1

Joe, the Mormons make a similar argument. They would paraphrase your statement to say,

"The answer is that I was lead to believe [the Book of Mormon's teachings] by the Holy Spirit. Not only does the [Book] tell me so, but God himself has testified to the veracity of the claim[s]."

In fact, I have spoken with Mormons whose belief in this private revelation is so strong --they can even get teary-eyed when relating it-- that it can even provide an effective barrier against their belief ever being falsified. For example, evidence of DNA analysis, linguistics, archaeology etc. showing that Native Americans arrived from Siberia and not from Judea (c.586 BC) can be simply dismissed because "God" has told them otherwise. Black and white statements by Joseph Smith that show him to be a false prophet must have some sort of explanation, because "God" has told them that he was a prophet, etc. etc. No reason is convincing enough to give up the belief because falsifiability is not considered a real possibility.

What would you consider a convincing basis for falsification?

2

Hi Joe,

Great post. Still, unless I misunderstood the line of your argument, I'm not sure you've convinced the critics that your argument for biblical authority is not circular, since your appeal to the illumination of the Spirit really is only another appeal to something that is revealed to you by Scripture. In other words (unless I've misunderstood), your claim could be phrased, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. This I believe because the Spirit leads me to trust the Bible (I believe in the Spirit, by the way, also because the Bible tells me so)." Doesn't quite have the ring of the original, does it? It seems that you've only made a more complicated "circle."

What if we were just to admit that our appeals to the authority of Scripture ARE, in fact, circular, but add to this that EVERY appeal to an ultimate authority is circular? That is, every explanation of one's trust in an authority appeals to the trustworthiness of the authority (entirely circular). If we were to ask an atheist to explain their appeals to their "ultimate authority," here's how it would go:

Q: "What's your ultimate authority?"
A: "Reason."
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because it's reasonable."

Or,

Q: "What's your ultimate authority?"
A: "Experience."
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because it seems (i.e. 'I've experienced it') to be true."

If we would see that all appeals to an ultimate authority are, in fact, circular (or at least take for granted a certain worldview), then we have a level playing field from which to start. From this point, then, we can bring in all the arguments that Christians typically use to advocate the authority of the Bible, e.g. "The worldview that the Bible paints makes the most sense of all worldviews because it best fits what we see happening in the world and in ourselves. It most sufficiently explains the 'data,' moreso than any other worldview." Or, "We believe in the divinity and ultimate authority of Jesus Christ, and therefore we trust that his high view of the Scriptures is correct."

This seems to me to be the most honest and fruitful way forward in these conversations.

3

Other brief conversations I had on ultimate authority, mainly in my college days:

Q: "What's your ultimate authority?"
A: "The rules of logic."
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because they're logical."

And,

Q: "What's your ultimate authority?"
A: "Science and the scientific method."
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because they're scientific."

4

The Bible is actually 66 books from multiple authors. Does this have any bearing on the circularity of the argument?

Or is it just an appeal to authorities instead of authority?

5

Bryan Mills:

I think this only affects the argument if you believe that as you appeal to Scripture you are only appealing to the human authors who you believe to be important witnesses of certain events. If, when you appeal to Scripture, you are appealing to the divine author (as evangelicals are), then it does not affect the argument, since we believe that God is equally the author of all the canonical writings.

6

A few questions for you Joe:

1. Hoe exactly did the Holy Spirit tell you that you could trust the Bible?

2. Did he tell you which English version he prefers?

3. Did he tell you about whether you should trust disputed texts such as Mark 16:9-20?

4. How do you respond to people who say that the Holy Spirit or God told them something different from what he told you?

Thanks!

7

Q: "What's your ultimate authority?"
A: "Reason."
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because it's reasonable."

I think an athiest would more likely respond:

Q: "What's your ultimate authority?"
A: "Reason"
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because it's been the most reliable so far."

This would break the circle at the cost of providing a less dramatic answer to the questions.

8

Sixty six books by forty authors and the Christians believe that the real author is the Holy Spirit. If you'are God and you want to authenticate a message sent through men, how would you do it?
God chose prophecy. There are over 300 about the Jewish Messiah alone. One of my favorites involves Cyrus the Medo-Persian king that starts in Isaiah and ends in Daniel. Being able to tell the future implies a source of knowledge outside of time. No book besides the Bible contains fulfilled prophecy.
Most archeologists familiar with digs in that part of the world can tell you that the Bible has lead to all kinds of finds and those who aren't Christians often seem a little uncomfortable with just how accurate it has been.
All Christians have a testimony. I could see God's "fingerprints" all over my coming to Him, after the fact, and on my first day as a Christian, I bought a Bible. I think about everyone who comments on this site would agree that Joe is sincere in his testimony about God and the Holy Spirit and there are many more who comment on this site that would support it with their own testimony. This may only be anecdotal evidence to some and thus not worthy of much consideration, but remember it is the testimony of millions of people.

9

Kevin What would you consider a convincing basis for falsification?

Before I answer, let me clarify a part of my post that seems to be causing some confusion. My belief in the authority of the Bible is “rational, reasonable, and non-circular.” That in itself, of course, does not mean that the Bible is true. It just means that in the absence of convincing reasons for giving up that belief, I am justified in believing it.

The key difference between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity is that the Christian belief is based on falsifiable claims. If the evidence against the truth of Christianity was as strong as it is against Mormonism, then we would be warranted in giving up our belief.

Bryan In other words (unless I've misunderstood), your claim could be phrased, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. This I believe because the Spirit leads me to trust the Bible (I believe in the Spirit, by the way, also because the Bible tells me so)." Doesn't quite have the ring of the original, does it? It seems that you've only made a more complicated "circle."

That would be true if our experience with the Spirit was predicated on knowledge of the Bible. As Christians, though, we believe that the Holy Spirit can communicate with us even before we have heard of the Bible (at least areas other than the Gospel). Our knowledge about God as revealed in Christ come primarily from one form of testimony (Scripture) while knowledge about God as revealed by the Spirit comes primarily (though not exclusively) through experience. This is why it is not circular to appeal to the testimony of the Spirit.

ex-preacher 1. How exactly did the Holy Spirit tell you that you could trust the Bible?

If your asking what the process is called I would say “illumination.” If you are asking how this process occurs, then I would have be say that I don’t know the answer to that anymore than I understand most other epistemological mysteries such as how we remember sensory experiences.
2. Did he tell you which English version he prefers?

No.

3. Did he tell you about whether you should trust disputed texts such as Mark 16:9-20?
The Spirit illuminates Scripture not only for the individual but for the entire Church. Historically the church has accepted the passage as inspired scripture – just as I do today. The reason for the dispute is that the passage is missing from two of the oldest NT manuscripts – the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. But both of flawed and contain hundreds of errors.

4. How do you respond to people who say that the Holy Spirit or God told them something different from what he told you?

Assuming that the two claims are incompatible, either one of us is wrong or we both are wrong. Simply claiming that God told you something does not make it true. But if two people are genuinely certain that the Spirit has told them something directly then, if possible, they should test it against the evidence and ask relevant questions such as “Is this something God would actually say?” For example, if I claimed that that Spirit told me to abandon my family and marry my mistress then there are solid reasons for believing that I have deluded myself.

10

Joe,

I think you could clear up even more confusion if instead of sharing your personal experience you pointed out the actual historical evidence for the authenticity of the texts that we get the Bible from.

ex-preacher,
Our belief in the Bible is not based on some emotional feeling...God appeals to our reason and challenges us to be knowledgeable about what we believe. Some Christians do not have a good or clear understanding about where the Bible comes from. That doesn't mean that the Bible is a collection of stories and myths. There is much evidence to support the Bible. Instead of grilling Christians who are not familiar with the evidence, you should do some research on your own. If you really were a preacher, you should already know this stuff.

11

Mike I think you could clear up even more confusion if instead of sharing your personal experience you pointed out the actual historical evidence for the authenticity of the texts that we get the Bible from.

Perhaps you're right, but I don't think the issue of historical authenticity and authority are necessarily related. There are numerous scholars who do not doubt the historicity of Scripture who would still deny it is as a divinely authoritative text.

12

I believe the old Lutheran divines referred to a "habitus practicus" -- a Spirit-wrought gift to interpreting Scripture. Sounds like this is what you are driving at here, maybe?

Scripture does not derive its authority from the fact that we have authenticated it through an experience we have had. I think it well could be said that we are "authenticated" by the power of the Spirit working through His Word.

And then, as Augustine said, we understand because we believe, and we believe in order to understand.

Blessings in Christ,
PTM

13

Mike O asked: If you'are God and you want to authenticate a message sent through men, how would you do it?

Prophecy wouldn't be the best choice for authentication, especially when these prophecies are delivered in vague, highly malleable symbolism.

If a god wanted to autheticate a message in the ancient world, it might predict the future, but why not in plain language that cannot be disputed? Why not send an identical message to a group of people on the other side of the world? Or several independent groups? Imagine how strong the case for a god would be if, for argument's sake, tribes in the Middle East and in the Americas got the exact same messages. That is evidence that would lead me to believe in the possibility of gods. I've found nothing remotely close to that so far.

14

ex-preacher 1. How exactly did the Holy Spirit tell you that you could trust the Bible?

Joe: If your asking what the process is called I would say “illumination.”

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I really am trying to understand what you mean. Did the Holy Spirit speak to you in an audible voice? If so, what did he say? Or was this an inexplicable feeling that came over you?

ex-preacher: 3. Did he tell you about whether you should trust disputed texts such as Mark 16:9-20?

Joe: The Spirit illuminates Scripture not only for the individual but for the entire Church. Historically the church has accepted the passage as inspired scripture – just as I do today.

When you say "the Church," who exactly do you mean? Many within Christianity have disagreed vehemently (and sometimes violently) over such issues as canonization, the divinity of Jesus, versions of the Bible, whether Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the Bible, and key matters of interpretation. Do you mean the Roman Catholic Church? Syriacs? Coptics? Orthodox? Arminians? Calvinists? Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? Lutherans? Arians?

Or just those who agree with your interpretations?

15

Jeff,

If 2 identical messages were received, you would most certainly cry foul. They could have coordinated this revelation beforehand, you might say. Is this really all it would take to convince you?

The eyewitness testimony from the authors of the New Testament is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...not to mention the other miracles he performed.

If God did come to us in the body of Jesus and perform the miracles he claims, why should he have to keep coming time after time to satisify people that are asking for a sign? My guess is that they would still deny what they would be seeing and dismiss it as a trick or some other hoax.

16

ex-preacher

the "Church" refers to all born again believers.
the differences between Bible versions are overblown by some. I haven't found any differences in doctrine between the versions. I think the version issue is a distraction that divides the church.

We are also told by Peter that there is no scripture of private interpretation. The message from God is the same for all of us.
People who are looking to be led by some emotional feeling as a directive from God are not following any truth from the Bible. Emotions easily deceive us. I would say that these are immature Christians who do that. They may be mistaken at that point, but it does not mean they are not born again.

The divinity of Christ? If you deny that, then you are calling Jesus a liar. Jesus was very clear about who he claimed to be. There's no room for debate there. Deny Jesus is God and there is NO way for you to be a born again believer, Christian, etc... Jesus' words, not mine.

17

Jeff - a thought. . .if God did send the same message to different parts of the world, he'd have to use the same language, or we would end up with translation problems from place to place. If the Americas received a message in Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, they'd be utterly confused with what to do with it, unless they were all given the ability for miraculous translation.

So maybe God would have to send CONCEPTS to each of the places of the world, not necessarily the exact words. And indeed it could be argued that has taken place. It has often been used as a strike against Christianity that many faiths have flood stories, animal sacrifice, dying/rising God schemes. But could this perhaps be the very same symbolism around the world that points to the same essential message which occurred in one particular historical setting?

18

If 2 identical messages were received, you would most certainly cry foul. They could have coordinated this revelation beforehand, you might say. Is this really all it would take to convince you?

The eyewitness testimony from the authors of the New Testament is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...not to mention the other miracles he performed.

Come on now be serious. Perhaps some people would still doubt simutaneous signals but you certainly can't consider (at best) third hand eyewitness testimony stronger in terms of objectiveness.

I think your error is that you're trying to simplify God's motives. Was his only purpose to communicate? Perhaps his motives are more complicated.

19

1st hand witnesses. The Gospels were written by those who were there, those who were with Jesus during his ministry.

I never stated what God's motives are. Jesus said God's will was for us to know him.

20

Where can I get ahold of that piece by Alistair McGrath? (what piece is it?)

21

We have no way to really know that. Objecitvely you cannot demonstrate that the Gospels were written as first hand accounts or second hand as passed down verbally. Here ex has the facts lined up nicely on his side (See the thread on Flemming's movie).

My point was that it is silly to ask a question like "How would God choose to get a message to humanity"... As a hypothetical it implies that God is somehow locked away in a box trying to make due with a crappy computer and a dial up modem that cuts out a lot. Ohhhh how will he get his email through! Ahh ha! Use emoticons like ;) to save on bandwidth!!!

Presumably an infinite beign wouldn't have to 'find a way' to communicate with humans. He could create them with direct lines to heaven if he wanted!

22

More detail for witnesses.
Luke said that he gathered eyewitness testimony and "carefully investigated everything". Luke 1:1-3
Peter told his readers that the disciples were eyewitnesses of Jesus' majesty and did not follow cleverly invented stories. 2 Peter 1:16

Even the external evidence supports the historical reliability of the NT. Secular historians have confirmed many of the events, people, places, customs, etc.. of the NT. Josephus (before AD 100), Tacitus (AD 120), Suetonius (AD 110), and Pliny Secundus (AD 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm NT references.

Much can be said about the archeological finds that confirm parts of the Bible.

Fulfilled prophecies also help confirm the truth of the Bible. Predictive Prophecy is a good measure of Bible reliability.

23

Also, Mike, even if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses they still wouldn't serve as highly objective evidence...certainly not stronger evidence than a simutaneous message between people(s) who had no way of communicating.

As we've been thru on the other post there are plenty of original materials from those who claim to be first hand witnesses of miracles that any Christian would immediately knock down as false. The big example used on the other thread was Julies Ceasar who claimed to have personally witnessed supernatural miracles in his writings.

Needless to say in modern times an hour or two with Amazon can easily yield at least a 100 or more claims of eyewitnessed supernatural events that no Christian (or even smart athiest like Larry) would even find worth consideration.

24

Does your belief in God-Jesus hinge on the authority/reliability of the Bible? If it is genuine and is what it claims to be, would you be convinced by what it has to say?

25

More detail for witnesses.
Luke said that he gathered eyewitness testimony and "carefully investigated everything". Luke 1:1-3
Peter told his readers that the disciples were eyewitnesses of Jesus' majesty and did not follow cleverly invented stories. 2 Peter 1:16

Errr, this isn't eyewitness testimony.

Even the external evidence supports the historical reliability of the NT

In the same way that 'external evidence' supports Homer's Illad. There really was a Troy, it really did have a war with Greece. It really lost. That doesn't mean the war was won by using the giant horse ruse nor does it mean it really started over who would get to have Helen as their wife.

26

We're not talking about modern day claims to miracles. Most of those are obviously people out to make a quick dollar.
Since when is eyewitness testimony from many sources not considered credible evidence? When it confirms what the Bible says? When it goes against your beliefs?

27

Does your belief in God-Jesus hinge on the authority/reliability of the Bible? If it is genuine and is what it claims to be, would you be convinced by what it has to say?

An interesting point is that not even the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists believes the New Testament popped out in fresh print a month after Jesus died and was resurrected. For a long period of time, as ex will be happy to review with you, there was no New Testament as we know it today. The early Christians decided one did not have to become a Jew before one became a Christian. That meant that not only did many Christians have no New Testament they didn't even know the Old Testament! Even when there was a New Testament it was still quite some time before the cannon was established. Many Saints before then had worked with differing collections...some including books that never made the cut and some cutting books that were later included.

28

Let me get this straight.
The testimony that the Gospel writers gave and claimed to be their own is not eyewitness testimony?

I think our discussion is over.

29

"More detail for witnesses.
Luke said that he gathered eyewitness testimony and "carefully investigated everything". Luke 1:1-3"

Earlier you said the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Now you're saying that Luke interviewed eyewitnesses. Which is it?

"Peter told his readers that the disciples were eyewitnesses of Jesus' majesty and did not follow cleverly invented stories. 2 Peter 1:16"

Most NT scholars believe that 2 Peter was written long after Peter had died.

"Even the external evidence supports the historical reliability of the NT. Secular historians have confirmed many of the events, people, places, customs, etc.. of the NT. Josephus (before AD 100), Tacitus (AD 120), Suetonius (AD 110), and Pliny Secundus (AD 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm NT references."

Most historians, including most Christian historians, agree that the Josephus passage on Jesus was essentially invented by later Christian scribes.

As you indicate Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger wrote 80 to 100 years after the death of Jesus. Their writings do not so much confirm any facts about Jesus as they confirm that there were followers of Jesus between AD 100 and 120.

"Much can be said about the archeological finds that confirm parts of the Bible."

The fact that Troy exists does not confirm the Illiad. The fact that Nottingham forest exists does not confirm the stories of Robin Hood. The fact that Kansas exists does not confirm the Wizard of Oz. No one denies that the Bible contains some history. That does not mean that it accurately describes miraculous events.

"Fulfilled prophecies also help confirm the truth of the Bible. Predictive Prophecy is a good measure of Bible reliability."

This is probably not the place to do it, but having looked at all of these "fulfilled prophecies," I'm convinced that not a single one of them holds up under scrutiny.

30

"Let me get this straight.
The testimony that the Gospel writers gave and claimed to be their own is not eyewitness testimony?"

If you will re-read the gospels, you will note that none of them claim to be eyewitnesses. None of them uses the first person to suggest that they actually witnessed the events they describe. The names "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" were attached to the gospels at a later date. The authorship and date of the four canonical gospels is a hotly debated topic, but most scholars think that they were written between AD 60 and 100 by individuals who were not themselves eyewitnesses to Jesus.

31

We're not talking about modern day claims to miracles. Most of those are obviously people out to make a quick dollar.

Hardly something new under the sun. Also while many do appear to be out for a quick buck there are many that seem sincere & not motivated by a quick gain. However most of us, including Christians, still do not consider these claims very worthy.

Since when is eyewitness testimony from many sources not considered credible evidence? When it confirms what the Bible says? When it goes against your beliefs?

Actually from one source, the Bible (a few if you want to consider the books of the Bible different sources). But don't try to change the terms of the debate here. No one never said it wasn't any evidence at all, only that it is not sufficient to call objective proof.

Remember this got started when someone noted that sending a simutaneous message to different groups of humans that were too far apart to communicate wouldn't have been clearer proof. It was you that tried to imply it would be imperfect proof and not as strong as the proof we supposedly have.

The reality is that God's message(s) are hardly clear & easy. The historical evidence only reassures that there's no blatent contradictions that would make Christian doctrine totally unworkable (in contrast, look at Scientology with its claim of an evil intersellar warlord setting off hydrogren bombs in earth's vulcanos 60 million years ago).

32

Boonton "Also, Mike, even if the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses they still wouldn't serve as highly objective evidence...certainly not stronger evidence than a simutaneous message between people(s) who had no way of communicating." I know you asked another Mike, but
didn't God do this as told in Acts 2 except it was a simutaneous message in 70 languages?

33

Boonton

"look at Scientology with its claim of an evil intersellar warlord setting off hydrogren bombs in earth's vulcanos 60 million years ago)."

Can you prove that didn't happen, Boonton? ;)

34

Bryan

If we would see that all appeals to an ultimate authority are, in fact, circular (or at least take for granted a certain worldview), then we have a level playing field from which to start.

Indeed! If everyone could "see" that, then we'd all have to admit that our "worldviews" were "arbitrary" and we better "hedge our bets" and look at the "evidence" and start worshipping Jesus.

So goes the argument.

It's nice to see it spelled out so plainly, though. It almost looks like a quote from the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document.

"Q: "What's your ultimate authority?"
A: "Experience."
Q: "Why?"
A: "Because it seems to be true."

Or because if you ignore your past experience you soon join the deceased or the institutionalized.

Religion is useful for some people but clearly not all. Experience, on the other hand, is useful for everyone.

Accept this incontrovertible fact and take the next step forward in your religious journey.

35

didn't God do this as told in Acts 2 except it was a simutaneous message in 70 languages

I've been refraining from commenting here, because frankly, the discussion seems to be boiling down to the usual believers reasoning "don't look at my logical fallacies" (mostly the construction fallacy, but also uninformed appeals to an anonymous authority, and other fallacies), and the non-believers doing what they tend to do when confronted by such things.

But, I figured that this bit up here deserved a comment.

Let's put on our thinking caps for a moment.

How would we actually authenticate this bit? How would the writers have done so? Did they enumerate which 70 languages, and if so, which ones? Which members of the group used which languages, and which ones were sufficiently bilingual so that they could tell the multiple translations were, in fact, isomorphic to each other?

It all sounds so, you know, miraculous, until you actually try to think of how this actually might have happened, and been verified and recorded.

36

Larry Lord

Accept this incontrovertible fact and take the next step forward in your religious journey.

When Joe Carter says:

The answer is that I was lead to believe it by the Holy Spirit. Not only does the Bible tell me so, but God himself has testified to the veracity of the claim. Assuming that the Spirit has in fact guided me to believe the premise, then I have a rational, reasonable, non-circular reason for believing that the Bible is true.

he is saying, in more words, that yep, it's his experience that tells him the Bible tells him so.

If not, and his experience is different, and he is not authentically "testifying."

That's the problem: the self and its experience is like flypaper here.

You can't unstick yourself from it, except at the cost of being inauthentic, no matter what you might proclaim.

And if you're inauthentic, any possibly existent deity would see through that in a nanosecond. Or beforehand.

37

ex preacher....none of them claimed to be eyewitnesses?
2 Peter 1:16 ...we..were eyewitnesses...
1 John 1:3 ..that which we have seen and heard...
Acts 2:22
John 19:35
Luke 3:1
Acts 26:24-26
Luke 1:1-3

I could go on and on. They repeatedly claimed to by eyewitnesses..."we are witnesses of these things" was their repeated cry and constant assertion.

Sir William Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archeologists ever, concluded after 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." What we have from Luke in his Gospel and the book of Acts can be looked upon as accurate and trustworthy.

Most of what you are posting here is an outright distortion of the facts. It's hard to carry on any kind of a meaningful discussion with someone who spreads your kind of misinformation.

Larry again with the strawman arguements. You have an entirely inaccurate understanding of Chritianity...as well as the rest of you. It would be nice if we could actually discuss what it is that the Bible says and means instead of the perverted viewpoint of it that you people present. I'm not sure if what you learned is from your own research or if you have only cobbled together different things from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc...
Either that or you are just outright lying. Whichever it is makes it impossible to discuss any of this.

38

Ex:

{ If you will re-read the gospels, you will note that none of them claim to be eyewitnesses. }

As noted before, Peter, who was one of the twelve and among the those who had written Gospels said,: "For we . . . were eye witnesses of his majesty." (Peter 2:16) " Luke, the historian and author of both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts wrote:
"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word." (Luke 1:2)
The word "saw" occurs 450 times in the Bible. Many of them concern what the Gospel writers saw and heard.

{None of them uses the first person to suggest that they actually witnessed the events they describe. The names "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" were attached to the gospels at a later date. The authorship and date of the four canonical gospels is a hotly debated topic, but most scholars think that they were written between AD 60 and 100 by individuals who were not themselves eyewitnesses to Jesus.}

I have been through this before w/ex and forwarded this in response:

Read John 1:14 " . . . And we beheld his glory . . ." The words "we" and "I" are used throughout the Gospels."

Ex's "most scholars agree . . . " is the oldest trick in the book. I have asked him (on another thread) to produce one reputable conservative scholar who agrees with his "no eyewitness claim," and have not yet had a reply.

{Most NT scholars believe that 2 Peter was written long after Peter had died.}

By what standard is this said? Any citation from an authority might help. I am reminded of the Grapes of Wrath, where the ex-preacher says:

"That's why I ain't a preacher no more. Preachers got to know, and I don't know . . ."

Like this character, I suspect, you don't know. But you know enough to confuse the situation.

{"Most historians, including most Christian historians, agree that the Josephus passage on Jesus was essentially invented by later Christian scribes."}

'Most historians'? If that were true, be good enough to name just one of them and enumerate his/her reasons why. I am here to learn.

{"The fact that Troy exists does not confirm the Illiad. The fact that Nottingham forest exists does not confirm the stories of Robin Hood. The fact that Kansas exists does not confirm the Wizard of Oz. No one denies that the Bible contains some history. That does not mean that it accurately describes miraculous events.}

No, the miraculous is accepted upon faith. But unlike the examples given above, the Bible gives hundreds of thousands of supporting evidences that lend credence to the narrative. It doesn't prove that these miracles took place, but it places them in a real and verifiable historical perspective.

{ "This is probably not the place to do it, but having looked at all of these "fulfilled prophecies," I'm convinced that not a single one of them holds up under scrutiny." }

I am not a Bible scholar, by any stretch of the imagination, but on another thread, I asked ex to produce just one example (from the 300 Messianic prophecies) that he alleged "do not hold up under scrutiny." As of yet, I haven't received a reply. This should be relatively easy to do since some of these prophecies are admittedly cryptic. But the weight of them are hard for anyone, Jew or Gentile, to deny.

39

No, the miraculous is accepted upon faith.

Which pretty much means that there's folks that would believe whatever's written there simply because of what they experience about it...

But unlike the examples given above, the Bible gives hundreds of thousands of supporting evidences that lend credence to the narrative.

Hundreds of thousands?

Given that, in a typical King James bible, there's 783,137 words, that'd be an average of at least one example per every 7.83 words.

The fact is numbers like this are typically bandied about, inflated, and give no credence to the case.

Regarding "prophecies," I'd recommend you to the Internet Infidels bit on McDowell, in particular the bit about Tyre.

The "prophecy" canard is debunked by noting that these claims fall into several categories: 1. "Prophecies" that would be trivially fulfilled ("Two nations will go to war, and one of them will win," as Woody Allen famously (and accurately!) prophesized), 2. "Prophecies" that are impossible to verify whether they were fulfilled, 3. "Prophecies" into which one has to read a strained metaphor and misreading in which to claim fulfillment (metaphors for sacrificial offerings that could never be acceptable to the Hebrew god given that the alleged sacrifical offering was blemished and bruised), 4. "Prophecies" that were just flat-out wrong (Tyre)

40

Joe, I think I agree with the gist of your argument. However, upon a first reading of it, and still after reading your comments, I'm coming up with some reasoning problems, here.

To re-state your argument:

P) The Bible claims authority.
C) The Bible is authoritative.

Is P --> C circular? (possibly)

Is belief in C rational if P --> C is possibly circular?

Not if P is well-founded independently of C.

P') The Spirit authenticates the Bible to me.
C') The Bible is true.

C' justifies belief in (P --> C), so barring superior evidence that C is wrong, you are justified in believing C.

However, the question you were asked in the comments, and which I share, is simply this: in terms of *public discourse*, in terms of rationality, how is P' a more justified belief than C was?

That is, the Spirit's work is sure and His witness is true, absolutely. But in terms of public reason, how is *your belief* "the Spirit authenticates Scripture to me" to be justified?

Until you can answer that, I think I'm going to remain persuaded that we need to use a different rhetoric than this, in combination with a broad grip on the historical evidence and discourse (which I know you agree is important), to speak of the authority of Scriptures in public.

Cheers,
PGE

41

In response to those that question whether we (nonbelievers) would accept independent messages claiming to be from gods as evidence for their existance -- you would have to be able to rule out plenty of more likely alternatives, but yes, it would be very strong evidence.

The messages would have to be very specific and not common to basic human social interaction. So vague and universal claims of what is good for society would be out. A good example would be a fairly detailed and identical creation story, something a god might think important for its creation to know about. A Genesis account with events in the same order but found among peoples archeologically proven to have no prior contact and appearing in literature (or other permanent record keeping) roughly the same time would be one strong piece of evidence. At a minimum, it would be evidence of some powerful agency with advanced technology. Whether it were gods or not would depend on additional evidence.

Your Biblical prophecies and messages from God are better evidence for human agencies making them up, rather than evidence for God. For example, the fact that the Jewish/Christian god played favorites and graciously promised land that already had tenants (not bothering to notify THOSE people, of course) is good evidence not for gods, but for a tribe that was looking to galvanize support to go slaughter. Making up god stories may be a modern tool to make money, but it was a fine ancient tool to command others to do your bidding.

I find Joe's step where God provides direct, personal assurance that the Bible is true highly suspicious. As others have asked, I ask: how exactly did he do this? Did you hear voices? Did you see God or an angel? Or was it just that you were so credulous and wanting to believe, highly open to suggestion, that any random feeling of peace or vague intuition would do? If you are making a habit of talking with God, next time mention that he should visit me and prove his existance. I'll let you know how that goes.

42

Can you prove that didn't happen, Boonton? ;)

1. Faster than light travel is impossible, hence Scientology's 'creation myth' suffers from a big problem.

2. The denotation of hundreds or thousands of high power hydrogen bombs would have created worldwide fallout of radioactive elements. Those elements would be detectable today in the geological strata just as the astroid that is thought to have killed the dinosaurs left a thin blanket in the strata.

Does this prove it didn't happen? No but it creates serious problems for any honest, rational, person who seeks to take the myth seriously.

On the flip side nothing about the historical analysis that ex has presented does present some difficulties for certain types of Christians (for someone who believes the Gospels were written by only the aspostles they were named after and have come down to us today essentially unchanged since then) but nothing that is really insurmountable.

Hmmmm...eyewitnesses
2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

As I pointed out before this phrase is quite vague. If I asked 100 people at a evangelical even "Do you feel you are an eyewitness to Jesus's majesty" many would say yes even though none of them would understand that to be asking "did you personally witness the resurrection of Christ nearly 2,000 years ago".

Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Not a direct eyewitness statement.

I'll let others deal with the other passages.

Ex's "most scholars agree . . . " is the oldest trick in the book. I have asked him (on another thread) to produce one reputable conservative scholar who agrees with his "no eyewitness claim," and have not yet had a reply.

Ahhh yes the 'No true Scotsman fallacy'. Terry will define any scholar who doesn't agree as not a 'reputable conservative scholar' therefore there will never be an example of a reputable conservative scholar who agrees with ex. While we are on the subject why are liberal and moderate scholars automatically excluded from this argument from authority game?

'Most historians'? If that were true, be good enough to name just one of them and enumerate his/her reasons why. I am here to learn.

Last time this came up I cited the Wikipedia article on Josephus and historical evidence for Jesus. You were active on that thread, why don't you start there and explore the related links.

I am not a Bible scholar, by any stretch of the imagination, but on another thread, I asked ex to produce just one example (from the 300 Messianic prophecies) that he alleged "do not hold up under scrutiny." As of yet, I haven't received a reply.

Errr, didn't you claim 300 prophecies? Why aren't you citing, say, 4 or 5? Let's pretend someone says that Nostradamous made 1,000 prophecies that turned out to be true. I say that I don't have a list in front of me but I believe all those claimed true prophecies fail to stand up under scrutiny. It is now the turn for the Nostradamous supporter to show how that statement is wrong...perferrably by detailing a few of the prophecies from that list showing them to be true. I don't think the Nostradamous critic has any duty to provide all 1000 debunked prophecies himself or even to provide a few. Balls in the court of the pro-prophecy people, not the anti-prophecy people. Play the game by the rules!

43

I love that our Lord made the Gospel "foolishness to the Greeks". I know I shouldn't, but I do.

The spirit, not evidence, quickens the dead.

44

On Josephus. The following is from Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The Antiquities contains two famous references to Jesus Christ: the one in Book XX calls him the “so-called Christ.” The implication in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ's divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist."

If you will do a minimal amount of reserach on this you will find that even most respected conservative apologists no longer use the Josephus passage as it has been so clearly corrupted. One giveaway is that the according to the passage in question Josephus says that Jesus was the Christ. Yet Josephus is not a Christian. This would make him a complete hypocrite, an idiot, or a liar. The more convincing alternative is that later Christian scribes extrapolated Josephus' original statement.

45

Remember, my comments were about the four gospels themselves, not later epistles.

"2 Peter 1:16 ...we..were eyewitnesses..."

Boonton has addressed this. The statement here is quite vague. Furthermore, the authorship of 2 Peter is highly disputed. Many of the early church fathers did not think it belonged in the canon.

From historian Robert Grant:

"The second epistle of Peter is very poorly attested by early Christian writers. No one earlier than Origen seems to have made use of it, and he expressed doubts about its acceptability. (Eusebius placed it among the ‘antilegomena’ and said that according to tradition -- that of the Church in the East -- it was not canonical.) Didymus of Alexandria (d. 399) wrote that it was a forgery (PG 39, 1774A)."

"1 John 1:3 ..that which we have seen and heard..."

1 John is anonymous. While some believe that the apostle John wrote it, others such as NT scholar C.H. Dodd have argued that 1 John was written by a disciple of John. It contains many marks of being the product of the Johannine community rather than a single individual. It should also be noted that the claims in the passage you noted are extremely vague.

"Acts 2:22"

This statement in Acts is attributed by the author to Peter. It is not a direct piece of witness testimony. Legally, this would be considered hearsay.

"John 19:35"

Second-hand information.

"Luke 3:1"

I think we have already established that Luke was not an eyewitness.

"Acts 26:24-26"

Hearsay.

"Luke 1:1-3"

We've dealt with this passage already.

Regarding prophecies, I agree with Boonton that the burden of proof is on those who argue that Jesus fulfilled prophecies to make their affirmative case.

46

Regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John, George R. Beasley-Murray (in the Word Biblical Commentary series) is a conservative scholar who does not believe that John the apostle is the author.

see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785209409/qid=1133901457/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-4399547-2911804?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Perhaps the most prominent and respected scholar on the Gospel of John was Raymond E. Brown. He believed that the gospel was written in five stages by various composers.

47

Up above

"Larry again with the strawman arguements. You have an entirely inaccurate understanding of Chritianity..."

Uh, no.

"It would be nice if we could actually discuss what it is that the Bible says and means"

Love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

"I'm not sure if what you learned is from your own research or if you have only cobbled together different things from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell"

Oh, so those people aren't Christians? Are those people doing Christianity a great disservice? I don't see many people here complaining about them. Instead, people complain about people like Richard Dawkins -- a genuine nobody in the big scheme of things.

What's up with that?

48

Jeff

"I ask: how exactly did he do this? Did you hear voices? Did you see God or an angel? Or was it just that you were so credulous and wanting to believe, highly open to suggestion, that any random feeling of peace or vague intuition would do?"

My uncle, a 40 something college graduate, converted to Christianity after Jesus "spoke" to him while he took a bath.

He switched schools to attend Moody Bible Institute and he now works at his evangelical church "helping others."

He's a nice guy. For a while he was bit hard to take because he was so jacked on his "finding Jesus" that he felt it necessary to tell us all that were going to hell.

Just a tad annoying.

49

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/06/life.support.struggle.ap/index.html

Strickland's lawyers say the state has pushed for removal of Haleigh's life support, but no one has argued that the girl should live.

"There should always be someone who will argue for life," Egan said.

Virginia Peel, a lawyer for the Department of Social Services, which has legal custody of the girl, said Haleigh's doctors have agreed she will not come out of her vegetative state.

"This is not about the right to life," Peel said. "This is about the circumstance under which this person is allowed to die."

Both of Haleigh's doctors agree she should be removed from the ventilator, but they are split over whether her feeding tube should be disconnected.

They have said that with her feeding tube alone, Haleigh could live as long as two months. Without any life support assistance, she would die much sooner, the doctors said.

Egan said Strickland should be allowed to have another doctor examine the girl, but Peel said that isn't necessary.

"When you have consistent medical opinions, why do you have to find a doctor who might -- who might -- challenge that," she said.

A truly sad story that is unusual only for the strange fact that Strickland is responsible for beating this kid into a permanent coma but he is now arguing that he has the right to decide how long her body is kept on a feeding tube.

What does the scripture say?

50

I can't speak for scripture but I'll speak for consistency. The 'right to life' crowd that screamed bloody murder over the Schiavo case should be marching with Strickland on this one with just as much demagoguary.

Gordon, for example, argued that life should always be given the benefit of the doubt. No one can guarantee that removing her from the ventilator would kill her but it is a certainity she will die without food and water. Taken to its logical conclusion Gordon & friends should be telling us that not only should the feeding be continued but that the ventilator should be as well.

But this is a bit off topic anyway...

51

{"Hundreds of thousands? Given that, in a typical King James bible, there's 783,137 words, that'd be an average of at least one example per every 7.83 words."}

Fair enough, but consider this, representing every nuance of the Bible there have been, in every field of inquiry from archaeology, to textual analysis, to historical analysis, hundreds of thousands of (internal and external) historical evidences provided. More has been written about it than any book in history. The total weight of it is undeniable.

{"Regarding "prophecies," I'd recommend you to the Internet Infidels bit on McDowell, in particular the bit about Tyre."}

I ran into a Tyrean and a Babylonian just yesterday who recommended the same site.
But seriously . . . The Babylonians did sack Tyre (585-572) and in 332 B.C., Alexander did build a causeway to the island fortress of Tyre, using the materials from the old city.

"And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her and make her like a top of a rock."

Recently there was a one hour special on the history channel about that incredible seige.
Was it just coincidence, or did God use Alexander's obsession to make a point? It reminds me of the prophecy of the fall of Babylon at the hands of the Persians -- totally unique, and it is also a fullfillment of prophecy.

{"Prophecies" that were just 'flat out' wrong. Tyre."}

An interesting choice of words given the context of the prophesy.

{"Hmmmm...eyewitnesses. 2 Peter 1:16:
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
As I pointed out before this phrase is quite vague. If I asked 100 people at a evangelical even "Do you feel you are an eyewitness to Jesus's majesty" many would say yes even though none of them would understand that to be asking "did you personally witness the resurrection of Christ nearly 2,000 years ago."}

That is quite a leap. Peter, a man who was one of the first at the tomb of the risen Christ, said that he was an "eyewitness of his majesty." Now two thousand years later because some people may use the same words in a figurative sense, then Peter's words were therefore too vague? He could not have been more clear.

Acts 2:22: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."

{"Not a direct eyewitness statement."}

This is the Peter speaking, not Luke. He was an "eyewitness" of the resurrection and appealed to others who had witnessed other miracles in their "midst."

["Ahhh yes the 'No true Scotsman fallacy'. Terry will define any scholar who doesn't agree as not a 'reputable conservative scholar' therefore there will never be an example of a reputable conservative scholar who agrees with ex."}

Take it from a 'true Scotsman,' the use of the phrase "most scholars agree," all scholars agree, "conservative scholars agree"
and "all reputable scholars agree," was never honestly applied. For example, on another thread it was claimed "all scholars agree" that the last 12 verses of Mark were late redactions. This is contrary to the fact that there are many, many extant manuscripts; unicals, minuscules, lectionaries and letters containing those verses from 130 A.D. to the end of the apostolic age. Read Dean Burgon's 300 page masterpiece, "The Last Twelve verses of Mark."

Concerning the latest example, ex said something like, "all scholars agree that none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses." I tossed out a softball question asking for the name of one conservative who shared that view.

The response:

{"Perhaps the most prominent and respected scholar on the Gospel of John was Raymond E. Brown. He believed that the gospel was written in five stages by various composers."}

Raymond Brown is is considered by some to be "moderate" Roman Catholic, who doubted the traditional authorship of the Gospel of John. He also presumably believes that church tradition carries the same authority as scripture. In that respect he is a conservative (Catholic). That is a far cry from providing evidence that "all," or even a perponderence of conservatives believe that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Sophistry.

{"While we are on the subject why are liberal and moderate scholars automatically excluded from this argument from authority game?"}

Generally conservative scholars begin with the premise that the manuscripts are authentic and accurate unless proven otherwise, and the liberal scholars begin with the premise that they are inauthentic and inaccurate unless proven otherwise. Since it can be established that what we have today is essentially what was written in the 1st and 2nd centuries, the so-called "radical higher critic's" claims of
inauthenticity (including, but not limited to), late redactions, multiple authors, and forgeries are the exception rather than the rule. No conservative scholar denies that there were attempts from the 1st century on to corrupt the word. Paul wrote specifically about that in his epistle. But conservative scholars recognize that the main stream of the 5000+ extant Greek manuscripts are almost in complete harmony with one another. Upwards of 95%.

{"Errr, didn't you claim 300 prophecies? Why aren't you citing, say, 4 or 5?}

If I recall, the claim was made by ex on another thread that he had "studied all 300 prophecies" and "not one" stood up to scrutiny." I threw him another softball and asked him to name one that he thought was questionable. Surely he could if he had studied all 300 of them all. Instead, he suggested that the "burden of proof" was on me. The odds against even four or five of these prophecies being fullfilled in one man are astronomical.

{''Let's pretend someone says that Nostradamous made 1,000 prophecies that turned out to be true. I say that I don't have a list in front of me but I believe all those claimed true prophecies fail to stand up under scrutiny. It is now the turn for the Nostradamous supporter to show how that statement is wrong...perferrably by detailing a few of the prophecies from that list showing them to be true. I don't think the Nostradamous critic has any duty to provide all 1000 debunked prophecies himself or even to provide a few. Balls in the court of the pro-prophecy people, not the anti-prophecy people. Play the game by the rules!"}

'A' proclaims that all 1000 prophecies do not hold up under scrutiny. 'B' says, "name one." The ball is now in A's court.

{"The Antiquities contains two famous references to Jesus Christ: the one in Book XX calls him the “so-called Christ.” The implication in the passage in Book XVIII of Christ's divinity could not have come from Josephus and undoubtedly represents the tampering (if not invention) of a later Christian copyist."}

The words found in Book XX satisfies the claim that Josephus mentioned Christ. The above citation doesn't attempt repudiate that claim. The citation of Book XVIII does not provide any evidence to support their claims that it was an "invention." They mention the "implication of the passage" without ever bothering to quote it. Maybe whatever Josephus is said to have said was never said, but anyone who accepts the above as evidence places too much faith in the encyclopedia. I suspect that the two references were used to cancel one another out. The first referred to a "so called Christ," and is used to support the untenable position that Jesus was a myth. The second referred to Jesus as "the Christ," and therefore was rejected as a later addition, because Josephus was not a known Christian. Did the analyists even consider the possibility that he may have converted between the two writings and that both are authentic?

{"Even most respected conservative apologists no longer use the Josephus passage as it has been so clearly corrupted."}

This time the "most respected conservatives." Pick up practically any comprehensive book on Christian apologetics and you will likely find that the conservative writer refers to Josephus, even if he were a Roman stooge. As far as I am concerned, he is important insofar as he was one of the most credible extra-biblical writers who refered to Christ. But it is not something to rest one's faith upon.

1 John 1:3 ..that which we have seen and heard..."

{"John is anonymous."}

If you claim "anonymous" because there was no autograph then you are ignoring the fact that most ancient literature was bereft of
autographs. There are multiple ways that scholars determine authorship and while the debate continues, there are absolutely no grounds to deny that the gospel writer claimed to be "an eyewitness." More on that later.

John 19:35

{"Second-hand information."}

John was at the foot of the cross.

Luke 1:1-3

Not much is known of Luke, no one is even sure that he indeed a Gentile. But when Luke said "we" being "eyewitnesses," he was describing what was "delivered to him." It is not clear from the text what he, personally, did and did not witness.

Consider this. . .

"Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on his breast at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays you?" 21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me." 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true."

In John 21, the Postscript of the gospel, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is said to be the one who witnessed to these things and who wrote these things (21:24); he is, in other words, not only the author but the authority standing behind the gospel. The disciple whom Jesus loved is said to be the one who leaned back on Jesus' breast to talk to Jesus during the meal.

John 19:25-35

"Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus then saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son." 27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother." From that hour the disciple took her into his own household. 28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to his mouth. 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished." And he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe."

In John 19:25-27, the author identifies "the disciple whom he [Jesus] loved" as the one whose testimony is true and worthy of belief. When Jesus was dying on the cross, around him stood four women and one man, identified as the one whom Jesus loved. Later, the author affirms that the testimony of the man who witnessed Jesus' death is true (19:35); the testimony refers most likely to the traditions about Jesus that have been incorporated into the Gospel of John. This man most likely is "the disciple whom he [Jesus] loved" mentioned earlier, since he is the only man present at Jesus' crucifixion.

Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65), and we have further evidence that it was written early.

At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59.

Matthew

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.

The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.

The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Luke:

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)." Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.

John

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.

The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.

Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

52

Joe, Terence, et al:

Interesting post, Joe. I particularly find the issue of authority a significant one, as in fact 99% of practical arguments rely on one specific authority or another; starting with the dictionary. For, in the end, we cannot trace all chains of arguments back to indisputable premises, as we can always challenge A, then B, then C, etc. So in the end, we are comparing our faith points.

I particularly find the comments by the empiricists and rationalists interesting in light of Russell's five minute universe paradox: a cosmos created in an instant five minutes ago with appropriate memories and artifactts etc is indistinguishable empirically from the one we believe we live in. As to the core concept of rationalism, that a priori one rejects the possibility that the Creator is There and Not Silent, it seems to me that that begs the question bigtime. Let us heed the CLUSTER of converging lines of evidence that over the centuries, millions have met God in the favcre of the crucified and risen Christ, as attested by over 500 eyewitnesses.

A far better approach than question-begging selective hyperskepticism is the one you hint at above: comparative difficulties, i.e. comparing worldview-level ideas and claims relative to factual adequacy, coherence and simplicity/ad hocness. Evolutionary materialists in particular are reluctant to come to that table -- no wonder, their core assertions are incoherent and necessarily false. [They hotly deny this of course, but the basic reductionism in their monist sytem of thought ends up reducing thought, through genetic and environmental forces, to predetermined outcomes resting on whatever chance boundary conditions apply, so they self-refer and self-destruct their own systems.]

I also observe that Ex as usual is misrepresenting the biblical and evidence issues. For instance, the shorter reference on Jesus [which is by mention in a context discussing the murder of James in 62 AD] implies that there was an earlier mention of who that "Jesus the so-called Christ" was. The Testamentum Flavanium fulfils that, and it is fairer to say that there is a general opinion that most of the reference is today regarded as from Josephus, with perhaps a couple of interpolations - which when isolated look [at least to me: e.g. He was Christ!] a lot like marginal comments incorporated into the main text by a later copyist.

Nor is Ex detained by the evidence that points to the fundamental eyewitness basis for the NT record, as he can always exert selective hyperskepticism as a magic wand to wave away inconveneient facts such as Luke's otherwise inexplicable accuracy in his two-volume work.

Maybe I should cite NT Scholar Craig Evans' Nov 2004 Benthal public lecture:

Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. Notwithstanding the eccentricities and skepticism of the Jesus Seminar, the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much 24 closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel. But this does not mean that the historical Jesus that has begun to emerge in recent years is simply a throwback to the traditional portrait. The picture of Jesus that has emerged is more finely nuanced, more obviously Jewish, and in some ways more unpredictable than ever. The last word on the subject has not been written and probably never will be. Ongoing discovery and further investigation will likely force us to make further revisions as we read and read again the old Gospel stories and try to come to grips with the life of this remarkable Galilean Jew.

Grace open eyes

GEM

53

I particularly find the comments by the empiricists and rationalists interesting in light of Russell's five minute universe paradox: a cosmos created in an instant five minutes ago with appropriate memories and artifactts etc is indistinguishable empirically from the one we believe we live in.

One can of course believe this. But from an emperical perspective it would be irrelevant. If this was the truth the most effective 'model' to use would still be one that presumed an ancient universe. The only way this would make sense is if the creation was imperfect. You can call this the Matrix hypothesis. If you recall, in the movie the computerized robots had created a simulated environment for human minds but the simulation was imperfect. Needless to say, anyone who discovers real emperical evidence that the universe was created on July 14, 1993 would have a Nobel waiting for them.

Terry:

I dont' really know anything about Tyrus. In terms of prophecy scorekeeping I wonder if it suffers from the same problem that many of Nostradamuous's predictions suffer from, vagueness & prophecies that are almost certain to come true ('there shall be a great war' etc.).

That is quite a leap. Peter, a man who was one of the first at the tomb of the risen Christ, said that he was an "eyewitness of his majesty." Now two thousand years later because some people may use the same words in a figurative sense, then Peter's words were therefore too vague? He could not have been more clear.

Reading thru the KJV at least it does appear that 2 Peter is written from a first hand perspective. Not because of the quote you cited but other quotes such as mentioning hearing Jesus's surmon on the mount. Nevertheless Peter is not a gospel nor does it state that the gospels themselves are written from either first hand eyewitnesses nor, if they are, by the actual disciples they have been attributed to.

Take it from a 'true Scotsman,' the use of the phrase "most scholars agree," all scholars agree, "conservative scholars agree"
and "all reputable scholars agree," was never honestly applied. For example, on another thread it was claimed "all scholars agree" that the last 12 verses of Mark were late redactions. This is contrary to the fact that there are many, many extant manuscripts; unicals, minuscules, lectionaries and letters containing those verses from 130 A.D. to the end of the apostolic age. Read Dean Burgon's 300 page masterpiece, "The Last Twelve verses of Mark."

I do agree with you that the last 12 versus of Mark is hardly a closed issue. I pointed this out on the thread where it first developed. I also pointed out to Ex that all he is really showing, at best, is at some point Mark lacked the last 12 versus and after that point they were added. Unlike the Koran which Muslisms believe to have been written complete, Christians only believe the Bible was inspired by God...not dictated word by word. That one inspired author may have written a draft that was later revised does not contradict Christian dogma. Of course there's an endless debate over which version is the 'true' one etc. etc.

Raymond Brown is is considered by some to be "moderate" Roman Catholic, who doubted the traditional authorship of the Gospel of John. He also presumably believes that church tradition carries the same authority as scripture. In that respect he is a conservative (Catholic). That is a far cry from providing evidence that "all," or even a perponderence of conservatives believe that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Sophistry.

1. You requested an example of a scholar. You did not ask (and it would have been unreasonable to have asked) ex to list all scholars and their stands on the Gospels.

2. You later define liberal and conservative scholars as "Generally conservative scholars begin with the premise that the manuscripts are authentic and accurate unless proven otherwise, and the liberal scholars begin with the premise that they are inauthentic and inaccurate unless proven otherwise." I don't know where Raymond Brown begins with his premises but why the implicit ad hoc additional requirement that conservative scholars cannot be Catholics? Considering that the Catholic Church is the oldest Christian demonination that still exists it seems bizaar to declare they can have nothing to contribute from a conservative POV?

I threw him another softball and asked him to name one that he thought was questionable. Surely he could if he had studied all 300 of them all. Instead, he suggested that the "burden of proof" was on me. The odds against even four or five of these prophecies being fullfilled in one man are astronomical.

I'll let this thread pass on unless people want to examine specific prophecies. The odds of a man getting four or five prophecies fullfilled are not astronomical, they would depend on the nature of the prophecy. Especially it would depend on how specific the prophecy was, how many different readings could be taken from it, how much the prophecy could be self-fulfilling (let's say there's a prophecy that a great religious leader will be born in NYC. Two religious leaders contend for our attention, one from NYC and one from Chicago. Because of the prophecy we focus on the one from NYC and retroactively we declared the prophecy fulfilled because indeed there was a leader who came out of NYC that captured our attention).

I suspect that the two references were used to cancel one another out. The first referred to a "so called Christ," and is used to support the untenable position that Jesus was a myth. The second referred to Jesus as "the Christ," and therefore was rejected as a later addition, because Josephus was not a known Christian. Did the analyists even consider the possibility that he may have converted between the two writings and that both are authentic?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus, Josephus lived to 100 AD and wrote his last major work in93 AD. The purpose of much of his work seems to be explaining Judism to the Roman mind. He also considered himself an observant Jew, despite the fact that choose to surrender to the Romans and help them in the war. If he became convinced that Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy he almost certainly would have used that argument in defending their religion (as Terry imples, what better defense of a religion than showing that its prophecies have been fulfilled?). It's difficult to believe he could have come to such a stunning conversion yet found it barely worth mentioning in his scholarship of the time. Sort of like a physicist writing a history of great moments in physics from 1900-1950 neglecting to mention Einstein other than to say he worked in an Austrian patent office for some time and later moved to the US.

Wikipedia is not a perfect source but its consensus seems to be that Josephus did write something about Jesus but his exact words cannot be trusted because they have been corrupted both accidently and intentionally by copiers assuming justification for their faith. The gist of what he wrote probably said something like "at this time a man appeared named Jesus who was known as a righteous man and was cruicified and his believers believed he was ressurected three days later and they are known as Christians. Pretty good evidence that Christians existed (which no one really disputes) and good evidence that Jesus existed in history (which very few people dispute). Not in itself confirmation, though, of the Christian religion.

The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Or the part of Matthew that Ignatius quoted was written between AD 50 and 70. Or an earlier work existed (the Q theory perhaps) that had a section of text quoted by Ignatius that later 'made the cut' into what we know today as Matthew.

As a larger point I'm not really sure where this debate is going. I do understand that any significant text will attract a number of scholars who will debate its finer points endlessly. As I pointed out earlier, though, Christianity as far as I know holds that the Bible was inspired, not dictated, by God. Proving that the Bible may have gone thru many revisions does not in itself demonstrate anything for or against Christianity as a faith.

There is not sufficient objective evidence so as to accomplish what Terrence and Gordon are trying (though they don't seem to recognize it) to accomplish. That is to make faith irrelevant and to make the NT as solid evidence for Christian dogma as Newton's laws of motion. Look at Terry's dividing line between 'liberal and conservative' scholars. Namely liberal scholars supposedly presume a document inauthentic until proven otherwise while conservative scholars do the opposite. Do conservative scholars assume Greek mythology is literally true unless proof is provided otherwise? Do conservative scholars really assume the Trojan war was started over a dispute over a beautiful woman & demand that be the accepted wisdom unless proof is presented otherwise? Do they assume that the foundational documents of Islam, Hinuism and numerous other religions are likewise totally true? I doubt it. The real distinction is that what Terry calls conservative scholars begin with an assumption that Christian dogma is true and work from there. That's fine but notice that keeps the requirement for faith in the picture from the beginning.

54

All:

B seems to be forgetting the point of the 5 minute universe paradox: empirical data underdetermines truth, so we are forced to exert faith on worldview positions and paradigms in fields of knowledge. Thence, we have to assess which makes best sense, in an open-minded, open ended way.

As tot he notion that there is inadequate empitrical data undergirding the fundamental historicity of the NT, just let it be seen that the quality of the data on the NT is far greater and higher than that for any other 10 classical sources put together. What is happening is that likes are not being compared with likes, because of where the NT historical materials points.

In th case of the Josephus corrobotrating sources, there are as noted two texts that explicitly refer to jesus, one of which so far as I know of is not seriously accused of interpolation. the second, on balance has an evcidently Josephan core, but as I noted already ti seems that margialia have got incorporated int he text, unfortunatley. But when the obvious marginalia are removed, the text makes a plain point in support of the historicity of Jesus.

In short, we are back at selective hyperskepticism. In response, I simply put again the Morison challenge, and a call to the proper level of discourse, comparative difficulties analysis:

[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecuter became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]

But at least, B has now climbed down from intemperate, unjustified and uncivil accusations of lying etc, at least for now. That, at least is an improvement.

grace, open eyes

Gordon

55

B seems to be forgetting the point of the 5 minute universe paradox: empirical data underdetermines truth, so we are forced to exert faith on worldview positions and paradigms in fields of knowledge. Thence, we have to assess which makes best sense, in an open-minded, open ended way.

"Underdetermines"? This can mean two things. One is that empirical data does not determine truth as much as something else, such as faith. Another is that it does not determine truth as much as some hypothetical standard (for example, 100% of the time, 90% of the time and so on). I'm not sure how you can support your assertion under either definition.

As far as the 5-minute universe paradox, it requires no faith at all. Whether the universe is as old as it appears to be or whether it was created 5 minutes ago as a perfect simulation of an old universe the TRUTH would be that an old universe is the best model to use in predicting its behavior. That is what the models are designed for, the 'truth' about the universe's true age is a metaphysical question outside the model.

Now you proceed to forget about faith (yet again) and go into more empiracle minutia regarding the NT. As with all empiracle evidence it has dramatic weaknessses. Josephus, for example, only confirms there were Christians pre-100AD. Has anyone disputed that? He mentions that Jesus was their leader, that he was crucified & his followers claimed he rose from the dead. Using a strict empiracle standard one would note that Josephus, unfortunately, does not tell us how he verified this information. Did he just hear it from the Christians and accept it because the Romans crucified lots of people back in those days and at least the first part of the claim would be relatively unremarkable? Did he witness it himself? Did he speak to actual witnesses who saw Jesus at any point in the story?

The charge of hypersketpicism is raised again by Gordon. He defines it as demanding a higher standard of empericle proof for Christian dogma than other facts. Hence it would be difficult (but I suspect not impossible) to find a classical source confirming that Julies Ceasar really existed as testified to by eyewitnesses. But Gordon mistakes the fact that accepting a story is not an all or nothing affair. Historians accept the classical accounts that Ceasar existed and that he took over Rome and was killed by a group of Senators. That doesn't mean they accept all of the story. They don't accept claims that he was a God. They don't accept that he was a descendant of Saturn. They don't accept that he witnessed miracles (or more likely they treat his claims as insufficiently backed by evidence to consider remarkable and true).

But at least, B has now climbed down from intemperate, unjustified and uncivil accusations of lying etc, at least for now. That, at least is an improvement.

All charges that were justified and valid. You've been playing nicely, though, so why bring up old misdeeds when there's fresh ones to go after. Unlike you, I'm willing to agree to disagree about our past disagreements because we have so many fresh ones it makes good sense to take steps to avoid getting bogged down.

56

All:

I will remark on two main points:

1] The Strickland case

I found the link above, and since my name was specifically brought in, I will remark:

--> First, I simply do not trust CNN to give straight information; in this case as well, it gives inadequate information or links on the girl's state apart from more or less a statement from her doctors that she should be allowed to die

--> Is that because she is already dead but her body is being kept going by artificial means? Or is the mater one where life unworthy of being lived is the deciding factor, or what? [Since the means in question are a ventilator and feeding tube, it seems that she has brain injuries and difficulty swallowing and breathing, but beyond that I do not have adequate info. I also have little reason at this stage to trust either the doctors or the courts or the media to be accurate and fair.]

--> what is evident is that the man who seeks custody should be in gaol for battery and perhaps for just failed manslaughter, i.e. at least serious wounding with at least negligence as to what his behaviour would do. he has plainly disqualified himself from any custody, including of himself . . why are the courts even entertaining the petition, if the account is true?

--> Again, life should get the benefit of the doubt. After all, the alternative is irreversible, if a mistake is made. [Notice the long dragged out appeals processes that are entertained in cases of those convicted of murder and condemned. Should not at least as much care be exertedin cases of innocent people who may well be victims of those who may wish to put them to death?]

2] Empirical data underdetermines truth

--> This is evident from the 5-minute universe paradox, as B should be able to figure out: two incompatible accounts of reality . . . and thus and infinite number of mutually exclusive possible accounts of the claimed true state of affairs with the cosmos . . . are empirically equivalent.

[That for instance means that the Russell 5-minute model would be just as good at predicting future states of observation; the physics books in the library and the apparatus inthe lab or observatory would work just as well as in the 13.7 BY cosmos model or the 6 - 10 kY model or the 10/ 20/ 30/ 98765 minute old universe models, or any other that one cared to name.)

--> That means that empirical data can lead us to decide to reject certain proposed accounts of reality, but our commonly avsailable experiences are currently incapable of determining which account of reality is true.

[Should we all experience the Second Coming and Eternal Judgement, that situation would change dramatically. Similarly, as one who has met God in the face of the risen Christ, in resurrection power, I have reason to exclude all accounts of reality that do not comport well with such an experience, which is shared by millions across 20 centuries. But these are of course not yet the common experience of humanity as a whole. that does not change their veridicality, it just means that a great many who are inclined to resoret to doubt on such matters will not accept them . . . just look at how hard many struggle to reject the basic historicity of Jesus of nazareth, easily the best documented historical figure from the classical world. Why? because some aspects of his life and work do not fit in with their models of how reality "must" be. That is, we are seeing question-begging selective hyperskepticism at work.]

--> In effect, I am pointing out that empirical tests of the sort we generally observe are incomplete and assymetrical in their effects: capable of credibly ruling out certain accounts of reality, but incapable of determining any single one as the correct account. (And I have to use "credibly" because even falsification is a provisional exercise, so long as it relies on data that may be inaccurate, as are all human experiences . . .i.e. what can we do to rule out the possibulity that we are living in a Plato's cave/matrix world with sufficiently perfect simulations?]

--> in short, we all live by faith, the question is which one, and why, thence the logic of inference to best explanation/ abduction as a context in which we develop and test worldviews through comparative difficulties.

+++++++++++

Grace, open eyes

Gordon

57

I give Gordon credit for trying to be consistent on the Strickland cas