modern society's clever ways at helping people avoid the consequences that naturally came with sexual activity is precisely why most people think it is ok to constantly lust and constantly use sex to sell ads.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">There's no evidence for God </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>that's true, but I prefer to instead ask how "god" could possibly matter, given that no Christian apologist has any better than a snowball's chance in hell of showing that something in the bible "applies to us today". Thus, denying the 'truth' about god appears to be about as unacceptably dangerous as denying the existence of a jelly-stain in a landfill. God's existence cannot be argued to be a danger to those who knowingly reject the true gospel, so why should anybody worry that denying god is to deny truth, any more than they would worry that denying the existence of frozen methane on Pluto is to deny truth? If denial of a truth cannot be shown to make the least bit of difference, why should the denier </span><i>care? </i><span>Bigoted idiot apologists will say "because smart people care about truth", but it could just as easily be argued that it is only a stupid person who decides to believe the "gospel", join some "church", and therefore invite into their lives a shitload of extra bickering that they don't really need. The person who never gets married thinks missing out on "love" is better than to have loved and lost. The person who never bothers believing in "god" thinks missing out on such an esoteric controversial thing is better than getting caught up in heresies, church splits, apologetics disputes and moralizing crap that always seems to accompany conversion to theism.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">PLUS— Hear testimonies from three people whose lives have been transformed by the Holy Spirit through the work we do here at Cross Examined!</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then go to the nearest Mormon church to hear the same thing!</span></p><div><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then go to the nearest JW church to hear the same thing!</span></p></div><div><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then go to the nearest KJV Only church to hear the same thing!</span></p></div><div><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then go to the nearest Cessationist church to hear the same thing!</span></p></div><div><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then go to the nearest Pentecostal church to hear the same thing!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then go to the nearest Calvinist church to hear the same thing!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then go to the nearest Catholic church to hear the same thing!</span></p></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote>As you listen to these amazing stories, we hope you will prayerfully consider donating to the ministry so we can effectively reach even more people with the truth in 2023.</blockquote></span></div><p><span style="font-size: large;">Because as we all know, the Holy Spirit never activates unless people give their money.</span></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-69823470074424123332022-10-11T18:29:00.003-07:002022-10-11T18:30:44.576-07:00My Second Reply to Jonathan McLatchie on ECREE<i><b>This is my reply to an article by Jonathan McLatchie entitled</b></i><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/extraordinary-claims-and-evidence-a-review-of-jonathan-pearces-book-on-the-resurrection-part-1/" target="_blank">Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? </a></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/extraordinary-claims-and-evidence-a-review-of-jonathan-pearces-book-on-the-resurrection-part-1/" target="_blank">Assessing Carl Sagan’s Dictum November 13, 2020</a></b></div><div><blockquote><br />A popular slogan among many contemporary atheists is that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. The slogan itself goes back to the late astronomer Carl Sagan [1], though similar ideas were expressed by David Hume, who wrote “that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish.” [2] Indeed, so confident was David Hume about this principle that he said, humble man that he was, “I flatter myself that I have discovered an argument…which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” [3]<br /></blockquote><p>So far, so good. </p><blockquote>This principle has led many skeptics to push the bar of demonstration so unreasonably high that it cannot possibly be cleared by any amount of testimonial evidence. And atheists seldom attempt to define what precisely is meant by “extraordinary”, or what sort of evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate an extraordinary event. As such, it has become a lazy excuse of many atheists for not dealing with the evidence for miraculous events such as the resurrection, but instead to dismiss it by appeal to Sagan’s dictum or to David Hume’s treatise against miracles (which the skeptic has seldom read for himself). </blockquote><p>That's true to a large extent, but the reader should remember that when you refute the lazy incorrect atheist for their employment of ECREE, you are NOT refuting the intellectually superior atheists, like me, who have <i>responsibly</i> and <i>fairly </i>defined ECREE. Your winning a debate against a lazy atheist is akin to me winning a debate against a snake-handling Pentecostal. Gee, is that progress or what?</p><blockquote>In this article, I will argue that the dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the philosophy of David Hume that it encapsulates, are fundamentally wrong-headed.<br /></blockquote><p>Fallacy of guilty by association. First, lazy atheists are not authoritative sources for fair definitions of ECREE. Second, you condemn yourself by accusing ECREE of being wrong-headed, since you employ it against every miracle claim you evaluate. But the reason you overlooked that was because you chose to base ECREE in how lazy atheists define it. When it is defined fairly and objectively, it merely described how most people, including Christians react to extraordinary news the first time they hear it. </p><blockquote>Signs and the Order of Nature<br />What is the stated purpose of miracles in religious contexts? According to Scripture, miracles function as signs that authenticate the message of the person performing them. </blockquote><p>Do you seriously expect the atheist or skeptic to respect a 'scriptural' description of the purpose of a miracle? By appeal to "scripture", a smart guy like you surely realizes he is no longer foisting an intellectual obligation on skeptics, he is merely preaching to the choir. </p><blockquote>For example, when Jesus is asked by disciples of John the Baptist whether He is the Messiah, or whether they should be waiting for another, Jesus replies, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me,” (Mt 11:4-6). In other words, Jesus’ miracles were signs that authenticated His message. </blockquote><p>If the signs are intended to authenticate the message, then why shouldn't we infer from your belief that some Roman Catholic miracle claims are true, that that Roman Catholic message (i.e., Catholic theology) is true? And yet the bible is not consistent about the purpose of miracles, because in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 God admits that if a false prophet does a genuinely supernatural miracle, this is not to confirm his theology, this is God using the false prophet to "test Israel". </p><blockquote>The gospel of John refers to Jesus’ miracles as “signs.” </blockquote><p>Correct. And it also blindly leaps from Jesus performing a sign, to Jesus being the true messiah. John was apparently blind to the grim possibility that God will enable a false prophet's predictions to come true in a supernatural way because God is testing Israel. </p><blockquote>Towards the conclusion of his gospel, John writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name,” (Jn 20:30-31). <br />If the purpose of miracles in religious contexts, therefore, is to function as signs, then they have to take place against the backdrop of a stable, uniform, natural order, since it is by contrast with a stable, uniform, natural order that miracles are able to serve as signs. </blockquote><p>Fair enough. </p><blockquote>Consider, for instance, the relevance of the abnormal character of the resurrection to the epistemic value of Jesus being raised from the dead. If people were routinely rising from the dead then the resurrection of Jesus would lose its epistemic value, since it would not be an event that could be distinguished from the way that nature normally operates. It is precisely because it is unique, and is an interruption of the regularities of nature that we can appeal to the resurrection as God’s vindication of the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah and Savior of the world. </blockquote><p>It doesn't matter if that is true, you are still leaping too quickly from "Jesus performed a genuinely supernatural miracle" over to "surely God approved of Jesus' theology", and in doing so you defy Deuteronomy 13:1-5. You also defy plenty of other bible passages indicating God allows the devil to perform genuinely supernatural feats for the purpose of deception. </p><blockquote>Thus, since miraculous signs require that there be a stable natural order, the existence of such a stable natural order cannot be taken as an argument against the occurrence of miracles in religious contexts. </blockquote><p>Then you'll be having lots of trouble with me. I'm not one of those skeptics who blindly follow Hume into his "miracles are impossible" errors. I allow for the possibility of miracles. The way I stab apologetics in the heart is by asking the apologist to produce the one miracle claim they feel is most impervious to a naturalistic interpretation. I issued that challenge to Craig Keener years ago, and for reasons that should be clear from my challenge, he did not dare respond. See <a href="https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/12/my-questions-to-dr-craig-keener.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><blockquote>This point was first raised in response to David Hume by William Adams, who wrote that “An experienced uniformity in the course of nature hath always thought necessary to the belief and use of miracles. These are indeed relative ideas. There must be an ordinary regular course of nature, before there can be any thing extraordinary. A river must flow, before its stream can be interrupted.” [4] Philosopher <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH11Ur8cjwM">Dr. Tim McGrew, of Western Michigan University, concurs</a>: “The fact that in our ordinary experience dead men stay dead </blockquote><p>Apparently Dr. McGrew has fallen into Humes error too: How does McGrew know that dead people staying dead is the "ordinary experience" of other people? Isn't that equally as fallacious as the atheist view that says nobody else has experienced a miracle?</p><blockquote>cannot be a significant piece of evidence against the resurrection considered as a miraculous sign — that is, it will not do the work that Hume wants it to do in the very sort of religious context where he is most implacably skeptical.” [5]<br />Can Testimony Ever Be Sufficient to Establish a Miracle?<br /></blockquote><p>Not if a) the bible has god warning people of divine wrath against heresy, and b) the unbeliever in question is so worried about imperfect people leading her into heresy and thus into hell that she refuses to allow any imperfect person to guide her thinking about biblical miracle claims. What are you gonna do now? Chortle that she "should" be willing to increase the risk of heresy by allowing imperfect and possibly heretical Christians to influence how she processes miracle claims? Until the day you show that biblical warnings of divine wrath against heresy are god's way of "just kidding", you cannot fault this unbeliever for noticing that most hell-bound heresy has come from imperfect Christians, and choosing to exclude imperfect people from those whom she will allow to teach her about "truth".</p><blockquote>It may be admitted that miraculous events do require more evidence to establish them than do mundane events, since the prior probability (that is, their probability given the background information) is lower than for mundane events. I shall return later to why miraculous claims are rightly treated differently from mundane ones. However, I shall note here that any proposition with a non-zero prior probability can, in principle, be demonstrated with sufficient evidence. The eighteenth century British Bishop Thomas Sherlock wrote concerning the resurrection, “I do allow that this case, and others of like nature, require more evidence to give them credit than ordinary cases do. You may therefore require more evidence in these than in other cases; but it is absurd to say that such cases admit no evidence, when the things in question are quite manifestly objects of sense.” [6]<br /></blockquote><p>What you aren't telling the reader is why there are apparently no rules of historiography, evidence, hermeneutics or common sense that enable two equally mature educated adults to resolve their disagreement on which evidence to credit and which to disregard. The truth is that no such rules exist. If a skeptic says his standard of evidence for Jesus' resurrection-miracle is a personal vision straight from god, you could not possibly get near "showing" that his standard of evidence for theological claims is "too high". It is only rational for him to fear the bible-god's thunderings against Christians who teach heresy, and to therefore take extreme measures to ensure he doesn't end up in eternal misery, or that nasty surprise Jesus said would be endured in judgment by those who in this world called Jesus "Lord, Lord." Matthew 7:22-23. Of course, there is no god, spirit, devil or supernatural. But so long as you insist on using the bible, you become sandbagged by the bible's unrealistically conspiratorial views. If things really are as bad and deceptive as the bible says, you can hardly blame anybody for refusing to trust imperfect sinners on critical theological matters which allegedly have potential to land a person in eternal misery.</p><blockquote>In 2000, philosopher John Earman, himself a religious agnostic, published a book by the provocative title Hume’s Abject Failure — The Argument Against Miracles. [7] Earman cites the nineteenth century philosopher and mathematician Charles Babbage, who wrote that “if independent witnesses can be found, who speak the truth more frequently than falsehood, it is ALWAYS possible to assign a number of independent witnesses, the improbability of the falsehood of whose concurring testimonies shall be greater than that of the improbability of the miracle itself,” [8]</blockquote><p>What he didn't account for is that liars <i>who want their lie to successfully deceive others</i>, have just as much interest as honest authors in surrounding their main contentions with nuggets of historical truth. YOU will say if the parts of the author's testimony that can be checked turn out to be true, we should trust the parts of his testimony that cannot be checked. But I would more objectively insist that if the parts of the witnesses testimony that can be checked turn out to be true, that's not enough for us to decide whether he is including truthful details because he is generally honest, or if he is including truthful details to make his lie "ring true".</p><p>What do you suppose would happen to the American justice system if it adopted a new pattern jury instruction saying "If you find that the parts of the criminal Defendant's testimony that can be checked turn out to be true, you should believe as true also the parts of his or her testimony that cannot be checked"? </p><blockquote> Thus, Hume’s so-called “everlasting check” fails, since a cumulative case can, in principle, be adequate to overcome the intrinsic improbability of a miracle, thereby being sufficient to warrant belief. </blockquote><p>It doesn't matter if that is true, "sufficient to warrant belief" does not automatically necessitate "sufficient to condemn unbelief". And in my brand of skepticism, I don't say belief in Jesus' resurrection is unwarranted. I say instead that rejecting the resurrection testimony is warranted. Contrary to popular belief, your personal opinion on when evidence reaches a minimal state of quality/quantity so as to justify trust, does not impose any obligation upon another person to change their evidentiary standards and suddenly start agreeing with you on what evidence seems to be the most convincing. </p><blockquote>Typically, when an atheist states that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, they have in mind a single spectacular piece of evidence that is sufficient to overcome the intrinsic improbability of the miracle itself. However, what can be accomplished by a single spectacular piece of evidence can, in principle, also be achieved by numerous pieces of less spectacular evidence, perhaps none of which individually is of particularly great weight but collectively is equivalent in weight to a single piece of spectacular evidence.<br /></blockquote><p>And what if the identity of the witnesses was equally as disputed among the common people as often as Christian scholars disagree with each other on the identities of the gospel authors? Or did I inspire you, just now, to write a book entitled "<i>How To Know Whether An Unidentifiable Witness Is Telling the Truth?</i></p><p>Your chosen word "overcome" falsifies your entire spiel: you speak as if what one <i>should </i>ultimately do with a given piece of evidence is governed by some established rule of evidence or historiography, meaning you think it can be made clear when a person's choice to disregard some bit of evidence has "violated" any such rule. Such a rule doesn't exist. Again, it's why equally educated adult jurors often become deadlocked, and disagree on which evidence should be credited or disregarded. No, a deadlock does not necessarily mean one of the jurors is being unreasonable. If you know of any rule that will enable reasonable people to agree on whether to credit or disregard some bit of testimony, why don't you notify the American Court system, so judges can incorporate it into their Rules of Evidence, and you rid the world of deadlocked juries forever?</p><blockquote>The Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed, himself an outspoken atheist, has sought to meet the challenge of Earman and Babbage to Hume by arguing that the presumption of independence is often false. [9] For example, in the case of a stage illusion or trick, given that at least one person has been fooled, the probability that many other people will be fooled as well is significantly increased. Thus, successive pieces of evidence fail to add significant force to the case that a true miracle was observed. Tim McGrew <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH11Ur8cjwM">responds to this point</a> by noting that “The cumulative testimonial evidence might have a theoretical limit to its force, but it might not. Without further information about the specific case in question, we cannot say anything more. Everything depends on the details,” [10]. McGrew further observes concerning the claimed resurrection of Jesus, “The witnesses are not all confined to one vantage point, as they were in the case of the stage magician. </blockquote><p>Does that help or hinder the case for Jesus, who often did "miracles" for "large crowds" (i.e., people who were confined to a single vantage point)?</p><p>Regardless, the NT often says resurrection witnesses were confined to a single vantage point. Matthew 28:16-17, Luke 24:31, 37, John 20:20, 26, 30, 21:5, 1st Cor. 15:6. </p><blockquote>If they agree, it is much more difficult to find a single simple explanation for how they could all have been fooled. </blockquote><p>Wow, I didn't know that you found it difficult to find a single explanation for how the attendees of a Benny Hinn Crusade could have all been fooled. The same with large groups being fooled by Peter Popoff and other faith-healers.</p><blockquote>Their testimonies are not bare assertions that the event in question happened.</blockquote><p>You are assuming it was a plural "they" who gave the testimony we read today. Not at all. Generously assuming for the sake of argument the NT provides 20 separate resurrection eyewitness reports, that still leaves 480 others (1st Cor. 15:6) whose testimony we don't have. Worse, Luke apparently didn't find that any preaching activity of the 82 apostles (12 + 70) was important enough to significantly document the way he does for Paul. We are going to be reasonable, despite possible trifles otherwise, to conclude that the reason we have nearly nothing from biblical history about the vast majority of the original witnesses is because they didn't do anything indicating they experienced a radical transformation. </p><blockquote> They may include details that interlock with details in other testimonies in ways that increase their credibility.” [11]<br />The Problem of Defining “Extraordinary”<br />Tim McGrew has dubbed this slogan that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” the Argumentum Sagani in honor of Carl Sagan [12]. In his presentations on the subject, he parodies the argument as follows (though he notes that this parody is not original with him):<br /><br />1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.<br /><br />2. The claim that a miracle has occurred is extraordinary.<br /><br />Therefore,<br /><br />3. Any evidence supporting it ought to be extraordinary as well.<br /><br />4. I am not sure what I mean by “extraordinary.”<br /><br />5. But whatever you come up with, it’s not going to work.<br /><br />Therefore,<br /><br />6. No one is justified in believing any miracle claim.<br /><br />The problem with the word “extraordinary” here is that it is rarely clearly defined. </blockquote><p>Which means the problems for you start when you encounter an intellectually superior atheist who DOES clearly define ECREE. To fairly and objectively define the "extraordinary" just take the phrase at issue:</p><p></p><blockquote>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence</blockquote><p></p><p>and replace "extraordinary" with its dictionary definition (I use Merrian-Webster), and we get:</p><p></p><blockquote>Claims which <i>go beyond what is usual, regular, or customary, or are exceptional to a very marked extent</i>, require evidence which <i>goes beyond what is usual, regular, or customary, or else is exceptional to a very marked extent.</i></blockquote><p></p><p>Yes, what constitutes "beyond the usual" or "beyond the customary" involves inevitable subjectivity, but that only bolsters the skeptic's case, since the subjectivity, being necessary, cannot possibly be overcome, and presto, we land right back in typical daily reality...where equally educated adults often reach a point where their disagreement on what to do with a piece of evidence, is not governed by any "rule". Therefore, what the skeptic is doing with the evidence cannot "violate" any such rule, and therefore, any accusation that what the skeptic did with the evidence was "unreasonable" cannot be objectively grounded. It bears repeating: You apologists constantly pretend as if a careful application of the rules of historiography would bring to light which assessment of the evidence is "most probable" and which assessment is "less probable", when in fact no historian on the face of the earth will tell you the rules of historiography are capable of resolving disputes between laypeople anymore than such rules are capable of resolving disputes between historians. </p><blockquote>The mantra that I would adopt instead is that all claims require sufficient evidence. What counts as sufficient evidence will depend upon the relevant prior probability. </blockquote><p>Which doesn't mean much since historians, Christians and philosophers disagree with each other constantly on whether some bit of evidence is "sufficient" rendering reasonable the reader who concludes that at the end of the day, such disputes are much ado about nothing, otherwise, the experts would not maintain disagreement for so long. Lots of smart people know Bayesian probability theory, yet they also disagree with each other about what degree of probability such calculus yields for Jesus' resurrection. </p><blockquote>And, indeed, the only relevance that the fact that a given event is supernatural has epistemically is that it suppresses the prior. However, even prior probabilities that are extremely small (but non-zero) can, in principle, be overcome if adequate evidence is forthcoming. </blockquote><p>I can grant that for the sake of argument, but that will never help you, as no such evidence has ever been "adequate", probably because, again, the rules of historiography are not nuanced enough to justify pretending that they can reveal which hypothesis has greater probability, at least not in situations where the evidence is both ancient and ambiguous and sourced in authors of disputed identities.</p><blockquote>This failure on the part of atheists to define what they mean by “extraordinary” in this context leads to them setting the bar of evidence so unreasonably high that the burden of proof cannot possibly be met.</blockquote><p>So quit playing in the sandbox and get out here in the trenches, where the atheists fairly define ECREE.</p><blockquote>What is the problem with the word “extraordinary”?</blockquote><p>Nothing, once it is replaced by its dictionary definition. </p><blockquote> If by that word we simply mean an event that is highly improbable or unique, then any event can be defined with sufficient specificity to meet that criteria. For example, consider Joe’s marriage to Sally. Joe being married to someone with the specific traits and characteristics of Sally is enormously improbable — especially when one considers the numerous other couples who had to meet, and the specific sperm cells that had to meet specific egg cells, all the way back to the dawn of humanity, in order for Joe and Sally to both be living at the same time. And yet Joe would be able to offer sufficient evidence that he is in fact married to Sally – adequate evidence to overcome a low prior probability. </blockquote><p>That's nothing new. I already admit that ECREE includes subjective elements. One them is the point at which a person "should" classify a claim as "extraordinary". Your problem is not with the atheist but with ECREE being a mere rule of thumb and thus offering something less than absolute certainty. </p><blockquote>Is the fact that Joe married Sally an extraordinary event? Well, it depends on what you mean by “extraordinary.”<br /></blockquote><p>Exactly. I don't find two particular people getting married to each other to be "extraordinary" because under that logic, every interaction of persons and objects would qualify as extraordinary, and if we are to have a sensible disussion, we have to come to terms on what kinds of events are non-extraordinary.</p><blockquote>The point I am trying to make here is that you cannot simply define an extraordinary event as an occurrence that is highly improbable or unique (i.e. that it is something that lies outside of what normally happens), since that takes us into the realm where we can show that lots of events are very improbable or unique, if they are defined with enough specificity. </blockquote><p>That's not a flaw in ECREE, that merely ECREE's unavoidable subjectivity.</p><blockquote>Instead, the argument here is going to need to be more sophisticated. So, let me try to steel man the atheist’s argument and formalize why we tend to treat the resurrection differently from how we would treat the case of Joe marrying Sally.<br /></blockquote><p>Your geekiness is blinding me. We treat Jesus resurrection differently from daily marriages for the same reason we treat alien abduction stories differently from claims about heavy traffic.</p><blockquote>Why Do We Treat a Miracle Claim as Different from a Mundane Claim?<br />Why, then, do we treat a miracle claim, like “Jesus rose from the dead”, differently from how we might treat a more mundane claim, like “Joe married Sally”?</blockquote><p>Because we rightly fear that if we start believing Jesus rose from the dead, we may end up in a "cult" promoting "heresy", and we are aware that the bible-god strongly condemns heretics. Once again, unles you claim those parts of the bible are "just kidding" you cannot blame an unbeliever for taking exteme measures to make sure she doesn't make her eternal resting place more miserable than it needs to be. One such measure is consistent with the NT; not letting anybody teach her anything about the NT except the Christian teacher who possesses the same level of infallibility as the original apostles allegedly did after Acts 2. Sure, you will balk because you know you cannot satisfy that high standard. But inability to meet the standard doesn't mean the standard is too high. It may just as easily imply that your evidence is insufficient to demonstrate which viewpoint is most reasonable. </p><blockquote> Clearly, it is not that the former is more improbable than the latter, or that the former is a very unique or an unprecedented event, since mundane claims, like “Joe married Sally”, can be defined with enough specificity to make them highly improbable, unique and unprecedented events as well. Obviously, the very same problem would be encountered if Joe had married any other woman, and so this consideration may be ‘cancelled out’. This is equally true of a lottery. The lottery being won by any given individual is extremely improbable. But since this is equally true of all participants in the lottery, we can ‘cancel’ that consideration. On the other hand, suppose that someone wins the lottery who happens to be the spouse or son or a close friend of the person running the lottery. In that case, we get more suspicious because that can be thought of as more probable on an alternative hypothesis than that of chance coincidence. Notice here that we do not get suspicious simply because something extremely improbable has happened — because this individual winning the lottery is no more improbable than any other individual selected at random winning it. Rather, we get suspicious because we consider that this particular individual winning the lottery is more expected (more probable) if something suspicious has happened than it is on the hypothesis of chance.<br /></blockquote><p>What you carefully avoided saying was "we get suspicious because for a relative of a Lottery-office worker to win the Lottery increases the likelihood that there was collusion." But you didn't want to say that because you think Matthew and John were close with Jesus, and your logic could then be used by a skeptic to justify the theory that these close associates, like Benny Hinn and his body guards, agreed to deceive others. </p><blockquote>This is a good parallel for how the skeptic thinks about a miracle report such as the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. </blockquote><p>No it isn't. We can easily verify that others have won lotteries. We have never verified that anybody ever rose from the dead. The problem of improbability in jesus rising from the dead is orders of magnitude larger than the problem of improbability of somebody somewhere winning a lottery.</p><blockquote>Just like the hypothesis of fraud picks out the lottery example for special suspicion, so in this case, the skeptic argues, the hypothesis of hallucination or deceit picks out the resurrection reports for special suspicion. </blockquote><p>Put me down for "vision later embellished into physical sightings of a bodily risen Jesus". </p><blockquote>But note that this is not based on a purely inductive approach that argues that the event of the resurrection or of the suspicious lottery win is improbable by itself (because of the problem I raised above). Instead, the argument ought to be something to the effect that in the past we have found such claims to be more explicable by way of alternative hypotheses, so most likely this one is too. This then moves us into a discussion of alternative explanations of the evidence under consideration and whether those explanations are reasonable.<br /></blockquote><p>Correct, except that by the word "moves" you fallaciously assume that upon arriving at that point, the skeptic is under some type of compulsion to provide the alternative theory or admit unreasonableness. He isn't. I can be reasonable to deny the hypothesis that space aliens created the Bermuda Triangle, even if I don't know how to explain the allegation that ships and planes disappear in that area than in any other.</p><blockquote>Further Problems With Inductive Assessments of the Prior Probability of Miracles<br />Another point that is worth bearing in mind is that it, if the prior probability of miraculous events is judged in purely inductive terms, Christians and skeptics are likely going to disagree about the priors anyway. The atheist presumably would take every miraculous report from the Old and New Testaments as another example of a failed miracle report, adding it to his case against miracles, whereas the Christian beliefs that those miracles in fact took place. Thus, simply putting the resurrection into the reference class of “alleged miracles” and then asking for a purely inductive prior probability of its occurrence is quite unhelpful. In fact, the atheist’s attribution of those miracle accounts to naturalistic causes is itself in significant measure a consequence of his non-empirical metaphysical judgments.<br /></blockquote><p>Should I believe god is protecting me, while I write this, from going to hell? If not, what would God rather have me do, and does the NT support the modern Christian desire to engage in scholarly questions of sources and methodology? Or are you slightly worreid that the detailed trifling detailed way modern day apologists obey Jude 3 was never intended by the NT authors? When you read the NT, do you come away with the feeling that God wants unbelievers to purchase apologetics books and comprehensively examine the arguments therein? No, you don't.</p><blockquote>It is hardly as though there are millions upon millions of other cases where a miracle was reported and the skeptic, having thoroughly investigated each claim, has found compelling empirical evidence for their falsity. This is why the appeal of David Hume to the uniform testimony of mankind against miracles is wrong-headed. </blockquote><p>It's also wrongheaded to go chasing after a miracle-claim that has a demonstrable history of enticing the investigators into adopting a heretical form of Christianity. </p><blockquote>Indeed, there are many miracle reports in existence. Craig Keener has documented many examples in his two volume set on miracles [13]. </blockquote><p>He has also refused my challenge to give me the evidence for the one he thinks most impervious to falsification. </p><blockquote>Thus, as far as that is concerned, Hume is simply wrong. Human experience is not at all uniform on this matter.</blockquote><p>Now YOU are making the same mistake. You don't know that human experience "is not at all uniform on this matter". All you know is that many people claim miracle-experiences. Which of them are being truthful, deceptive or mistaken, you really can't say. </p><p>And you neglect to mention the benefits of miracle apathy: how many Christian churches, which you think are "heretical", did an unbeliever safely steer clear of, by not caring about Jesus' resurrection? Is it morally good or morally bad when an unbeliever refuses to attend a heretical church?</p><p>You will likely respond "but look at the benefits the unbeliever lost by being disinterested in miracles!"</p><p>Unfortunately for you, you will never be demonstrating that theological benefits, because the Christian churches disagree with each other on what the relevant NT passages mean. The only "benefit" to miracle-investigation is you might end up adopting certain beliefs that open the door for for you to join some church, which in this world is a source of social stability. </p><blockquote>In fact, Hume’s whole argument here is circular, since in order to argue that the uniform experience of man precludes miraculous events, he has to dismiss the numerous reports of such miracles as false – the very point he is endeavoring to establish.<br /></blockquote><p>No, he only has to show that his <i>belief </i>that they are false, is reasonable. He doesn't have to show that they are actually false. No historian would say that claims based on nothing but testimony can be positively falsified by outsiders. When we assert some miracle claim is false, that's a probability judgment, not an absolute claim.</p><blockquote>In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, what is the relevant background information, which will inform our assessment of the prior probability?</blockquote><p>How many times have you seen the tooth-fairy leave money under somebody's pillow? If never, does that establish a prior probability?</p><blockquote> We have strong independent reason to think God exists </blockquote><p>No, the strongest rebuttals to theism are a) the arguments that god-talk is ultimately meaningless, b) godtalk is essentially ad hoc by necessity, and c) there is no "rule" requiring people to "care" about higher authorities who have a consistent track record of refusing to respond to their most devoted followers.</p><blockquote>and that He sometimes performs miracles.</blockquote><p>So provide me all the evidence in favor of the one miracle you think most clearly resists all purely naturalistic interpretations, and lets get started.</p><blockquote>However, God doesn’t appear to perform those miracles particularly frequently, so they do fall into a reference class that is rather special on the basis of considerations such as God’s wanting to reserve them for special occasions so that they can be recognized as a sign against the background of a regular natural order. </blockquote><p>And here you completely forget that your bible says god may sometimes do a real miracle at the hands of a false prophet merely to "test Israel". Does Deuteronomy 13 "apply to us today"? what dispensationalism materials does god want me to study, and how long will he expect me to study before he expects me to correctly discern which camp is right about how the OT "applies to us today"? If you don't know, you forfeit the right to balk if I answer that question for myself in a way you don't like. If then I decide God will give me 25 years to study that convoluted mess of theological nothingness call "dispensationalism", you are deprived of any justification for screaming "behold now is the day of salvation!". I can thus justify rejecting the gospel for the next 25 years. </p><blockquote>However, this implies a much higher prior than the prior assigned by the skeptic, even before we factor in other considerations that could raise the prior probability in Jesus’ particular case. It is to these other considerations that I now turn.<br />The Relevance of Religio-Historical Context to Estimating the Prior<br />For the reasons expressed above, I think that a purely inductive or frequentist approach to estimating the prior probability of the resurrection of Jesus is mistaken.</blockquote><p>Why? What "rule" does the frequentist violate? </p><blockquote> The prior probability, I would suggest, can instead be raised by (a) pointing to the independent evidence from natural theology that God exists (if there is independent demonstration that there is a God who could perform the miracle, then this increases the prior probability of Him actually performing a miracle at least somewhat);</blockquote><p>Fat chance. godtalk is meaingless and is the most extreme example of the ad hoc fallacy.</p><blockquote> and (b) fleshing out, to borrow a phrase from William Lane Craig, the religio-historical context of the resurrection. </blockquote><p>So in the religio-historical context of modern Roman Catholic miracles, the miracles operate as they did for Jesus in the first-century: They do not merely prove the supernatural realm exists, they also "confirm the message". You will balk like crazy because you know you'll lose hard if you simply agree that genuinely supernatural miracles among Catholics today is divine conformation that their theology is approved by God. But from a purely objective standpoint, I don't think you can convincingly argue that God intends modern-day miracles to do anything less than what you think 1st century miracles were supposed to do: "confirm the message".</p><blockquote>By elaborating this religio-historical context, one can show that God plausibly might have motivation for raising Jesus of Nazareth specifically from the dead. </blockquote><p>But Jesus' family didn't think his miracles were real (Mark 3:21, 6:1-4, John 7:5), which argues that the miracles likely weren't real, which suggests God would not raise Jesus from the dead, because God would not want to premise His second covenant upon the words and works of somebody incapable of doing miracles. </p><blockquote>William Lane Craig notes, “A miracle without a context is inherently ambiguous. </blockquote><p>That doesn't mean God wouldn't do a miracle outside of a context. Maybe god operates in a way that creates intolerable ambiguities for Christian apologists. </p><blockquote>But if a purported miracle occurs in a significant religio-historical context, then the chances of its being a genuine miracle are increased. </blockquote><p>But only if you assume God is the sort of God who cares about establishing a religio-historical context.</p><p>And under your reasoning as adopted from W.L.Craig, supra, the medieval Christian miracle stories are flooded with religio-historical context, therefore the chances of those being genuine miracles are increased. So, Mr. McLatchie, how many medieval Christian miracle stories do you believe are true? </p><blockquote>For example, if the miracles occur at a momentous time (say, a man’s leprosy vanishing when Jesus speaks the words, ‘Be clean!’) and do not recur regularly in history, and if the miracles are numerous and various, then the chances of their being the result of some unknown natural causes are reduced. In Jesus’ case, moreover, his miracles and resurrection ostensibly took place in the context of and as the climax to his own unparalleled life and teachings and produced so profound an effect on his followers that they worshiped him as Lord.” [14]<br /></blockquote><p>Now you are preaching to the choir with your presupposition that such gospel details are true, when in fact there are objective justifications to hold that the gospels at best are mere legends and embellishments around several nuggets of historical truth. If in this article I don't supply examples, it is because the greater purpose is to provide point-to-point rebuttal. How much or how little I "should" support my own claims in this context is nobody's preorgative but mine. Otherwise, I'd have to write 90,000 pages of detail to make sure I satisfy all internet fuckups who think god imparted to them the spiritual gift of nitpicking.</p><blockquote>How can this religio-historical context be elaborated in an objective way?</blockquote><p>You will never show that unbelievers ever "should" care. </p><blockquote> I would point here to instances in the gospels of what I call Messianic convergence. That is, instances in the gospel accounts where an episode in Jesus’ life intersects in some striking way with the Old Testament Scriptures but which also enjoys strong historical support. This is best explained by giving examples, so I will give a few here.<br />The evidence is compelling that Jesus died on the Day of Passover, the 15th of Nisan. I won’t get into the details here of how we know the gospels are historically reliable on this detail, since I only wish to illustrate the principle. Given the theological theme in the New Testament of Jesus being the fulfillment of the Passover lamb (e.g. 1 Cor 5:7), this is quite striking. This is not by any means a conclusive proof that Christianity is true, but that striking correspondence does seem to be somewhat more probable on the hypothesis that Christianity is true than on the falsehood of that hypothesis, and may therefore be counted as evidence (not proof) that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. I suggest that a Bayes factor of 10 (meaning it is 10 times more likely on the hypothesis of Christianity than on its falsehood), though admittedly somewhat subjective, is a fairly conservative estimate.<br /></blockquote><p>But you don't know whether the gospels are reportng the date of Jesus' death accurately, and other Christian apologists like Mike Licona are apparently convinced that the gospel authors felt free to narrate facts in a manner other than as they actually happened. Sorry, but if it be reasonable to date the gospels roughly around 70 a.d., that gives their authors 35 years to contemplate the theological implications of Jesus' death, and the temptation to portray Jesus falsely as if he knew he was supposed to die, must have been irresistible for gospel authors who think Jesus is this wonderfully exalted being.</p><blockquote>This argument may be developed as a cumulative case. In previous articles (<a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/undesigned-coincidences-in-the-scriptures-an-argument-for-their-veracity-part-2-new-testament-examples/">e.g. here</a>), I have discussed the undesigned coincidence that corroborates John’s statement that Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover, on the week leading up to His death, which would correspond to the 10th day of the month of Nisan (Jn 12:12).</blockquote><p>Why would it matter if it was a historical fact? Even assuming Christianity is true, that does nothing to smooth over the real world experience of many Christians that God seems to be so apathetic that they have trouble distinguishing him from a non-existent god. An intelligent mammal is always stupid to just keep pestering some higher-order being after it becomes clear that the higher-order being is either not home, or is not interested. Yes, there comes a point when "God's delays are not God's denials" has worn too thin and has lost its force. But to answer more directly, a skeptic could be just as reasonable as you, to explain this as Jesus recognizing at some point he would be executed, and so he engaged in actions that he thought consistent with his interpretation of OT passages he viewed as messianic. Then the gospel authors came along later and realized the benefit of subtlety: stories that have Jesus exactly mirroring messianic expectations would appear equally as transparently fabricated as stories about how the child Jesus manifested both childish and divine traits, but stories that have Jesus "fulfilling" some messianic expectation more indirectly would be slightly more believable. And let's not forget that Jesus was also a mystic, which explains why there is so much fortune cookie bullshit to gospel theology.</p><blockquote> It turns out that the instructions given in Exodus 12 regarding the Passover stipulated that on the 10th of Nisan the Jews were to select their Passover lamb and bring it into their homes (verse 3). Isn’t it striking, then, that Jesus’ death on the Day of Passover just so happened to be the same year that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the 10th day of Nisan?<br /></blockquote><p>No, the gospel authors are simply employing fiction to do what they do best, and make Jesus appear to be a fulfillment of several OT themes.</p><blockquote>Now, we need to be careful here since it may be pointed out that this coincidence is not wholly independent of the previous one, since Jesus coming into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 would not matter at all if it weren’t for the fact that he then died subsequently at least around that time. If we take his entry into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 to be significant, we must be assuming that he died right around that time, which means that that one entails the other. The question we can ask, however, is how much additional evidence it provides that Jesus also entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10. Another factor for us to consider is that Passover is a particularly likely time for a Jew to enter Jerusalem and also a time when he could count on ministering to a large crowd of people who had made their pilgrimage to Judea for the feast. Even with a Bayes Factor of 2 (meaning that it is twice as likely on the hypothesis than on its falsehood), however, the overall cumulative Bayes factor doubles.<br /></blockquote><p>But in the real world 'god' appears absolutely uninterested in us. That is going to justify unbelievers to remain unbelievers, even if you can find 10 ancient authors to corroborate Jesus dying on Nisan 10.</p><blockquote>Another example is the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy of Micah 5:2. I realize that this proposition is controversial. However, I will not argue the case (which I think can be made strongly) for Jesus being born in Bethlehem in this article. Here, I only intend to show how in principle such evidences can be relevant to the prior probability of Jesus’ resurrection. To be conservative, I will assign a Bayes factor for Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem to 1000. This is a generous Bayes factor, since clearly much, much less than 1 out of every 1000 individuals that have been born since the time of Micah has been born in Bethlehem, and the probability of Jesus in fact being born in Bethlehem, on the hypothesis that He is indeed the Messiah (based on the prophecy of Micah 5:2), is very high (approaching 1).<br /></blockquote><p>You are correct to say it is controversial. Jesus never became a ruler, whic means you run back to your ad hoc fallacies, deny the plain meaning of "ruler in Israel", and assign it a mystical or "secondary" meaning to avoid admitting that Jesus didn't fulfill Micah 5:2.</p><blockquote>Another example is the fact that Christianity became the dominant international religion that it became. </blockquote><p>Which would never have happened without Constantine making Christianity the official Roman Empire religion, and in the process criminalizing the pagan religions. </p><blockquote>The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be the light to the gentiles, that God’s salvation might reach to the ends of the world (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). Jesus Himself, during His ministry, said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come,” (Mt 24:14). </blockquote><p>I take that to be Matthew putting phrases in Jesus' mouth which Jesus never said. That hypothesis does not break any "rule", except perhaps the "rule" of bible inerrancy. </p><blockquote>This entails that it is quite probable that, on the hypothesis that Jesus really is the Messiah, Christianity would bring people of all nations to a recognition of the God of Israel. However, this seems to be really quite improbable on the falsehood of that hypothesis. Until 313 A.D. (when the Edict of Milan, under the Emperor Constantine, guaranteed religious freedom and made Christianity legal), Christians endured intense persecution under multiple Roman Emperors. </blockquote><p>Not really. If the NT is reliable, the Romans would have known that what Christians believe has more to do with the hope of the hopeless and less to do with any serious threat to Rome. </p><blockquote>Under the circumstances, the odds of Christianity prevailing and becoming an international religion seemed vanishingly small, and yet it did.</blockquote><p>No it didn't. No version of Christianity today represents the version Jesus taught in Matthew. With few exceptions, all of modern Christianity espouses Paul, and for that reason, do not constitute Christianity.</p><blockquote>Again, then, we have a significantly top-heavy likelihood ratio where Christianity’s spread across the world is much, much more expected on the hypothesis of its truth than on its falsehood. I suggest that a Bayes Factor of 1000 is reasonable for this one.<br /></blockquote><p>All you need to account for Christianity's spread is a death-cult that aggressively seeks proselytes between the 1st and 4th centuries when joining a new cult came with the obvious benefits of humanitarian aid to those in need.</p><blockquote>If my assigned estimated Bayes Factors for the above four examples are reasonable, then our cumulative Bayes Factor is already 20,000,000 (meaning, our evidence is 20 million times more likely if Jesus is the Messiah than if He isn’t). There is admittedly a certain degree of subjectivity involved in assigning those Bayes factors, but I have tried to be reasonable and conservative, and I am only attempting to show how the argument may be probabilistically modeled given certain sets of assumptions. Those were only four examples, and there are many more that I could provide. Cumulatively, I would argue, this sort of evidence leads one to think that God may plausibly have motivation for raising Jesus of Nazareth specifically from the dead as God’s vindication of Jesus’ claims, message, and teaching (certainly more so than if He were some obscure miscellaneous Joe Blow). This argument can be developed still further (for more examples, <a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/messianic-convergence-in-the-gospels-a-new-way-to-frame-the-argument-from-old-testament-fulfillment/">see my earlier article here</a>).<br /></blockquote><p>If Jesus' miracles vindicated his message, why are you so slow to conclude that the miracles done in Roman Catholicism vindicate Catholic theology? Does the bible say that miracles in the latter days will have a different purpose than they had for Jesus?</p><blockquote>Another consideration here is that the Old Testament predicts that the Messiah would be raised from the dead (Isa 53:10), </blockquote><p>Which view cannot be documented from anything in pre-Christian Judaism. </p><blockquote>and Jesus Himself claimed numerous times that His resurrection from the dead would be God’s vindication of His radical Messianic claims. For example, there is strong historical support for the veracity of Jesus’ statement in John 2:19 that He would “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (speaking of His body), though again I will not get into the details of the supporting evidence here. </blockquote><p>It doesn't matter if Jesus said it. his audience thought he was talking about the Temple building (v. 20). Then the author cuts in and insists that Jesus was speaking about the "temple" of his body (v. 21). The author is doing what most Christian scholars think John is doing: he is putting new spins on the words of the historical Christ to make it seem like Jesus spoke in some type of code that only the enlightened few could recognize. </p><blockquote>Since that is itself a prediction that He would be raised from the dead, </blockquote><p>No, it is John taking a statement Jesus made about the Temple building and falsely reinterpreting it. </p><blockquote>it may be taken as historical that Jesus really did predict ahead of time not only His impending violent death, but also His resurrection. This and other predictions of Jesus’ resurrection in the gospels can also be historically confirmed to be authentic, but we need not get into the details here. </blockquote><p>it wouldn't matter if you did, nothing in the bible can get rid of the sad reality that even for many sincere Christians, god's "hiddenness" of silence is intolerably consistent and leaves them unable to distinguish a dead god from a living god who avoid interacting with his followers.</p><blockquote>If Jesus really did predict ahead of time not only His impending violent death but also His resurrection from the dead, this also gives us reason to suspect that God may plausibly have motivation for raising Jesus of Nazareth specifically from the dead.<br /></blockquote><p>And it also doesn't matter, since the "god" you are trying to get people to serve, has a very bad real-world track record of giving any appearance that he gives a shit what happens.</p><blockquote><br />Overcoming the Subjectivity of Prior Assignment<br />One may challenge the appropriateness of a Bayesian approach to miracles on the basis that the assignment of the prior probability of a miraculous event is quite subjective. </blockquote><p>That's right. Christian scholars disagree on the degree to which any resurrection testimony in the NT comes from eyewitnesses. Alleged eyewitness Matthew's use of Mark is reasonably viewed as reducing the likelihood that Matthew was an eyewitness, even if you can trifle that any eyewitness may possibly find a non-eyewitness's version more preferable to his own. it isn't like the debate must be concluded as soon as you have invented a possible trifle that keeps your faith from being 100% irrational. Whether skepticism toward Jesus can be reasonable arises from grounds independent of whether your trust in Jesus can be reasonable. Again, it is not true that in every disagreement, at least one person has to be unreasonable. </p><blockquote>However, this obstacle can be overcome by back-solving for how low of a prior the pertinent evidence could overcome. For example, in their chapter in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Tim and Lydia McGrew argue for a Bayes factor of the evidence pertaining to the resurrection of 1044, “a weight of evidence that would be sufficient to overcome a prior probability (or rather improbability) of 10-40 for R and leave us with a posterior probability in excess of 0.9999.” [15] </blockquote><p>Will God protect me from going to hell while I check out the McGrew's calculations? Or should I scrap the effort at better understanding and "get saved" ASAP because I never know when I will die and seal my fate for eternity? </p><blockquote>Likewise, I have similarly argued in a <a href="https://jonathanmclatchie.com/what-is-bayes-theorem-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-arguments-for-god/">previous article</a> that the cumulative Bayes factor of the evidence for God’s existence, on the most charitable of assumptions, is sufficient to overcome a prior probability of 10-18 and still yield posterior odds of God’s existence of 0.9999.<br /></blockquote><p>And again, the real world teaches us that God has no interest in communicating with his sincere followers, and yet you continue fallaciously assuming that if god "exists", all refusal to serve him becomes irrational and unreasonable. Not so.</p><blockquote>Thus, one can calculate how small a prior would need to be in order to overcome the positive evidence for a hypothesis. Even if we do not know precisely what the prior is, if we are reasonably confident that the prior is higher than that value, then a more precise estimate of the prior becomes less important.<br />Conclusion<br />To conclude, while the dictum that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” may have rhetorical appeal, a closer inspection reveals that it is fraught with oft-overlooked problems. </blockquote><p>No, the s tupid version of ECREE as espoused by lazy atheists, is fraught with oft-overlooked problems. The objective and fair version of ECREE does not have those problems and still shows the reasonableness of those who reject miracle claims where the evidence hasn't passed the highest authentication standards. </p><blockquote>Sagan’s dictum has regrettably often been used to shut down inquiry and discourse rather than foster it and encourage an open-minded and careful investigation of the public evidence bearing on resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. </blockquote><p>And you'll never know how many times an atheist saved herself from a life of Mormonism by shutting down an apologetics conversation with a Protestant. </p><blockquote>My hope and prayer is that this article clears the way for more productive dialogue between Christians and skeptics on the epistemology of testimony and the provability of miracles.<br /></blockquote><p>That doesn't seem to be sincere. I robustly challenged you a few years ago, and you signaled your fear of losing any such debate by pretending that because I had sued several people in the past, you were choosing to avoid the debate. FUCK YOU. </p></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-49381455748055349002022-10-11T11:34:00.000-07:002022-10-11T11:34:04.212-07:00my reply to Jonathon McLatchie on ECREE<p><span style="font-size: medium;">I watched the ECREE debate between Jonathan McLatchie and Jonathan Pearce, see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bS73ZV5hzw" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I posted the following in the comment section:</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjScBiWN29pKHC0eoncYz8S-KmsuhnzrJ_XxlEBQqIIq5UWR554jUP6ZbZRPrjL4PRj-CFfVBmWKzHaZ4Pn4LrnVS4x9SB26z4vhBE7uy6YyLiaZo6uY-NXWJ-Ba5dfQUSRxHyFnxtHxShbCFvSo4wQVg6io0QKKRbp1pgjWylNHHlLLk-8pr_Xgk-I" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjScBiWN29pKHC0eoncYz8S-KmsuhnzrJ_XxlEBQqIIq5UWR554jUP6ZbZRPrjL4PRj-CFfVBmWKzHaZ4Pn4LrnVS4x9SB26z4vhBE7uy6YyLiaZo6uY-NXWJ-Ba5dfQUSRxHyFnxtHxShbCFvSo4wQVg6io0QKKRbp1pgjWylNHHlLLk-8pr_Xgk-I" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjsGeBnx6Hfv1L96VoDWt2hWaU_THJoKIxmtNIyvvfoO9LwtIYI9N1CwQppYEuXUiIAiwKGMc0DFD5jqnDm5xJHXqW-8KB-HCLstAsj8QjNXgOW-9mNNBJHPsdHUJcG1kft2vjbLmsqOL8EmVtPn7DySuYl5UFcYv6J3iSitMXA9fxZouIANFz-ucod" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="687" data-original-width="813" height="541" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjsGeBnx6Hfv1L96VoDWt2hWaU_THJoKIxmtNIyvvfoO9LwtIYI9N1CwQppYEuXUiIAiwKGMc0DFD5jqnDm5xJHXqW-8KB-HCLstAsj8QjNXgOW-9mNNBJHPsdHUJcG1kft2vjbLmsqOL8EmVtPn7DySuYl5UFcYv6J3iSitMXA9fxZouIANFz-ucod=w640-h541" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>The full text is</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>What do skeptics mean by "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence"? Just
substitute the word "extraordinary" with its meaning as supplied from
the dictionary (I use Merriam-Webster), and you end up with</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><i><o:p> </o:p>"Claims w<u>hich go beyond what is usual, regular, or
customary, or are exceptional to a very marked extent</u>, require evidence which
<u>goes beyond what is usual, regular, or customary, or else is exceptional to a
very marked extent</u>".</i></b></span></blockquote><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><o:p> </o:p>Yes, that means there is going to be inevitable subjectivity as to what "beyond the
usual" means, but that subjectivity is precisely why apologists cannot
accuse skeptics of unreasonableness. No,
there is no magic "<i>what quantity/quality of evidence <u>should </u>convince
you"</i> formula when it comes to claims that depart from our daily experience
of reality, such as rising from the dead.
There is a very good reason that equally mature equally educated adult
jurors often deadlock when interpreting real-world evidence of a crime created
less than a year before the trial. Only
fools would expect such people to come to agreement on what quantity and
quality of evidence for a miracle "should" be convincing (!?)</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><o:p> </o:p>As for myself, "beyond the usual" simply means evidence
which has survived authentication challenges to some degree more severe than
the authentication challenges we typically require to justify accepting commonplace claims by
other people. "beyond the
usual" does not mean evidence that is different from documents, pictures,
video or testimony. It refers to how
much more that type of evidence is <i>authenticated</i>, than is the evidence we
typically accept from stranger who are making non-controversial commonplace
claims. A picture will normally suffice
for us to accept the stranger's claim that they attended a birthday party. But if the picture shows some kid in mid-air,
and the claim is that this picture captured the child while levitating by the
power of god...then suddenly, we demand this picture be authenticated much more
than we did back when the picture was being used merely to document a
commonplace claim like attendance at a birthday party.</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><o:p> </o:p>But at least this proves the deception of apologists who
pretend that ECREE was intentionally designed to make sure supernatural claims
would always falsely appear to be unjustified.</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p style="font-weight: bold;"> </o:p><b>If it were philosophically possible to come up with an
objective criteria that would, when properly employed, enable all people to
agree on whether some claimed event happened, I suspect the idea would have
been discovered by now, sold to the Courts through the legal process, and we'd
have stopped hearing about deadlocked juries years ago.
The claim that the skeptic is unreasonable to employ ECREE is actually a
claim that ECREE is breaking some "rule" of historiography, hermeneutics or common sense. But no
apologist since Sagan first gave us ECREE has pointed out what the
"rule" is, nor why those outside of Christianity "should"
care about it.</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">------------------------------------</p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-58209572230316640612022-09-11T12:54:00.002-07:002022-09-11T13:37:12.739-07:00My challenge to Alisa Childers: justifying skepticism without falsifying Christianity<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> Here is my reply to a video by Christian apologist Alisa Childers</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyzqrM3tB8</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">(wow, within about 20 minutes, Childers deleted this comment!)</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjyDfMSDOsPutGWVOw5LngODshd5xpDK92ixwGvOMUBiGqjEPdH6g7LIkyM8CxUiLeNkPudronL4PdJXhrwXBhYRpC5L65Q8pwRp-mqg44KXzEux_o3jRGQExBfuHrLozhQ5l3rvI4uUmF0gewLwFSgqcVCgOnVaIY1-8LzA9v-1FQKTrdj3SFeLfxd" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><img alt="" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="758" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjyDfMSDOsPutGWVOw5LngODshd5xpDK92ixwGvOMUBiGqjEPdH6g7LIkyM8CxUiLeNkPudronL4PdJXhrwXBhYRpC5L65Q8pwRp-mqg44KXzEux_o3jRGQExBfuHrLozhQ5l3rvI4uUmF0gewLwFSgqcVCgOnVaIY1-8LzA9v-1FQKTrdj3SFeLfxd=s16000" /></span></a></div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Here is the full text in case that post is deleted (it was, about 20 minutes after I posted it).</span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><div class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" id="body" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><div class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" id="main" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex: 1 1 1e-09px; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" id="header" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px;"><div class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" id="header-author" style="align-items: baseline; background: transparent; border: 0px; display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><h3 class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a class="yt-simple-endpoint style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0IrXIrEkuzir7TWPVIRCA" id="author-text" style="color: var(--yt-spec-text-primary); cursor: pointer; display: block; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.8rem; margin-bottom: 2px; margin-right: 4px; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><span class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Barry Jones</span></span></a></h3><yt-formatted-string class="published-time-text style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" has-link-only_="" style="--yt-endpoint-color: var(--yt-spec-text-secondary); --yt-endpoint-visited-color: var(--yt-spec-text-secondary); color: var(--yt-spec-text-secondary); font-family: Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.8rem; white-space: nowrap;"><a class="yt-simple-endpoint style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETyzqrM3tB8&lc=UgyWcKHESqFMHdzE19x4AaABAg" spellcheck="false" style="color: var(--yt-endpoint-visited-color,var(--yt-spec-text-primary)); cursor: pointer; display: var(--yt-endpoint-display,inline-block); overflow-wrap: var(--yt-endpoint-word-wrap,none); text-decoration: var(--yt-endpoint-text-regular-decoration,none); word-break: var(--yt-endpoint-word-break,none);"><span style="font-size: medium;">0 seconds ago</span></a></yt-formatted-string></div></div><div class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" id="comment-content" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; display: inline-flex; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 631.109px;"><ytd-expander class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" id="expander" max-number-of-lines="4" should-use-number-of-lines="" style="--ytd-expander-button-margin: 4px 0 0 0; --ytd-expander-max-lines: 4; display: block; overflow: auto; width: 631.109px;"><div class="style-scope ytd-expander" id="content" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; min-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;"><yt-formatted-string class="style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" id="content-text" slot="content" split-lines="" style="--yt-endpoint-color: var(--yt-spec-call-to-action); --yt-endpoint-hover-color: var(--yt-spec-call-to-action); --yt-endpoint-visited-color: var(--yt-spec-call-to-action); color: var(--yt-spec-text-primary); font-family: Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-weight: 400; line-height: 2rem; overflow-wrap: anywhere; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Even assuming Christianity is everything Childers thinks it is, one of the most powerful justifications for gospel-skepticism is the inability of any Christian to make a prima facie case for their claim that the bible "applies to us today".</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">First, even assuming the OT and NT were complete as 66 books and viewed as canonical by Christians of the mid-first century, the fact that 2,000 years have passed, and the fact that today's Christian scholars disagree with each other over nearly every statement in the NT, means the question of why anybody thinks the bible "applies to us today" is legitimate and needs to be definitively answered by those who insist the bible "applies to us today". THEY are making the claim, they have no right to expect others to believe it until the prima facie case is made. Just like Protestants have the right to disregard the Apocrypha given their reasonable belief that Catholics have failed to make a prima facie case that it is canonical.</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Second, exactly what in the bible "applies to us today" is furiously debated within Christianity, particularly between dispensationalists, and between them and those who espouse covenant theology. If spiritually alive people disagree so much on that question, they are fools to "expect" spiritually dead unbelievers to figure out which Christian view is the "right" one.</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Third, the question of how and whether the bible "applies to us today" cannot be answered with solely biblical authority, which means the conservative or fundamentalist answer to that question should not be treated as if it was as equally correct as anything stated in the NT. The survival of the bible between the first century and today was due to reasons outside the biblical text itself. Mostly anonymous strangers from history made decisions about what was to be in a NT "canon", the records we have from Eusebius and others indicate there was much dispute at the early stages, and today's Christians, despite lacking the first clue as to who these strangers were, still insist that such strangers surely were "inspired by God" to adopt the canonical opinions that resulted in the current 27 book NT canon. It doesn't matter if that canonical theory is true, you cannot DEMONSTRATE it to be true, and the less you "demonstrate" such a thing, the more reasonable it is to say the formation of the canon had less to do with "god" and more to do with doctrinal and political controversies by people who had zero divine infallibility. You can't evne prove the slightly identifiable biblical authors were infallible in anything they wrote, how much worse for anonymous strangers before Eusebius who made decisions about what should be in the canon?</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Fourth, then there is the other problem of why Christians today view those strangers as "inspired by God" to "recognize" the 27 book NT canon. If those strangers were inspired by God to make such decisions, why don't Christians view those "discoveries" to be equally as infallible and binding as they view biblical text itself, which they also claim is "inspired by God"? Is there something in the bible that specifies that when God inspires later generations of Christians, that inspiration will be less intense than the inspiration God allegedly bestowed upon the original biblical authors? No. So the problem is that today's apologist wants us to believe God "guided" these strangers between the 1st and 3rd centuries, in their decisions concerning what books should be in a "canon", but god did NOT guide them with that level of infallibility that he allegedly did for the biblical authors. Skeptics observe that there was no evidence that God "guided" any such people in the first place, so for the skeptic, these trifles about God bestowing different levels of inspiration on different people involved in the bible's preservation unto today, is nothing but idle speculation. The evidence in favor of the Christian viewpoint is nowhere near as strong or convincing as to render skepticism about the matter "unreasonable".</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Fifth, when the skeptic refuses to listen to any Christian unless they are inspired by God to the point of inerrancy, today's apologists will immediately balk because they know perfectly well that there are no Christians today who possess that intense level of divine guidance. But we have to ask: the inability of today's Christian to provide the requested goods the way the allegedly divinely inspired apostles did, doesn't mean the request is unreasonable: If heresy and spiritual deception carry all of the horrific eternal consequences the bible seems to teach, the skeptic is very reasonable to insist that the risks of getting involved in this Christianity-business are so great, the only reasonable position is to limit one's education abour the bible to just those Christian teachers who possess infallibility...which is perfectly harmonious with the biblical model, in which the allegedly divinely inspired apostles were the proper "teachers". Us skeptics are thus perfectly reasonable to disregard any "teachings" from anybody except those who possess the same level of divine guidance that Childers thinks the original biblical authors had. Our daily decisions (to drive a car, to eat a meal without checking for poison, etc) do not carry the horrific and eternal consequences that the bible seems to attach to Christians who espoused false theology (Matthew 7:22-23, Galatians 1:6-9). Most Christians cannot avoid agreeing with me on the point. The Calvinists don't want you to learn from Arminian teachers, and Arminians don't want you to learn from Calvinists. Yes, apparently, we DO have to worry about the consequences of being misled by imperfect "teachers".</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">It hardly needs to be pointed out that no Christian today can make any showing that they possess that level of divine guidance they speculate was possessed by the human biblical authors, therefore, the skeptic is just as reasonable to ignore the teachings of an imperfect Christian today, no less than the skeptic is reasonable to refrain from betting his life savings after getting advice from an imperfect prophet. WE are taking that risk, it is OUR soul that stands to lose and lose big...the Christian has no right to pretend that we "should" be willing to risk our eternal fate by trying to learn from Christian teachers who lack this critical attribute of infallibility. Thus the skeptical demand for infallible Christian teachers remains reasonable despite the Christians' obvious inability to supply them.</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Sixth and finally, it doesn't matter if Jesus really rose from the dead. That does NOT automatically "vindicate" Jesus. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 warns that the Hebrews were not to follow the teachings of a prophet even if he accomplished a genuinely supernatural miracle. The right test was whether the prophet spoke in harmony with the given Mosaic Law. So applying the same principle today, we do not ask whether Jesus rose from the dead, because even if he did, that could not reasonably foreclose the question of whether he taught heresy. We ask whether his teachings were in harmony with Mosaic law. They were not, especially if we read him, as Christians themselves do, through the lens of Paul's law-free gospel. The notion that Jesus' death "fulfilled" the law and changed anything is merely a claim of Paul and some of Jesus' early followers. By no means is that claim beyond dispute. And in light of Matthew 28:20, it would appear that regardless of how Matthew interpreted the theological consequences of Jesus' death in "fulfilling the law", the risen Christ nevertheless required that all future Gentile converts obey everything he previously taught the apostles. What did Jesus previously teach the apostles? Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17-20 becomes reasonably legalistic when interpreted within its own context (Jesus requires actual personal righteousness on the part of each individual person, see vv. 21 ff, the context in no way shape or form suggests "imputed" or "imparted" righteousness). There is no generally accepted rule of hermeneutics requiring non-Christians to adopt only those interpretations of the bible that harmonize with each other. Not even most Christian scholars adopt biblical inerrancy.</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
</span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">In a nutshell, that's a very powerful justification for skepticism toward Christianity. That's all it is. It does not prove Christianity false. As testified by numerous deadlocked juries, you can be reasonable to adopt a view that is contrary to the truth, if in fact what's "true" is extremely difficult to ascertain.</span></span></yt-formatted-string></div><tp-yt-paper-button animated="" aria-disabled="false" aria-expanded="true" class="style-scope ytd-expander" elevation="0" id="less" noink="" role="button" style-target="host" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; align-items: center; align-self: flex-start; background: transparent; border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; justify-content: center; line-height: inherit; margin: var(--ytd-expander-button-margin,0); min-width: 0px; outline-width: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; text-transform: uppercase; transition: box-shadow 0.28s cubic-bezier(0.4, 0, 0.2, 1) 0s; user-select: none; z-index: 0;" tabindex="0"><span class="less-button style-scope ytd-comment-renderer" color="var(--yt-spec-text-secondary)" face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" slot="less-button" style="background: transparent; border: 0px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 2rem; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-transform: none;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Show less</span></span></tp-yt-paper-button></ytd-expander></div></div></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-16124328029500572692022-08-05T12:35:00.001-07:002022-08-05T12:35:52.682-07:00My reply to R. L. Solberg on Jesus' resurrection<p><b><i> I posted the following in reply to R. L. Solberg's comments about his debate with Rabbi Tovia Singer: See <a href="https://rlsolberg.com/rabbi-singer-on-the-resurrection/#comment-27707" target="_blank">here</a>:</i></b></p><p></p><blockquote><p>I don't understand why you find Jesus' resurrection significant. I can tell from modern Christianity and from the NT that if I become interested in Jesus, there is a greater than 51% chance that I will get suckered into a "cult". Doesn't it make more sense for skeptics to limit their sins to just the sin of unbelief, and to avoid adding "heresy" to their account?</p><p>Sure, you can say God will surely reveal doctrinal truth to his sincere followers, but that logically requires a presupposition that all Christians who end up interpreting the bible differently than you do, were therefore not sincere.</p><p>If you refuse to say most of today's Christians are insincere, then how DO you explain the fact that millions of equally sincere seekers of Christ disagree on how to interpret a bible verse?</p><p>In other words, how do YOU explain the fact that another Christian who is equally as sincere and saved as you, disagrees with your interpretation of a bible verse?</p><p>You won't like the hypothesis that God has different strokes for different folks, but aside from that, I'm not seeing what's so unreasonable with that hypothesis. If you reject it, it would seem you are forced to either admit God may want certain sincere Christ-seekers to interpret the bible incorrectly....or you are forced to insist that those Christ seekers who adopt what you consider to be "heresy" were never sincere toward God in the first place.</p><p>The last hypothesis makes sense enough, but it's also horrifically bigoted and makes your own interpretations of the bible a judge on whether some other Christ-seeker is sincere or insincere.</p><p>Can skeptics be reasonable to conclude that after 2,000 years, the NT's message is locked in fatal ambiguity, a thing that would justify today's skeptic to characterize the whole business as unprofitably convoluted and not worth one's time in taking seriously?</p></blockquote><p></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-87442049713032161782022-08-05T12:11:00.001-07:002022-08-05T12:11:40.960-07:00My reply to Brendon Naicker on Paul's apostleship<p><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;"> When I downloaded Mr. Naicker's pdf "Apostles" from Academia, I sent him the following message:</span></i></b></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Hello, <br />I have two criticisms of your paper:<br />You say of Paul in your pdf page 12:</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">He did not fulfil the qualifications of Acts 1:21, but the Damascus Road experience was a resurrection appearance (1 Cor. 15:8), and he could claim to have “seen the Lord” (1 Cor. 9:1); he was thus a witness of the resurrection. </span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I don't understand why you would believe Paul's claim to have "seen" the Lord, as Acts 9 and 22 make clear, Paul was blinded by the light, and nothing in those stories ever expresses or implies that Paul physically saw a risen Christ.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The second criticism is: you admit on the same page that Paul</span></p><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">"...did not fulfil the qualifications of Acts 1:21...."</span></blockquote><p></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">That is correct, but I don't understand why you felt that Paul's alleged experience on the road to Damascus qualified him anyway. The original apostles in Acts 1:21 made it a criteria of apostolic office that the person in question must have accompanied Jesus "from the beginning".</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">If you admit Paul didn't fulfill that criteria, then what makes you think his alleged "seeing" the risen Christ on the road to Damascus was a sufficient substitute?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The criterion in Acts 1:21 does not express or imply any exceptions. You either accompanied Jesus and the apostles "since the beginning", or you don't become an apostle, period.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Worse, if you think Paul's "seeing" the risen Christ was a sufficient substitute, then do you say the 500 who saw the risen Christ at the same time (1st Cor. 15:6), means there were 500 "apostles" while Paul was still alive? If their seeing the risen Christ didn't suddenly make them apostles, then why do you make an exception for Paul? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In short, can skeptics be "reasonable" even if not infallible, to insist Paul was a false apostle?</span></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-84350898807626199762022-08-01T13:29:00.003-07:002022-08-01T13:42:12.532-07:00No, Mr. J. Warner Wallace: Hell is NOT "reasonable"<b><i>This is my reply to J. Warner Wallace's video on hell:</i></b><div><b><br /></b></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjeDHQUZA5Q" target="_blank">Is Hell Reasonable?</a></b></div><br />In the comments section I posed this on August 1, 2022----</div><div><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV0IrXIrEkuzir7TWPVIRCA">Barry Jones</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjeDHQUZA5Q&lc=UgyHrGN-5dvOjgme2-Z4AaABAg">0 seconds ago</a><br /><br />I'm sorry, but there are numerous conclusive justifications for unbelievers to be skeptical of biblical "hell": </div><div><br /></div><div>First, Wallace is assuming that something written in a 2,000 year old books"applies to" people today. No historian has ever said the theology in an ancient book "applies to" today, so if Wallace thinks the bible is an exception, he has the burden of proof. And in my 25 years of counterapologetics, I've never seen any Christian apologist or scholar even get near showing that biblical "hell" applies to anybody today. </div><div><br /></div><div>Second, it wouldn't matter if biblical hell was intended as a modern-day warning to unbelievers: too many conservative Christians are abandoning the eternal conscious torment model and adopting the Annihilationism model. Why then should skeptics care? They already believe on naturalism that death constitutes permanent extinction of consciousness. </div><div><br /></div><div>Third, spiritually alive Christians disagree on whether hell is or isn't permanent extinction of consciousness. Clark Pinnock was one of the signers of the inerrancy-definition created by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, but he denied the literal interpretation of hell and favored conditionalism. See Pinnock, “The Conditional View,” in Four Views on Hell (Zondervan Academic, 1997). The debate appears to have no end. See Four Views on Hell (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology; Zondervan Academic; Second edition. March 8, 2016). if spiritually alive people cannot even agree on the nature of biblical hell, they are fools to 'expect' spiritually dead skeptics to discern the matter with any greater accuracy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Fourth, in the view cases in the gospels were Jesus deals directly with a Gentile, he never preaches hell at them, and if they do show faith, Jesus apparently prefers to keep his fellowship with them as short as possible. See the racist Jesus who seems to grant a miracle to a "dog" merely to shut her up. Matthew 15:22. </div><div><br /></div><div>Fifth, the traditional view of hell says God "must" judge sin either in the sinner or their substitute, but he cannot simply "let it go" because he is too holy. This is absurd: in 2nd Samuel <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjeDHQUZA5Q&t=733s">12:13</a>-15, God "takes away" David's sin in the sense of exempting him from the mandatory Mosaic death penalty for murder. If God is holier than the Canaanite gods, the you might wish to think about it before you construe God's killing of David's baby in the following context as God accepting child sacrifice. Then in Acts 17:31, apostle Paul tells the pagan idolaters that God has "winked at" or "overlooked" their idolatry (The Greek word is hupereidon, and it means "overlook"). </div><div><br /></div><div>It doesn't matter what the bible thumper has to say about these texts, we skeptics are going to be reasonable to interpret them as proof that god can get rid of sin with a mere wave of his magic wand. That reasonableness will not disappear merely because a fundamentalist comes along and offers criticism. Christianity's inability to preach a consistent doctrine of hell has persisted too long in history, to justify thinking that some quick clever comment by Wallace is going to overturn it. </div><div><br /></div><div>The question is not whether the Christian can be reasonable to view hell the way Wallace does. Maybe they can. The question is whether SKEPTICS and UNBELIEVERS can be reasonable to view biblical hell as little more than an ancient abusive fairy tale. We can. </div><div><br /></div><div>And why does Wallace make his videos more dramatic than they need to be? Does he deny god's existence, and does he seriously believe the only plausible way to 'reach' today's unbeliever or Christian is through adoption of modern marketing and presentation methods that appear geared toward people afflicted with attention-deficit-disorder? If the Holy Spirit could bless Paul's ministry without all these bells and whistles, why does Wallace think these necessary?</div><div>----------------------end quote</div><div><br /></div><div>I reposted the same comments to Wallace's reply page too, here's a screenshot:</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhSI6nv5GJ-bT_brNTo4UveXHCoBa1z1qBNiYqxVJHIIjr2B2k50SckxuBrJFr8KAAP4BOWEPLinU-YDHGHFoNO7Huuiten7D1EojuQtI2OugoPgOzX7zd7r-kkfSCmTvPDZ-njafrK9D-lL5e5JdJYNQLosWgF9APBB3MtyR7VZIKv90g5iPsW0I0z" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="611" data-original-width="855" height="458" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhSI6nv5GJ-bT_brNTo4UveXHCoBa1z1qBNiYqxVJHIIjr2B2k50SckxuBrJFr8KAAP4BOWEPLinU-YDHGHFoNO7Huuiten7D1EojuQtI2OugoPgOzX7zd7r-kkfSCmTvPDZ-njafrK9D-lL5e5JdJYNQLosWgF9APBB3MtyR7VZIKv90g5iPsW0I0z=w640-h458" width="640" /></a></div><br />==========================</div><div>For obvious reasons, there won't be any Wallace-followers or apologists offering any substantive rebuttal anytime soon. When I hit back, I hit hard.<br /></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-51494025547193999512022-07-20T13:53:00.008-07:002022-07-20T14:43:53.868-07:00Reply to Evan Minton on hyperbole and justifying atheism<p> I have replied to Evan Minton on the doctrinal orthodoxy problem created by christians who try to avoid biblical difficulties by pretending "god" had employed hyperbole.</p><p>https://cerebralfaith.net/why-i-think-local-flood-interpretation/#comment-7199</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiv-R605rEblRC0Y_MczJCTtqtsGQkNGAw3lO-hA7BfGWGByykzs4CpcIAaZfSkTkne3hdt3Hmv6UNVBn292tuwqhBKcRaBOOvm8HHRwTrk3NHR_AR_Lwfdt4a6TJZ30qpHMVcYT0MSP3FdmfSgifg25HQyEprSY37LGB1DA1IG0fo8f04mT10nEhq6" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="1072" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiv-R605rEblRC0Y_MczJCTtqtsGQkNGAw3lO-hA7BfGWGByykzs4CpcIAaZfSkTkne3hdt3Hmv6UNVBn292tuwqhBKcRaBOOvm8HHRwTrk3NHR_AR_Lwfdt4a6TJZ30qpHMVcYT0MSP3FdmfSgifg25HQyEprSY37LGB1DA1IG0fo8f04mT10nEhq6=s16000" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> I also responded here:</div><div>https://cerebralfaith.net/book-review-god-and-ultimate-origins-by-andrew-loke/#comment-7200</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjVvzREO02sHR87Cg9iwU_EQe1d8043h5bVaGdk4mSXRxA44BqMTBvCONo6noEedrg3AgLNDl6kYGjMVyXou04nxQYG7l7WMQ_lKwlPgRc90AiB-ZJuMMEjw7nILVH1zFmbumMalE4SOGIiWG9liXkMMhzKUhlC-6aAbJyEKTyekN1tNqSpK8DYyjdS" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjVvzREO02sHR87Cg9iwU_EQe1d8043h5bVaGdk4mSXRxA44BqMTBvCONo6noEedrg3AgLNDl6kYGjMVyXou04nxQYG7l7WMQ_lKwlPgRc90AiB-ZJuMMEjw7nILVH1zFmbumMalE4SOGIiWG9liXkMMhzKUhlC-6aAbJyEKTyekN1tNqSpK8DYyjdS" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgLtuhToXM_13D2MADhn5bZmM3vvqqHeTOR-rlg910riTL3LgrgYNTIJnTpF3xrJZ7J5l98UG87O23qMxAbvlgIUQjKnZPT3kTj3qRKyVJc9p62YO77clZReR-ZfEsSgkOun_n1965PhiGIZ8XXquKIDuFg7PGlAXG2syQy1e-ojhl_2wTeGj_mlH8E" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="313" data-original-width="890" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgLtuhToXM_13D2MADhn5bZmM3vvqqHeTOR-rlg910riTL3LgrgYNTIJnTpF3xrJZ7J5l98UG87O23qMxAbvlgIUQjKnZPT3kTj3qRKyVJc9p62YO77clZReR-ZfEsSgkOun_n1965PhiGIZ8XXquKIDuFg7PGlAXG2syQy1e-ojhl_2wTeGj_mlH8E=s16000" /></a></div><br /></div><br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-48498023112448612132022-07-09T18:58:00.002-07:002022-07-09T18:58:31.915-07:00Correcting Jason Engwer of Triablogue on the problems Mark creates for resurrection apologetics<b><i>This is my reply to an article by Jason Engwer at Triablogue entitled </i></b><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2022/06/did-resurrection-accounts-develop-in.html" target="_blank">Did the resurrection accounts develop in a suspicious way?</a></b></div><blockquote><div>In the debate I discussed in my last post, Alex O'Connor raised a common objection to the resurrection accounts in the gospels. Supposedly, the earliest gospel, Mark, has the simplest material on Jesus' resurrection, and each gospel after that gets increasingly advanced in the claims it makes on the subject. See Alex's comments here. He especially discusses an increase in the number of resurrection appearances in each gospel - in the order of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John - though he doesn't limit his development argument to that issue.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are a lot of problems with that sort of objection. As Jonathan McLatchie mentioned in the debate, the material on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 predates all of the gospels, yet is more advanced in some ways.</div></blockquote><p>I don't care how early you date the Corinthian creed, your fundamentalist viewpoint forces you to say Jesus' family's viewing hi as insane was a fact of history years before this "creed" came into existence. And it is this skepticism of Jesus' family toward him that renders reasonable the conclusion that they did not find his miracles the least bit miraculous. And it is this skepticism toward Jesus' miracles that passes the historical criterion of embarrassment, which means they deserve more weight than 100 laudatory statements about Jesus rising from the dead. Mark 3:21 is supplemented by 6:1-4, John 6:26 and 6:66. And it is this inference of Jesus being the 1st century equal of a Benny Hinn that justifies the conclusion that God would never premise his second covenant upon the works of a deceiver, and thus would not have raised Jesus from the dead.</p><blockquote><div> I want to add some other points.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are some significant reasons for dating Mark first and John last. But we don't have much evidence to go by to determine whether Matthew predates or postdates Luke. That substantially lessens the confidence anybody can have in an argument like Alex's.</div></blockquote><p>Nice to know you agree with most Christian scholars on Markan priority, but then you need to answer a skeptic's question about which Christian discussion of the Synoptic problem God wants the skeptic to read first. If you trivialize that question in an effort to justify not answering it directly, you force yourself to take the position that this level of the skeptic's attempted submission to God's will is not appropriate. Doesn't take a genius to tell how that kind of response will get you in trouble. Exactly how detailed is Jesus' Lordship? People need food, water, clothes, jobs, cars, books. How do you know which of these Jesus is Lord over, and which he isn't? If you answer that he is Lord over every possible element of the skeptic's life, then the skeptic is not doing anything the least bit unreasonable to demand from you the answer to the question of what God wants the skeptic to do next. You may reply that answering that the question is irrelevant since the skeptic by definition in rebellion toward God, but that hardly gets you out of the jam: you cannot even tell another member of Triablogue what God wants them to do next. The problem of God's will being so hidden is not limited to the unspiritual nature of the skeptic. Even spiritually alive people don't have the first fucking clue. They merely suggest a plan of action in the modern world which they believe consistent with biblical ethics. Sorry, I need to know God's will infallibly because my eternal salvation is more important than driving directions, food served at a restaurant or something else I'd accept upon a lesser standard of proof. Thus skeptics are reasonable to reject the testimony of all persons who cannot speak infallibly for god. Everybody in the NT who sought after the divine will had access to a person who could speak infallibly for God. Such people don't exist today. Engwer loses here.</p><blockquote><div>And as I explained in my last post, Luke and Acts are companion works. What's the significance of looking at something like the number of resurrection appearances in Luke without including Acts if Acts predates John and the two Lukan works reference each other (Luke 1:1 anticipating Acts and Acts 1:1 referring back to Luke, as discussed in my last post)? If Acts is added to Luke, as it should be, then Luke/Acts has more resurrection appearances than John. Even without adding the resurrection appearances of Acts to come up with a total number for Luke/Acts, Acts is relevant in providing some context for Luke. As Acts 1 demonstrates, Luke 24:36-53 is meant to refer to at least two appearances of Jesus, even though they could wrongly be counted as one. And verse 34 refers to an appearance to Peter without narrating it. So, even without counting the number of appearances in Acts, Luke includes more appearances than people often suggest. The gospel of Luke alone has at least as many resurrection appearances as John. (Whether Luke has more depends on how many are in Luke 24:36-53.) Luke/Acts has more than John, even though John probably was written after Luke and Acts were published.</div></blockquote><p>In Luke, some of the women who joined Jesus early in his ministry (8:1-3) were expecting him to still be dead as they went to his grave on Easter morning (24:1-4). Apparently, despite their being with Jesus at least one year before he died, they didn't think anything he said or did credibly supported his resurrection prediction (which the woman allegedly also heard before he died, 24:8).</p><p>The fact that Luke says the disciples regarded the resurrection testimony of the women as "nonsense" (24:11) is massively unexpected for a group of men who had, allegedly, seen Jesus do genuinely supernatural miracles for three prior years and heard him announce his death-and-resurrection predictions throughout. Sure, that argument goes away if you say 24:11 contains some falsehoods, but you believe in biblical inerrancy, so the reasonableness of my inferences, supra, will exist as long as Luke 24:11's inerrancy does.</p><blockquote><div>Furthermore, we have to look at more than just the number of resurrection appearances. 1 Corinthians 15:6 has the most advanced material in terms of the number of witnesses to an appearance. </div></blockquote><p>The advancement is why the creed is likely late. If Matthew seriously believe Jesus rose from the dead, he would more than likely not have "chosen to exclude" resurrection appearances that he knew about, such as those that Matthew allegedly participated in from Luke and John. If Matthew was as high on resurrection appearances the fools at Triablogue are, he would not have "chosen to exclude" resurrection appearances from his own gospel any more than Jason Engwer would "choose to exclude" the Corinthian creed from his resurrection apologetics.</p><blockquote><div>Matthew's gospel has the most advanced evidence for the empty tomb.</div></blockquote><p>That is false, Matthew's risen Christ gives a speech that anybody could state in 15 seconds or less (28:18-20), while Luke's risen Christ speaks over a period of 40 or many days (Acts 1:3).</p><blockquote><div> Luke mentions more women at the tomb than any other source, is the only one to narrate an appearance to a non-Christian (Paul in Acts), is the only one to narrate an appearance in which Jesus' body has the sort of glorious form commonly expected of resurrected individuals in ancient Judaism (the appearance to Paul), etc. Though John probably was the last gospel written, he makes a couple of references to Jesus' not being recognized after his resurrection under ordinary circumstances, even after he had begun speaking (20:14-16, 21:4-7). That's something that can be, and has been, used against Christianity. </div></blockquote><p>I wouldn't use it against Christianity. The author obviously has a dramatic purpose in saying divine intervention prevented some from recognizing Jesus. </p><blockquote><div>In that sense, John's material is the least advanced. </div></blockquote><p>Nice try at taking the most obviously embellished part of the resurrection legend and implying it was early or not embellished. Try again.</p><blockquote><div>Luke has the men on the road to Emmaus not recognizing Jesus, but Luke explains that "their eyes were prevented from recognizing him" (24:16, 24:31). Should we conclude that Luke was correcting John by suggesting that any failure to recognize Jesus was only because of Divine concealment, so that Luke's gospel must have been written after John? I suspect we'd be hearing that line of reasoning a lot if the situation were reversed, with John referring to Divine concealment while Luke had material like John's. Then we have Luke's reference to "many convincing proofs", "forty days" (Acts 1:3), and James' conversion (1:14), all of which go beyond what John reports. These are just several examples among others that could be cited.</div><div><br /></div><div>John's material is the most advanced in some ways, such as the length of the appearance narrative in John 21. But Luke/Acts is more advanced overall. And, as I've argued elsewhere, Acts probably was completed no later than the mid 60s. I doubt that Luke/Acts predates Mark, but Luke could easily have been written and published second among the canonical gospels, and it's very likely to have been written before John. It probably was written something like two or three decades before John, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere.</div><div><br /></div><div>That brings up another problem with arguments like Alex's. The amount of time from one gospel to another is highly unlikely to have been significant on every occasion. I've argued that the similarities among the Synoptics make the most sense if those three gospels were written closer in time rather than further apart. I suspect all three were published within less than a decade. But even if you don't hold a view like that, you have to ask what significance the differences in dating have. If Mark was published something like five or eight years before Matthew, for example, so what? How much evolution is likely to have occurred in that sort of timeframe?</div></blockquote><p>The amount of evolution that obviously can be seen by comparing Mark's non-existent resurrection appearance narrative with Matthew's one written about 8 years later. The hypothesis that Mark originally wrote a resurrection narrative and it got lost, is not the only reasonable one. It's also reasonable to say authentic Mark stops at 16:8 because Mark wrote nothing more.</p><blockquote><div>If Mark deliberately left out material he could easily have included (e.g., the 1 Corinthians 15 appearances, the appearance anticipated in Mark 14:28 and 16:7), how is it favorable to arguments like Alex's if Matthew includes much less material than Mark was aware of and chose not to include and did so something like five or eight years after Mark was published?</div></blockquote><p>It is not reasonable to expect a gospel author to "chose to exclude" anything they knew about Jesus' resurrection appearances. It's reasonable to assume that had they known of any such story and thought it true, they would have included it. There are a number of reasons, harmonious with that, for why John doesn't record the other signs Jesus allegedly did, like lack of paper, or circumstances disallowing further elaboration.</p><blockquote><div> Whatever view a person holds of Mark's ending, we know that more appearances than the ones mentioned in Matthew's gospel were widely known before Mark was published.</div></blockquote><p>And skeptics, being reasonable to assume Mark would never have "chosen to exclude" them had he known them, are also reasonable to assume that he excludes them precisely because he doesn't know about them, i.e., assuming Mark got most of it from Peter, Peter's original resurrection testimony did not include matters beyond what we find in Mark 16. If Acts 2 says otherwise, we stick with our inference and we call Luke a liar, agreeing therein with most Christian scholars that Acts is at best kernels of historical truth wrapped in embellishment. </p><blockquote><div> It's highly unlikely that Mark hadn't heard of that material or rejected all of it. You can't judge Christians' or Mark's view of Jesus' resurrection at the time Mark was published, or their view of resurrection appearances in particular, solely by Mark's gospel.</div></blockquote><p>Sure we can, because we are perfectly justified to believe Mark would never have "chosen to exclude" resurrection appearance stories had he known about them.</p><blockquote><div> All writers are selective, have certain unspoken assumptions, write with a particular purpose in mind and not another purpose, have a particular audience in mind, and so on. </div></blockquote><p>Which is why your dogmatism about what we should imply from the biblical resurrection accounts is uncalled for. You don't have the first fucking clue why any gospel author wrote. They could have written with a purpose of edifying fiction, and you don't have persuasive historical evidence that any gospel author knowingly risked their lives in any preaching activity. </p><blockquote><div>Lydia McGrew6/07/2022 9:22 AM☍</div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, these are all important points showing the poverty of a developmental thesis. </div></blockquote><p>No, showing poverty of a development hypothesis requires showing that an hypothesis of Mark's original resurrection appearance narrative was more likely than a theory that he stopped at 16:8.</p><blockquote><div>Every single such developmental thesis I've ever examined about the gospels falls apart upon examination. </div></blockquote><p>Skeptics could say the same with regard to non-developmental hypotheses. But if it makes you feel better to pontificate... </p><blockquote><div>The evidence is cherry-picked, stated in a tendentious way, and so forth. The points you make here show that to be the case here. Of course, the issue of the ending of Mark *all by itself* casts a huge question mark over the assertion that Mark is somehow more primitive *because* it doesn't include appearances.</div></blockquote><p>But I've made my arguments that Mark's shorter ending was the original. You cannot just cry "we don't know!" whenever a reasonable skeptical hypothesis is argued, otherwise, you'd have to allow a skeptic to cry "we don't know!' every time YOU set forth a reasonable reliability-hypothesis. </p><blockquote><div> The "count the appearances" thing is obvious nonsense, especially since they are *different* appearances. E.g. Matthew has an appearance in Galilee but John has a different appearance in Galilee. Luke has the Emmaus appearance and not the Doubting Thomas appearance, John has Doubting Thomas but not Emmaus. And so forth.</div></blockquote><p>Once again, we skeptics are reasonable to insist that if any gospel author both knew about, and thought true, any resurrection appearance story, it would be highly unlikely for them to have "chosen to exclude" it. Jesus' resurrection was supposed to be the crowning purpose of Jesus' mission. Mark's dedicating less attention to it than Luke, Matthew and John remains reasonably suspicious.</p></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-57157465125440792192022-05-29T16:21:00.005-07:002022-05-29T16:22:15.952-07:00my reply to BellatorChristi on the evil and atheism<blockquote><b><i>This is my reply to a BellatorChristi article by Brian Chilton entitled</i></b><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/2022/05/29/christianity-offers-the-best-solution-to-the-problem-of-evil/#respond" target="_blank">Christianity Offers the Best Solution to the Problem of Evil</a></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/2022/05/29/christianity-offers-the-best-solution-to-the-problem-of-evil/#respond" target="_blank">By: Brian G. Chilton | May 29, 2022</a></b></div><br /><p>------First, I posted a short reply at his website, but Chilton responded to my initial reply there while I was composing this blog piece. In his response, Brian did two things demonstrating his genuine fright of getting steamrolled in debate:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>He declined my debate challenge by hiding behind the dishonest excuse that he thinks I'm not paying attention to his points, when in fact he has a posting rule that rejects replies if they are more than a few lines, and </li></ul></blockquote><blockquote><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>He removed the reply-function from the article that I replied to, i.e., Chilton has engineered things to make sure that his criticisms cannot be exposed <i>on his own website</i>. When Chilton has responded, God has spoken, and that shall be the end of the debate.</li></ul><p></p><p>For reasons that will become clearer herein, Chilton is being dishonest. He does not fear that I won't be "paying attention". He fears that a counter-apologist like me would most likely corner him and expose the fallacies of his "apologetics". </p><p>I now reply to the article. Chilton says:</p><blockquote>Another week, another tragedy. This time, we heard of the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Like most of you, I am troubled by the incessant and increasing reports of violence across our nation and world. </blockquote><p>You shouldn't be. You assume everything god does is morally good, and in Deuteronomy 32:39 "god" claims personal responsibility for all murders and death:</p><p></p><blockquote> 39 'See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. (Deut. 32:39 NAU)</blockquote><p></p><p>If Job is correct that God has assigned each person a specific number of days to live, the only way that makes sense is if he was intimately involved in decreeing the time and manner of their death:</p><p></p><blockquote> 5 "Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; And his limits You have set <u>so that he cannot pass</u>. (Job 14:5 NAU)</blockquote><p></p><p>Chilton continues: </p><blockquote>For many folks, these senseless acts of violence leave them with a tinge of doubt. Why is it that a benevolent God would permit such acts to occur? </blockquote><p>Perhaps they ask that question because they are using modern western democracy, instead of the bible, to define exactly what it means for god to be "benevolent". I think it pointless and deceptive to call god "benevolent", because the only way we can conceptualize of it is by human analogy, and in the human world, "benevolence" cannot exist if the human in question also decrees the murder of children. Back to your "mysterious ways of god" refuge.</p><blockquote>This question enters the philosophical and theological sphere known as theodicy. Theodicy ponders the goodness of God’s providence in light of acts of evil.<br /></blockquote><blockquote>Bellator Christi Ministries has addressed the problem of theodicy in considerable detail on both the website (<a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/">https://bellatorchristi.com</a>) and the Bellator Christi Podcast. </blockquote><p>Just like Christian apologists have been doing for centuries. And yet why god allows evil continues to bother Christians today no less than it did in the first century. Congratulations on your demonstrable problem-solving progress. </p><blockquote>While we could go back through those issues, I think a more pressing issue is at hand. By their statements online, I have observed that some people have contemplated the thought of hitching their wagon to another theology in light of such senseless acts of evil. This is not a good idea, for reasons I hope to show. </blockquote><p>You won't be showing any such thing. </p><blockquote>For the remainder of this article, I would like to pose four different theological and philosophical options that cover the problem of theodicy, and I will show that Christianity holds the best answer for why a benevolent God permits evil acts. </blockquote><p>Then you are contradicting your own bible. Your god allegedly thought there were times when pre-teen girls should be burned to death (Leviticus 21:9). "benevolence" is not an option, it is a pipe dream that tries to use John 3:16 as the lens through which to interpret divine atrocities. </p><blockquote>The article examines the following parameters: 1) either God exists, or he doesn’t; 2) humans have free will, or they don’t; 3) God is benevolent, vengeful, or both; 4) there is ultimate justice, or there isn’t.<br /><br />Option A: Atheism—No God, Questionable Freedom, No Justice<br /><br />When acts of violence occur, it is strange that many begin to gravitate toward the position of atheism. </blockquote><p>Not any stranger than the raped daughter who gravitates away from her father, who had both ability and opportunity to prevent the rape, but knowingly chose rather to just stand there watching and doing nothing. </p><blockquote>Because many believe that a loving, benevolent God would never allow evil acts to occur, it is naturally assumed that such a God does not exist. Most problematically for the atheist is that ultimate justice cannot be found. If there is no God, then there is no day of reckoning, no scales that are measured, and no ultimate meaning to anything. </blockquote><p>That's a fallacious appeal to emotion. Longing for justice is an emotion. </p><blockquote>One may very well assume that good and evil are just figments of our imagination.<br /></blockquote><p>No, good and evil are real, but they do not transcend the human level. They are merely words we use to describe events that we feel promote or inhibit survival/thriving. You don't have a corner on the language market: the atheist is not doing anything illogical or inconsistent in saying the boy who killed the kids at the recent Texas school massacre was "evil"...because the atheist doesn't define "evil" in the broad ultimate sense you do. The boy inhibited the survival and thriving of many children and adults in those shootings, and he did not do so for reasons current American law will recognize. That is PLENTY to justify the atheist in characterizing the shootings as "evil". There is no logical requirement that evil always be attached to the devil, or to "god's" opinion of things.</p><blockquote>Even though atheism is a popular go-to theory, </blockquote><p>So is "Christianity". Did you have a point? </p><blockquote>the worldview only exacerbates the problem when it is taken to its logical end. If you follow the route of atheism, you will find that not only do you not find an answer to why evil things occur,</blockquote><p>Strawman fallacy: "atheism" does not express or imply answers to why evil things happen. Your argument is going to basically be that by denying god's existence, nothing matters. Sorry friend, but atheism doesn't logically necessitate nihilism. But yes, you might sound convincing to crowds of Jesus-followers who have no training in philosophy, who are thus incapable of discerning where and how your inferences go wrong. </p><blockquote> but you will also find that you have no standard by which to gauge anything evil in the first place</blockquote><p>Wrong again: you don't have a corner on the language-market: "evil' is not required by definition to linked to god or the devil. The dictionary will confirm this:</p><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil" target="_blank"><b>https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › evil</b></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil" target="_blank"><b>1 : something that brings sorrow, trouble, or destruction</b></a></div><br />There is nothing illogical about the atheist who characterizes the recent Texas school shooting as "evil" because it brought "sorrow, trouble or destruction". <p></p><blockquote> as well as no final standard of justice.</blockquote><p>According to Genesis 6:6, God sometimes berates himself for his prior bad decisions, so your bible doesn't even justify the assumption that god's decisions about matters are "final". The originally intended pre-scientific illiterate goat-herder audience would never have understood this to be an "anthropomorphism". Modern Christians only do that out of a prior commitment to bible unity or inerrancy. God being stupid would probably not harmonize with other bible statements about god's great wisdom. But the more objective hermeneutic is the concern about how the originally intended audiences would likely have understood the passage.</p><blockquote> In a world that God does not exist, then morality does not exist. </blockquote><p>That is false, you have not even gotten near making even a prima facie case that "god" is necessary to explain "morality". I suspect that is the case because of how stupid the proposition is. Morality is simply the word we use to characterize situations where we opine that somebody "should" or "shouldn't" do something. Does Chilton seriously believe that if the atheist puts a bandage on his child's scratched knee, the atheist cannot justify this level of concern and is merely borrowing Christian capital? </p><blockquote>If you have no God, then you also have no ultimate justice. </blockquote><p>So? The only "justice' that is the least bit demonstrable is the human legal system. </p><blockquote>Life then becomes nothing more than pitiless indifference.<br /></blockquote><p>First, so? I find most people to be pitilessly indifferent toward most evil that takes place outside their daily lives. Even you. Could you be doing more charity than you currently do? What's unreasonable about saying that the reason you don't do as much good as you could with your resources and time, is because there are limits to how caring you are about other people? </p><p>Second, you are now fallaciously appealing to just those readers who feel sorry for all people who have ever suffered, which means you are fallaciously pretending that it is only the people who feel such sorrow, who "count" in this argument. You are wrong. Throughout human history, plenty of human beings have been pitilessly indifferent toward other human beings. Are YOU doing all the charity that you could possibly do? If no, why shouldn't we chalk this up to your own pitiless indifference?</p><p>Third, naturalism provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for altruism without god. As mammals, we naturally care about those closest to us. As a civilized society, we naturally feel sorry for people further away who are criminally deprived of life, liberty or property. For a start, see <i>Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism</i> (AuthorHouse, 2005) by Richard Carrier.</p><p>Fourth, you are only hurting your own case by trying to prove that some type of belief results in pitiless indifference. Your own god allegedly commanded his people to have no compassion on others (Deuteronomy 19:21), God has no pity on orphans despite it not being their fault that their parents were heretics (Isaiah 9:17); God has no pity on children suffering the ravages of war (Ezekiel 5:11 ff, 8:18, 9:5-6), and he tortured a baby for seven days with a horrible disease despite the obvious fact that such infant was not guilty of the sins in question (2nd Samuel 12:15-18).</p><blockquote>Option B: Universalism—Benevolent God, No Justice<br /><br />Universalists hold that everyone, no matter their theological moorings or ethical behavior, will go to heaven in the end. Admittedly, while this is one heresy that I wish were true</blockquote><p>But if morality comes from God, then maybe the reason you wish universalism to be true is beacuse the Holy Spirit is telling your heart that the parts of the bible about an angry god injuring people are just fictions?</p><blockquote>, the aspect of justice is highly questionable in this worldview. True, it could be that the ethically immoral go through a time of purgatory before going to heaven. However, what if the person does not desire to go to heaven? Sounds strange, but it is not beyond the scope of possibility.</blockquote><p>In Luke 23:34, Jesus actually forgives some humans who neither express nor imply any remorse or intention to repent.</p><blockquote> Consider the lyrics of AC/DC’s Highway to Hell. </blockquote><p>Do you want your readers to investigate your sources? Does a true Christian encourage others to consider anything Satan has to say? </p><blockquote>The authors of the song appear to want nothing to do with heaven. </blockquote><p>Because even humans on this earth eventually found Jesus too disinteresting to keep communicating with (John 6:66). No reason to think it will be any different in heaven...where God often authorizes evil spirits to make people tell lies (1st Kings 22:19-23). </p><blockquote>Furthermore, is there a reckoning for evil acts in universalism?</blockquote><p>No, because universalism preaches an absolutely unconditional divine forgiveness. And God is quite capable of getting rid of human sin without needing it to be "reckoned". See 2nd Samuel 12:13. David's sin was taken away, he was spared from the mandatory Mosaic death penalty for adultery and murder, and yet nothing in the context expresses or implies David would have to endure any priestly sacerdotal rite. God no more "needs" to punish sin than you "need" to wear blue socks. </p><blockquote> Though universalism is better than atheism, it does not seem to have the power necessary to deal with evil acts.</blockquote><p>The god of univeresalism deals with a rapist by forgiving him immdiately, fully, and unconditionally. No need to "deal with" evil acts.</p><blockquote>Additionally, it does not emphasize the great disdain that God has for sin. Quoting Deuteronomy 32:35–36, the writer of Hebrews notes, “For we know the one who has said, ‘Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:30).<br /></blockquote><p>Ah, so you are NOT arguing to skeptics, but only to those who hold your fundamentalist assumptions about god and the bible. No wonder your article was about as shallow as a Pentecostal sermon.</p><blockquote>Option C: Fatalism—Vengeful God, No Choice<br /><br />Fatalism is the belief that human beings hold no free will and, thereby, no responsibility. </blockquote><p>It's also the belief of those Trinitarian bible believers known as 5-Point Calvinists, at least according to those who criticize Calvinism.</p><blockquote>Fatalism may come in the form of naturalistic atheism, deism, or some forms of Christianity. However, fatalism does not answer the problem of evil. </blockquote><p>If a man steals a car, the answer to this "evil" is the human legal system. The notion that we yearn for a higher form of justice against this thief, is just stupid. </p><blockquote>For the atheistic varieties of fatalism, the worldview does not resolve the problem of evil actions for the reasons mentioned in Option A.<br /></blockquote><p>There is nothing unreasonable in the atheist viewing the human legal system as the highest possible form of justice.</p><blockquote>For deistic and theistic versions of fatalism, everything comes about by the pre-planned will of God with no human responsibility. This is not to be compared with divine foreknowledge of the willing acts of free agents. </blockquote><p>On the contrary, God's infallible foreknowledge of future human choices makes those choices inevitable. The only possible ways to refute a deductive syllogism are a) refute the first premise, b) refute the second premise, c) show that the conclusion didn't logically follow, or d) show that the syllogism is entirely hypothetical and inapplicable to the real world. Keeping those in mind, a deductive syllogism proves that infallible divine foreknowledge leaves no logically possible room for freewill:</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Premise 1: Anything God infallibly foreknows will happen, is incapable of failing.</b></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Premise 2: God infallibly foreknow that Salvador Ramos would choose to kill children.</b></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Conclusion: Therefore Salvador Ramos' choice to kill children was incapable of failing.</b></p><p>You cannot refute Premise 1, it is simply assuming God's foreknowledge is infallible, which is a major Christian doctrine. And "incapable of failing" is merely the dictionary definition of "infallible"</p><p>You cannot refute Premise 2, since as a doctrinally conservative Christian, you think that premise is true.</p><p>You cannot show the conclusion didn't logically follow, as it is constructed of information in both premises and doesn't add to or subtract from that information.</p><p>Hence, those Christians who subscribe to God's infallible divine foreknowledge, but who still insist we are "free" to "do otherwise", are illogical, and likely because their bible is that illogical. </p><blockquote>Rather, this view holds that God pre-planned everything to come about as it has. The problem with this mentality is self-evident. God is presumed to be the source of evil in this worldview as human beings do not have the capacity to choose other than their pre-designed nature and choices are dictated. Therefore, the ethical and moral standard of God becomes suspect. Of the three positions given thus far, this position holds a slightly higher rank than atheism but less than universalism.<br /></blockquote><p>I don't see your point, you own bible makes god the author of evil. Read Deuteronomy 28:15-63. Don't miss v. 63, which says God will take just as much "delight" to inflict rape, parental cannibalism and other atrocities, as he takes in granting prosperity.</p><blockquote>Option D: Christianity—Benevolent, Just God Overseeing a World of Free Agents<br />Thankfully, a fourth option exists. The classic Christian worldview holds the best answer to the problem of evil. The position is as follows: A benevolent, just God created and oversees a world of human free agents and will hold each person accountable for their deeds in the afterlife. For this position to be true, let’s examine four truths the Scripture teaches.<br /></blockquote><p>Thanks again for clarifying that you are NOT trying to convince anybody except church folk.</p><blockquote>Truth #1: God is loving and just.<br />While space does not permit us to afford a full examination of God’s goodness and just nature, let us consider a few passages as a case study. </blockquote><p>It doesn't make any sense to say God is loving and just. In the real world, the only reason we say somebody is good is because we find they have conformed to a standard of morality outside of themselves. We never say somebody is good merely because they themselves declare themselves to be good. But in the case of "God", there is no standard outside of god to which god is subject. Therefore, when you talk about god being 'good', you need to make clear that you don't determine this in the same way you determine whether a human being is good. But if you provide that much clarity, than you will have a very suspect doctrine: god's goodness derives from nothing but his own statements about his own nature. LOL.</p><blockquote>First, God’s benevolence is shown in his great love for humanity.</blockquote><p>Yeah, like when he directly tortured an infant for 7 days (2nd Samuel 12:15-18).</p><p>Like when God specifies that King Saul must masscre "infants and children" (1st Samuel 15:2-3), the reason being nothing more than their descendants warring against Saul's descendants back during the Exodus about 400 years prior. In other words, kill your neighbor if his great-great-great-great grandfather had murdered your great-great-great-great grandfather. </p><blockquote> The apostle John states, “Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:10). </blockquote><p>The atonement of Jesus is an absurd doctrine that no amount of repeating 1st Cor. 1:18 is going to fix. If the entire person of Christ became sin (2nd Cor. 5:21), and the whole person of Christ necessarily includes his divine nature, then necessarily his divine nature also became sin. Be sure to run extra fast to "god's mysterious ways". It's your get-out-of-jail-free card.</p><blockquote>Furthermore, Paul writes, “For while we were still helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly … But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6, 8).<br /></blockquote><p>I just want you to know that when you quote the bible, the Holy Spirit testifies to my spirit that I need Jesus. </p><blockquote>Second, God is also holy and just. Job reflected on the holy nature of God as he said, “Indeed, it is true that God does not act wickedly and the Almighty does not pervert justice” (Job 34:12). </blockquote><p>If God was holy and just when he created mankind, why did he later regret that particular decision (Genesis 6:6)? </p><blockquote>Because of God’s holy nature, he expects his people to act holy, as well. </blockquote><p>That makes no sense: Did God infallibly foreknow that Hitler would massacre the Jews? if so, how could it be sensible to say God "expected" Hitler to refrain? Does God "expect" us to surprise him by acting in a way contrary to his infallible foreknowledge? </p><p>Do you infallibly foreknow that a 2 year old child cannot jump over the moon? If so, could you still somehow seriously "expect" her to engage in that act anyway? Of course not.</p><blockquote>In Leviticus, God said, “Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Lev. 19:2). Jesus furthers this thought, saying, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).</blockquote><p>I deny that the bible teaches theology consistently. And you will never show that anything Jesus told anybody in the 1st century "applies to" modern day people. That would require to venture outside the bible itself and comment about how the bible survived the ravages of history, but that evidence is not inspired by God. So any argument that tries to apply biblical anything to modern day people, is necessarily far less authoritative than you think bible-based arguments are.</p><blockquote>Truth #2: Human agents are free.<br />This topic can easily dive into some deep wells of philosophical and theological thought.</blockquote><p>Translation: equally authentically born-again Trinitarian Christians disagree on how to interpret biblical statements about the freewill of mankind. And yet they want skeptics to believe God is tellilng them all the same theology, and they don't know why some of them are hearing god incorrectly. LOL. </p><blockquote> Suffice to say, for now, the Bible suggests that human beings hold some degree of free agency. That is, human beings choose to act to at least some degree. God’s call on people to repent is sufficient to show the ability of people to freely act to at least some degree. Jesus called on people to repent, saying, “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as well” (Lk. 13:3). Peter picked up this theme and said, “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).<br /></blockquote><p>A 5-Point Calvinist will call that "heresy". And yet you think a spiritually dead skeptic should figure out which of you got the bible "right". LOL</p><blockquote>Truth #3: God desires to save humanity.<br />God desires to save humanity from their sin and themselves.</blockquote><p>Not everybody. Romans 9:18-23. And Calvinists assure me that the first agent to do the heart-hardening is god. We reject the gospel because God wanted us to reject the gospel. And yet you think a spiritually dead skeptic should figure out which of you got the bible "right". LOL </p><blockquote> Jesus lamented Jerusalem’s refusal to repent in Matthew 23:37. </blockquote><p>Because the bible is inconsistent in its portrayal of how god is.</p><blockquote>God expressed his desire to save people rather than to bring judgment in Ezekiel 18. </blockquote><p>He also expressed "delight" to cause rape and parental cannibalism in Deuteronomy 28:63. </p><blockquote>The chapter ends with God lamenting, “For I take no pleasure in anyone’s death … so repent and live” (Ezek. 18:32). It is when a person and society turn from God that evil increases.</blockquote><p>It's also when God sends an evil spirit from heaven that evil increases:</p><p></p><blockquote><p> 19 Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.</p><p> 20 "The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that.</p><p> 21 "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'</p><p> 22 "The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'</p><p> 23 "Now therefore, behold,<b><span style="color: red;"> the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets;</span></b> and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you." (1 Ki. 22:19-23 NAU)</p></blockquote><p></p><p><br /></p><blockquote> Throughout the book of Judges, one finds an example of what happens as a nation further slips into depravity as they continue to reject the loving will of God.<br /></blockquote><p>Which is curious since you assume they had much better evidence for their god's existence than we have today. They were descendants of the Exodus generation....and you think ancient Hebrew oral tradition "reliably" reported true history, right?</p><blockquote>Truth #4: God holds each person accountable for their actions.<br /></blockquote><p>No, God can free somebody from responsibility for sin by simply waiving his magic wand. God's law reqired David to be killed for adultery and murder, but God was capable of exempting David from this mandatory death penalty in 2nd Samuel 12:13.</p><blockquote><br />Lastly, the Scripture teaches that God holds each person accountable for their actions. This is not only true for unbelievers, but it is also true for believers. Paul speaks on the Judgment Seat of Christ in 1 Corinthians 9:4–27; 2 Corinthians 5:10–11; and Romans 14:10. The writer of Hebrews adds, “And just as it is appointed for people to die once—and after this, judgment—so also Christ, having been offered only once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (Heb. 9:27–28). Thus, each person will have to give an account for their deeds.<br /></blockquote><p>Have fun trying to "prove" that any of that crap "applies to" any modern-day person. That would require you to venture outside the bible itself, and make use of evidence that is not divinely inspired. </p><blockquote>Conclusion<br />Christianity holds the best answer for why a loving God allows evil deeds to occur. </blockquote><p>Maybe that explains why so many Christians apostatize? </p><blockquote>Could he stop every evil act? Well, he could and sometimes has. But if God were to intervene in every act of evil, he would remove the free agency of humanity. </blockquote><p>Then you necessarily admit that when cops chase down and capture a suspect, they are removing the free agency of the suspect. Is it god's desire that today's police force criminal against their wills into jail? If so, then your god does not respect human freewill as much as you pretend.</p><blockquote>Remember that God allowed himself to become victimized by the depraved nature of humanity. </blockquote><p>LOL. </p><blockquote>He allowed himself to be crucified on a cross at the hands of evil men to provide the ultimate good—a way for humanity to be reconciled to himself. This opened a pathway into an eternity with him.<br /></blockquote><p>He was stupid, since he could easily forgive those who do not seek it (Luke 23:34), he can exempt anybody from the otherwise mandatory penalty of the law without needing to "sacrifice" anything (2nd Samuel 12:13, if you claim god's torture and killing of David's baby was the sacrifice, then you believe YHWH is just as bad as the Canaanites, whom you credit with "child sacrifice"). God could force himself upon anti-Christian bigots and provide forceful evidence guaranteed to produce a change of mind (Acts 9, 22, 26, Paul's conversion).</p><blockquote>Granted, the solution that Christianity offers does not always bring immediate gratification. We often want justice now for atrocious acts committed. If you find yourself in that situation, then rest assured that you are in good company. The prophet Habakkuk contemplated the same. Yet God answered the prophet much as he does us. </blockquote><p>No, you think Habakkuk was "inspired by God" to write inerrantly. You deny that any person today has that level of access to the divine intent. </p><blockquote>Justice is coming. God will weigh the actions of each person and will judge accordingly. But know this, only a covenant relationship with God through Christ will grant you access into his kingdom. Make sure that your heart is right with him. To allow anyone into heaven, God must extend grace rather than judgment. Personally, I am thankful for God’s loving grace. Nonetheless, evil will not win in the end. Instead, the love of God wins for eternity.<br /></blockquote><p>Then apparently you never read the last chapter of Revelation. Evil is going to continue even after this alleged "day of "judgment":</p><p></p><blockquote> 15 Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. (Rev. 22:15 NAU)</blockquote><p></p><p> </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Here is my initial reply to that article:</b></p><p>I don’t understand why you think subjective morality is somehow defective or insufficient to explain morality. Your god is the most complex imaginable thing, assuring you that under Occam’s Razor he stays as the most unlikely candidate, since all non-god explanations are necessarily less complex than “god”.</p>I have blasted to bits many times in the past Frank Turek’s argument to god from morality, an argument you now imitate here when you pretend that atheism logically leads to pitiless indifference.<br /><br />I don’t understand why you think getting pitiless indifference out of “atheism” is supposed to be some sort of rebuttal to atheism. Are you not aware of just exactly how pitilessly indifferent most educated adults are toward the plight of the less fortunate? One minute after the radio host speaks in hushed tone about the recent Texas school massacre, she is speaking all excitedly in congratulating some caller for solving a puzzle-game.<br /><br />Furthermore, most people are hardwired by evolution against pitiless indifference, we are mammals, we by nature do have some care and concern for others like us, even if we are indifferent to unfairness we see happening elsewhere.<br /><br />I sure wish you’d allow substantive reply, because allowing only minimal reply gives the reader the false impression that nobody is able to “refute” you comprehensively. I request a formal written debate with you at any location of your choosing.<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Here is Chilton's response to my reply...which was a problem because with such response Chilton disabled the 'reply' function to make sure that his comments could not be rebutted <i>in the place that rebuttal would be most effective (his own website)</i>: I reply to those comments respectively:</b></div><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/author/bchilton77outlook-com"><img src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c291ab19c5773dbaea6bf3e57f09fd4d?s=64&r=pg" /></a><br />Author<br /><a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/author/bchilton77outlook-com">Brian Chilton</a><br /> 23 minutes ago<br /><br />Reply to <a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/2022/05/29/christianity-offers-the-best-solution-to-the-problem-of-evil/#comment-1465">barry</a><br />Barry, evolution cannot account for anything unless it is guided by intelligence.</blockquote><p>And then he disables the reply-function, as if his opinion were the end of the matter! </p><blockquote> If you logically follow the atheist line of thought, then it only stands to reason that nothing matters in a world where God does not exist.</blockquote><p>No, purely naturalistic processes sufficiently account for altruism and the lack of nihilism among most atheists. </p><blockquote> No justice will be ultimately found. </blockquote><p>And if people were not so mired in fallacious theology, they would not desire for a justice that transcends space and time...whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. </p><blockquote>You may say, “That’s where we need to step in and provide justice.” Well and good. However, there are many crimes that go unpunished.</blockquote><p>So? Our hatred of the notion of guilty criminals not being caught doesn't imply there is a level of justice beyond the human level. </p><blockquote>Additionally, many innocent parties have been imprisoned for crimes they never committed. What of all the supremacists who unjustly lynched young black men in the streets in the late 1800s and early 1900s? Where is justice found for those poor souls?</blockquote><p>They were denied justice. How does that begin to express or imply they will endure some higher-than-human justice? You are clearing employing the fallacy of appeal to emotion. </p><blockquote>Atheism offers nothing to account for morality and justice. </blockquote><p>And fingernails offer nothing to account for stale taco shells.</p><p>Atheism is merely denial of, or lack of belief in, a god. "Atheism" is not a word connoting any specific philosophy beyond the non-existence of gods. Your not understanding how atheists could possibly care about anything is not a testament to the problems of atheism, but a testament to your own ignorance of how sufficiently naturalistic realities account for mammalian altruism.</p><blockquote>It offers no sense of justice for shooters who cowardly take their own lives or who were executed in an exchange of fire with the authorities.</blockquote><p>Neither does any philosophy that says God caused the shooter to commit the murders, like Deuteronomy 32:39. </p><blockquote> If evolution is your go-to response, then how can we trust anything we think as we are nothing more than molecules set in motion by chemical responses? </blockquote><p>Well first, Christianity doesn't have a solution to that problem, because Christians disagree on how to interpret the bible, so that not even a very confident belief that "god is guiding me" constitutes the least bit of dependable justification to believe you have the "truth". Too many fundamentalists have become liberals or atheists later in life, to pretend that the way you currently feel in your fundamentalist dogmatism is "truth". How often do Christians find out that doctrines they held for decades, were false?</p><p>Second, you are fallaciously assuming without evidence that "molecules set in motion by chemical responses" are insufficient to enable us to detect truth. You would agree that bacteria and bugs lack soul and spirit, and are therefore <i>purely </i>physical creatures, and yet their <i>purely </i>chemical brains somehow enable them to detect truth sufficiently to prevent them from going extinct. They can tell, even if only imperfectly, that danger is near.</p><blockquote>Atheism has nothing to offer, except for deluding ourselves to think that we are our own gods and will never give an account to anyone but ourselves. </blockquote><p>You are just preaching to the choir, this is not "argument". </p><blockquote>That, my friend, is what makes atheism so dangerous–not so much dangerous for society, but dangerous to those who delude themselves with such a notion.<br /></blockquote><p>You have not shown any "danger". You have simply brandished your ignorance of the sufficiency of the naturalistic explanations.</p><blockquote>Pertaining to the Occam’s Razor argument, I would argue the opposite. It is far simpler to envision a universe stemming from an uncaused Cause (being God) than a series of physical events occurring in the past.</blockquote><p>But that doesn't explain anything, because "uncaused cause" and "God" are plagued by ceaseless hosts of philosophical defects. In short, in the adult world, you cannot explain how the book got on the table by positing the existence of fairies. </p><blockquote> For a good scientific argument for the case for God, see Stephen C. Meyer’s book Return of the God Hypothesis.<br /></blockquote><p>I'm not seeing the relevance of atheism being false: you have not, and never will, make a convincing case that there is any "danger" in atheism, nor will you make the case that anything in the bible "applies to" modern day people. </p><blockquote>I would happily debate you if you were willing to listen to the points that were being made. But as it stands right now, you have not shown that you are willing to listen to the other side. As such, an exercise of this nature would be futile, as both of us would simply be talking over the other.</blockquote><p>You are obviously stupid and bigoted: this post shows that I have a habit of responding point by point.</p><p>Second, the only reason you think I wasn't willing to listen to the other side, is because of your dogshit posting rule that disallows criticial replies unless they are limited to just a few lines.</p><p>Your excuse for declining my debate challenge was transparently dishonest, and the <i>real </i>reason you won't debate me is because I've hit you in the past with arguments you haven't dealt with and cannot deal with in any sustained fashion. You are afraid that when your critic is allowed more than a few lines to criticize you, you won't be able to keep up. Yes, most Christians in apologetics are infested by the sin of pride. They wouldn't truthfully admit their ignorance and fright of debating if their lives depended on it. You are no exception. </p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-85619689124360535212022-05-16T11:38:00.003-07:002022-05-16T11:38:31.223-07:00my reply to BellatorChristi.com on bible "hell"<b><i>This is my reply to an article by Dr. Daniel Merritt, Ph.D., Th.D, at BellatorChristi entitled</i></b><br /><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/2022/05/09/understanding-why-there-is-a-hell/" target="_blank"><b>Understanding Why There is a Hell</b></a></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/2022/05/09/understanding-why-there-is-a-hell/" target="_blank">May 9, 2022</a></b></div></div><blockquote><div>When is the last time you heard a sermon on hell? </div></blockquote><p>It's been about 25 years. </p><blockquote><div>Hell is a doctrine that in the majority of Christendom is dismissed today as being an archaic belief that is ripped right out of the pages of mythology. </div></blockquote><p>If it is the "majority of Christendom" that dismisses "hell", then you have a choice: The majority of Christians who dismiss hell are spiritually alive or dead. If they are spiritually alive, then you are a fool to expect spiritually <i>dead </i>skeptics to have a more accurate understanding of a biblical doctrine than a spiritually alive Christian has. In that case, spiritual death gives the skeptic all the reasonableness they need to reject the doctrine. If you don't expect a blind person to see what is in front of them, why would you expect a spiritually dead person to discern biblical "truth"?</p><p>If most Christians who reject hell are spiritually dead, then they would obviously disagree with you. If two Christians within the Trinitarian group question each other's salvation, you are a fool to expect a spiritually dead skeptic to figure out who is right and to thus to avoid the Christian who is "wrong" about hell.</p><p>But either way, your comment is problematically generalized. The vast majority of Christians do not dismiss "hell", they dismiss the eternal conscious torment-<i>interpretation </i>of biblical "hell".</p><p>So you have set up a false dilemma: the issue is not whether Christians should believe a biblical doctrine of hell, but whether they can be reasonable to interpret biblical hell as <i>annihilation</i>. As you are well aware, annihilationism is convincing more and more Christians within the Trinitarian group, it isn't just the 7th day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. Clark Pinnock was a signatory to the ICBI statement on bible inerrancy (see <a href="https://normangeisler.com/a-band-aid-on-cancer-ets-icbi/" target="_blank">here</a>), yet he held:</p><blockquote>How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards, and by the Gospel itself"<br />“The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent”, Criswell Theological Review, Spring, 1990: p. 246-247</blockquote><p>Merritt continues: </p><blockquote><div>To speak of hell today is considered to be an unnecessary figment of over religious minds that seek to scare someone into submitting to an ogre-like God who takes delight in throwing someone who “steps out of line” into an eternal lake of fire. </div></blockquote><p>Deuteronomy 28:63 sums up a list of horrors that only a lunatic would inflict on children, then sums up the list saying that just as god would "delight" to give abundance to those who obey, he will also "delight" the same way to inflict those horrors on children.</p><p></p><blockquote> 54 "The man who is refined and very delicate among you shall be hostile toward his brother and toward the wife he cherishes and toward the rest of his <b><u>children </u></b>who remain,<br /> 55 so that he will not give even one of them any of the flesh of his children which he will eat, since he has nothing else left, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy will oppress you in all your towns.<br /> 56 "The refined and delicate woman among you, who would not enture to set the sole of her foot on the ground for delicateness and refinement, shall be hostile toward the husband she cherishes and toward her <b><u>son and daughter</u></b>,<br /> 57<b><u> and toward her afterbirth which issues from between her legs and toward her children whom she bears; for she will eat them secretly for lack of anything else, </u></b>during the siege and the distress by which your enemy will oppress you in your towns. (Deut. 28:54-57 NAU)</blockquote><p></p><p></p><blockquote><b><span style="color: red;"> 63 "It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so <u>the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you</u>; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. (Deut. 28:63 NAU)</span></b></blockquote><p>Merritt continues: </p><p></p><blockquote><div>After all, it is said, a loving God would never banish anyone to suffer the fate of eternal flames.<br /></div></blockquote><p>Sort of like "a loving father would never rape his adult daughter".</p><blockquote><div>Interestingly, Jesus spoke more on hell than He did heaven.</div></blockquote><p>That is a lie.</p><p>http://www.rightreason.org/2010/did-jesus-preach-hell-more-than-heaven/</p><blockquote><div>That being true, teaching about hell must not be dismissed as being antiquated, but is of the utmost importance to understand why there is a hell…and even more so how to avoid such a place. </div></blockquote><p>Naw, Jesus was just another dime-store fanatic. I've written thousands of pages refuting the resurrection arguments of Habermas, Licona and other apologists.</p><blockquote><div>While discussing hell is a topic one would like to avoid and dismiss, if it is a real place to neglect attention to its existence is at one’s own peril.<br /></div></blockquote><p>Sure, if you can "show" that Jesus' warnings about hell apply to modern-day people. Good luck attempting mission impossible. </p><blockquote><div>The bottom line is this, when one understands the holiness of God one understands why there is a hell. </div></blockquote><p>It is beyond dispute that ancient semitic people exaggerated matters in their daily conversations and especially their religious writings. You would probably resort to that excuse to get rid of the horrors in Deuteronomy 28, supra, thus motivating skeptics to wonder whether Jesus' warnings about hell were also just another case of Semitic exaggeration.</p><p>Indeed, you probably don't have the first clue as to how to tell when ancient Semitic theology is employing exaggeration and when it isn't.</p><p>And whatever teaching-resource you recommend, how can I stay safe from the threat of hell while I go about procuring and studying that hermeneutical aid? </p><p>What would be the point of such study if I'm supposed to believe/obey first, and only study second? Doesn't rationality require that I first learn about the issues and form an hypothesis before I just dive in? But then again, does the urgency of needing to avoid hell make it 'dangerous' for me to delay the day of my salvation?</p><p>I mean, if I died in a car accident on the way to the library to check out "1001 Ways to distinguish Semitic reality from Semitic exaggeration", would I be saved because I was searching? Would I go to hell because I wasn't a Christian at the time I died? Or would you pull the same desperate excuse Lydia McGrew did, and speculate that there a second chance in the afterlife for those who die while in the effort to check out Christian claims?</p><p>And how long does God want me to study Calvinism, before he will expect me to draw conclusions about whether my choices in life contribute anything to my life, or if they are rendered nothing more than reactions to the allegedly infallible divine will? If you don't know how long God wants me to study Calvinism, don't you forfeit the right to balk if I answer that question for myself in a way you don't like?</p><blockquote><div>And when one understands the holiness of God and sees their own sinfulness in the light of His pure and perfect holiness, one understands that hell is what we all actually deserve. </div></blockquote><p>Your god is not that holy. The bible attests that he is often corrected by smarter humans. See Exodus 32:9-14. The efforts of classical theists to distinguish this from the analogous case of a friend changing their mind after receiving better advice from another human being, are laughable and are guided more by concerns about inerrancy and less by concerns to interpret the story correctly. But bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I can be reasonable to remain open to the possibility that the bible makes contradictory statements about god. </p><blockquote><div>When one grasps the majestic, perfect holiness of God, like Isaiah (Is. 6), one will realize they are sinfully-unworthy to EVER encounter the presence of One so holy-other.<br /></div></blockquote><p>Didn't the sinful Balaam encounter God in Numbers 22:33, you know, that bible verse that equates God with Satan?</p><blockquote><div>Come, let us reason together.<br /></div></blockquote><p>Then God is a fucking idiot because he in Romans 3:9-18 condemns man's ability to reason correctly. </p><blockquote><div>Understanding Why There is a Hell and God’s Nature as Holy-Love<br /></div></blockquote><p>Are you even AWARE that many Trinitarian Evangelical Christian scholars have abandoned the <i>eternal conscious torment</i> version of hell for annihilationism? And yet you talk as if you can wave aside all that Trinitarian scholarship because of god's holiness...as if you think many such scholars, despite having legitimate claims to being both authentically born again and walking in the light of Christ for decades, somehow "missed" that the holiness of god somehow demands that he torture unrepentant sinners forever. LOL.</p><blockquote><div>The Bible is clear that God is holy and that God is love</div></blockquote><p>The Apocrypha is also clear that the Maccabees were zealous Jews. Did you have a point? </p><blockquote><div>…He is holy-love. </div></blockquote><p>He is also stupid, by his own admission. See Genesis 6:6. The immediate context indicates the statement about God's dissatisfaction with his prior decision to create man is no less literal than the prior story of the sons of God taking the daughters of men. It is how the originally intended audience would have interpreted the account, which matters most in interpretation, and such audience, being pre-scientific and mostly illiterate, would not have had the theological sophistication to pretend that they would have trifled that such language is "anthropomorphism".</p><blockquote><div>While Christendom puts great emphasis on God’s love, His love cannot be properly appreciated if one doesn’t understand His holiness. </div></blockquote><p>That is stupid: you can see the love of a man in assisting a victim of a traffic accident when he calls 911, even if you don't know anything more about him. Assuming he called 911 out of a general love for humanity is going to be reasonable until specific evidence is given indicating he called 911 for other more selfish reasons. </p><blockquote><div>Holiness denotes the absolute majesty and splendor of God, that He is distinctly transcendent from any other being or thing He has created. He is holy-other. Holiness describes the essence of God. He is holy; divine holiness of character being who He is in all of His perfect ethical and moral authenticity and truthfulness. Holiness is His self-affirming purity; He cannot be other than holy. </div></blockquote><p>Was Jesus still holy at the time he "became sin" (2nd Cor. 5:21)?</p><p>Or did I forget that Jesus has two natures and that it was only his human nature that became sin?</p><p>Gee, that's funny, the bible doesn't put forth much effort to say Jesus had two natures, and the gospels most certainly don't get that specific. Aren't you as a Christian supposed to be concerned that this sharp distinction between Jesus' human and divine natures was condemned at The Council of Chalcedon?</p><p><span face="sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202122; font-size: 14px;"></span></p><blockquote>...One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.</blockquote><p></p><p>If Jesus is a single person, and that person has two natures, then its going to be reasonable to conclude that when "Jesus" became sin (2nd Cor. 5:21), ALL of him became sin, not merely his "human nature". I don't personally care if the apostle Paul would trifle otherwise, just like I wouldn't care if Paul trifled that demon serpents bite the spirits of unbelievers in some after-life. Paul doesn't have the minimal credentials I require in order to justify me in trusting his judgment about horrifically debatable things that not even Trinitarian Christians can agree on.</p><p>Merritt continues:</p><blockquote><div>Holiness is God’s perfect righteousness. Habakkuk says, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13). Holiness is God’s infinite value and worth as the One who is absolutely unique and morally pure and perfect. God’s holiness pervades His entire being and shapes all His attributes and His actions with humanity. That God is holy means that His very being is completely devoid of even a trace of sin, unrighteousness, or moral deviation.<br /></div></blockquote><p>Semitic exaggeration. </p><blockquote><div>Understanding Why There is a Hell and the Creation Story<br />In the Creation Story, it was God’s desire that holiness be the atmosphere which would pervade the Garden of Eden, and man through fellowship with his Creator was to cooperatively conform to the order of His holiness. All of creation was to reflect the nature of a holy God, reflect the holiness of the Creator. God created the world where His holiness was woven into the very fabric of creation. When man willfully sinned, he defied God’s holiness.</div></blockquote><p>But man in sinning conformed perfectly to the hidden will of God, or so the consistent 5 Point Calvinists say. How long do you recommend an unbeliever research the biblical claims of Calvinists about God's sovereignty? If you don't have biblical justification for that length of recommended time, isn't your recommendation something less than absolute? Doesn't that mean that it will be reasonable for the unbeliever to disagree and suggest another length of time to study such a subject? </p><blockquote><div> The doctrine of Original Sin means that each of us have inherited a sinful nature from disobedient Adam. </div></blockquote><p>A doctrine denied by the Orthodox church and several other denominations such as Church of Christ. How long do you recommend an unbeliever study their arguments aginst original sin before God will expect them to start drawing conclusions about that doctrine? </p><p>And how can the unbeliever stay safe from the threat of hell while they engage in that research?</p><blockquote><div>Our inherited sinful nature means we are more than children who have gone astray, but we possess a nature that is consciously and actively rebellious against God’s holiness and our rebellion is directed against the holy God who created us and who is the true Source of all spiritual and ethical morality and reality. We are sinners by nature and by choice. </div></blockquote><p>Correction, we only choose to sin because our nature is sinful. If we didn't have a sin nature, we wouldn't sin any more than Jesus sinned. </p><blockquote><div>Sin is that which seeks to undermine God’s rightful place in our lives and in mutiny disregards the very holiness of God. Sin in its very nature, is an assault on God’s holiness. When His holiness is violated, nature and man convulse with consequences which repulses holiness and invites holy justice.<br /></div></blockquote><p>But if God is everything you think he is, he knew sin was inevitable, and therefore, God no more "expected" Adam and Eve to consistently obey him than you would expect a cow to jump over the moon. With good reason the bible warns you against peering into theology too much: you might discover its fallacies. <i>Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!</i></p><blockquote><div>Understanding Why There is a Hell and the Guilt of Sin<br />For our holy God there can be no compromise with sin.</div></blockquote><p>Then what word would you use to characterize God's "allowing" polygamy in the OT? Isn't "compromise" the best word? If the Adam and Eve marriage model is valid, polygamy would have been sin in the OT. </p><blockquote><div> Sin must be dealt with.</div></blockquote><p>No, Jesus forgave sins plenty i<b><u>ncluding forgiving those who manifested neither repentance nor desire for forgiveness</u></b>. Luke 23:34. God no more needs to "punish" sin than you need to "rob a bank".</p><p>You will, of course, trifle that Jesus' granting forgiveness during his earthly ministry was with a view toward his need to die for those sins. That is also bullshit, even in the OT, God can get rid of sin with nothing more than a wave of his magic wand:</p><p></p><blockquote> 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. (2 Sam. 12:13 NAU)</blockquote><p></p><p>See how easy it is for God to lift the death penalty against adultery and murder?</p><p>But then your "holy" God decides to torture David's infant son for 7 days for sins the baby obviously wasn't guilty of:</p><p></p><blockquote> 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."<br /> 15 So Nathan went to his house. <b><u>Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick</u></b>.<br /> 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.<br /> 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.<br /> 18 <b><span style="color: red;">Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.</span></b> (2 Sam. 12:14-18 NAU)</blockquote><p></p><p>Merritt continues:</p><blockquote><div> Judgement is holiness’ reaction to sin. </div></blockquote><p>Unfortunately for you, forgiveness is also Holiness' reaction to sin. Luke 23:34. And it's spelled "judgment", not "judgement". </p><blockquote><div>Hell is where all sin that is not adequately dealt with will be banished; banished to a place of eternal alienation from God because holiness’ reaction to sin is just judgment.</div></blockquote><p>Why can't god simply forgive unrepentant unbelievers the way Jesus did in Luke 23:34?</p><p>Why can't God cause a fetus to be filled with the Holy Spirit, at a time in its life when it is incapable of choosing between good and evil (Luke 1:15)?</p><p>If God knows of a non-hell non-judgment way to reduce the amount of sin in the world, and he doesn't employ that solution, doesn't that make it reasonable, even if not infallible, to conclude that God likes to take problems and falsely insist they are bigger than they really are? In other words, your god is a drama-queen?</p><blockquote><div>Since I am guilty before a holy God, since my sinful and rebellious nature has willfully rebelled against His pure and perfect holiness, unless my sin is dealt with, then holiness will justly deal with sin in judgement.</div></blockquote><p>God could have spared you all that sin-problem by simply filling you with the Holy Spirit before you were born, Luke 1:15. So if God chose to employ a solution that didn't preempt you from sinning, then God obviously wanted you to sin. God knew of a way to achieve his will with you without allowing sin, but he chose to forego that solution and employ a solution that involved you becoming a sinner. The notion that God "doesn't want" you to sin, is utterly stupid, and only dictated by the requirements of your theology, not common sense. And Exodus 32:9-14 indicates God sometimes lacks common sense. And Genesis 6:6 indicates God sometimes regrets not mankind's becoming sinful, but <i>regrets his own decision</i> to create mankind in the first place. </p><blockquote><div> When one sees their sin in the light of God’s perfect and pure holiness, they realize that they are undeserving to ever come into the presence of His majestic holiness and justly deserve judgment. </div></blockquote><p>Then how do you explain other equally authentically born again Trinitarians, whose salvation status you would charitably refuse to question, who say this article of yours teaches a heretical view of hell and god's justice?</p><p>Should skeptics be warned that even if they become authentically born again, there is STILL a very good chance they will end up espousing "heresy"? Then maybe my standards are higher than god's, but I don't see the point of going through the motions to convince myself I am "born again", if this still leaves the doors wide open to the possibility that I'll get a nasty surprise on judgment day (Matthew 7:22-23, Hebrews 6:4-8). </p><blockquote><div>A holy God owes sin nothing but well-deserved judgment. </div></blockquote><p>According to Luke 23:34, a holy god also believes himself obligated to forgive the type of sinners that not only engage in sin against him, but who manifest not the slightest bit of intent to repent or seek forgiveness. </p><blockquote><div>God would deny His own holy nature if His holiness did not react to sin in judgement.<br /></div></blockquote><p>Then God must have been denying his own holy nature in 2nd Samuel 12:13, supra, where he exempts David from the death penalty for both murder and adultery. Apparently, god is capable of relaxing his standards when he really wants to. He is also capable of punishing David's baby for sins the baby did not commit (v. 15-18), which opens the door wide to the possibility that god sees nothing wrong in torturing babies in hell. If he doesn't see anything wrong in torturing babies in this current life, what makes you think god would regard it as "unjust" to do the same to a baby in the afterworld? </p><blockquote><div>Understanding Why There is a Hell and the Offense of Sin<br />Now remember, God is holy-love. Though God’s love desires to extend forgiveness, the offensiveness of sin and sin’s assault on holiness must first be satisfied and dealt with.</div></blockquote><p>No, see Luke 23:34 </p><blockquote><div> While holiness cannot overlook sin, it must judge it, </div></blockquote><p>False, God got rid of David's sins by merely waving his magic wand. 2nd Samuel 12:13. </p><blockquote><div>His love provided the means were by His holiness was satisfied and our sins could be forgiven!! </div></blockquote><p>But his love apparently knew of a way to "forgive" people of sin before Jesus was crucified. Jesus was forgiving unrepentant sinners in Luke 23:34, and the OT is clear that under the animal sacrifice system, the blood of bulls and goats made a person "clean of their sins before the Lord". Leviticus 16:30.</p><p>God also apparently sees nothing wrong in causing sinners to be filled with the Holy Spirit before they are born. Luke 1:15. One wonders how much sin would be avoided, and how much excuse for divine wrath God would be deprived of, had he done for all humans what he did for John the Baptist in Luke 1:15.</p><blockquote><div>Our holy God in love took upon Himself our flesh, and becoming the representative man, becoming our substitute, He lived that perfect holy life which holiness demands but to which we cannot comply, therefore deserving judgement. </div></blockquote><p>Wrong again, the OT is clear that obeying all of God's commands is NOT too difficult:</p><p></p><blockquote>10 if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul.<br /><b><span style="color: red;"> 11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.</span></b><br /> 12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'<br /> 13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'<br /> 14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. (Deut. 30:10-14 NAU)</blockquote><p>Merritt continues: </p><p></p><blockquote><div>Christ, as your and my representative perfectly complied with God’s holy demands which we could never do, thus satisfying the demands of holiness. </div></blockquote><p>Jesus could not possibly have "perfectly" complied, because Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in "favor with God". IF that is true, then his conformity to god's will in his earlier years cannot have been as perfect as his conformity to God's will in his later years. Yes, Luke 2:52 is an affront to Jesus' alleged divine "nature", but we are reasonable to assume Luke did not possess the sophistication of Nicaea and later councils. When he said "Jesus" grew in favor with God, we are reasonable to assume he meant everything that made up Jesus, he did not mean "only his human nature". Since the question is whether skeptics can be reasonable to view things that way, your predictable recital to God's mysterious ways does not function to impose the least bit of intellectual obligation on the skeptic, nor does not function as "rebuttal", it merely helps you save face. </p><blockquote><div>Then on the cross, the perfect Son of God took the sin of humanity upon Himself and confessed holiness’ just judgment on sin, which judgement you and I deserved, thus demonstrating love that goes beyond our comprehension. </div></blockquote><p>If "love" goes beyond our comprehension, then so does the manner in which god withholds love, in which case there is a probability that the reason we shy away from saying God sends some babies to hell arises from our inability to understand god's ways. Torturing babies in hell certainly defies common sense, but in Christian apologetics, "common sense" is routinely tossed out the window when expediency dictates.</p><blockquote><div>Christ lived a life I could not live, then paid a debt I could never pay (Romans 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:21). Now that is LOVE….</div></blockquote><p>And the child molester gave the child food and water during the two months that he held her in his basement after kidnapping her. Now that is LOVE...but obviously humans are quite capable of manifesting "love" while also manifesting desire to harm. So it doesn't matter that God shows "love", real-world experience teaches us that the person who does a loving thing, can just as easily harbor desire to harm the entire time. </p><blockquote><div>and when you and I understand the holiness of God and the just judgment upon sin for violating God’s holiness, then one bows in awe and wonder at such love demonstrated in the Christ event that makes it possible for sinful man to escape our sins deserved fate.</div></blockquote><p>No, God can simply cause people to be filled with the Holy Spirit before they are born (Luke 1:15) and can get rid of our sins by simply waving his magic wand the same way he exempted David from the death penalties for adultery and murder (2nd Samuel 12:13). God's preferred method is apparently to avoid the solution that suppresses sin as much as possible. </p><blockquote><div> When one grasps what Christ willingly did for us in His life and death, then the word “grace” takes on a depth of meaning that results in praise forever flowing from our lips.<br />Conclusion<br />Yes, there is a hell. </div></blockquote><p>This was a horrifically weak argument. You avoided all biblical referenes to hell and simply tried to prove something with human sophistry, when Paul, your faith hero, was telling you for 2,000 years that persuasive words are not the true Christian's priority (1st Cor. 2:4-5).</p><blockquote><div>Hell is a reserved place for divine justice in the face of willful defiance to divine holiness. </div></blockquote><p>But most non-Christians are not "willfully" defying God anymore than authentically born again Trinitarians who are Preterist are "willfully" defying Acts 1:11. So was it your intention to teach that the vast majority of non-Christians don't go to hell in the afterworld? </p><blockquote><div>Holiness’ judgement is justified reactional justice on sin’s violation of God’s pure and perfect holy nature. </div></blockquote><p>But human wisdom can successfully persuade god that his intent to judge humans is stupid and should be avoided. Exodus 32:9-14. </p><blockquote><div>Yet His divine love, as seen in the Christ of the cross, is offered and available to all who see their sinfulness in the light of his divine holiness and embrace the indescribable provision that is found in Jesus Christ. </div></blockquote><p>No thank you. The true gospel was preached by Jesus before he died, and for obvious reasons did not require anybody to believe he died for their sins. You will say the rules changed, or something was "added" somehow when Jesus died on the cross, so, how long does God want unbelievers to study the differences of bible interpretation between dispensationsalists themselves, and between dispensationalists and covenant theologians, before he will expect the unbeliever to start drawing conclusions about who is right and wrong? If you don't know, you forfeit the right to balk if I answer that question for myself in a way you don't like.</p><p>Therefore, if I have studied the matter for several years, I cannot be faulted if my conclusions are "wrong".</p><p>What I find stupid about the doctrine of hell and God is that we are supposed to believe that there is terrible danger to unbelievers, and yet it is not god, but a mass of conflicting Christian theologians and apologists, who are the only ones doing the talking. If the creator of hell doesn't wish to make himself sufficiently clear for even authentically born again Trinitarians, he is a fucking fool to "expect" spiritually dead skeptics to "correctly" interpret biblical "hell".</p><div></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-37900768244076148802022-05-09T13:15:00.000-07:002022-05-09T13:15:20.017-07:00the leaked SCOTUS opinion<p> I just want to go on record saying that I think most of the SCOTUS justices likely knew of and implicitly if not explicitly approved of somebody leaking the opinion this early. SCOTUS is always worried about how "evolving society" reinterprets the Constitution, and it only make sense, from the perspective of the Justices, to want to see how the nation would react before they make their position into law.</p><p>However, they would be creating legal hell for themselves if they admitted they wanted that opinion leaked early.</p><p>Therefore, what probably happened was what happened when one gangster communicates to another an implicit request for murder. Of course they aren't going to state the terms very clearly, and the ambiguity is always in the name of future plausible deniability. So I plan to laugh at any such Justice who in the future tries to pretend that the leak was unwanted or unfortunate. BULLSHIT.</p><p>But the Justices are fools if they want us to think they'd never find anything useful toward the goal of keeping the peace and avoiding civil war by leaking a draft of an opinion that carries enormous potential to divide America even more than ever.</p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-50658704615077026062022-05-09T12:32:00.008-07:002022-05-09T12:50:50.302-07:00my reply to Bellator-Christi on Jesus' level of knowledgeThis is my reply to an article at BellatorChristi.com by Sherene Khouri entitled <br /><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The Knowledge of Jesus</b></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>May 6, 2022</b></div><br />See <a href="https://bellatorchristi.com/2022/05/06/the-knowledge-of-jesus/#respond" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Some skeptics and even Christians present the following question regarding the knowledge of Jesus. “If Jesus is God, why he did not know when he would return?” According to Mattew 24:36, Jesus seems not to know the hour and the day of his coming. “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36).[1] This idea is also echoed in Mark 13:32 “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” The superficial reading of the text might show that Jesus does not know the time of His coming because the Father has not disclosed it; however, this understanding is problematic for those who claim Jesus is God. </blockquote></div><div>But even inerrantist Christian scholars admit Mark 13:32 was difficult even for Matthew and Luke to accept:</div><blockquote><div><span lang="EN-US">The difficulty of the statement can be seen in the fact that many manuscripts of </span><span lang="EN-US">Matt 24:36</span><span lang="EN-US"> and a few of Mark omit the statement and that <b><u>Luke omits the verse altogether. </u></b></span><b><u>It is also possible that Matthew himself omitted the statement, as he often did in the case of difficult statements in Mark</u></b>, and that later scribes added it in order to harmonize Matthew with Mark. Inasmuch as Matthew was more highly regarded and more frequently used than Mark in the medieval church, however, Mark usually was harmonized to Matthew rather than vice versa.</div><div><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span style="vertical-align: super;"></span></a>
<div>
<div id="ftn1"><div style="margin: 0in;">Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). <i>Vol. 23</i>: <i>Mark</i> (electronic e.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 217). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.</div></div></div></div><div></div></blockquote><div>The point is that if even spiritually alive apostles and their immediate followers could be so bothered by Mark 13:32 as to consider it best to get rid of it, then skeptics are justified to view Mark 13:32 as heretical. Or will you admit that Luke thought less of Mark than you do?</div><div><br /></div><div>Khouri continues:</div><div><blockquote>This article argues that Jesus does know about the timing because He presented many details about that day, but it is the type of knowledge that should not be announced.</blockquote>But Jesus in Mark 13:32 classified the character of his not knowing as on par with all other human beings and angels also not knowing this same factoid. At least in the case of all other human beings, their not knowing such a thing has nothing to do with desire to keep such a date secret, but only because they are genuinely ignorant. So skeptics can be reasonable to argue that the basis for Jesus not knowing such a thing was the same basis upon which he also declared that no other human beings knew such a thing…<i>both </i>classes were simply limited in how much information they had access to. <br /><br /><blockquote>The Divine Knowledge <br />The divine knowledge in the Christian worldview includes past, middle, and future knowledge. God knows everything that had happened, would have happened, and will happen. </blockquote>Here are the questions I posted to this article. They had to be brief because Bellator-Christi unabashadly admits it will reject replies that are too comprehensive or ask too many questions (i.e., smart skeptics who specialize in counter-apologetics are not allowed to fight back with everything they have at their disposal):<i><blockquote>How long do you recommend skeptics to study the differences between Christian scholars on the subject of exhaustive divine knowledge and open-theism, before we reach the point at which we can be reasonable to start drawing conclusions as to which camp is more “biblical”?<br /><br />Or must we be spiritually alive before we can beneficially distinguish orthodoxy from heresy?<br /><br />And what will god do to protect these inquiring skeptics from going to hell while they remain within this transitory “I’m-not-a-believer-but-I’m-still-researching-Christianity” phase?</blockquote></i><br />Khouri continues:</div><div><blockquote>However, divine knowledge is not always announced, and at some times it is announced in expected and unexpected ways (through humans or miracles). </blockquote>I'm not seeing the relevance. Jesus clearly asserted that God possessed a bit of factual knowledge of the future that Jesus himself equally clearly denied was possessed by the "Son". God's ability to refrain from announcing what's in his foreknowledge is irrelevant.</div><div><br /></div><div>Khouri continues:</div><div><blockquote>There are some places in the Bible where the superficial reading of the text implies that God is requesting information or seeking to learn something about the person or the situation. For instance, in Genesis 3:8-11, after the fall of Adam and Eve, God asks Adam “where are you?” as if God does not know where Adam is. Later in the text, God asks Adam “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” </blockquote>And the conservative Christian view says those stories were originally told by illiterate Hebrews from 2,000 b.c. or even earlier, when Hebrew theology was far less sophisticated than it is today. The conservative Christian wants to "reconcile" bible statements about God's apparent ignorance with other bible statements about God's full knowledge, all in the name of having a theologically consistent book that seems to be a prerequisite for rationalizing one's view that the bible is "god's word".</div><div><br /></div><div>But the more objective approach is to ask what theological position was held by the original authors of such stories. Any dipshit lawyer can "reconcile" any two statements, especially if they occur, in the case of the bible, hundreds of years apart. People back then did not speak in such comprehensive terms to as to preclude all possible harmonization scenarios that some inerrantist might propose. And yet most inerrantists stupidly think that because a harmonization scenario is merely possible, then skeptics have lost the bible-contradiction debate. LOL<br /><br />Khouri continues:<br /></div><blockquote><div>God’s question might be understood as if God does not know that Adam ate from the tree, and He is making sense of Adam’s disappearance. But a deeper look into the text reveals that God is not asking Adam about his location but getting him to confess what he has done. In other words, God asking a question is not done to acquire extra knowledge (because He does not know), but to have human beings confess their sins. </div><div></div></blockquote><div>Fallacy of single cause. There is nothing in the Genesis texts you cited requiring that there must only be a single cause for God's statements asking where Adam was. And there is no logical contradiction between God not knowing where Adam was, and God's wanting Adam to confess a sin. But regardless, all you are doing here is pushing the classical theist understanding and saying literally nothing about the Christian theologians who adopt "open theism" or process theology and therefore think these are cases of God being genuinely ignorant. They are not impressed with the inerrantist who points to other bible verses and then screams that god cannot contradict himself.</div><div><br /></div><div>So then, what? If you say Christian open theists aren't truly born again, well, you can't really know that, and the vast majority of conservatives, including the late Walter Martin, would say the presence of heresy in a Christian's theological understanding isn't sufficient by itself to justify placing them outside salvation. Skeptics would be reasonable to agree with the majority of conservative Christians that at the end of the day, you don't go to hell for heresy, but for having a heart that is not right with god. So you don't get anywhere with the skeptic who objects using open theist scholars, by saying those kind of Christians are just wolves in sheep's clothing.</div><div><br /></div><div>So then, what? How can we take seriously the conservative viewpoint that certain genuinely born again Christians persistently misunderstand the voice of the Holy Spirit, and despite their salvation and sincerity, espouse heresy? Skeptics are justified to conclude either a) there is "god" guiding anybody's bible interpretation, that's why so many "born-again" people disagree in how to interpret the bible, or b) God wants some authentically born-again Christians to misinterpret the bible, which then automatically excuses and justifies their "heresy".</div><div><br />The point being that you've done a rather sad job of pretending that the "correct" interpretation of the divine-knowledge statements in Genesis is the one you espouse. For all you know, authors with different theological perspectives wrote the various stories in Genesis, and a later editor came along and did an imperfect job of making the viewpoints look more harmonious than they really were.</div><div><br /></div><div>Gee, how many Christian scholars accept the documentary hypothesis? Or did I forget that you will just discount the significance of any Christian scholar who happens to disagree with your viewpoint?</div><div><br /></div><div>Khouri continues:</div><div><blockquote>A similar example happens when God wrestles with Jacob in Genesis 32:24-30. God asks Jacob “what is your name?” Does God not know what Jacob’s name is? Of course, He knows, but the answer lies in verse 28 when He says, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” God does not ask this question because He does not know the answer, but because He wanted to declare himself to Jacob. In verse 30, Jacob says, “I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” Jacob knew right away after this incident that he was wrestling with God. This is all to say that God does not acquire extra knowledge, but He knows everything. The superficial reading of the text might give the wrong impression about the knowledge of God. </blockquote>I'm sorry, but you have done literally nothing to show that the classical theist interpretation arises from the text itself. Yes, it is "god". Yes, Jacob knew at some point he wrestled with "god". Nothing abut this expresses or implies that the open-theist interpretation of that story is false or unreasonable. And to the ancient unsophisticated mind, a man's wrestling with "god" would suggest god might have limitations. Then again, nothing about bible interpretation affects anything in a skeptic's daily life if they don't let it, so what the bible "really" teaches is for all practical purposes, a pointless trifle of academia. We may as well be debating whether the Trojan War every happened. Big fucking deal.</div><div><br /></div><div>Khouri continues:</div><div><blockquote>The Different Types of Knowledge <br />Not all knowledge about a topic is equal or the same. According to the Dictionary of World Philosophy, there are three types of knowledge: a) Factual knowledge: it can also be called propositional knowledge. It is the knowledge of facts or a set of propositions that provides information. b) Procedural knowledge: this knowledge is practical. It is acquired through education, learning, and practice. It is expressed by “how to” clauses—a person knows how to ride his bicycle.[2] c) Knowledge by acquaintance, which is the knowledge of people, places, and things.[3] For instance, Susan knows that Alyssa is a musician (the propositional knowledge) is different from Suan knowing Alyssa because she is her sister (personal knowledge). </blockquote>But Jesus said the knowledge that he didn't have was missing from other human beings, and only the Father had it. So once again, because the other human beings' ignorance of Jesus' date of second coming was due to simple ignorance, we are reasonable, even if not infallible, to assume that Jesus made the comparison because he thought his own ignorance of the same thing was in the same class.</div><div><br /></div><div>Your reconciliation scenario is also ridiculous, since it would rationalize away any two contradictory statements somebody made about their knowledge. If a witness at the scene of the crime said "I don't know the suspect" but then later confessed "I knew the suspect before he committed the crime", your "apologetic" would enable the witness to "reconcile" this contradiction, and the police would be forced to accept it. Sorry, life doesn't work that way.<br /> <br />Khouri continues:</div><div><blockquote>Jesus said to the Jews who believed in Him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32). The Jews were not appreciative of what Jesus said because they thought that they knew the truth. The truth to them is God, and they know the name of God and His commandments. They consider themselves the children of Abraham and free men who were never slaves. However, Jesus was instructing them to abide in the word not in a propositional way, but in a practical way. He was not emphasizing the propositional knowledge that they have, but the procedural knowledge they should acquire lest they followed the propositional knowledge. Jesus knew that they are the children of Abraham, and they were never slaves, but He meant those who make sin are slaves to sin. They are not free because they know God. They are slaves because they commit sin. Those who know God propositionally are still slaves to sin until their knowledge is manifested practically. </blockquote>You are now contradicting other parts of the bible, such as Romans 3:9-10, where Paul includes his spiritually born-again self among those who are detestable because of their association with sin.</div><div><br /></div><div>And Christians disagree over what exactly Paul meant in Romans 7 in confessing himself to be a contradictory person captive both to sin and to his better spiritual judgment. You aren't going to resolve that disagreement to the point of "showing" that skeptics are "accountable" to "know" that their distrust of Paul is "wrong".<br /><blockquote>Additionally, the Bible reveals two types of divine knowledge: what is announced and what is not announced. God in His provision chooses to declare some of the world’s secrets, He leaves other information for human beings to discover on their own, and He announces other data expecting human beings to react to it. As Moses states, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut 26:26). This is to say that there is secret information that God chose not to declare and other knowledge that God revealed.</blockquote></div><div>I don't see the point: we are dealing with Jesus' confession of ignorance. Knowledge that God might choose to keep secret has nothing to do with it, except in the sense that Jesus was kept ignorant of it no less than the angels and the rest of humanity.</div><div><blockquote> In real life, I remember an incident that happened to me, which illustrates the non-announced type of knowledge. When I was in graduate school taking a biblical language class, I asked the professor during the exam review will this question be on the exam and she said, “I don’t know.” Of course, the professor knew what questions are on the test, but she could not tell me what those questions are. It is not the type of knowledge that should be announced. </blockquote>We don't know enough about this interaction to pretend that it is "clear" that the professor meant something other than genuine generic ignorance. her creation of the test doesn't mean she knew, at the point you asked the question, whether that particular question would appear on the test. And normally, when a person says "I don't know", they mean it in the same way it would be taken in a court of law, as a denial of factual knowledge.<br /><blockquote>Jesus’s Knowledge about the Last Day <br />Jesus knows everything because the Father has told Him. Jesus states, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Luke 10:22).</blockquote></div><div>Luke also omitted Mark 13:32. You can scream all you wish that even most NT scholars are "stupid" for adopting Markan Priority and the two-source hypothesis, but you aren't going to demonstrate this stupidity to such a degree as to render spiritually dead skeptic "accountable" to "know" that this most popular solution to the Synoptic problem is "wrong". Thus skeptics are reasonable, even if not infallible, to believe Luke copied off of Mark, but didn't copy out Mark 13:32 because Luke felt the statement was either heretical or reasonably capable of an interpretation that would support what Luke thought to be heresy. </div><div><br /></div><div>Feel free to say that Luke was stupid to think that the statement in Mark 13:32 could reasonably be interpreted to support low-Christology.</div><div><blockquote> Jesus knows the nature and the will of the Father. This factual knowledge was given to Him by the Father Himself. </blockquote>Your leaning so heavily on other parts of the bible to establish a basis for "refuting" the skeptical view of Jesus' knowledge indicates you are writing primarily for a Christian audience. To that extent, your article threatens nothing in the skeptical view.</div><div><blockquote>Certain Type of Knowledge Jesus Declared <br />There are several examples in the Gospels where Jesus claims not to have knowledge about the last day, but the context reveals that He does know. Referring to the day of judgment, Jesus says, “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt 7:22-23). Jesus knows what will happen on the day of judgment. He explains what will happen to certain people. Many people will claim to be His followers, but He will say to them that He never knew them. The phrase, “I never knew you” is an example of personal knowledge, whereas the claims about these people confessing their knowledge and belief in Jesus is propositional knowledge. Jesus presents that He has factual knowledge about the last day, but what He does not know is the personal knowledge of some people who will be raised on that day. </blockquote>I'm sorry, Matthew 7 does not express or imply that Jesus is ignorant about the "personal knowledge of some people who will be raised on that day."</div><div><br /></div><div>"I never knew you" is not a denial of factual knowledge, since under your conservative hermeneutic of <i>scripture interprets scripture</i>, "know" in the bible often means to have particular or intimate knowledge of a person that most others do not have. Jesus apparently claimed knowledge that the people he would cast away were "workers of lawlessness", so he was apparently claiming to know exactly who they were, and his "I never knew you" is the same as the man who tells his adulterous wife "you are no wife of mine".<br /><blockquote>On the same eschatological occasion, Jesus gives the parable of the 10 virgins. The five virgins who left the wedding to buy more oil because theirs was about to finish, were cast out of the marriage feast. Jesus tells them, “Truly, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matt 25:1-13). This is another incident where Jesus gives propositional knowledge about the last day (the marriage feast), but He claims not to know some people with personal knowledge. </blockquote>Well, you think Jesus is God, and you think God knows all factually true propositions, so how do YOU explain that God manifest in human flesh had lacked personal knowledge of some people?</div><div><br /></div><div>And don't conservatives have a rule of thumb that says you shouldn't attempt to derive theology from the parables of Jesus?</div><div><blockquote>There is an example in the Gospels where Jesus pretends not to know certain information, but the context shows that He does know. When Jesus speaks with the Samaritan woman and tells her to call her husband, the woman answered Him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband.” (John 4:16-18). Jesus knows that the woman is not married, and she is living an adulterous life. Jesus did not deceive the woman by giving her false information, but He presented her with a different kind of information in order to see how she would react. </blockquote></div><div>Why would Jesus need to see how she would react? Did he lack that bit of future knowledge that the classical theist god allegedly had?</div><div><blockquote>This incident shows that Jesus knew (propositional knowledge and personal knowledge) but He pretended not to know because of a particular purpose. It was His way of declaring His divinity to a sinful woman and waiting for her response.</blockquote><p> Only a conservative Christian would dare trifle that a man can desire to falsely convince others he is ignorant and yet the man can still be said to have been "honest" in such endeavor.</p><blockquote>Certain Type of Knowledge Jesus Concealed <br />Jesus teaches His disciples to be ready, watchful, and attentive to the last day because they did not know the precise time of His return. He instructs His disciple not to marvel about the last day (John 5:28-29). Apostle Paul reminds his audience that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1Thess 5:2). The same idea is repeated by Peter and John (Rev 3:3 & 2 Peter 3:10). If Jesus was ignorant about the end times, how could He be so specific in giving so many details? </blockquote></div><div>Maybe for the same reason that you think biblical authors could know such details while still being ignorant of other related matters? Sure, that doesn't give you a Jesus who is truly "god", but that's your problem.</div><div><br /></div><div>And once again, you are bouncing all around the bible, acting as if skeptics should consider themselves blown away by your creating your presuppositional foundation by simply throwing together lots of bible verses the way Jehovah's Witnesses do. Sorry, it ain't working.</div><div><blockquote>The information about the last day lies within the realm of divine knowledge. Since the Bible is clear that the day of the Lord will be revealed at that moment, it is reasonable to think that the exact timing of that day is not meant to be revealed. Jesus tells His disciples, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority (Acts 1:7). He also told His disciples who were asking questions concerning judgment that “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now” (John 16:12). This knowledge belongs to the Father, it is not revealed yet, and it might not be revealed in the near future because people cannot bear it. People are expected to be wise servants while watching for the Master’s return. </blockquote>That does not help explain why god manifest in the flesh confessed ignorance about his own future doings.<br /><blockquote>Jesus’s knowledge about the hour and the day is not factual knowledge but is related to the knowledge that cannot be declared right now. </blockquote></div><div>No, in Mark 13:32 Jesus did not say his hearers were <i>not allowed to know</i> when he would return, he confessed that even the "Son" didn't know. Jesus' ignorance of such a thing is going to hurt your classical-theist view, whether or not the ignorance arose from God refusing to "declare" it.</div><blockquote><div>There will be a time in the future when Jesus Himself will announce and execute his coming. </div><div></div></blockquote><div>How long should skeptics study the differences Christian Preterists have with non-Preterist Christians, before we can be reasonable to start drawing conclusions as to who is right and who is wrong?</div><div><br /></div><div>Or is that a stupid question light of the fact that skeptics are spiritually dead, while you are forced to admit that spiritually alive people cannot come to agreement on the meaning of such biblical data?</div><div><blockquote>He tells the disciples, “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father” (John 16:25). It is the role of the Son to fulfill that day and hour. Jesus declared repeatedly that He will not act independently of the Father (Matt 26:42; John 8:28; John 12: 49-50). Jesus speaks and acts only as the Father has directed and instructed Him. </blockquote></div><div>So do you recommend that skeptics research the differences between Unitarians, Binitarians, Jesus-only, and Trinitarians? </div><div><br /></div><div>How have spiritually <i>alive </i>people fared when they debated each other on such things?</div><div><br /></div><div>How well do you expect spiritually <i>dead </i>people to care when they inquire into such theological disagreements?<br /> <br />Aren't skeptics reasonably justified to say Christian confusion and disagreement about Jesus is so rampant that the skeptics who can justify interest in this crap are merely those who naturally like pointless intellectual sophistry?<br /><blockquote>Conclusion <br />Jesus as shown in different places in the Gospels uses the word “to know” in two different senses. On the one hand, He teaches that the disciples cannot, should not, and will not “know” the precise day or hour of His coming. On the other hand, Jesus “not knowing” belongs to His submission to the Father in regard to the timing of His return. It is not His call to determine or to announce the day of His coming (this role belongs to the Father). It is not the business of the disciples to know, nor the role of the Son to declare. It is not that Jesus’s human nature that limited His knowledge, but that His role and function in the Trinity is not to declare timing.</blockquote><p>How urgent is the threat of hell to the skeptic who decides to stop thinking about repentance and instead focus on researching your article? Are there any second chances in the afterworld for unbelievers who were sincerely seeking, but not yet born-again, at the time they met an untimely death?</p><p>Or should I conclude it doesn't matter since your answer will merely show that this is yet another among the thousands of biblical subjects that spiritually alive people disagree on?</p><p>Your effort to "justify" Jesus' confession of ignorance in Mark 13:32 falls flat on its face. The context indicates it was also human beings didn't know, and in such context, that means Jesus' own ignorance was equally generic and literal, thus this bible verse is a legitimate attack on the classical theist view that Jesus is "god" by nature. That's going to be reasonable regardless of your trifles based upon statements elsewhere in the bible, a hermeneutical move that does nothing to impose an intellectual obligation upon a skeptic who doesn't even believe in biblical inerrancy/consistency.</p></div>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2068270416334524450.post-30746554042505002382022-04-12T15:30:00.000-07:002022-04-12T15:30:01.560-07:00my reply to Ty Nienke on Jesus' resurrection<p class="MsoNormal">Ty Nienke tries to argue the resurrection case in his YouTube video <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=71s_S2YHvno" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p class="MsoNormal">I was apparently the first to reply, and I replied as follows:</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">Barry Jones</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not sure why it would matter whether Jesus rose from the
dead: making Jesus relevant to modern
people requires you to do something biblical authors never do: make the NT "apply to" modern day
people. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't see how any Christian has any hope of showing the
bible's applicability to modern people, to such a degree that it would render
today's skeptics foolish. The bible
doesn't talk about itself and doesn't talk about what people living 2,000 years
after the authors wrote are supposed to do.
Yet today's Christians fallaciously put just as much stock in a
non-biblical claim like "the bible applies to us today" no less than
they put stock in clear biblical claims such as John 3:16 (!?) </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A skeptic could cite Christianity's in-house debates about
dispensationalism, to justify saying not even spiritually alive people can be
reasonably sure whether anything in the NT "applies to" people today,
thus they are being unreasonable to 'expect' spiritually dead unbelievers to
recognize biblical "truth". </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If Jesus' miracles are supposed to mean he was approved of
by God, why don't today's apologists stay consistent with that reasoning, and
insist that if miracles happen in any modern church, god is similarly
manifesting his approval of that church's particular theology? Does the bible provide criteria for knowing
when the working of a true miracle signals god's approval of the
miracle-worker's theological viewpoint, and when the working of a true miracle
leaves that question unanswered? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I overcome the "early" nature of the 1st
Corinthians 15 "creed" with
Mark 3:21 and John 7:5, which under the conservative view are facts that
occurred before Jesus died and thus are far earlier than the Corinthians
"creed", supra. According to
Mark 3:21 and John 7:5, Jesus was incapable of working genuinely supernatural
miracles. If your brother or son was
running around town raising people from the dead, what are the odds that your
disagreements with him about points of theology might blind you to the obvious
implications of God's working through him in such an undeniable way? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, if Jesus' family found him decidedly unconvincing, it
wasn't because he dashed their dreams of a military messiah, it was more likely
because they checked out his miracle claims and found them false, and therefore
began to view him the way most people today view Benny Hinn and other
faith-healers....a very popular charismatic charlatan. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And why did the original eyewitnesses to the empty tomb
expect it to continue being sealed three days after Jesus died? Can we be reasonable to deduce that these
women must not have found Jesus' prior miracles very convincing, and therefore
didn't put a lot of stock in his prior predictions that he would rise after
three days' being in the grave? </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Skepticism of Jesus' resurrection is very reasonable, and in
actual daily life, reasonableness always trumps
accuracy. </p></blockquote><p>screenshot:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiO1-UkpiK65K1yCwFnYQy4HdchhiPRnvYOuRivqt5-4P7j6eBIbK2VRgasknHPuMHkdwH8Evuhw4IZ8ykCp4bkAV8R3v1EWqxDt4qUGjydR3bZbUSmDmsnJ3CjehVSSRg-lJ-7Zcj_ivOpYkPzBxLZc0waQN5QByZBaJBW6omZCsTsGPi544CAA47u" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="713" data-original-width="887" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiO1-UkpiK65K1yCwFnYQy4HdchhiPRnvYOuRivqt5-4P7j6eBIbK2VRgasknHPuMHkdwH8Evuhw4IZ8ykCp4bkAV8R3v1EWqxDt4qUGjydR3bZbUSmDmsnJ3CjehVSSRg-lJ-7Zcj_ivOpYkPzBxLZc0waQN5QByZBaJBW6omZCsTsGPi544CAA47u=s16000" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p></p>barryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877091907733008310noreply@blogger.com4