This post has been sitting incomplete in my writing files for more than a year. I just needed a reason to complete it. Thanks to the discussion on the previous post, “Common Misconceptions of the Christmas Story” I was given new motivation and food for thought to complete it. Now, it is never been my custom to use a post to criticize a commentator on my blog, but the comments on the previous post have opened the question of how we should understand the intersection of evidence, presuppositions, and interpretation and have overconfidently criticized much of the theology expressed on this blog. For this reason, I find it necessary to explore some of the claims made.
Let us grant for a moment that Fred and Bill are epistemic peers, each equally intelligent and each as knowledgeable as the other. Also, they agree entirely on the truth of corpus of data d which contains propositional truths: x, y, z. Fred begins to talk about the conclusions that can be drawn relating x, y, z to one another and draws conclusion c. Bill considers c wildly implausible and concludes that d demands c*. Conclusions c and c* are mutually incompatible and both Fred and Bill recognize this, and each concludes that not only is the one right in his conclusion but the other is wrong in his conclusion. How do we explain how such a difference in conclusions by two equally intelligent people when the relevant facts are agreed upon?
The answer to this question will not be found in waxing psychological by delving into Freudian questions about their backgrounds and their mother’s influence of them. Even if we were to find some explanatory power in psychology specific to the reason Fred came to his conclusion and not Bill’s (which is doubtful), we would still not account for how it is possible in the first place to reach different conclusions on the same data d. What we need is a more philosophical explanation for what allows conflicting interpretative conclusions by two equally intelligent people examining the same data. What follows is a variety of explanations of this phenomenon.
[For those looking for a shorter post, you can skip the following three headings]
Relativism?
I want to lay to rest briefly and boldly that politically correct and unsatisfying cop-out known as philosophical relativism. If we attempt to reconcile Fred’s disagreement with Bill by saying that c is true for Fred and c* is true for Fred then we have only created more problems.
1. What does it mean to be “true for”? Once the jargon has disseminated the most discernable answer that relativists provide is that Fred thinks c is true while Bill thinks c* is true. For if it meant anything else we would need to explain how we know that c is true for Fred and c* is true for Bill. For all we know we may have it backwards and c is true for Bill too. So we’d need to explain how and why we possess the power to discern what is “true for” someone and if ever means anything other than, “s believes that p is true.”
2. The “true for” explanation is impotent to explain the disagreement between Bill and Fred. To assert relativism is to say that we possess the third-party insight to see that Bill and Fred don’t really disagree at all since c is true for Fred and c* is true for Bill. Though Fred and Bill may not be able to see it, the powers of the relativist enable her to see what they cannot. So when Fred and Bill agree together that they really do disagree, the relativist simply disagrees with them that they disagree. But we may legitimately raise the question of whether the relativist’s relativism permits her to really disagree with Fred and Bill.
3. The self-claimed insight of the relativist over absolutists like Bill and Fred who insist that they really do disagree is really just a pretentious dismissiveness masquerading as humility. In the final analysis, it turns out to be rather assertive.
4. Even if the relativists offers some meaningful and useful explanation of the phrase “true for,” the answer is still remains ultimately unsatisfactory. If c stands for “Fred will win the 2008 presidential election” and c* stands for “Fred will not win the 2008 Presidential election” (assuming the context of such statements do not differ such as talking about different Freds or elections in different countries), saying that c is true for Fred and c* is true for Bill it will not help us decide who gets to move into the Whitehouse in ‘09. Truth according to relativists lacks usefulness and satisfaction for life.
Moving on…
An irrational explanation of the phenomenon
For those of us who won’t pay relativism another moment’s notice we might tend to explain Fred and Bill’s conflicting beliefs on the same evidence in other ways. Each time someone is wrong we may conclude that it is due to the inner workings of an irrational mind; conflicting beliefs tell us that there is at least one irrational party involved in the matter. Thus we may explain Fred and Bill’s disagreement by saying that perhaps Fred is rational and Bill is not because c is correct and c* is not.
Alvin Plantinga came up against something like this when he first began teaching philosophy at Wayne State. He writes:
It should be obvious that reasonable people can disagree, even when confronted with a single body of evidence. When a jury or a court is divided in a difficult case, the mere fact of disagreement does not mean that someone is being unreasonable. Paleontologists disagree about what killed the dinosaurs. And while it is possible that most of the parties to this dispute are irrational, this need not be the case. To the contrary, it would appear to be a fact of epistemic life that a careful review of the evidence does not guarantee consensus, even among thoughtful and otherwise rational investigators (“Nominalism, Naturalism, Philosophical Relativism,” Philosophical Perspectives 15: [2001], 71-72).
Wishing it were so, doesn’t make it so
Another possible explanation for Fred and Bill’s disagreement is that Fred or Bill (or both) have an emotional attachment to a their belief that is clouding their judgment. This explanation is a section of the explanation on irrationality. It seeks to explain why the person is being irrational. Wish fulfillment is no myth. Like the explanation on irrationality, wish fulfillment occurs and one’s judgement can be clouded by it. The accusation is famously charged against Christians in particular and the religious in general. Readers of this blog have recently been eye-witnesses of one such accusation from a rather cheeky, caterwauling pugilist under the handle “hokku.” He blasts:
Of course, wishing something to be true is not incompatible with it being true and is not incompatible with being rational. I suppose Christians do like what they believe and wish it to be true (is this any different than anyone else?), but this point is only a viable criticism if it can be first established that Christian belief is itself irrational or that wishful thinking is merely the reason that Christians hold their beliefs. Then invoking wish fulfillment would only serve to explain what motivates Christians to believe that which is irrational. Otherwise, wishing something to be true is in no way inconsistent with being rational.
In Fred’s and Bill’s case, wish fulfillment will not do for an explanation of their disagreement since they are considered to be equally rational and their disagreeement takes place on the same body of evidence d.
Stupid is as stupid does
A popular but not very philosophically versed explanation for Fred and Bill’s disagreement is that perhaps one of them is just too stupid to believe the right thing. This was the explanation that many offered for how President Bush was elected to a second term. But such this explanation also has no bearing in Fred and Bill’s case. They are both equally intelligent and still draw two different conclusions.
Seeing it my way
Irrationality, wish fulfillment and stupidity are each explanations that occasionally explain why people disagree, but none of these explanations get to the heart of Fred and Bill’s disagreement. Recall that Fred and Bill are epistemic peers. They are equally able to leave off irrationality and wish fulfillment in their conclusions on data d.
We need an explanation that doesn’t locate a difference in Fred and Bill’s rational and intellectual faculties. The only explanation that remains given what we know of Fred, Bill and their disagreement is that they have different starting points that affect how they interpret d. The relationship between facts x, y, and z are not given. These facts do not speak for themselves. They hold no self-evident conclusions. They require a perspective to make sense of them. And when two people hold divergent perspectives, they will reach different conclusions even on the same data.
As Rudolph Bultmann said:
The question whether exegesis without presuppositions is possible must be answered affirmatively if “without presuppositions” means “without presupposing the results of the exegesis.” In this sense, exegesis without presuppositions is not only possible but demanded. In another sense, however, no exegesis is without presuppositions, inasmuch as the exegete is not a tabula rasa, but on the contrary, approaches the text with specific questions or with a specific way of raising questions and thus has a certain idea of the subject matter with which the text is concerned (Rudolph Bultmann, “Is Exegesis Possible without Presuppositions” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann, trans. Schubert M. Ogden [New York: Meridian Books, 1960], 289).
Not only do each of us have presuppositions by which we interpret everything, but without presuppositions we would have no way of interpreting anything. Presuppositions, then, are not to be viewed as things that we unfortunately cannot slough off, but would if we could. Instead, they should be valued for making interpretation and understanding possible.
We are talking about ways of looking at things that affect what we see — perspectives. It is not possible to believe something apart from a way of looking at it. Not even God is without perspective. There is no such thing as non-perspective on a matter regardless of how great or small it is. All of what we know and believe is known and believed only from a point of view. Thus, in an important and vital sense all knowledge and belief is subjective. This appears troubling because it naturally invites the question of how we are to establish one perspective as the right one?
Acknowledging the subjectivity of our beliefs does not make one belief as good as another. To claim that one belief is right and another is wrong is to assert the value of one’s subjective perspective over another, and that one’s perspective provides a better explanation of the data than the other’s perspective. But soon we arrive back at the question: isn’t this judgment itself based upon the perspective that one adopts. So how will we arbitrate between the two of them? When we saw different conclusions reached on the same biblical data in the comments on the previous post, we were told that we must look at the Bible with objectivity:
What that certain amount is we are not told, but even when pressed about the standard for this objectivity, we hear that science provides objectivity to us:
So when “Hokku” insists that when it comes to their study of Scripture “Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality” (comment #69), we can be sure that all he is saying that we jettison his understanding of common sense, evidence and rationality. Without a transcendent viewpoint he can say nothing more.
Interesting, John.
You said several days ago that in a day or two you were going to post an article explaining the numerous discrepancies in the resurrection narratives. And yet what you come up with is:
“So when “Hokku” insists that when it comes to their study of Scripture “Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality” (comment #69), we can be sure that all he is saying that we jettison his understanding of common sense, evidence and rationality. Without a transcendent viewpoint he can say nothing more.”
That is a statement of opinion unsupported by any evidence. When you get around to posting your detailed explanation of the discrepancies and divergences in the resurrection narratives, then I shall respond to it, and that will enable readers to see whether you in fact “jettison common sense, evidence and rationality.” Then we shall find if reality fits your convenient but unsubstantiated theory.
Now in addition to posting you article on the resurrection narratives, I want you to explain precisely what you mean by “a transcendent viewpoint.” What exactly is such a viewpoint, and what are its characteristics? Please give examples.
Part of the argument is in hokku’s #54 (“All that we know of the cosmos comes not from the Bible but from science.”). Of course that is true, and of course that has no bearing on the status of either the Bible or Science. Galileo said “the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”. (At least, it’s attributed to him.)
We don’t look to the Bible for science, or for explanations of physical phenomena. (But Galileo did have a wonderfully creative explanation for the story in Joshua about the Sun standing still. I think he may have come up with it to appease the Church, which was wedded to yet another Authority – Aristotle.)
Hokku’s #69 (“It is only when it comes to the Bible that Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality, preferring to believe what they wish to believe, rather than approaching fantastic assertions with a critical and examining mind”) overlooks the fact that faith is belief without evidence, and that there are areas outside the purely physical. If you claim that you can get to religion only by “jettisoning common sense”, then you have to say that people like Augustine and Aquinas (to name only two from that era) were fools, and that really bright people (as in, real “brights”, not Dennett’s) like C. S. Lewis, T. S. Eliot, G. K. Chesterton, and Tolkien (to name only a few from this era) were fools. I don’t think anyone would go that far. That there are other smart people who don’t accept faith is no contradiction – we hold that by virtue of free will, people are free to accept or deny matters of faith.
Again John, where is the substance?
You have provided rhetoric, but where is the practical application to the matter of biblical discrepancies and divergences? Where is your explanation of the discrepancies in the resurrection narratives, which quite a few days ago you promised in a day or two?
You write:
“We don’t look to the Bible for science, or for explanations of physical phenomena.”
I do wish that were true. But the fact is that for centuries Christians have looked to the Bible to explain the cosmos, and science has often had to struggle against that, as did Galileo. Even today one often sees polls indicating that a remarkably high percentage of Americans “do not believe in evolution.” Why? Certainly not because there are legitimate scientific doubts, but because of what Genesis says about “Creation” in seven days, and Noah and his flood.
You may recall what the “Tischreden” attributes to Luther regarding the notion that the earth revolves about the sun; after going on about the foolishness of such a notion, Luther finishes up with,
“Der Narr will die ganze Astronomiae umkehren! Aber wie die Heilige Schrift anzeigt, so hieß Josua die Sonne still stehen und nicht das Erdreich!”
“The fool wants to upset the whole of astronomy! But as the Holy Scripture shows, Joshua said the sun stood still and not the earth!”
And you wrote also, John:
“If you claim that you can get to religion only by “jettisoning common sense”, then you have to say that people like Augustine and Aquinas (to name only two from that era) were fools, and that really bright people (as in, real “brights”, not Dennett’s) like C. S. Lewis, T. S. Eliot, G. K. Chesterton, and Tolkien (to name only a few from this era) were fools.”
This is the sort of faulty logic one would expect from a fan of C.S. Lewis, who used it himself in his flawed “trilemma” — that Jesus must have been either “Lord, liar, or lunatic” as Christians love to put it. But as Beversluis wrote, “One of Lewis’s most serious weaknesses as an apologist is his fondness for the false dilemma. He habitually confronts his readers with the alleged necessity of choosing between two alternatives when there are in fact other options to be considered.” You have done the same here, John, by saying that really “bright” people who are Christians (and that is the religion under consideration here, not any other, and specifically that variety which relies on the Bible) must be considered fools if they jettison common sense in regard to religion. But of course that is not even remotely what I asserted to begin with, which was:
”It is only when it comes to the Bible that Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality, preferring to believe what they wish to believe, rather than approaching fantastic assertions with a critical and examining mind.”
And I think that can certainly be said of Lewis (who, incidentally, was not at all the puritanical Christian philosopher many of the “Christian bookstore” variety mistakenly assume him to have been). And one can find explanations for why the rest of those you mention did so as well. One can be relatively normal — even “bright” in many aspects of life, yet be absolutely irrational when it comes to religion, as was C. S. Lewis. Tolkien, as a writer of essentially pagan and polytheistic mythology, was absolutely brilliant — Lewis could not hold a candle to him — but his rather conservative Roman Catholicism was the result of his devotion to and upbringing by a mother who had a difficult life, died early, and who converted to Catholicism when J. R. R. was a young boy, and raised her sons in that rather troubled system of belief. And by the way, you need not point out “Christian” elements in Tolkien’s works — I am fully aware of all their sources).
But again, as pleasant as all this is to chatter about, you are still avoiding the real issues. Where is the article on the discrepancies and divergences in the resurrection narratives that you promised? And where is your answer to my question regarding precisely what you mean by “a transcendent viewpoint.” What exactly is such a viewpoint, and what are its characteristics? Please give examples.
I know you would rather beat around the bush than go in and pull out what is lurking there, because you seem genuinely afraid of dealing with what the Bible actually says directly, preferring to look nervously about, whistling and muttering an occasional borrowed platitude, but which would you rather have — false emotional comfort or the truth? Let’s deal with the heart of the matter and enough of this avoidance. Please answer my questions (there are others you have also avoided, but we can get back to them later); let’s deal with the resurrection as fact or fiction as revealed in the Bible itself.
Sorry, ZZMike — I somehow went from John’s name heading to your posting, and thus assumed mistakenly that it was written by John Frasier — so just consider that what I said in my last posting about the false dilemma of “bright” people versus religious irrationality as well as the unfortunate effects of “Bible belief” on one’s attitudes toward science and the cosmos apply to your posting, and the rest about the resurrection narratives and not answering my questions to John himself.
Hokku,
I think you are quite confused on the identity of your detractors. My name is John Fraiser, (referred to here almost exclusively as “Fraiser”) and I run this blog site. I have not had a single exchange with you prior to this post, so it is not possible that I promised you I would write any article explaining the numerous discrepancies in the resurrection narratives. I believe you have me confused with John Meade, your primary detractor on the previous post.
As it is, I have no problem explaining the numerous alledged discrepancies in the resurrection narrative. However, as I argued in my post, your worldview gives you no basis on which to judge truth and you view whatever evidence I would present through your presuppositions which are biased against supernaturalism and Christian belief. So why would I think that you’d be convinced? Since you and John have carried on a history of dialogue I will not intervene. I’d be interested to see the exchange continue because I think that you are a knowledgeable about these subjects, but unable to countenance that these texts can be reconciled which I think prevents you from seeing the ways in which they do reconcile.
I will answer the question that you asked me (even though you didn’t know it was me that you were asking). By transcendent I mean what makes something true by virtue of authority. Authority that does not have to at bottom appeal to human solidarity as what makes something true or asserted as true. That which transcends human judgment itself.
Fraiser,
I can only assume you are right about confused identity — given that your first name is John, but you seem to post under “Fraiser.” My apologies to everyone for that.
Now on to the interesting part: You wrote:
“As it is, I have no problem explaining the numerous alledged discrepancies in the resurrection narrative. However, as I argued in my post, your worldview gives you no basis on which to judge truth and you view whatever evidence I would present through your presuppositions which are biased against supernaturalism and Christian belief. So why would I think that you’d be convinced?”
Well, let’s see you do it then. Explain the numerous discrepancies in — not the “resurrection narrative” as you write, but rather “narratives” There are actually five discussions relevant — those in Matthew, Mark (which ends with the frightened women running from the tomb), Luke, John, Acts and 1 Corinthians. But if you do not wish to defend them, I shall still be waiting for the “other” John to do so. It always amazes me that Christians are so reluctant to deal with such matters directly.
Now, to say that someone’s world view gives them no basis on which to judge truth is simply illogical. Everyone has a basis on which to judge truth, and essential to that are evidence and logic. But then you take a great jump backward and begin speaking of “supernaturalism,” as though if one does not accept such terminology as “supernaturalism,” one cannot judge such simple matters as comparing various accounts and seeing where the discrepancies lie and drawing obvious conclusions from them.
You write:
“By transcendent I mean what makes something true by virtue of authority. Authority that does not have to at bottom appeal to human solidarity as what makes something true or asserted as true. That which transcends human judgment itself.”
You are of course attempting what logic terms an “appeal to authority,” but of course to use that here one has to be able to prove not only that said authority exists, but also that the authority is infallible, otherwise it is simply a fault in logic, not an aid. You cannot do either in this case, so why even bring it up? And of course you do not even name your authority, which I assume in your case (tell me if I am mistaken) to be a deity — which again cannot be proven even to exist. So one cannot say with any force that this unnamed authority not only “transcends human judgment” but even that it exists. Without these things, it is simply a statement of belief, of opinion, of wishful thinking on someone’s part.
Hokku,
I explained my reasons for not answering you on the alleged discrepancies you raised. I am leaving that to John Meade given the history of the discussion. If it turns out that he does not want to answer you then I may do so, but for now I leave it to him.
You are wrong at least four times in your response to me.
First, I never made some leap saying that because you don’t accept supernatural explanations that you cannot judge between to accounts. I said that you are biased against supernaturalism and thus would not accept a supernatural explanation, so I’m not sure why I’d bother offering you one. I certainly don’t mind that we disagree, but I find unacceptable that you misrepresent my words. Neither in my post nor in any of my comments have I ever said that anti-supernaturalism prevents you from being able to determine truth. I have said that your worldview necessarily excludes any authority that transcends human judgment. Whether that is what fuels your anti-supernaturalism, only you know. What I do know is that you are biased against supernaturalism, and that is all that I said.
The second place that you’re wrong is in saying that any worldview has a basis on which to judge truth. Tell me, does complete philosophical relativism have a place to judge truth? How can a worldview that says that logic and evidence are only personal judgments and have no absolute value judge what is true? And how can a worldview that says that what you’re saying is true for you and what I’m saying is true for me judge what is true between us? No, every worldview cannot judge what is true.
The third place you err is saying that logic terms my statement on transcedence ‘an appeal to authority.’ Logic does not term anything, human beings do. But setting aside that quibble, an appeal to authority is when one says that someone is wrong because the experts don’t agree. Experts disagreeing with someone’s claim does not cause her to be wrong.
Your statement that we must judge according to logic and evidence is no more an appeal to authority than what I said.
The fourth place you are wrong is when you say that I did not name the transcendent authority to which I appeal. I most certainly did do so in my post:
The Christian God is the authority which transcends human judgment.
You say that I cannot prove that he exists. Yes and no. No, I cannot prove that he exists by using your presuppositions. But I can argue that your presuppositions have no basis on which to talk about absolutes and laws of logic and no basis on which to conclude that God does not exist. God can be proven to exist on presuppositions that are open to supernaturalism.
So let me ask you: in your view, how is truth anything more than just what humans decide is true? In your view, how can there be anything (not necessarily a person, perhaps a law) which transcends human beings and decides who’s right and who is wrong? How do you escape Rorty’s claim that without appeal to transcendence, science is just human solidarity?
Fraiser,
Here is exactly what you wrote:
“However, as I argued in my post, your worldview gives you no basis on which to judge truth and you view whatever evidence I would present through your presuppositions which are biased against supernaturalism and Christian belief.”
You say here that my “worldview” gives me no basis on which to judge truth. And I showed you that anyone has a basis on which to judge truth. I do not see that I am misrepresenting you views.
But then, as I said, you make a leap from that fallacy to supernaturalism:
“you view whatever evidence I would present through your presuppositions which are biased against supernaturalism and Christian belief. So why would I think that you’d be convinced?”
Honestly, why should anyone be convinced if you first assume that someone who does not presuppose supernaturalism not only has “no basis on which to judge truth”
But also should be convinced by a supernatural rather than a logical explanation? Do you seriously believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not “corrupted” by reliance on reasoning and evidence?
You wrote:
“Your statement that we must judge according to logic and evidence is no more an appeal to authority than what I said.”
What you said was:
” By transcendent I mean what makes something true by virtue of authority. Authority that does not have to at bottom appeal to human solidarity as what makes something true or asserted as true. That which transcends human judgment itself.”
You are saying something is true because of the authority behind it. That is clearly an appeal to authority, though a mistaken one, because as I wrote, you neither identified the authority nor can prove it to be infallible, and if the authority is not infallible, then it cannot prove the veracity of your premise that something is true because of the authority behind it.
Now you say that you identified this authority as “God.” No, you did not. Nowhere in post #5 in which you define what you mean by “a transcendent viewpoint” did you mention God. If you mentioned God anywhere else outside that posting, it was not part of your stated definition in answer to my question. Nonetheless, as you see, I assumed that was your supposed “authority” and asked you to tell me if it was not.
Responding to that assumption, you wrote:
“The Christian God is the authority which transcends human judgment.”
That is clearly a statement of belief, not of fact.
And you wrote:
You say that I cannot prove that he exists. Yes and no. No, I cannot prove that he exists by using your presuppositions.
That is just a way of saying that you cannot prove a god exists in any rational, evidential manner. The addition of “by using your presuppositions” is just a red herring, because my presuppositions are in favor of evidence, and not belief, as are the presuppositions of any rational person in any field except religious belief, which takes us right back to the notion that “Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality” when it comes to religion. I think you have just verified that once more, admitting that with common sense, evidence and rationality you cannot verify your belief system or prove the existence of your supposed “authority which transcends human judgment.”
After returning us to the beginning of that circle, you go on to say:
“So let me ask you: in your view, how is truth anything more than just what humans decide is true? In your view, how can there be anything (not necessarily a person, perhaps a law) which transcends human beings and decides who’s right and who is wrong? How do you escape Rorty’s claim that without appeal to transcendence, science is just human solidarity?
And I reply, why should anyone assume there is anything which “transcends human beings and descides who’s right and who is wrong”? Even the laws of logic and evidence are human constructions, not because they are in some mysterious sense absolute entities, but because they have been found to be both practical and workable, not only in theory but in practice.
No reason to assume any mysterious “transcendence” here, any more than Occams Razor demands such an unnecessary thing or person.
Hokku: “… Lewis (who, incidentally, was not at all the puritanical Christian philosopher many of the “Christian bookstore” variety mistakenly assume him to have been). …” I’m not sure how you keep making up these conclusions. Anyone who’s read Lewis would hardly call him “puritanical”. He married a divorced Jew.
Quoting Luther on science is simply side-tracking. Naturally, Luther was bound to be a strict interpreter – one of the “inerrant” crowd. Besides, in 1530 – 1560, science was still under Aristotle’s thumb. Even by 1633, Galileo did not have positive proof of the Copernican theory (at that time, still theory). (Luther proclaimed the doctrine of “sola scriptura”, then went on to write 55 volumes explaining Scripture.) (Congratulations, though, on using the German quote.)
“Tolkien, as a writer of essentially pagan and polytheistic mythology, was absolutely brilliant — Lewis could not hold a candle to him …”. That’s a matter of opinion. Go now and read “Silmarillion” from beginning to end. That Tolkien was a finer scholar, though, is not a question.
I’ve probably gone astray in the discussion from the original question (about the supposed discrepancies in the resurrection narratives – and I may have missed the transition from the original post about the nativity narratives). My mention of Augustine to Eliot was more a side-track in defense of Christianity as a whole, which may be beyond the scope of your argument. (On the other hand, your #8 enlarges the scope to belief in God.)
As an aside (perhaps another aside), I’d ask Fraiser, are you at all troubled by the supposed “inconsistencies” in the Bible? (Tom Paine in “Age of Reason” took one of the early serious refutations of the Bible here in America (and, in fact, of all organized religion).)
But consider that the four Gospels were written 50 – 90 years after the Resurrection, and each was written for a different purpose, to a different audience. We should expect some differences, certainly differences of focus. Indeed, if they were all identical (or nearly so), why would we need all 4? (There’s an interesting history of why there are four, and not fewer or more.)
Again, in #8: “And I reply, why should anyone assume there is anything which “transcends human beings and descides who’s right and who is wrong”? ” I assume you’ve read Lewis’ “Abolition of Man”?
ZZMike wrote:
“Tolkien, as a writer of essentially pagan and polytheistic mythology, was absolutely brilliant — Lewis could not hold a candle to him …”. That’s a matter of opinion. Go now and read “Silmarillion” from beginning to end.”
A matter of taste perhaps, but I think opinion is decidedly in favor of the superiority of Tolkien, and Tolkien himself regarded the allegorical writing of Lewis with extreme distaste, which just goes to show how good Tolkien’s taste was in that field.
I would not put the Silmarillion in the same category as the Ring trilogy, but it was written with a different purpose in mind. One finds levels in Tolkiens writing, just as in other writing, but when he was good, he was very, very good.
All that, of course, is quite beside the point, though again pleasant to chat about. I don’t think anything else you wrote requires comment, except perhaps your remark that mentioning Luther’s attributed remarks relevant to Copernicanism were “sidetracking.”
Given that Luther is universally regarded as the major “founder” in some sense of Protestantism, and given that Protestantism relies on “sola scriptura,” and given that the Bible is the traditional Protestant authority, Luther’s attitude toward science should be of interest — and in fact his attitude is reflected in that of “Creationists” today, in all their wild and domestic variations. Luther is always relevant to a discussion of whether “sola scriptura” is in itself biblical or even practical, and so far the participants in this discussion have not clearly identified their positions regarded biblical authority and levels of fallibility or inerrancy. Perhaps Luther’s remarks may help to encourage that (though I sense that some are not anxious to commit). But I would not put Luther strictly in the “inerrant” crowd. Someone who could say that he would like to heat his stove with the Book of James, and in regard to the Apocalypse could remark that a revelation should be revealing, is not exactly in the same category as the average TV evangelist and unquestioned “inerrancy” of all the books of the Bible.
Hokku,
Your inequity is truly astounding. I want to get this straight. I wrote a 3,000+ word-post and clearly identified the transcendent authority of which I spoke to be the Christian God, but because I didn’t specifically state this in comment #5 I’m not making myself clear? Absurd. If you’d paid attention to my post in the first case you wouldn’t have had to wonder the identity of the transcendent authority of which I spoke. I’ll chalk this up to a tactic of distraction and won’t bother with this further. If anyone else is reading our exchange they will clearly see that I did make myself clear.
Repeatedly insisting that any worldview has a basis for judging truth doesn’t make what you say true. Logic and evidence need application and interpretation and one’s presuppositions determine how this will be done. Evidence does not speak for itself. This is a fairly obvious point and you really should know this by now. Do you have something new to say about this?
It’s been some time since I’ve seen someone so dedicatedly antagonistic toward the Christian faith as you are. For example, no one brought up Luther, and yet you decide to throw in our faces a place where we clearly disagree with him. This is like me pulling out someone who is key in scientific history and said something false and saying, “See, if you claim to be scientific, look what a founding scientist once said! You must be irrational if you claim to follow science!” Why can’t we simply say that we disagree with Luther and that the Joshua text is not making a scientific statement but one of literary perspective, and from literary perspective the sun did stand still. If I hear you use the word “sunrise” am I to flaunt the claim that you must think that each day the sun moves around the earth rather than that the earth rotates? To do so is beneath me. Unfortunately, it is not beneath you to stoop to such criticism. Is this evidence of how desperate you are to insult Christianity? You say that Luther’s attitude toward science should be of interest. Sure, but only of historical interest. If you want to tack his view onto certain creationists, then by all means do so. But don’t come on here practicing guilt by association. It’s nonesense. I’m a Lutheran, but that does not mean that I’m under obligation in any sense to agree with Luther on all points.
Now to the more substantial issue at hand…
You wrote,
“I reply, why should anyone assume there is anything which ‘transcends human beings and descides who’s right and who is wrong’? Even the laws of logic and evidence are human constructions, not because they are in some mysterious sense absolute entities, but because they have been found to be both practical and workable, not only in theory but in practice. ”
It’s interesting that you admit this. If laws of logic and evidence are human constructions then who are you to judge that I’m being illogical and evading evidence in matters of Christian faith? It is as I said in my post, when you say that “Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality” you can only mean that Christians jettison your version of common sense, evidence, and rationality. Big deal.
Logic and interpretation of evidence are simply based in human solidarity in your view. And thus, the most you can say is: there’s a bunch of us who disagree with you because we agree with each other. Why should this be a serious accusation?
I’m hoping that you’ll be honest. I don’t see in you just a disagreement with Christianity, but in fact a hatred, a detesting of it. Why? The reasons are not your alledged inconsistencies. Inconsistencies aren’t cause to be antagonistic.
ZZMike,
No, I’m not troubled by supposed inconsistencies. There are certainly places where the gospel writers (for example) accent different things and mention things that the others did not. This is (as you’ve pointed out) a positive thing. On the places where they agree critics argue that they collaberated their stories. And places where one emphasizes things that the others do not they argue that they contradict. There’s no way to win when it’s cast so unjudiciously.
I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where synoptic accounts logically contradict. There are some contradictions that have linked to scribal errors but not to errors in the autographs.
Frasier,
You wrote:
“I want to get this straight. I wrote a 3,000+ word-post and clearly identified the transcendent authority of which I spoke to be the Christian God, but because I didn’t specifically state this in comment #5 I’m not making myself clear? Absurd.”
Hardly absurd, when I asked you to give a precise definition and you responded with a definition in which the word “God” was not only completely absent, but an entire posting in which the word “God” was completely absent. And I don’t know why you are complaining, because I not only assumed you had left a deity out, but asked you to tell me if a deity was not your supposed “authority” (the one for which you can offer no evidence nor proof). You can hardly say you “made yourself clear” when a key term was completely omitted from your definition.
You wrote:
“Repeatedly insisting that any worldview has a basis for judging truth doesn’t make what you say true. Logic and evidence need application and interpretation and one’s presuppositions determine how this will be done.”
I wonder why you persist in restating my words to mean something quite different. I never said “any worldview” has a basis for judging truth. I said ” And I showed you that anyone has a basis on which to judge truth.” Obviously someone who insists that “truth” comes only from an hypothetical supernatural authority and cannot therefore be determined by humans is refusing to use the tools available to anyone in order to determine truth in that case. I would opine, however, that in other areas than religion, that person would resort to the common bases available to anyone to judge what is factual — evidence and proof — which returns us again to how conservative Christians “jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality” when it comes to religion.”
Regarding Luther and his anticopernicanism, you wrote:
“For example, no one brought up Luther, and yet you decide to throw in our faces a place where we clearly disagree with him.”
And why do you disagree with him? Obviously because of science, which is the reason why we know the earth revolves on its axis and rotates about the sun. The evidence was not only so overwhelming but also so glaringly obvious that even Christianity eventually had to give in to reality in that case, in spite of Pope and Protestant founder and “sola scriptura.”
You continued, writing:
” –the Joshua text is not making a scientific statement but one of literary perspective, and from literary perspective the sun did stand still.”
Obviously that is a modern perspective, because Luther did not see it that way, nor did countless other Christians until the scientific reality forced them to admit otherwise. And even today we have Christians who refuse to accept what Genesis tells us of the cosmology, trying repeatedly and and many combinations to harmonize it in some manner with what science teaches us of the cosmos and of human origins. As Luther demonstrates, your view of the matter is simply not the traditional Christian view, but rather a very recent view that developed only out of the tension between science and the Bible. So it seems Luther proves to be quite relevant.
You added:
“You say that Luther’s attitude toward science should be of interest. Sure, but only of historical interest.” And you added “I’m a Lutheran, but that does not mean that I’m under obligation in any sense to agree with Luther on all points.”
To say that a view common to Christianity up to the time of Luther is “only of historical interest” is to say a great deal about how Christianity can change its cosmology in reaction to the discoveries of science. So what happened to “Gottes Wort und Luther’s Lehr vergehet nun und nimmermehr”? Obviously neither the Word nor the teaching based on it were quite as durable as Lutherans liked to say (For those are not familiar with it, that is a little jingle taught to Lutheran children –”God’s word and Luther’s teaching shall pass away neither now nor evermore.” No one is under obligation to agree with Luther on any point (though one may be pressured in a conservative synod on certain elements) But one is under obligation to recognize the facts of history in relation to the development of science, if one wishes to be taken seriously.
You seem, for some reason, peculiarly amazed that I admit the obvious — that the laws of logic and evidence are human constructions, which are used not because were somehow discovered to be mysterious absolutes from some realm beyond, but simply because they have been found to work when practically applied. That makes me think you have a very strange and no doubt mistaken understanding of the term “laws” in both logic and science.
You go on to say:
It’s interesting that you admit this. If laws of logic and evidence are human constructions then who are you to judge that I’m being illogical and evading evidence in matters of Christian faith? It is as I said in my post, when you say that “Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality” you can only mean that Christians jettison your version of common sense, evidence, and rationality. Big deal.
Who am I to judge that you are being illogical? I am the same as anyone who relies on evidence and proof to determine whether anything is illogical. You seem to have a great fondness for a multiplicity of words, yet a paradoxical lack of understanding concerning the meanings behind them. Again, it is not “my version” of common sense, but the “version” of anyone who relies on logic and evidence rather than belief. And you did not reply to my pointed question in that regard: Do you seriously believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not “corrupted” by reliance on reasoning and evidence?
You wrote:
“Logic and interpretation of evidence are simply based in human solidarity in your view.”
No, logic and interpretation are tools developed and used by humans to deal with evidence, used because they have been found to work well. Again, you seem to think that to interpret evidence, one has to have some mysterious “truth” handed down from the Great Beyond. But one needs only the tools of evidence and logic, reason and common sense, which have been found by experience not only to be practical but also to function well.
The rest of your posting seems merely to be merely an expression of frustration that the fatal weakness of your position has been demonstrated.
However, in your NEXT posting — #12, you introduce some real howlers regarding biblical discrepancies by writing:
“here are certainly places where the gospel writers (for example) accent different things and mention things that the others did not. This is (as you’ve pointed out) a positive thing. On the places where they agree critics argue that they collaberated their stories. And places where one emphasizes things that the others do not they argue that they contradict. There’s no way to win when it’s cast so unjudiciously.
I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where synoptic accounts logically contradict. There are some contradictions that have linked to scribal errors but not to errors in the autographs.”
“Accent different things and mention things the others did not.” That is a misleading oversimplification of the actual situation. You might have a point if the “different things” and the things mentioned “that others did not” were not elements of major significance. But the truth is that writers on the same events mutually omit major but different events that no sensible writer would be likely to omit, for example in the birth narratives, if we simply contrast Luke’s account of the birth with that of Matthew, we find:
Luke has no star that moves and stands close enough over where Jesus is born to enable someone to actually find the tiny spot (a physical impossibility)’
Luke has no astrologers (Magi) that come to Bethlehem and present the infant with rich gifts.
Luke has no slaughter of innocent children by Herod in an attempt to destroy the child;
Luke has no flight to Egypt and residence there.
One may add numerous other comparisons, such as the fact that Matthew, unlike Luke, has no worldwide Roman census that required the parents to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem; in fact Matthew does not have the parents as residents of Nazareth at all, but rather living in Bethlehem; according to Matthew, the parents only become residents of Nazareth AFTER the flight to Egypt, and then only because they are warned by an angel in a dream not to return to Judea, but to travel instead to Galilee to avoid Herod’s son Archelaus.
One could go on about the birth narratives and their significant and revealing discrepancies, but the point is that they are essentially two quite different stories sharing some common elements but different so greatly in the details surrounding those common elements that they can easily be seen to be two quite different narratives — narratives which do not share elements that no high school journalism student would be naive enough to omit.
We can say the same of the resurrection narratives, which differ so greatly in detail that in Matthew the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to the disciples take place in Galilee, while in Luke they not only all take place in Jerusalem and vicinity, but Luke even changes a prophecy of the Galilee appearances into a remembrance of something else that Jesus once said in Galilee. In other words, Luke has rewritten “scripture” into a completely different meaning. But of course it was not scripture when Luke did it. It was simply a human, fallible written account, so Luke had no qualms about writing his own human, fallible account and presenting it as “better” than the many earlier accounts that had already been written. Again, we are in the “pre-scripture” stage, before the Church had declared these human and fallible writings to be the “Word of God” and inviolate. And just to be clear, no, the Gospels were not written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We have no idea who wrote them, because the earliest manuscripts are anonymous. The attributions were added later.
It is precisely the significant discrepancies and divergences in the Gospels that demonstrate they are human and fallible accounts, and not at all divine words handed down from on high. As I always say, the Bible is the best witness for its own fallibility.
Fraiser wrote:
“I wrote a 3,000+ word-post and clearly identified the transcendent authority of which I spoke to be the Christian God, but because I didn’t specifically state this in comment #5 I’m not making myself clear? Absurd.”
Not absurd at all. I asked you for a precise definition, and nowhere in that definition is the word “God” to be found. In fact nowhere in the entire posting containing the definition is the word “God” to be found. Nonetheless, I assumed that a deity was probably your “deus ex machina,” and told you so. So what are you complaining about? It was your omission, not mine.
And he wrote:
“Repeatedly insisting that any worldview has a basis for judging truth doesn’t make what you say true. Logic and evidence need application and interpretation….”
Do not distort my words. I did not say “any worldview” has a basis for judging truth; I said “anyone has a basis on which to judge truth.” That basis, however, can be thwarted if one places an irrational world view above evidence, logic, reason, and common sense, preferring blind belief to rationality and evidence.
And further he wrote:
“For example, no one brought up Luther, and yet you decide to throw in our faces a place where we clearly disagree with him.”
You not only disagree with Luther, but with some 1500 years of Christian tradition up to Luther on this point. It was only when the realities of science made glaringly obvious the fact that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves about the sun that Christianity was brought kicking and screaming into acceptance of reality. And even today we have Christians who refuse to accept the realities of science, preferring to place the fantasy realm of “Creationism” above the evidence and the facts. So you see, Luther was quite relevant after all.
And he wrote:
“Why can’t we simply say that we disagree with Luther and that the Joshua text is not making a scientific statement but one of literary perspective, and from literary perspective the sun did stand still.”
If the Bible is in fact “true,” when it makes a statement regarding cosmology, we can justly expect that statement to be in keeping with the known facts. Luther’s view that Joshua believed the earth was stable while the sun moved is, as I have said, the view of Christianity as a whole up to his time. It is the modern, science-influenced Christians who have departed from the biblical view. Joshu is not making a “literary statement” but a statement of a primitive and disproven cosmology, the same kind of mistaken primitive cosmology we find in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. In disagreeing, you are simply preferring scientific fact over biblical fallacy, though you would not dare admit it.
And he wrote:
“You say that Luther’s attitude toward science should be of interest. Sure, but only of historical interest.” And further, ” I’m a Lutheran, but that does not mean that I’m under obligation in any sense to agree with Luther on all points.”
As though all of Christian tradition up to Luther is only of “historical interest,” whereas it actually shows us how Christians understood the Bible. It is very pertinent here, because it demonstrates the inconsistency of your view; when the Bible is obviously, glaringly wrong, you take refuge in what science says of the cosmos, interpreting the Bible in its light. No one is obligated to agree with Luther on all points, not even Lutherans, but of course depending on one’s synod there may be considerable pressure to hold to certain points. There is quite a range of belief among Lutheran synods, from the fundamentalist to the very modernistic. So the old jingle taught their children by Lutherans, “Gottes Wort und Luther’s Lehr vergehet nun und nimmermehr” (“God’s word and Luther’s teaching shall not pass away now or ever”) is certainly not literally true among all Lutherans today. Which of course raises the useful reminder that what is “Christian” can vary remarkably, from the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witness through those of Catholics and Lutherans in all their variety to those of Mormons and Pentecostals. Given that there have been literally thousands of Christian sects, the term “Christian” can only be used as a very loose and imprecise semantic convenience when discussing specific views.
Frasier continues:
“If laws of logic and evidence are human constructions then who are you to judge that I’m being illogical and evading evidence in matters of Christian faith? It is as I said in my post, when you say that “Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality” you can only mean that Christians jettison your version of common sense, evidence, and rationality.”
Who am I to judge that you are being illogical? I am the same as anyone who relies on evidence and logic and reason to demonstrate that you are abandoning those in favor of blind belief. In this regard I notice that you failed to respond to my pointed question: Do you seriously believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not “corrupted” by reliance on reasoning and evidence?
Again, you have simply once more demonstrated by your position that “Christians jettison common sense, evidence, and rationality” in favor of belief.
And Frasier wrote:
“Logic and interpretation of evidence are simply based in human solidarity in your view.”
No, logic and interpretation of evidence are tools used to examine issues, and they are so used because they have been shown to be practical — the work when reasonably and carefully applied. No “deus ex machina” is required, and there is no evidence for such, thus we can easily dispense with your faulty notion of the “transcendent authority” in deciding questions of biblical fallibility. We need only look at the evidence and subject it to examination using the tools of reason and logic to demonstrate that the Bible is a very human and fallible collection of documents.
And in his response to ZZMike (#12) Frasier wrote:
“No, I’m not troubled by supposed inconsistencies. There are certainly places where the gospel writers (for example) accent different things and mention things that the others did not. This is (as you’ve pointed out) a positive thing. On the places where they agree critics argue that they collaberated their stories. And places where one emphasizes things that the others do not they argue that they contradict. There’s no way to win when it’s cast so unjudiciously.
I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where synoptic accounts logically contradict. There are some contradictions that have linked to scribal errors but not to errors in the autographs.”
You greatly oversimplify a very significant matter — the numerous discrepancies and divergences found in the biblical texts. It is not simply that the gospel writers “accent different things and mention things that the others did not,” but rather that they go so far as to tell quite different stories based around a few common elements.
We see this in the birth narratives, where the writers mutually exclude remarkable and extremely noteworthy events the other reports. For example, in contrast to Matthew’s tale, Luke contains:
No initial residence of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth;
No miraculous star that moves and stands near enough above the birthplace that the tiny spot can be located and visited (a physical impossibility for a star);
No astrologers (Magi) who come bearing rich gifts for the child;
No slaughter of children by Herod in an attempt to eliminate the child;
No flight to Egypt or residence there;
No return from Egypt;
No warning by an angel not to go to Judea, which accounts in Matthew’s story for why Joseph and Mary end up as residents of Nazareth rather than Bethlehem;
Similarly, we see that Matthew has no worldwide Roman census that illogically requires citizens to return to the town where an ancestor was born some 1,000 years before, etc. etc. etc.
It is precisely such discrepancies that reveal the nature of the gospels — that where Matthew and Luke had no Markan prototype to follow, they had to invent on their own, and in doing so they create two quite different stories. Where this differences end and Matthew and Luke return to the same structure is precisely where Mark begins. And we can say the same of the resurrection narratives; where Mark ends, Matthew and Luke again diverge wildly, with Matthew placing the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee, while Luke places all post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem and vicinity, even going so far as to rewrite the Markan text not only to eliminate predictions of a post-resurrection meeting with the disciples in Galilee, but also rewriting an angelic prediction (future) that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee into a remembrance (past) of something quite different that Jesus once said in Galilee. Thus the gospels clearly demonstrate they are human and fallible documents consisting of what today we would call plagiarism, combined with editing and revision to fit the viewpoints of a given author or editor. The gospels were not originally “scripture,” as “Luke” makes quite clear in his prologue, mentioning that many others had written gospels in the past, and now he was going to write his own “better” gospel. It was only later that the Church transformed these very human and fallible writings into “The Word of God” and “Divine Scripture.”
Hokku,
“In fact nowhere in the entire posting containing the definition is the word ‘God’ to be found.” I said that I was through commenting on this accusation, but your absurdity compels me. You could not be more wrong.
What follows is a very specific explanation from my post of what I said about the transcendent authority of which I spoke. Pay attention. The word “God” (or a form of it) is present twice along with several pronouns which have “God” as their antecedent.
“Something can only be objective for us because it is subjective for God. It is his truth, his perspective and if we are to be right or to have a basis on which we can judge something as true and false we have to share his perspective. Christians have then the right to speak in terms of objectivity because objectivity for us means appealing to God’s transcendent point of view.”
I led you to water, don’t blame me because you won’t drink. You were ignorant (for whatever reason) of what I clearly explained in the post. You’re busy blaming Christians for enough ignorance. Must we accept responsibility for yours, too?
“anyone has a basis on which to judge truth.” Yes, you said this, but I did not distort your words. What your statement says is that anyone possesses a basis on which to judge truth. This is entirely false. Anyone does not possess a basis on which to judge truth when they ascribe to a worldview that denies truth or does not allow for the arbitration of truth. Now if you had said, “Anyone CAN have a basis on which to judge truth”, then I would have been distorting your words, but your statement as it is, does not say this. As I have been arguing, YOU do not have a basis on which to judge truth, because you subscribe to a view which asserts that laws of logic and evidence are human constructions. But you CAN if you ascribe to the Christian worldview which has a transcendent viewpoint.
You’re disgruntled that I didn’t answer one of your question (apparently you find it indicting). There were actually two questions. Here they are in their fullness:
“why should anyone be convinced if you first assume that someone who does not presuppose supernaturalism not only has ‘no basis on which to judge truth’
But also should be convinced by a supernatural rather than a logical explanation? Do you seriously believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not ‘corrupted’ by reliance on reasoning and evidence?”
I never said that someone who does not presuppose supernaturalism has no basis on which to judge truth. I said “your worldview gives you no basis on which to judge truth and you view whatever evidence I would present through your presuppositions which are biased against supernaturalism and Christian belief.” I said two things here. 1) Your worldview gives you no basis on which to judge truth. 2) You view whatever evidence I would present through your presuppositions which are biased against supernaturalism and Christian belief. You seem to want to connect these two causally as though I said your view has no basis on which to judge truth BECAUSE you are biased against supernaturalism. I never connected these two statements causally. Go on fusing these two causally in your mind if you wish, but then you’ll be saying something I didn’t say, and thus stifling clarity and progress in our discussion. I’m growing weary of your false claims regarding things I did not say. The fact that your questions were built on a misunderstanding of what I said in effect diffuses them. If you want to ask me a new question rooted in what I actually said, then I welcome it.
Onto Luther…
I disagree with some 1500 years of Christian tradition. So what? You’re forgetting that science said the same thing as Luther for 1500 years, but I’m judicious enough to not go raising all the false claims that science has made for thousands of years in an effort to discredit science. And though you claim to base your beliefs on the findings of science, I need not hit so low as to accuse you of irrationality somehow for breaking with 1500+ years of science.
You can bark about creationists that you don’t like, but what does this have to do with me? It’s convenient that you seek to fault all Christians for the beliefs of some, while at other times when Christians make great scientific discoveries you won’t attribute those to Christianity but instead claim them for your side (when in fact during their lifetime they denounced your views). Science (as you claim) did not make glaringly obvious the fact that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves about the sun. Science can’t do anything. It’s an abstraction. Scientists do things, and in this case it was a Christian (and a series of Christians) who made glaringly obvious the fact you mention. Christianity did not come to this view kicking and screaming. The entire scientific community did not accept what Copernicus said, not just Christianity. At the time, Copernicus made a correct statement, but he had not presented the proper data to support it. Thus, no one agreed with Copernicus whether from the standpoint of religion or science. Galileo was condemned not because he taught the heliocentric view, but because he insulted (perhaps unintentionally) Pope Urban VIII in his book. Prior to his insult, the Pope encouraged and funded the publication of his book. How convenient that you omit these facts. And you wonder why I’m making that case that your presuppositions affect how you interpret evidence.
“It is the modern, science-influenced Christians…” Given the way in which Christians have influenced science it would be better phrased: “the modern, Christian-influenced science”.
“Joshu is not making a ‘literary statement’ but a statement of a primitive and disproven cosmology.” How do you know? What makes you Joshua’s spokesperson? You only assert this because you want so badly to use it to discredit Christianity. The entire battle of which Joshua speaks is from the point of view on the ground. Thus when he states that the sun stood still why should he have to possess the point of view of an astronomer? I wouldn’t accuse you of a geocentric view if you said “sunrise.” I would recognize that you are speaking from a point of view. Once you lose the desire to rail against Christians and Christianity as you so desperately do, it is a really simple explanation.
“what is “Christian” can vary remarkably, from the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witness through those of Catholics and Lutherans in all their variety to those of Mormons and Pentecostals. Given that there have been literally thousands of Christian sects, the term “Christian” can only be used as a very loose and imprecise semantic convenience when discussing specific views.”
Once again, what does this have to do with me? I’m not arguing for JW’s, Mormons, Penecostals, et al. So why fault me for what they say? The scientific community is not monolithic either. Atheists say all kinds of different things, but I don’t take what one atheist says and seek to discredit you with it, but your bias against Christianity causes you to apply a standard of acceptance to it that you do not apply to the things you want to believe. If you hope to make any progress in making your case you’re going to have to cease your hypocrisy and apply your standards across the board.
“Who am I to judge that you are being illogical?”
Who are you to judge, indeed! And yet you judge me to be illogical. I don’t think that you are aware of the full force of your admission that laws of logic and evidence are human inventions. If they are then they have no absolute weight. To call me illogical is to say that I do not allign with a human invention. So what? Why should I? Because a large group of people say I should? So humans find evidence pratical. So do I, but as I have argued, evidence does not speak for itself, it requires presuppositions in order to interpret it. Your set of presuppositions leads you to look at it one way and then you call me illogical on matters of Christian belief. But when looked at from my set of presuppositions the evidence leads a different direction. So why must I look at it YOUR way if I am to be logical? Tell me, please. What makes you the arbiter of what is logical? You have only told me that evidence and reason make you logical and illogical but this won’t help because I will simply say again: Where evidence and reason lead depends on one’s presuppositions. Why must I accept yours?
You have believe that laws of logic and evidence are human inventions. This leaves you impotent to say anything other than that I disagree with a human invention. When I hear this it carries no more weight than if I were to say to you: you are wrong because you disagree with Christianity (which you also take to be a human invention). So why does it make me illogical to disagree with a human invention when you so freely disagree with one?
Fraiser,
Just cannot admit it, can you? So I repeat, nowhere in your posting in the word “God” to be found and certainly not in your definition in that posting. Anyone can check it for themselves — Frasier #5. You are referring to some other posting, not the one in which you specifically defined your “transcendent authority.” Again, it was your omission, not mine, yet you are still complaining.
As for your distortion of my words that anyone has a basis on which to judge truth into any “worldview,” that is obvious to anyone who can tell the difference between the two words. The rest of what you say on that matter is simply a smokescreen to cover what proves to be just one more error on your part.
You wrote:
“I disagree with some 1500 years of Christian tradition. So what? You’re forgetting that science said the same thing as Luther for 1500 years….”
You are, of course, simply ignoring my pointing out that the reason you disagree with those 1500 years of Christian tradition is because you take your basic cosmological facts on the earth’s axis and orbit from science now, rather than from the Bible.
As you should know, “science” such as it was, was subservient to the church through the bulk of that period. It was only with the publication of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus in in 1543 that the “Scientific Revolution” which replaced the classical world view with the with the fundaments of modern science began, and its progress relied not on anything said in the Bible, but rather on direct investigation.
You wrote:
“It is the modern, science-influenced Christians…” Given the way in which Christians have influenced science it would be better phrased: “the modern, Christian-influenced science”.
Completely mistaken. If you can demonstrate one basic scientific fact that science derived from the Bible, and in this case specifically from Christianity, then you might begin to have a case. But you cannot, because the truth of the matter is that science influenced Christians involved in it through their investigation of reality, which then gradually began replacing the Biblical cosmology and naturalism. All biblical Christianity has done with science is to attempt to mingle and dilute it with fantasy, as Creationism in all its strange variety amply demonstrates.
And you wrote:
““Joshu[a] is not making a ‘literary statement’ but a statement of a primitive and disproven cosmology.” How do you know? What makes you Joshua’s spokesperson?”
I know because the biblical cosmology is presented not only in Joshu but also in Genesis, the Psalms, etc. And I know that Luther’s interpretation of it was that, as already mentioned, of some 1500 years of Christian tradition piled on top of Jewish tradition. And again, the only reason you do not agree with that tradition is that in this case you abandon the Bible and accept the obvious findings of science. It is just that simple.
You wrote (quoting me)
“‘what is “Christian” can vary remarkably, from the doctrines of Jehovah’s Witness through those of Catholics and Lutherans in all their variety to those of Mormons and Pentecostals. Given that there have been literally thousands of Christian sects, the term “Christian” can only be used as a very loose and imprecise semantic convenience when discussing specific views.’
Once again, what does this have to do with me? I’m not arguing for JW’s, Mormons, Penecostals, et al.”
It reminds everyone that when you use the term “Christian,” you are using in in an exceedingly imprecise manner, because Christians cover (and have covered since their beginnings) a very wide spectrum of belief.
And you wrote:
[Quoting me in part]“‘Who am I to judge that you are being illogical?’
Who are you to judge, indeed! And yet you judge me to be illogical….”
You seem to read what I write with as little attention to meaning as you do the Bible. What I said, in full, is self-explanatory:
“Who am I to judge that you are being illogical? I am the same as anyone who relies on evidence and logic and reason to demonstrate that you are abandoning those in favor of blind belief.”
And you completely avoided dealing with the concrete examples I gave to demonstrate that you are illogical, which I shall append to the end of this to refresh the minds of any who may have forgotten how much you left out.
But before I do that, I want to point out that again you studiously avoided answering this simple question:
“Do you seriously believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not ‘corrupted’ by reliance on reasoning and evidence?”
You avoid answering it because your answer will clearly demonstrate that you abandon evidence, reason and logic for blind faith. So let me put it is a slightly different way:
“Do you believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not ‘corrupted’ by reliance on reasoning and evidence?” Let’s have a direct answer from you.
Now you said in a previous posting:
“I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where synoptic accounts logically contradict. There are some contradictions that have linked to scribal errors but not to errors in the autographs.”
And my reply, which again you ignore because it again demonstrates the faults inherent in your viewpoint, was:
You greatly oversimplify a very significant matter — the numerous discrepancies and divergences found in the biblical texts. It is not simply that the gospel writers “accent different things and mention things that the others did not,” but rather that they go so far as to tell quite different stories based around a few common elements.
We see this in the birth narratives, where the writers mutually exclude remarkable and extremely noteworthy events the other reports. For example, in contrast to Matthew’s tale, Luke contains:
No initial residence of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth;
No miraculous star that moves and stands near enough above the birthplace that the tiny spot can be located and visited (a physical impossibility for a star);
No astrologers (Magi) who come bearing rich gifts for the child;
No slaughter of children by Herod in an attempt to eliminate the child;
No flight to Egypt or residence there;
No return from Egypt;
No warning by an angel not to go to Judea, which accounts in Matthew’s story for why Joseph and Mary end up as residents of Nazareth rather than Bethlehem;
Similarly, we see that Matthew has no worldwide Roman census that illogically requires citizens to return to the town where an ancestor was born some 1,000 years before, etc. etc. etc.
It is precisely such discrepancies that reveal the nature of the gospels — that where Matthew and Luke had no Markan prototype to follow, they had to invent on their own, and in doing so they create two quite different stories. Where this differences end and Matthew and Luke return to the same structure is precisely where Mark begins. And we can say the same of the resurrection narratives; where Mark ends, Matthew and Luke again diverge wildly, with Matthew placing the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples in Galilee, while Luke places all post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem and vicinity, even going so far as to rewrite the Markan text not only to eliminate predictions of a post-resurrection meeting with the disciples in Galilee, but also rewriting an angelic prediction (future) that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee into a remembrance (past) of something quite different that Jesus once said in Galilee. Thus the gospels clearly demonstrate they are human and fallible documents consisting of what today we would call plagiarism, combined with editing and revision to fit the viewpoints of a given author or editor. The gospels were not originally “scripture,” as “Luke” makes quite clear in his prologue, mentioning that many others had written gospels in the past, and now he was going to write his own “better” gospel. It was only later that the Church transformed these very human and fallible writings into “The Word of God” and “Divine Scripture.”
I hope that in you next posting you will deal with these substantive matters, and not continue to beat timidly around the bush. And do not forget the question you fear to answer:
Do you believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not ‘corrupted’ by reliance on reasoning and evidence?” That question directly addresses your claimed reliance on “transcendental authority,” and how it relates to your approach to reason and evidence.
Just a brief message to note that John M., who was going to explain the discrepancies in the resurrection narratives that I raised, seems to have disappeared from view here. If you are out there, John M., what ever happened to that explanation, which you promised to post some time ago in a “day or two”?
I mention this because the resurrection narratives are very useful in demonstrating the human and fallible nature of the Bible — yet it seems that whenever I raise the specifics of this issue and ask for a direct response, people tend to uneasily change the subject or disappear.
Hokku –
I am a student and I have discontinued conversating on this blog because of time constraints. However, I see now, that my explanations of the Synoptic issues will have no affect on you, since you cannot even understand what Fraiser is saying about God’s transcendent view point. Furthermore, you cannot see that your own logic according to your worldview cannot account for a translogic and will simply only apply to you, the autonomous self-reference point. How are you ever going to be open to opposing viewpoints with this starting point or presupposition? How will you ever criticize and say we are wrong on the terms of your own human/finite vantage point? You really should step back and consider the implications of your own position.
Be that as it may, I will provide a small account for your earlier question to me. On many occasions [like a broken record], you have raised alleged discrepancies between the Synoptic accounts of the Post-resurrection accounts. Not to get off track, but it is amazing how many times people like you can jump to the post-resurrection details, and skip right over the RESURRECTION of Jesus, which all four gospels and Paul and Peter (the entire NT) affirm and AGREE upon. Your unbelief is simply amazing since it would cause you to skip right over this fact which is undisputed throughout the NT to quibble over some of the details, which can still be explained.
I will only take up your question concerning Galilee in Lk. 24.6 and Mark 16.7. If I understand your charge correctly, you are claiming a Markan priority to the Synoptics, which is so strict that as soon as Mark runs out of material, Matthew and Luke are simply inventing the rest of their narratives. I am not sure why this is even important to your case since, if pressed, you would say that Mark has invented his gospel as well. All of these accounts are simply fables according to your view. Therefore, this point is almost moot. What is one invention when compared to another? Do you see the futility even in your own argument? Of course I affirm the authenticity of both accounts.
Hokku, no one else from what I can see holds to this conclusion. Here’s why. You claim absolute certainty on your view of the gospels relationship to one another. Mark first, M and L simply use Mark and invent details to supplement Mark or whole accounts in addition to Mark. But no one else holds this view. What about details where Matthew and Luke agree and Mark is silent? What about places where Luke is unique and no other gospel shares his account? Matthew? Furthermore, the real flaw with your view is that you believe [this is intentional, for you do not know] that M and L only use Mark, and have no access to other sources or means for unique details, which would then lead to unique interpolations. This leads you to wild conclusions such as the one concerning Luke’s reference to Galilee.
You propose (you do not know) that L adapts Mark’s reference to Galillee (“He goes before you into Galilee”) to “Remember what he said to you while still in Galilee” because Luke does not have a previous reference to Jesus’ prediction that he will go before them into Galilee (Mark 14.28). And then you become even more clever in your own eyes because you actually believe that Luke is changing a “canonical gospel” such as Mark simply to save his own account for utter ruin. Your view borders on the absurd because you have not defined “canonical.” I do not know of a single scholar that advocates for a Canon in the year 60-62 CE. Furthermore, Luke no where says he is writing a “better gospel.” Your eisegesis of Luke 1.1.-4 according to your presuppositions is obvious to me and everyone.
Back to Galilee. Your only evidence is the use of the word “Galilee.” Besides this word, there is no more overlap in lexis between the two accounts. In fact the Synopsis I am using (Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum) does not even consider these accounts as parallel. The scholars I referenced (I. Howard Marshall and D. Bock, and the ICC volume on Luke) do not claim discrepancy. You want to know why? Because they do not hold to your rigid view of the synoptic problem. All of these scholars recognize that they are employing a documentary HYPOTHESIS (when they say Mark is the base source), and not a FACT (that Mark is first and the rest simply follow him or invent). They and I recognize that the evidence of Galilee does not indicate discrepancy. Rather, Luke has his own interpolation at this point. These scholars as well as I hold to Markan priority as a general guide, but I know of no one except you which holds to Markan priority as rigidly as you do. This thesis simply does not work in too many places. It is a scholarly assumption, which holds true in many places, but not all places.
As you mention, L does not have a prediction of Jesus’ arrival in Galilee after the resurrection. Therefore, why would L record that the angel reiterated Jesus’ prediction? L is consistent with himself (it seems that the Synoptics actually have Jesus making the prediction in Galilee, thus Luke is historically accurate) and he neither contradicts the prediction of Mark and M or the angel’s reiteration of Jesus’ prediction. Where is the problem here?
Ahhhh… The problem rests entirely in your interpretation of the evidence. Only if you do not allow for an authentic Lukan interpolation in this account (and others) is there any kind of problem here or elsewhere. Who is to say what Luke can write and what he can’t? Who is to say Luke is wrong (especially you, given your worldview)? He does not contradict Mark or M and he has inner consistency with his own gospel.
Hokku, I must resign myself from this conversation. I wish we had begun earlier in the month so that I could continue. May you find the truth in the person of Jesus Christ.
John M
I get the distinct feeling that Hokku is dealing with some very deep issues of anger. For whatever reason, he’s taking it out on you, John, instead of either addressing it with God, or addressing it with himself. He’s an intelligent humanist, it seems, yet is confined to that system of thought and interpretation, with no way to truly understand the world. So, he journeys to a blog devoted to Christian theism and picks fights, where he sets up the rules, changes them at will, and then yells at the blog host for not playing fair (according his chameleonic rules of play).
I don’t blame you one bit for not wanting to deal with such as him.
Mr. Hokku, you will need to deal with whatever issues are plaguing you in the darkness, be they shame, guilt, sin, fear, etc. Jesus can take them away, but man cannot. If you truly do not believe the Bible, then why is debating Scripture on a blog site directing opposite to your perspective and antagonistic to your goals so important to you? Christians have the mandate from our Lord to evangelize and give reason for their faith. Someone like yourself has no reason to perpetuate such a struggle here, unless you simply enjoy causing fights with theistic believers, which would, I think, be deeply unethical to you, from a rational, coherent humanistic perspective.
If you regard sin as a non-issue, then psychologically something is happening to you to cause this otherwise aberrant behavior. It would be wise for you to attend to it, since you publicly deny the supernatural, and the religious, and unlike those of us who are theistic, you have no God, no Christ, no deity to fall back on. We can pray, and seek God’s favor. In denying the reality of the supernatural, and the One who knows us, you have cut yourself off from everything except an uncaring, cold world which sees you as simply another animal.
You claim not to care about the Bible, and yet still discuss it at depth. If you do not desire prayer for your problems, and do not want us praying for you, then please seek help.
I will be praying to the One who knows who you are, for you.
Hokku and others –
I just caught a mistake in my last response. Hokku never used the word “canonical” in reference to Mark. His problem specifically was that he thinks Luke did not regard Mark as inerrant, infallible, inspired etc. This is actually an easier assertion to defeat. One, we do not know exactly how Luke viewed his sources, Mark included. Second, Hokku’s assertion that Luke “changes” Mark’s account goes beyond the evidence. As stated above, for this particular detail of the post-resurrection accounts, “Galilee” is the only link between Mark and Luke, and it seems to be incidental, not a link for which source theory can account. Hokku is simply reading between the lines at this point. There is no necessary contradiction or discrepancy between the synoptics or between the Bible and inerrancy for that matter.
John M
John M. wrote:
“I just caught a mistake in my last response. Hokku never used the word “canonical” in reference to Mark. His problem specifically was that he thinks Luke did not regard Mark as inerrant, infallible, inspired etc. This is actually an easier assertion to defeat. One, we do not know exactly how Luke viewed his sources, Mark included. Second, Hokku’s assertion that Luke “changes” Mark’s account goes beyond the evidence.”
It is easily obvious that Luke did not regard “Mark” as inerrant, because Luke incorporates over 50% of Mark, but with editorial changes. One does not change “inerrant” texts, but one does feel free to change texts that are not considered “inerrant” or “infallible.” That is what we see in Luke.
Now, regarding specifically how Luke dealt with Mark and the “Galilee” problem. First some basics:
We know that in Mark there are no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus at all. That is why both Luke and Matthew must devise their own. And just as they did with the birth narratives, each goes his own way in the absence of any Markan structure to follow.
Matthew chooses to follow the lead of the Markan model, which deals with post-resurrection appearances of Jesus ONLY BY PREDICTION. The two Marys and Salome go to the tomb and meet a young man in white. He tells them:
“Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, the one crucified. He was raised. He is not here. Look, the place where they laid him. *But go, tell his discipes and Peter that he goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
This refers back to comments Jesus made after the “Lord’s Supper” as some call it, in his “the sheep will be scattered” speech, specifically: “But after I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee” (MK. 14:28)
So to repeat, Matthew, in using Mark (and he uses some 90% Markan material), follows Mark’s lead in having the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples take place in Galilee. Matthew lists NO post-resurrection appearance to his male disciples in Jerusalem. His account of the Galilee prediction is delivered by an angel, and he elaborates but keeps nearly intact the words of Mark’s “young man.”
“Behold, he is going before you into Galilee. There you will see him. Behold, I told you.
Without discussing all interesting aspects of this, we can see that Matthew has essentially kept the Markan text, but he has changed “just as he told you” to “Behold, I told you.” Matthew has, however, also kept the earlier prediction of Jesus in his “the sheep will be scattered” speech: “But after I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee” (Matt. 26:32).
We can see from this alone that Matthew has both used the Markan material AND REVISED. Aside from calling Mark’s “young man” and “angel,” he has changed Mark’s “just as he told you” to Behold I told you.” That in itself is revealing, and an obvious sign of the sort of copying and revision that tell us these are ordinary human documents, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke could not have thought Mark to be the infallible and inerrant word of God. Instead, they just used it as the basis for their own revisions and additions.
But this becomes glaringly obvious when we get to what Luke has done with the same material.
In reading Luke’s account of the resurrection appearances, we note something very significant. NONE OF THE LUKAN APPEARANCES TAKE PLACE IN GALILEE. Instead, Luke sets all of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem and vicinity. He obviously has no interest in promoting or furthering the notion that any of it took place in the hinterlands of Galilee; he wants his Jesus to appear only in and around Jerusalem.
But to do that, he has to alter his Markan model. How does he do that? Obviously he has to omit the prediction of the young man in white at the tomb. If there is no prediction of a meeting with the resurrected Jesus in Galilee, Luke has no obligation to recount such an appearance.
SO LUKE ELIMINATES THE PREDICTION. But in doing so, he does not cover his tracks well enough. He does not just omit the portion of text containing the Galilee prediction; instead, HE REWRITES IT TO FIT IS OWN AGENDA, and that he did so is unmistakeable. Take a look:
Here again is the Markan prediction of the young man in white:
“Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, the one crucified. He was raised. He is not here. Look, the place where they laid him. *But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”*
And here is how Luke rewrites it, changing the young man into TWO men in dazzling clothing:
“Why are you seeking the living one among the dead? He is not here, but was raised.
Remember how he told you, while still in Gailee, saying it is necessary for the Son of Man to be delivered over…”
We can see it is the same speech in Mark that begins, “You seek Jesus the Nazarene…”
Compare:
Mk. “You seek…”
Lk. “Why are you seeking…”
Mk. “He was raised”
Lk. “…but was raised…”
Mk. “He is not here…”
Lk. “He is not here…”
Mk. “…into Galilee…”
Lk. “…still in Galilee…”
Luke has simply rewritten this bit of Markan text to completely eliminate the Galilee prediction, turning what was a prediction of a FUTURE meeting with Jesus in Galilee into a PAST recollection of something Jesus had once said in Galilee.
But to do this, Luke has to do one more thing. There is still the earlier prediction made by Jesus himself in his “the sheep will be scattered” speech. For Luke’s rewriting of Mark (it should be VERY obvious at this point that he did not consider his Markan model inerrant or infallible, and had no qualms in changing it) he has To get rid of that earlier prediction. And that is precisely what he does. He OMITS that clear prediction by Jesus that his post-resurrection appearance to the disciples will take place in Galilee.
Having completely rewritten both predictions out of his new version of the gospel, Luke is free to set all the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem and vicinity, with NONE WHATSOEVER in Galilee, and no hint of any prediction of such.
Again, this demonstrates that not only did Luke not consider his Markan model inerrant or infallible, but felt quite free to change and rewrite it to fit his own views, but also that he felt free to completely change the Markan tradition that the post resurrection meeting of the disciples with Jesus took place in Galilee to another version of the story, quite different from that of Mark and from Mark’s closer imitator in this case, Matthew. Luke is simply inventing his own version of things, just as Matthew, following the Markan structure more closely, went on to invent HIS own version of things.
Again, both the Matthaean and the Lukan stories of post-resurrection appearances are simply fabricated epilogues, completely different from one another, tacked onto the Markan structure and model that they both share up to that point. Where Mark ends, both Matthew and Luke diverge wildly in the “follow-up” stories. And we see the very same thing happen in the birth narratives, where both Matthew and Luke diverge wildly in how they compose stories based upon a few common elements, but which otherwise are two very different stories that leave off precisely where the Markan model begins (Mark has NO birth narrative at all), and both take up the Markan model at that point.
A careful reader, going through this, will have sensed bells and whistles going off all over, and red lights flashing and pointing the obvious evidence that we are dealing here with very human and fallible documents that clearly show the common human and fallible characteristics of what today we would call plagiarism, of editing and revision, and to put it bluntly, of rewriting to fit a given writer or editor’s agenda.
And I want to add that in dealing with this specific issue, I have not even raised the other significant issues that arise in the resurrection narratives alone, so as to keep the matter simple. But I assure you, this is just the tip of the iceberg in dealing with the gospels. The only way anyone can overlook such obvious evidence is through a willing desire to avoid the obvious.
At this point the words from The Matrix become relevant; the uneasy Bible believer can either choose to ignore these things, turning away and comforting himself or herself that God’s supposed “transcendent viewpoint” somehow can make it all right, or he can admit that the evidence — even the small bit of it I have shown here — reveals a Bible quite different from what he had assumed it to be up to this point:
Morpheus:
“You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”
Hokku:
I get the idea you’re still angry. Look, you’d last about two minutes in Gospels class against Dr. Doriani. Are you so radically ignorant of history and original language? I’m seeing signs of radical historical ignorance, hatred of the text (and of God as well), and an agenda that won’t quit.
But it’s cool. The Holy Spirit doesn’t quit either.
Btw, check out Covenant Seminary’s web site, they have a number of courses downloadable for free. As in, you can listen to Dr. Doriani lecture on MP3 at no charge, and read the syllabus and like. Listen to him answer your objections. Incidentally, he’s pastor at Central Presbyterian Church here in St. Louis. Look him/it up on the web.
Dealing with actual biblical information is somewhat different than what revisionists would have you believe these days. You sound like a devotee of Spong or some other biblical denier.
I have made a couple of small additions to what I have already written concerning the Mark-Luke “Galilee” speech comparisons (see below):
Here again is the Markan prediction of the young man in white:
“Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, the one crucified. He was raised. He is not here. Look, the place where they laid him. *But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”*
And here is how Luke rewrites it, changing the young man into TWO men in dazzling clothing:
“Why are you seeking the living one among the dead? He is not here, but was raised.
Remember how he told you, while still in Gailee, saying it is necessary for the Son of Man to be delivered over…”
We can see it is the same speech in Mark that begins, “You seek Jesus the Nazarene…”
Compare:
Mk. “You seek…”
Lk. “Why are you seeking…”
Mk. “He was raised”
Lk. “…but was raised…”
Mk. “He is not here…”
Lk. “He is not here…”
Mk. “…into Galilee…”
Lk. “…still in Galilee…”
Mk. “…just as he told you…”
Luk. “… how he told you…”
Luke has simply rewritten this bit of Markan text to completely eliminate the Galilee prediction, turning what was a prediction of a FUTURE meeting with Jesus in Galilee into a PAST recollection of something Jesus had once said in Galilee.
Now, for those who want to look at the “originals,” here are the comparisons in Greek (I am transliterating upsilon as “u,” epsilon and eta as “e” and omicron and omega as “o” and omit iota subscript for the sake of simplicity):
Mark:
“Iesoun zeteite ton Nazarenon ton estauromenon. Egerthe. Ouk estin hode. Ide ho topos hopou ethekan auton. Alla hupagete, eipate tois mathetais autou kai to Petro hoti proagei humas eis ten Galilaian. Ekei auton opsesthe, kathos eipen humin.”
Luke:
Ti zeteite ton zonta meta ton nekron? Ouk estin hode, alla egerthe. Mnesthete hos elalesen humin eti on en te Galilaia, legon ton huion tou anthropou hoti dei paradothenai…”
Mk. “Iesoun zeteite…”
Lk. “Ti zeteite…”
Mk. “Egerthe.”
Lk. “…alla egerthe.”
Mk. “Ouk estin hode.”
Lk. “Ouk estin hode.”
Mk. “…eis ten Galilaian.”
Lk. “…en te Galilaia…”
Mk. “…kathos eipen humin.”
Lk. “…hos elalesen humin…”
Hokku –
It’s interesting how you continue to push your own agenda on this thread. You have not interacted with mine and others interpretations of this event, but you simply push your own interpretation. The facts are not so obvious to the rest, as they are to you. This is not simply because of our faith commitments, but because of a legitimate understanding of the gospels. Our faith commitments do not necessarily make us “right,” but the Christian worldview with its God’s eye viewpoint at least gives us the ability and methodological presuppositions to seek truth and expose error. Your worldview does not provide you with this ability no matter how much you try, you are in a huge philisophical problem when it comes to establishing truth and exposing error on the terms of your own worldview.
Now for my part.
1. You have not PROVEN Markan priority in the post-resurrection accounts in the case of Luke. I will return to this.
2. Simply showing correspondence between two or three sources does not prove dependence de facto. It makes it likely, but not FACT. I do not share your view, nor do others. Again, you are only right in your own eyes.
3. In your accounting of Luke’s use of Mark, you continually shift from Luke’s “change”
to Luke’s “use” of Mark. Which is it? We can all use sources without changing them. Assuming this in the case of Luke makes more sense of the evidence because…
4. You omit the differences in the accounts, which lead me to view Luke’s account as a unique interpolation.
You have laid out the correspondances though you have not really accounted for true correspondance, which I would expect from such a rigid source critic as yourself. For example, Mk.: “You seek” is different from “Why do you seek?” in L. This is most clear in your last example: Mk. “…kathos eipen humin.” Lk. “…hos elalesen humin…” From these examples it is not at all clear that Mark comes first and Luke is dependent on him. At this point you have fallen back on scholarly OPINION. Let me add some problems to your view, which you have ommitted from your presentation.
Mk. … Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified…
L …the living with the dead…
M Behold the place where they laid him
L No correspondance
M No correspondance
L Remember as he spoke to you while still …
M No repeat of the prediction
L Repeats the prediction (from where? Mark? Matthew? Independent Source?)
v. 8 in L
M No correspondance
L They remembered his words
M The reponse of fear on the part of the women
L No correspondance
M They told no one (keeping with so called Messianic secret of the gospel of Mark, perhaps)
L They proclaimed all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
I’m sorry Hokku, but I can look at these examples and argue for independence on the part of Luke. There are several places of no correspondance, even “contrary” accounts in the case of the response of the women.
Your interpretation of Luke’s change in the use of Galilee is possible, but given the rest of the ommissions and additions between the two, I would argue that the reference to Galilee is incidental on the part of Luke and that he is not relying on Mark in this case, but is consistant with his own gospel.
Furthermore, just because Luke does not record Jesus in Galilee as the other gospels do, does not mean that the accounts are in contradiction. Luke is obviously aware of the appearance to the 11 in Galilee, but the accounts can clearly be harmonized. Jesus is in Galilee, then he goes to Jerusalem and the immediate vicinity. He can be at all of these places, and here is a good example of the harmony of the Gospels, rather than their contradiction. Your accounting goes way beyond the evidence because you are not willing to read them together.
Hokku, it still amazes me that you skip right over the record of the RESURRECTION of JESUS CHRIST from the DEAD. The tomb is empty. The messenger(s) announce his resurrection from the dead. Furthermore, the Christian movement begins at this moment (1 Cor. 15.1-8). Also, it seems clear to me that the very tensions which you perceive in the Gospels actually argue for their authenticity. If the early Christians were not concerned with the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, then they would have attempted to “clean up” their accounts to bring them into closer harmony. The fact is that no manuscript evidence exists that would prove that they tried to do so. The fact is that their accounts are not contradictory and they agree on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Because Jesus was raised from the dead in history, the dreadful Day of the Lord is coming and it will bring swift destruction to all who oppose Jesus (1 Thess. 5.1-11). Hokku, I hope you bend the knee to Jesus before it is too late to do so.
John M
Hokku,
You wrote:
“Just cannot admit it, can you? So I repeat, nowhere in your posting in the word “God” to be found and certainly not in your definition in that posting. Anyone can check it for themselves — Frasier #5”
No, obviously I can’t admit it. You are knowledgeable about many things, but one of the things of which you are ignorant is blog vocabulary. A post is what the blog author writes and posts on his/her blog. Following a post, those who visit the blog may or may not write what are called comments. This is universal language among bloggers. So when you tell me that “nowhere in your posting in [sic] the word ‘God’ to be found…” I have to disagree. The quotation that I have continually provided to prove that I offered a definition is from my post. You failed to read my post properly and said that I did not define what I meant by transcendent authority. If you had paid attention properly you would have never needed to ask in the first place and we wouldn’t have to keep revisiting this. No, I did not mention God in comment #5. I did not because I thought I had made myself sufficiently clear in my post and gave you enough credit that you paid sufficient attention to what I wrote. Thus, when you asked what I meant I understood you to be asking what I mean by the concept of transcendent authority, not specifically what transcendent authority in whom I believe.
“As for your distortion of my words that anyone has a basis on which to judge truth into any ‘worldview,’ that is obvious to anyone who can tell the difference between the two words.”
It’s not a question of whether I used different words. It’s a question of whether I distorted what you said and this can’t be done by simply using different words. It is acceptable in academic writing to paraphrase someone using different words so long as I am faithful to the ideas you promoted. So I don’t have to quote you in order to accurately represent you and unless you can disprove what I said about this in comment #14 with something better than complaining that I used a different word then you’ll be recognized as coming up short every time.
You wrote:
“You are, of course, simply ignoring my pointing out that the reason you disagree with those 1500 years of Christian tradition is because you take your basic cosmological facts on the earth’s axis and orbit from science now, rather than from the Bible.”
I’m not ignoring anything. I have no problem admitting that I take heliocentrism from science. Acknowledging this in no way threatens my confidence in Scripture, and no amount of your insisting that it should is going to make a dent. My understanding of cosmology simply does not contradict what is said about the earth in Genesis, Joshua, the Psalter or any other canonical books. This is precisely what Galileo said when he came to his cosmological conclusions, and he cited Augustine who pointed out that we have to interpret Scripture by taking into account context and genre. Again, to make a point that you haven’t addressed: if you use the word “sunrise”, I’m going to take into consideration the context and genre of your speech. I ask you to pay the same courtesy to Scripture. Once again, your bias is really showing.
As you should know, “science” such as it was, was subservient to the church through the bulk of that period. It was only with the publication of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus in in 1543 that the “Scientific Revolution” which replaced the classical world view with the with the fundaments of modern science began, and its progress relied not on anything said in the Bible, but rather on direct investigation.
Though its a gross overstatement that science was subservient to the church, I’ll grant you your claim for the sake of argument. What you have to establish is not only that science was subservient to the church but that this prevented people from doing real science. This is what you do not prove. Copernicus did not feel that way. For example, he dedicated De Revolutionibus to Pope Paul III and the church did not oppose the book when it was published. It was widely read by people and appreciated by the church officials. Here’s one example of the favorability of the church to Copernicus’ revolution. Archbishop of Capua, Nicholas Schönberg wrote to Copernicus from Rome:
How does this fit with your view of the church controlling science and where’s the evidence that the church kept people from scientific advancement? And when did the church exactly gain this control of which you speak? All of the evidence points to the church not making efforts to bring scientific discovery under its control until Galileo. It wasn’t until almost 65 years after its publication that the Catholic church opposed heliocentrism. Also your claims don’t make sense with fact that at the time of its publication it was not the church but many scientists that opposed Copernicus and they didn’t do so by saying that the Bible disagreed with him. They opposed him with scientific data. You have quite a penchent for a revisionist approach to history.
“If you can demonstrate one basic scientific fact that science derived from the Bible, and in this case specifically from Christianity, then you might begin to have a case.” Some people appeal to the following verses as proof that the Bible spoke of the earth being round long before the scientific community caught up to this: Job 26:10; Prov 8:27; Isaiah 40:22; Amos 9:6. And there are those who use the example of Matthew Maury who claims to have discovered the ocean currents after reading Psalm 8:8 which speaks of “the paths of the sea.” But I don’t think that we even need to argue for either of these claims. The Bible is not a science book. So when you ask me to demonstrate a scientific fact derived from the Bible, it’s no strike against me that I cannot provide an answer to a question based on a flawed premise. I could say the same thing to a historian: name me one scientific fact that science ever derived from the study of history! The fact that he/she cannot answer my question says nothing about the legitimacy of history. Christianity need not claim that science is derived from the Bible. Praticing science and believing the Bible are not incompatible studies and some of the best scientists past and present believe this and think that you’ve missed the boat on this one.
“It [the fact that there are numerous Christian sects and denominations] reminds everyone that when you use the term “Christian,” you are using in in an exceedingly imprecise manner, because Christians cover (and have covered since their beginnings) a very wide spectrum of belief.”
Apparently you find this a point against Christianity. If this strategy is so powerful against a view let’s not just apply it to Christianity. Let’s take your precious science, for example. Scientists have claimed all sorts of things over the years. They have contradicted one another. Told us one thing is true that they later said was false. They disagree remarkably. So when you speak of the science that confirms your view you are speaking in an exceedingly imprecise manner because scientists and scientific claims cover (and have covered since their beginnings) a very wide spectrum of belief. Tell me, Hokku: why are you unwilling to extend your criticisms to your own view in addition to Christianity? Here is another place that your claims are perverted by your extreme and unrecognized bias.
You wrote:
“I want to point out that again you studiously avoided answering this simple question: ‘Do you seriously believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not ‘corrupted’ by reliance on reasoning and evidence?’ You avoid answering it because your answer will clearly demonstrate that you abandon evidence, reason and logic for blind faith.”
I did not avoid the question. You based the question on a misunderstanding of what I wrote. So I asked you to ask me a question built on a proper understanding. But even with your misunderstanding I did answer your question. I’m more than happy to answer this question.
You wrote:
“So let me put it is a slightly different way. ‘Do you believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not ‘corrupted’ by reliance on reasoning and evidence?’”
Slight indeed. The only difference I see between this question and the previous form of it is the ommission of the word “seriously”. I can’t see why you think it helps anything to omit the word “seriously”.
“ Let’s have a direct answer from you.” Alright. Here is my answer: NO.
“You greatly oversimplify a very significant matter — the numerous discrepancies and divergences found in the biblical texts. It is not simply that the gospel writers ‘accent different things and mention things that the others did not,’ but rather that they go so far as to tell quite different stories based around a few common elements.”
My statement was that “I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where synoptic accounts logically contradict.” Not one shred of the evidence disproves my claim. All you’ve got is that Matthew says something that Luke doesn’t and vice versa. These are not logical contradictions, and thus does not unsettle what I said.
But while we’re on the subject of questions that people don’t answer let’s look at the many of mine that you haven’t answered:
“So why does it make me illogical to disagree with a human invention [laws of logic and laws of evidence] when you so freely disagree with one [the Christian view of God]?” (comment #14)
” So why must I look at it YOUR way if I am to be logical? Tell me, please. What makes you the arbiter of what is logical? You have only told me that evidence and reason make you logical and illogical but this won’t help because I will simply say again: Where evidence and reason lead depends on one’s presuppositions. Why must I accept yours?” (comment #14)
“I don’t see in you just a disagreement with Christianity, but in fact a hatred, a detesting of it. Why?” (comment #11)
“Logic and interpretation of evidence are simply based in human solidarity in your view. And thus, the most you can say is: there’s a bunch of us who disagree with you because we agree with each other. Why should this be a serious accusation?” (comment #11)
“So let me ask you: in your view, how is truth anything more than just what humans decide is true? In your view, how can there be anything (not necessarily a person, perhaps a law) which transcends human beings and decides who’s right and who is wrong? How do you escape Rorty’s claim that without appeal to transcendence, science is just human solidarity?” (Comment #7)
Now its your turn to answer. If you’re so very concerned about the evasion of questions then I expect you to answer my questions.
When you tell me that laws of logic and laws of evidence are human inventions and then accuse me of being illogical and evading the evidence, it simply means that you don’t like what I’m saying. It only means that I’ve at worst violated a human invention. This is why I continue to hold before you that you do not have a worldview that can judge what is true. Your accusations lack force because of this. You seem to want Christians to just feel ashamed because you have accused them of being illogical on matters of Christian belief. But given your claim that laws of logic and of evidence are human inventions the most this means is that you disagree with us and don’t like what we say. But we knew this much already. It’s not wonder then that your accusations that Christians jettison common sense, evidence and rationality don’t phase anyone reading you one bit.
“All that we know of the cosmos comes not from the Bible but from science.”
Excuse me while I laugh since Isaiah wrote his book in 700 B.C.
Scientific Fact – The Universe is constantly expanding
He stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out – Isaiah 40
Scientific Fact – The earth is round and hangs in space
He sits upon the circle of the earth and hangs the earth upon nothing.
– Isaiah 40: Job 26
Scientific Fact – Lose too much blood and you will die.
The life of the flesh is in the blood – Leviticus 17
Scientific Fact – The core of the earth is composed of iron and fire – NASA
The earth underneath is turned up by fire and iron. – Job 28: Deut 28
That is where Hell is located. Psalm 63, Ezekiel 26
John M wrote:
You have not interacted with mine and others interpretations of this event, but you simply push your own interpretation. The facts are not so obvious to the rest, as they are to you.
John; first, your main point seems to be you hold that “Galilee” is the only link between Mark and Luke. I have shown that to be wrong by pointing out five points of correspondence in that speech, both in English and in Greek. So far I have not seen anyone give a substantive explanation, so what is there to “interact” with?
Now to deal with the other points you raised in your most recent message:
1. You have not PROVEN Markan priority in the post-resurrection accounts in the case of Luke.
That is because while I use Markan priority as a working tool in this case, one need not assert it to show there has been revision of the same basic material. One can see the relationships and differences among Mark, Matthew and Luke without the need for a lengthy discussion of Markan priority.
2. Simply showing correspondence between two or three sources does not prove dependence de facto. It makes it likely, but not FACT.
It does indeed make it likely. What we can state as FACT is that at least TWO of the Synoptics had to have it wrong. What we can state as very likely indeed is that Matthew and Luke are dependent upon Mark, which is of course why the bulk of modern scholarship assumes Markan priority in the absence of anything that explains the evidence as well. But again, Markan priority is not necessary to demonstrate the revision of the same basic material among the Synoptics.
3. In your accounting of Luke’s use of Mark, you continually shift from Luke’s “change”
to Luke’s “use” of Mark. Which is it? We can all use sources without changing them.
Obviously, if Luke used Mark, he changed it. Otherwise we would have Mark verbatim in Luke.
4. You omit the differences in the accounts, which lead me to view Luke’s account as a unique interpolation.
You would have to specify precisely what differences you intend, as well as to provide your evidence for regarding Luke’s account as a “unique interpolation.”
You have laid out the correspondances though you have not really accounted for true correspondance, which I would expect from such a rigid source critic as yourself. For example, Mk.: “You seek” is different from “Why do you seek?” in L. This is most clear in your last example: Mk. “…kathos eipen humin.” Lk. “…hos elalesen humin…”
Of course if Luke has rewritten the Markan version to give it quite a different meaning, you are not going to find precise correspondence at all points; if you did, it would be a literal reproduction of Mark. What we do find, in the two examples you have chosen out of five I mentioned, Is the use of the same key concepts:
In the first example, the same word:
Mk. “Iesoun zeteite…”
Lk. “Ti zeteite…”
In the second example you chose, we again find the same key concept:
Mk. “…kathos eipen humin.” ["eipon" -- "say"]
Lk. “…hos elalesen humin…” ["lalein" -- "speak"]
Following this point, you listed what is NOT contained in Mark, but that is immaterial; he did not want to use it, so he omitted it. Nonetheless, he repeats key concepts of the Markan speech, but uses them for an overall quite different significance, writing the speech out as a prediction, writing it in as a remembrance.
You wrote:
I’m sorry Hokku, but I can look at these examples and argue for independence on the part of Luke. There are several places of no correspondance, even “contrary” accounts in the case of the response of the women.
It seems hardly necessary to state the obvious, but I will do it nonetheless; of course there are places of “no correspondence” that is precisely what we would expect. If there were no such places lacking correspondence, we would have Mark verbatim in Luke. What is significant here are the major correspondences, which have an infinitesimal chance of being coincidence.
You wrote further:
Your interpretation of Luke’s change in the use of Galilee is possible, but given the rest of the ommissions and additions between the two, I would argue that the reference to Galilee is incidental on the part of Luke and that he is not relying on Mark in this case, but is consistant with his own gospel.
In other words, you are arguing that it is a “coincidence.” But five points of correspondence in key concepts in a speech set in precisely the same context is not coincidence, as I have already said.
Furthermore, just because Luke does not record Jesus in Galilee as the other gospels do, does not mean that the accounts are in contradiction. Luke is obviously aware of the appearance to the 11 in Galilee, but the accounts can clearly be harmonized. Jesus is in Galilee, then he goes to Jerusalem and the immediate vicinity.
Now here is where the fancy tapdancing begins to try to make the Bible look “correct” at any cost. You do not bother to ask yourself why Jesus would tell the disciples he would appear to them in Galilee, but then return to Jerusalem for more appearances. You also completely ignore the ending of Matthew, in which Jesus gives the “Great Commission,” finishing it up with his parting words — “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.”
This is precisely why scholars find fundamentalist apologetics so poor; rather than rely on what the text says, fundamentalists write their own text: “Jesus is in Galilee, then he goes to Jerusalem and the immediate vicinity.”
And look at Luke: The same day on which the women return from the tomb with their stories, Jesus appears on the way to (and onward into) Emmaus; then those to whom he appears go immediately back to Jerusalem, where Jesus again appears, after having already appeared to Simon. Now the trip from Jerusalem to Galilee is not short; it takes six or seven days, barring unforeseen events. I leave you to work out how unlikely your rewritten version of the gospel is just from those elements.
You go on:
He can be at all of these places, and here is a good example of the harmony of the Gospels, rather than their contradiction.
What you have written makes nonsense of the report to the women that Jesus goes before them into Galilee, and that there they will see him. Why not “I will drop off in Emmaus, and then I’m going to see Peter, and then I am going to appear in Jerusalem, and then….” This way lies madness.
And you write:
Hokku, it still amazes me that you skip right over the record of the RESURRECTION of JESUS CHRIST from the DEAD. The tomb is empty. The messenger(s) announce his resurrection from the dead.
First, if most everything about the accounts is dubious, why should that element be any less dubious? If the gospels cannot agree on who went to the tomb, and why they went to the tomb, and who they met there, and what they were told by whoever they met, and what they then did, what veracity does that impart to the story?
Add to that the fact that the earliest Christian writer, Paul, even in the midst of major discussion of resurrection NEVER mentions an empty tomb, and NEVER mentions the women as those to whom Jesus appeared, and given that the empty tomb and the women appear in Christian literature at the same point, it is reasonable to conclude that the empty tomb was not part of the tradition at the time of Paul, and was brought into it only later, when along came “Mark.” Add to that the fact that there is a wild cannon bit of tradition in Acts (13:29) attributing the burial of Jesus to the same “they” who engineered his crucifixion, it is quite logical to assume that the entire story of burial as we find it variously represented in the Synoptics is simply fiction.
You write:
Furthermore, the Christian movement begins at this moment (1 Cor. 15.1-8).
At which moment? When the women ran from the tomb and said nothing to anyone, being afraid? Or was it the quite different moment depicted in Matthew when the women ran from the tomb in great joy and immediately told all to the disciples? Even you “moment” fades away when one looks at the Bible itself.
And you wrote:
“Also, it seems clear to me that the very tensions which you perceive in the Gospels actually argue for their authenticity. If the early Christians were not concerned with the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, then they would have attempted to “clean up” their accounts to bring them into closer harmony.”
A harmony was attempted in the Diatessaron; putting the gospels together “as is” was actually an interesting way to unite the communities that used those gospels, while simply ignoring or explaining away the rather obvious differences. But of course there were adjustments made, as we see from the variants in the manuscript tradition.
You write:
“The fact is that no manuscript evidence exists that would prove that they tried to do so. ”
Absolute nonsense. One needs only to look at the longer ending appended to Mark.
And you wrote:
“The fact is that their accounts are not contradictory and they agree on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.”
We must not be reading the same gospels. When Mark says the women ran from the tomb and said nothing to anyone, and Matthew says the women ran from the tomb and told all, that is an obvious, clear contradiction. And if one looks at the Galilee vs. Jerusalem discrepancy, that too is a logical impossibility. The fact that they agree on the resurrection means nothing in view of all the variances and discrepancies, as I have already said.
And as I mentioned earlier, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Now for Frasier, #25:
I asked:
‘Do you believe that opinions are more reliable when those opinions are not ‘corrupted’ by reliance on reasoning and evidence?’”
Frasier replied:
“Alright. Here is my answer: NO.”
Then, Frasier, you have effectively eliminated any need for your supposed “Transcendent Authority.”
He also wrote:
“But while we’re on the subject of questions that people don’t answer let’s look at the many of mine that you haven’t answered:”
I number them for the sake of convenience:
1. “So why does it make me illogical to disagree with a human invention [laws of logic and laws of evidence] when you so freely disagree with one [the Christian view of God]?” (comment #14)
Easy. The “Christian view of God” is not a practical means for arriving at factual truth; evidence and logic are. That is why scientists rely on evidence and experimentation and deduction rather than prayer.
2. ” So why must I look at it YOUR way if I am to be logical? Tell me, please. What makes you the arbiter of what is logical? You have only told me that evidence and reason make you logical and illogical but this won’t help because I will simply say again: Where evidence and reason lead depends on one’s presuppositions. Why must I accept yours?” (comment #14)
Answer: Evidence and reason are obviously not solely my posession; but they are definitely not the possession of someone who puts belief above them.
3. “I don’t see in you just a disagreement with Christianity, but in fact a hatred, a detesting of it. Why?” (comment #11)
Perhaps because you are projecting your own insecurities and doubts onto someone who is actually quite cheery during these discussions.
4. “Logic and interpretation of evidence are simply based in human solidarity in your view. And thus, the most you can say is: there’s a bunch of us who disagree with you because we agree with each other. Why should this be a serious accusation?” (comment #11)
It is not “there’s a bunch of us who disagree with you,” it is that the evidence simply does not support or substantiate your belief-based viewpoint.
5. “So let me ask you: in your view, how is truth anything more than just what humans decide is true?”
Example. Someone says the Great Pyramid of Giza exists. To prove that, he has overwhelming multiple testimony over time that is verified by photographs and the fact that anyone can visit it at any time (given the cash and the circumstances). Someone who says it is not true is relying on his own opinion or wishful thinking, not on the evidence. The consensus of humans supported by the evidence is overwhelming on the side of the the existence of the Great Pyramid being “true.” It is overwhelmingly against the notion of the “believer” that it does not exist. You complicate things needlessly.
5. “In your view, how can there be anything (not necessarily a person, perhaps a law) which transcends human beings and decides who’s right and who is wrong? How do you escape Rorty’s claim that without appeal to transcendence, science is just human solidarity?” (Comment #7)”
I say that your question reflects a mistaken understanding of the meaning of “law” in science. A “law” is simply the explanation for a phenomenon. The “law” of gravity does not exist in some transcendent sense; it is simply an explanation of observed phenomena. So there is no need for your “Transcendent Authority” and no proof for one that you have offered up to this point.
In your next posting I do hope you will introduce something new.
Mr. Hokku, I consider it a badge of honor thus far that you have proven me right by ignoring what I’ve said. You want to play games, and not truly interact. Your anger, denial of it, and inability to deal rationally with events around you, is having an impact.
Or perhaps everyone else on other message boards have grown tired of your tactics, and this one is still willing to tolerate you.
Only the Jesus you deny and vilify can give you the peace you desire and still lack. Protesting the evidence of His witness and declaring your hatred of it demonstrates only your lack of logic and complete trust of an uncaring materialism. Your tirades against theism are in fact spurning those who would actually care about you and love you. Are you so spiteful and venomous as to turn away spiritual care? Then why do you come to this blog and argue so?
I am sorry you have been hurt by some in the church before. But arguing here is counterproductive for you. Raging online will only bring temporary respite to your soul, before the anger returns, and you feel need to make theists, biblical literalists and “fundamentalists” feel pain once more. What good does this do to you? What benefit do you receive?
In truth, I think you receive none.
I am thankful for the privilege of praying for you.
Nor for some supposed “Bible science:
Frasier wrote:
Some people appeal to the following verses as proof that the Bible spoke of the earth being round long before the scientific community caught up to this [I am numbering these for convenience]:
1. Job 26:10;
“He marks a horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.” Nothing here about the earth being round.
2. Prov 8:27;
“I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked the horizon on the face of the deep.” Nothing here about the earth being round.
3. Isaiah 40:22;
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers, he who stetches out the heavens like a canopy and spreads them like a tent to live in.” Nothing here about the earth being round either. It simply depicts God sitting above the circular earth and domed solid sky at a height from which the people look to be the size of grasshoppers — which indicates just how low heaven was thought to be, which is why the people of Babel could conspire to build a tower with it top in the heavens. The people assumed the earth to be circular because if one turns around and follows the horizon in all directions, one forms a mental circle. Thus the “circle” that was thought to be both the shape of the earth and the base of the solid, “round” dome that was the sky.
4. Amos 9:6;
“He builds his tall palaces in the heavens and his foundations on the earth; he calls for the waters of the sea and pours them over the face of the land.” Nothing about a round earth there either.
5. And there are those who use the example of Matthew Maury who claims to have discovered the ocean currents after reading Psalm 8:8 which speaks of “the paths of the sea.” But I don’t think that we even need to argue for either of these claims;
“…the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, swimming the paths of the sea…:
I see nothing here about ocean currents. It is talking about the fish who follow their courses in the sea. You are really stretching it, Frasier, which of course you know because you add the disclaimer “I don’t think that we even need to argue for either of these claims.” Good thing you are not going to, because they do not support your case.
———————
And formerthings wrote:
“Scientific Fact – The Universe is constantly expanding
He stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out – Isaiah 40″
Problem is, former things, that the heavens are not like a curtain, canopy or tent — but the solid sky of the Bible was considered to be that, a solid dome stretched out above a flat earth like a tend in which people and creatures existed.
“Scientific Fact – The earth is round and hangs in space
He sits upon the circle of the earth and hangs the earth upon nothing.
– Isaiah 40: Job 26″
Any high school student and lots of grade school students can tell you that a circle is a flat form, and is not the same as a sphere, which is a round globe. The earth does not “hang upon nothing.” It rotates on its axis and revolves about the sun. In fact it does not hang at all, but is held in orbit by gravity. And I wonder why you left out the mythical chaos monsters Rahab and the Serpent that Yahweh battles in the same Psalm. Perhaps it doesn’t help your case.
“Scientific Fact – Lose too much blood and you will die.
The life of the flesh is in the blood – Leviticus 17″
Don’t breathe, don’t eat, and you will die too. But of course early people could see that when someone was wounded and just kept bleeding, he died; that is simply observation, like the observation (mistaken) that there must be waters above the solid firmament, because the sky is blue.
“Scientific Fact – The core of the earth is composed of iron and fire – NASA
The earth underneath is turned up by fire and iron. – Job 28: Deut 28″
Job 28: ” There is a mine for silver and a place for refining gold; iron is taken from the earth and copper ore is smelted.” Nothing here that miners and refiners do not know from observation, and nothing whatsoever is said about the “core of the earth.”
“The sky over your head will be bronze/copper, the earth beneath you iron.” Nothing here about the core of the earth either. It is just a curse, not a description of the core of the earth.
That is where Hell is located. Psalm 63, Ezekiel 26
Nothing about “Hell” in Psalm 63: ” Those who seek my life will be destroyed; they will go down to the depths of the earth.” It is talking about the grave, “Sheol.”
“Then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, the peole of long ago, and I will make you dwell in the earth below as in ancient ruins…” Again, Sheol, the grave, not the Christian “Hell.” And please not this deals with Tyre, which according to the Bible was to be “lost and never found again,” and never rebuilt. But of course Tyre was never lost, and it takes only a look at an online satellite map to see the present-day buildings in Tyre. Jesus visited it, and there was an early church there. Wrong again.
I note that Frasier expressed one other serious misconception worth a response, because it reveals how greatly he misunderstands the nature of science. He wrote:
[Quoting me] “It [the fact that there are numerous Christian sects and denominations] reminds everyone that when you use the term “Christian,” you are using in in an exceedingly imprecise manner, because Christians cover (and have covered since their beginnings) a very wide spectrum of belief.”
[He responds:] “Apparently you find this a point against Christianity. If this strategy is so powerful against a view let’s not just apply it to Christianity. Let’s take your precious science, for example. Scientists have claimed all sorts of things over the years. They have contradicted one another. Told us one thing is true that they later said was false. They disagree remarkably. So when you speak of the science that confirms your view you are speaking in an exceedingly imprecise manner because scientists and scientific claims cover (and have covered since their beginnings) a very wide spectrum of belief. Tell me, Hokku: why are you unwilling to extend your criticisms to your own view in addition to Christianity? Here is another place that your claims are perverted by your extreme and unrecognized bias.”
You ignore or are unaware of the significant and defining difference between science and religious belief. Science does not pretend to make absolute and eternal and never-to-be-changed pronouncements. There is no “Verbum scientiae manet in aeternum” equivalent of your “Verbum Dei manet in aeternum,” because scientific declarations are always subject to disproof or revision if the evidence warrants. There was a time, not long ago, when the notion of Plate Tectonics was considered fantasy; but further evidence and research have demonstrated that Plate Tectonics is, in fact, valid and the way things work. The multiplicity of Christian sects alone disproves the notion of an eternal and unchangeable word of God, because the variety of belief among Christian sects is immense, and that Christianity was not historically monolithic can be seen as far back as we have records. The distinction is that Science is based upon no such false declaration of eternal permanence, while religion (your brand, specifically) is. That is the great strength of Science and the great weakness of Bible-based Christianity.
Science has no “inerrancy” or “infallibility” in its publications or declarations. Therefore it is free to recognize and accept and evaluate new evidence. It can progress and incorporate new information. Religion can only attempt to verify the same codified sectarian creeds and dogmas, and cannot accept information that disproves any element of those creeds and dogmas, because if one point falls, the whole house of cards falls. That is why Christians will go to the most ridiculous lengths to support the veracity of a statement in the Bible, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against it.
Science, therefore, is able always to abandon mistakes and misunderstandings in favor of increasing knowledge and learning. That is an immense asset, and not in any sense a liability.
Dear not-so-neutral,
I belong to a growing group of scientists, theologians, and laypeople who are asking if science and religion can answer the same questions about reality and have real points of interaction. I am in fact, writing a new book that attempts to unify Scripture with the New Physics. This requires a more adequate theology. And since all theology is taken from Scripture, a more adequate interpretation is necessary. This new interpretation is hinted at by the New Testament passage that the Lord “opened their eyes to understand Scripture.”
Why would the disciples have to have their eyes opened if the meanings of the words are plain for anyone to see? In this century the world is going to be challenged to view Scripture from a higher cognitive function. The Holy Word is a multidimensional document and within the literal meaning of its words is a quantum vocabulary whereby its narratives take on a more expanded and non-local quality.
TheGodGuy
http://www.thegodguy.wordpress.com
Hokku –
You wrote: That is because while I use Markan priority as a working tool in this case, one need not assert it to show there has been revision of the same basic material. One can see the relationships and differences among Mark, Matthew and Luke without the need for a lengthy discussion of Markan priority.
Hokku, this is an evasion of issue at hand. You are claiming FACT in the case of Markan priority. Most scholars recognize that Mark is the base source for the gospels, but most also recognize that this is not a canon that works or accounts for all of the evidence in all contexts. You, however, push this theory even when evidence fails to be present.
Then you wrote: It does indeed make it likely. What we can state as FACT is that at least TWO of the Synoptics had to have it wrong. What we can state as very likely indeed is that Matthew and Luke are dependent upon Mark, which is of course why the bulk of modern scholarship assumes Markan priority in the absence of anything that explains the evidence as well. But again, Markan priority is not necessary to demonstrate the revision of the same basic material among the Synoptics.
This is pure conjecture. Why must it be fact that two had it wrong? Yes, Hokku, but does scholarship assume Markan priority in the case of Luke’s account? Let’s see some names. I have done some homework on this pericope, and I found scholars who say Luke is NOT dependent on Mark here. Where is your evidence? Of course Markan priority is necessary for you to demonstrate the revision of the same basic material among the Synoptics. Without Lukan dependance on Mark, there is no problem in these accounts, since Luke is consistant within himself, and his material does not necessarily contradict Mk and M.
Then you wrote: Obviously, if Luke used Mark, he changed it. Otherwise we would have Mark verbatim in Luke.
Have you ever written a paper? I must question your methods of citation, even by modern standards. Do you always put quotation marks around citations? I hope not, it makes for dull interaction with sources. But you don’t. Often times one will use material, which maintains the basic substance, but uses different words. However, it is not clear to me and others that Luke is doing this with Mark.
This is how I account for your “convergances” between L and Mk. It may be that Luke uses Mark and that explains the agreements. However, look what they share. There is no unique vocab between the two. Each is using stock lexical items of the Greek language. There are no words that if two people were writing and journaling on the same events with the same basic story circulating among eyewitnesses and others, which would not be used. The resurrection of Christ and the empty tomb are facts according to the gospel accounts. There are limited ways of expressing these ideas which are common to L and Mk. The differences in their accounts still indicate to me that L is independent here. The points of agreement are basic to the resurrection account, which all Christians shared (1 Cor. 15.1-8).
Then you wrote: Following this point, you listed what is NOT contained in Mark, but that is immaterial; he did not want to use it, so he omitted it. Nonetheless, he repeats key concepts of the Markan speech, but uses them for an overall quite different significance, writing the speech out as a prediction, writing it in as a remembrance.
There is simply no problem here, necessarily. Only your personal authority creates a problem here. Luke reports that Jesus made his prediction in Galilee, and this is what the other Gospel writers record. Therefore, Luke is factually correct. My point, and this is where the evidence can go either way, is that I am not forced to read L as if he has Mk in front of him, and then he makes changes to Mk. I am just as able to read L as including something that Mk may have or may not have had access to, which the angel said to the women at the tomb. Mk is not concerned with the reiteration of this detail. This shows us that L did not use Mk, for it is not in Mk in the post resurrection account. Lk could have extrapolated the prediction from earlier in the gospel of Mk or he could have added it from another source. We don’t know for certain. The fact that Luke has a remembrance and Mk has an announcement about Galilee is pure semantics. The messenger in Mk says that Jesus is going before you into Galilee. This still functions as a reminder, though he does not use the word “remember”. L makes it an explicit reminder by using the word, and then he includes a full repetition of the prediction, which is consistant with his own gospel and the other accounts.
Then you wrote: In other words, you are arguing that it is a “coincidence.” But five points of correspondence in key concepts in a speech set in precisely the same context is not coincidence, as I have already said.
I have already used the word “incidental,” which amounts to the same. My point is that at least two of the overlaps can be accounted for as basic to the account: empty tomb expressed as “he is not here.” How else is one to answer the question “Where is he?”? And expressing how someone is raised from the dead can be simple incident. Given the differences in these accounts, this is hardly evidence for literary dependance.
Then you wrote, and I find this most interesting: Now here is where the fancy tapdancing begins to try to make the Bible look “correct” at any cost. You do not bother to ask yourself why Jesus would tell the disciples he would appear to them in Galilee, but then return to Jerusalem for more appearances. You also completely ignore the ending of Matthew, in which Jesus gives the “Great Commission,” finishing it up with his parting words — “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.”
First of all, of course I stop and ask myself why would Jesus appear in Galilee and then return to Jerusalem. Second, maybe you should stop and ask why not? The gospels have different emphases which may or may not account the different locations. Big Deal, Hokku. There is no factual problem here. Your problem is much larger, and I am certain now that we are arguing presuppositionally at this point.
You scoff at the last line of the Great Commission, “Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the Age.” You say that Jesus cannot make certain journeys in given time frames. Incidentally, where are the real chronological contradictions in the accounts? Where is the problem in the order of appearances? You simply have no evidence which creates necessary problems here. Your problems are based on how long you think it takes a person to walk from one place to another, but your theory only accounts for what a “normal” journey may entail. Even from a human point of view, what if someone ran from place to place or had other means of travel? The journey becomes shorter does it not? In the final analysis, this question does not matter because you are still arguing as if these events have never happened. You are arguing that Jesus never rose from the dead, and that the gospel writers and Paul have fabricated stories which are in hopeless contradiction.
You have failed to come to the text as a Christian. The gospel writers record that the Risen Christ appears in rooms which have locked doors. John has Jesus predicting catches of fish from the shoreline. This risen Christ ascends into heaven. He vanishes from the meeting on the Emmaus road. Hokku, I am glad to discuss the text, but you have not come to the text on its own terms with a worldview that accounts for the supernatural. You look at journeys that the Risen Christ cannot make with in a certain amount of time. I am looking at the text on its own terms, and it is clear that the risen Christ can do things that we cannot. If the Christian God exists, none of these mythical problems of yours exist concerning the resurrection of Jesus and his post-resurrection appearances. I grow weary of discussing presups with you. Just because your wordview dictates “impossible” does not mean that mine does. You read the text as an atheist. This is so obvious. You do not even attempt to understand the text on its own terms.
Furthermore, Paul the Apostle, never gives an historical account of the resurrection. It is pure red-herring to say that he never mentions the empty tomb or omits the details of the gospels. All of these facts are clearly implied when Paul expounds upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. 1 Cor. 15 puts it all on the line, when Paul says Christians are most worthy of pity, if Christ has not been raised from the dead. He understands the historical weight of the issue. But the fact is that the NT affirms at every turn that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, and the early Christians (the NT and its inclusion of so called early creed or hymnic material e.g. 1 Cor. 15.1-8; Phil. 2.6-11 et al.) all affirmed this.
Hokku, I am not talking about the Diatesseron, and even if I were, it would not qualify as “early Christianity.” I include your scribal additions of Mark under this category as well. These accounts are secondary to the original of Mk, and cannot be used as evidence that gospel writers themselves were working hard to harmonize their accounts. The evidence seems to indicate that these writings were recognized as authoritative at a relatively early time and the first century church was not willing to change the accounts. I conclude because they believed all four gospels to be authentic with tensions to be sure, but with reconcilable tensions.
Hokku, it is a fair question to ask about why should you believe the resurrection accounts if the surrounding details do not seem to be in agreement. However, it still stands to reason, that the one point all agree on is that He is not here, He is risen. This is a fact of history. The fact that the accounts have variance at points, but all agree on this one
essential point, indicates that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. You cannot simply jettison the points of agreement by attempting to establish disagreement, which is tenuous at best. Your method is all wrong in this case.
John M
John M wrote:
“Hokku, this is an evasion of issue at hand. You are claiming FACT in the case of Markan priority. Most scholars recognize that Mark is the base source for the gospels, but most also recognize that this is not a canon that works or accounts for all of the evidence in all contexts. You, however, push this theory even when evidence fails to be present.”
How can it be an evasion when the main point is that the three speeches show clear evidence of change? One can see that without any question of priority at all all. It is simply fact that the speeches are not identical, and that in the case of Luke vs. Mark (or even Matthew), they show a significant difference in the same speech. So I am not going to be drawn into the side issue of priority. I already stated that I use Markan priority as a working tool because it best explains the evidence. That is enough.
John M also wrote:
“Luke reports that Jesus made his prediction in Galilee, and this is what the other Gospel writers record. Therefore, Luke is factually correct.”
John, if you stop trying so hard to counter what I am saying, and read the texts and compare them carefully, you will see that Luke refers to something quite different that Jesus once said in Galilee — nothing about a prediction of a Galilee meeting. What is clear from comparing Mark and Luke, however, is that Luke has no such prediction, but uses key words in it to rewrite it as a remembrance of a past saying.
And John M writes:
“First of all, of course I stop and ask myself why would Jesus appear in Galilee and then return to Jerusalem. Second, maybe you should stop and ask why not?”
Again John, read the texts and use your head and do the math. Look at the prediction of a Galilee appearance in Matthew and Luke. Then look at the total absence of ANY Galilee appearance in Luke. Now consider how long it takes to get from Jerusalem to Galilee. Then make a chronology of appearances of Jesus, and the places where they happened and to whom. None of it fits. The Markan prediction, the Markan prediction as it is used and expanded in Matthew, simply do not logically fit the Lukan account. Again, no fancy tapdancing around this fact will change it.
And John M wrote:
“You scoff at the last line of the Great Commission, “Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the Age.” You say that Jesus cannot make certain journeys in given time frames. Incidentally, where are the real chronological contradictions in the accounts?
Why does everyone read their own insecurities into what I write? I do not “scoff” at the line — it is just an episode in a book. But it does show that Matthew used the Galilee prediction to lead up to this moment of finality, of indication that Jesus is making his final departure, but that in spite of his physical absence, he will be with them until the end of the world. If you were not focused so hard on trying to disprove it, the implications would be obvious to you.
John M further writes:
“You have failed to come to the text as a Christian. The gospel writers record that the Risen Christ appears in rooms which have locked doors.”
Of course I do not come to the text as a Christian, but that is immaterial. None of it makes any sense. Why would Jesus not only predict a Galilee meeting, repeated at the tomb by a young man, only to have several appearances prior to the meeting in Galilee, and then back to Jerusalem for more? And put together your own chronology of those appearances combined with how long it takes to get from Jerusalem to Galilee and back (I have already given an example). Use your head, not your emotions. It has nothing to do with what is possible or impossible. It has to do with what is either common sense or simply ridiculous.
John M. writes on:
“Furthermore, Paul the Apostle, never gives an historical account of the resurrection. It is pure red-herring to say that he never mentions the empty tomb or omits the details of the gospels. All of these facts are clearly implied when Paul expounds upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”
No, they are not clearly implied. Paul gives a long speech trying to convince his audience that the resurrection is fact, yet in support of that HE NEVER MENTIONS AN EMPTY TOMB. And as I have also written, he gives a lengthy list of supposed appearances of Jesus, BUT HE NEVER MENTIONS AN APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN MENTIONED IN THE SYNOPTIC RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS. And both of those elements — the empty tomb and the women as witness — appear first in Christian literature in Mark. There is no evidence that the empty tomb was part of the original tradition, and Paul’s view of resurrection obviously did not require an empty tomb. To say that Jesus was risen does not mean a tomb was found empty. Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven — not a physical body, but only a spiritual body. Do not read the later accounts into the earlier writings of Paul. And there is also the odd bit in Acts that indicates the same people who engineered the death of Jesus buried him.
John M. wrote:
“I include your scribal additions of Mark under this category as well. These accounts are secondary to the original of Mk, and cannot be used as evidence that gospel writers themselves were working hard to harmonize their accounts.”
Who said they were working hard to do this? All one need show is that in the period when the gospels were being assembled into a “canon” that there were attempts at harmonization, and I have done that. The Diatessaron was a popular harmony and the longer ending of Mark is also an attempted harmony. You are the one who seems to believe the Christians should have thrown all their efforts into harmonizing, but I have never taken that position.
John M. finishes by writing:
“Hokku, it is a fair question to ask about why should you believe the resurrection accounts if the surrounding details do not seem to be in agreement. However, it still stands to reason, that the one point all agree on is that He is not here, He is risen.”
If the context of the resurrection shows every evidence of being contrived — precisely who went to the tomb, when they went, what they saw there, what they heard there, who they met there, and what they did after, what does that tell you about the basic point of such an account? It shows that nothing in the context supports it.
Add to that the absence of any mention of either the empty tomb or the women as witnesses in the earlier Pauline accounts where we might reasonably expect it (a long attempt to persuade through a speech on the resurrection, a lengthy list of those to whom Jesus appeared), and all we are left with is an unwritten, unrecorded tradition that Jesus died and then was not dead anymore, but absolutely no reliable confirming details. Then keep in mind that Paul, the earliest Christian writer on the resurrection, NEVER knew the earthly Jesus, but had only a supposed vision of the risen Jesus, which, interestingly enough, he never distinguishes in nature or quality from the other appearances to others he mentions, which means that EVERY SUPPOSED VISION OF JESUS FOR WHOM PAUL OFFERS A WITNESS COULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLY A “VISION.” And that of course puts it all out of the realm of history and into the realm of psychology.
And finally, I note that in everything you have written, you have not specifically dealt with the position of the Galilee speech in the text, with the content of the Galilee speech, or given any logical explanation of why they have at least five points of correspondence even though the speech is skewed in to very different directions — one a prediction of a future meeting in Galilee, the other a rememembrance of something unrelated to appearance that Jesus once said in the past in Galilee. The same key concepts — or even the same words, in exactly the same context and following the same overall sequence. Nor have you explained why Luke has completely omitted an appearance–and even two predictions of it — that are presented as the foremost appearance in Mark (by prediction) and Matthew (by prediction and as an event) — or why Mark has omitted both predictions of it.
Until you can deal convincingly with all these issues, you have not put a scratch on the basic premise that Luke simply rewrote an earlier text that he did not consider in any way infallible or inerrant — a conclusion that all the relevant evidence supports.
Hokku –
You have not answered my question concerning the necessary chronological contradictions relating to the post-resurrection accounts. We have not agreed on the nature of the evidence at all to this point, and now you make another assumption that I will see the contradictions to which you refer. You must delineate these since saying something does not make it so.
You also have not answered my question concerning how to read Scripture. The Bible assumes that you will read it according to its own terms as it comes to us. It comes to us as a revelation from God. I said I would discuss the texts with you, which is why you must delineate the contradictions as you perceive them, but I won’t try to defend how the Risen Christ can be in several places in apparently a short period of time on the presuppositions of atheism. You are NOT objective in this case. You read the Bible without reference to the divine author and without reference to the Risen Christ and you substitute your atheistic worldview in its place.
This works against you in two ways. One, you will never come to an understanding of the truth of Scripture unless you the read the Bible as a Divine-Human book, and two, as Fraiser has pointed out, but as you too quickly dismissed, your worldview and interpretation of the evidence has no God’s eye viewpoint and only accounts for YOUR reading of the text. You have no way of accounting for why I should understand the text the way you are. You have pointed out no real contradiction which is as glaringly obvious as you claim. Your interpretation of the evidence has depended upon your atheism every step of the way.
I think I have answered the majority of your questions (I am not convinced by the questions you have raised thus far, and I am confident that the rest can be resolved as well), but you are clearly unwilling to see the solution. You claim that you do not cling to Markan priority, but even your last paragraph reads this way: “Until you can deal convincingly with all these issues, you have not put a scratch on the basic premise that Luke simply rewrote an earlier text that he did not consider in any way infallible or inerrant — a conclusion that all the relevant evidence supports.” Which text are you holding Luke to? Which one did he rewrite? You have not clearly ascertained the source of L to make such a conclusion, thus you must get sidetracked on this question in order for your argument to have any force.
Belief and evidence are not in contradiction and I can continue to maintain the position of faith seeking understanding. I looked at your objections with faith, through my worldview (just as you contrived these objections from your own worldview complete with its faith commitments), and I found your objections wanting. Conclude from this, what you may about me, but Hokku, you must wrestle with the fact that your arguments against Scripture are only plausible at best and irrational at worst. Do you really want to risk your eternal state on the plausibility of your own arguments? Scripture is clear that because Christ has rose from the dead, he is coming again, and this time, he comes to destroy and judge the ungodly and deliver his church and bring her to everlasting life through this judgment. You are always asking me to ponder, so I now ask you to do the same.
John M
Hokku,
I replied to your question (which for some unspoken reason you view to be the death knell of my views) in the negative and yet without any explanation you draw the conclusion that I “have effectively eliminated any need for [my] supposed ‘Transcendent Authority.’” Says who? If you’re such a man of evidence where’s the evidence for this? Saying it is so doesn’t make it so, and repeating it again won’t make a weak point strong. The conclusion you draw is by no means obvious. I do not evade evidence, I embrace it and believe that the evidence confirms Christian belief, but I’m looking at the evidence with Christian presuppositions and that affects how I look at it. I recognize this, but in all of my exchanges with you, I observe that you think that you believe evidence speaks for itself and are completely unaware that all evidence requires interpretation and that your interpretation is based on your unproven presuppositions. This is an important point in philosophy in general and particularly philosophy of language and philosophy of science, and you seem to be oblivious to it in spite of the fact that it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, in numerous different ways, by numerous people.
“The ‘Christian view of God’ is not a practical means for arriving at factual truth; evidence and logic are. That is why scientists rely on evidence and experimentation and deduction rather than prayer.”
You’ve got the view that one should believe something only with evidence. What’s the evidence for this claim? Please share. This claim itself cannot be based on any evidence. It is a presupposition with which one begins. But suppose that you think that you do have evidence for your belief that one should believe something only on the evidence. I will ask you what the evidence is to support that conclusion and then if you produce evidence for that conclusion, I can keep asking you ad infinitum. There’s no end to me asking you for your evidence for each conclusion that you draw about the evidence you have for drawing your previous conclusion. At some point we have to begin with belief and then proceed on that basis. We cannot begin with a brute fact and build on top of that. Present to me any fact that you believe is so beyond question and I will show you how that can only be viewed as a fact by starting with certain assumptions that cannot be proven. This is an old conversation that goes back all the way back to Plato and was revived by Descartes.
There’s another problem with your statement though. You assume that because scientists don’t use prayer as a method for science then it’s not of value. But there’s no reason to think that only what is of scientific use is useful. I don’t use prayer as a scientific. There’s not a single verse in Scripture that prescribes prayer as a method for doing science. But that’s not a strike against prayer. Christians have never said that prayer is a method for science, so your attempting to strike down a straw man. It is no strike against prayer that it doesn’t help scientists do their job.
But let’s look at
“Evidence and reason are obviously not solely my posession; but they are definitely not the possession of someone who puts belief above them.”
You are oblivious to the fact that you put belief above evidence yourself. As I have pointed out above. Everyone has to begin with some belief and proceed from there. Otherwise one is caught in an infinite regress of always supplying a reason behind every reason.
Perhaps because you are projecting your own insecurities and doubts onto someone who is actually quite cheery during these discussions.
About what exactly are you proposing I’m insecure and doubting? Or was this just a jab and you have no idea? I never accused you of being sad or angry during our discussions. I’m not interested in whether you write with a smile on your face. I asked why you have such a hatred and detesting of Christian faith. The fact that you think you’re cheery in no way answers this question. People can be cheery while hating something. Did you ever see A Clockwork Orange in which the main character beats and rapes a woman while laughing and singing “I’m Singin’ in the Rain”? He’s quite cheery, but still full of hate.
“It is not ‘there’s a bunch of us who disagree with you,’ it is that the evidence simply does not support or substantiate your belief-based viewpoint.”
This is no explanation. It’s an assertion. It raises more question than it answers. Such as:
Who gets to decide that “the evidence simply does not support” my viewpoint? Laws of logic and of evidence can’t decide this. They are human constructions. So it must be the humans behind the constructions that get to decide.
What makes them authoritative?
Who are these people who decided it?
Do the rest of us ever get to vote on whether the evidence supports Christian belief?
You said that laws of logic and of evidence are human inventions but are practical for arriving at truth. What’s the criteria for deciding that these human constructions are practical? By what criteria does one decide what is practical? If one finds Christian belief practical on what basis can you disagree with them? Do people disagree on the practical use of laws of logic and of evidence for arriving at truth or do they all agree with you? When they disagree with you, what do you appeal to? Laws of logic and of evidence won’t work, they don’t agree with you?
You see if laws of logic and of evidence are human constructions (even if practical) saying that Christians are illogical means only that a human construction has judged them to be so.
“Example. Someone says the Great Pyramid of Giza exists. To prove that, he has overwhelming multiple testimony over time that is verified by photographs and the fact that anyone can visit it at any time (given the cash and the circumstances). Someone who says it is not true is relying on his own opinion or wishful thinking, not on the evidence. The consensus of humans supported by the evidence is overwhelming on the side of the the existence of the Great Pyramid being ‘true.’ It is overwhelmingly against the notion of the ‘believer’ that it does not exist. You complicate things needlessly.”
This example does not work in your favor. When the earth was believed to be flat we had overwhelming multiple testimony of people who had traveled throughout much of the earth (much more than me and you) that the earth was flat. The consensus of humans supported by the evidence was overwhelmingly on the side of a flat earth. And yet someone dared to disagree with it. They went against the human consensus and were at first called illogical. How do you know that you are not just like the flat earth people when you call me illogical? You can’t call me illogical just because I disagree with you and a bunch of other people. You’ve got to have a better reason than that. Once again, you need a transcendent viewpoint, which you lack.
“I say that your question reflects a mistaken understanding of the meaning of ‘law’ in science. A ‘law’ is simply the explanation for a phenomenon. The ‘law’ of gravity does not exist in some transcendent sense; it is simply an explanation of observed phenomena. So there is no need for your ‘Transcendent Authority’ and no proof for one that you have offered up to this point.”
You are wildly mistaken here. A law is not simply an explanation. There is something that is regulating behavior. There’s a reason than things fall downward on our planet and not upward. And the law of gravity is the reason not just the explanation. There is something that is governing that regularity and it is a law that does so.
“In your next posting I do hope you will introduce something new.” Why would I when you have done such a poor job of answering my questions. I have no desire to move onto something new when you give such empty answers to what is old.
“I see nothing here [Psalm 8:8] about ocean currents. It is talking about the fish who follow their courses in the sea. You are really stretching it, Frasier, which of course you know because you add the disclaimer ‘I don’t think that we even need to argue for either of these claims.’ Good thing you are not going to, because they do not support your case.”
I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here that you misunderstood me, but I’m suspicious that you are being intentionally beligerant here. I clearly stated that I don’t support these conclusions. I was distancing myself from these arguments. Nowhere did I say that I believed these arguments. So you’ve wasted your time arguing against a ghost. Perhaps you felt you had a better chance against a ghost’s argument than my actual argument because you failed to address it. So I repeat it here:
I won’t let such blatant irresponsibility in debate go unobserved and unchallenged.
“You ignore or are unaware of the significant and defining difference between science and religious belief. Science does not pretend to make absolute and eternal and never-to-be-changed pronouncements. There is no ‘Verbum scientiae manet in aeternum’ equivalent of your ‘Verbum Dei manet in aeternum,’ because scientific declarations are always subject to disproof or revision if the evidence warrants.”
The misunderstanding of theological method that you demonstrate in your comment is immense. Having studied theological method for quite sometime I can assure you that this is not how most methods proceed. I claim that the Bible is inerrant, but I have never (nor will I ever) claim that my interpretations are inerrant. My interpretations have been revised and will continue to be so. Saying that “Verbum Dei manet in aeternum” [the word of God will endure forever] is not the same as saying that “John Fraiser’s interpretation of the word of God will endure forever.” So in this way there are things that I believe that are subject to change. This eliminates the distinction that you attempt to draw between science and theology and my original argument stands: criticizing Christianity because of the diversity of creeds and belief is no strike against my views or a strike against Christianity itself. The same is true for science and you can only take this to be an asset for science by adopting a double standard.
But there’s also a misunderstanding in your view of scientific method. You write, “Science does not pretend to make absolute and eternal and never-to-be-changed pronouncements…” I don’t think many scientists would agree with you though. There are certain unquestioned beliefs that science must accept and cannot alter because if science doesn’t proceed on a set of given assumptions then it can say nothing.
But if you believe what you wrote, then you can’t object to Christianity as being against fact. If everything is subject to revision then the most you can say against Christian belief is that a bunch of scientists disagree with you. You can’t say that my beliefs contradict scientific evidence or fact because, by your own words, anything that is claimed by science could be changed.
Richard Rorty makes the same argument. To quote Joseph Rouse who summarizes Rorty on this topic with a few slight alterations to make it personal for you:
“…it [science] is free to recognize and accept and evaluate new evidence. It can progress and incorporate new information. Religion can only attempt to verify the same codified sectarian creeds and dogmas, and cannot accept information that disproves any element of those creeds and dogmas…”
You are contradicting yourself at this point. You have accused Christians of changing their cosmology because of scientific discovery, now you say that Christianity can’t change it’s beliefs. Which is it? You’re coming apart, Hokku. This is becoming too easy. It is so completely obvious to me and many others observing this discussion that for all of your claims to be a man of evidence, you are not giving a fair look at the evidence. You are being driven by your disgust for Christianity not the evidence.
“Science, therefore, is able always to abandon mistakes and misunderstandings in favor of increasing knowledge and learning. That is an immense asset, and not in any sense a liability.”
I never said it was a liability. But you are missing the implication of this statement. If you truly believe this then you can’t say that Christian belief is contrary to scientific fact. Let’s hear your explanation on this.
I’m growing tired of our conversation. I have answered your objections and don’t think you’re dealing fairly with what I have said. When you discuss Scripture, you act as though your interpretations are beyond question and factual. You accuse Christians of wishful thinking in their interpretations and claim objectivity for your own. I’ve seen no place where you seem to be open to the fact that there are other legitimate readings of Scripture beyond your own. How can one endure dialogue with such a person? I’m going to allow you your response, and then I’ll give my final response. In my desire to be judicious to someone as injudicious as yourself, I will give you the final word.
John M wrote:
You have not answered my question concerning the necessary chronological contradictions relating to the post-resurrection accounts.
I was hoping you would do the math yourself, given that I had pointed out to you the basic elements, but I see I shall have to prime the pump:
1. We know Mark has no post-resurrection appearances of Jesus at all, but he does have two predictions of such appearances; here is the second and last:
“But go tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you.” Mk. 16:7
Matthew takes this and runs with it, presenting it first given by an angel as “and having gone quickly, tell he disciples he was raised from the dead, and behold, he goes ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see him. Behold, I told you.”
Then, in his peculiar affection for doubling, Matthew has Jesus appar to the women as they run from the tomb. He simply repeats:
“Do not fear; go and report to my brothers so that may go into Galilee, and there they will see me.”
So we have the same instructions repeated. The disciples/brothers are to go to Galilee, and that is where Jesus will meet them.
This is the basic story. Jesus is risen. He is going to Galilee. Go there and you will see him. There is not the slightest implication that they will see him anywhere before going to Galilee, and they do not. They Go to Galilee and see him there, and he makes the final speech with which Matthew ends:
“…behold, I am with you all days until the end of the age.”
When we get to Luke, however, things change drastically.
Luke omits the first Galilee prediction of Mark. Luke rewrites the second and final Galilee prediction of Mark so that it becomes instead a remembrance of something Jesus once said IN Galilee, not ABOUT Galilee.
Further, Mark proceeds to recount appearances of Jesus that take place right away, NOT ONE OF THEM IN GALILEE:
1st Lukan appearance: On the way to and in Emmaus, on “Easter” Sunday afternoon;
2nd Lukan appearance: To Simon (presumably in Jerusalem) on Sunday evening;
3rd Lukan appearance; To “the eleven” in Jerusalem on Sunday evening.
All these appearances happen on the same day as the resurrection, and not one of them has anything at all to do with Galilee.
Now here is what you gave as your explanation:
“Luke is obviously aware of the appearance to the 11 in Galilee, but the accounts can clearly be harmonized. Jesus is in Galilee, then he goes to Jerusalem and the immediate vicinity.”
But we see from the text that Luke is not aware of ANY appearance of Jesus in Galilee. You would have the disciples going to Galilee, seeing Jesus there, hearing his “I am with you always” speech,” then back to Jerusalem, where Jesus begins appearing.
As I have already mentioned, however, the journey from Jerusalem to Galilee is one of some six or seven days. It is physically impossible for the disciples to go see Jesus in Galilee, then to get back to the Jerusalem area the same afternoon or evening so that Jesus can begin making the sequence of Jerusalem experiences recorded by Luke.
I have already shown that Luke has an interest in NOT having Jesus appear in Galilee. He demonstrates that by omitting the first Markan prediction of a Galilee appearance and by rewriting the second prediction of a Galilee meeting into a
remembrance of something Jesus once said in Galilee — in the past.
But we can go even farther than that in showing Luke’s aversion to Galilee appearances. On “Easter” evening, in his appearance to “the 11,” he gives a specific command to them:
“But you, stay in the city [Jerusalem] until you are clothed with power from on high.”
So Luke is putting the nail in the coffin of the Galilee appearance tradition by having Jesus command the disciples, on the evening of the same morning on which he was resurrected, TO STAY IN JERUSALEM. So according to Luke there is not only no prediction of a Galilee meeting with the risen Jesus, there is also a specific command that makes such a meeting in Galilee impossible.
John M also wrote:
“You also have not answered my question concerning how to read Scripture. The Bible assumes that you will read it according to its own terms as it comes to us.”
Two misconceptions here.
First, the Bible is not really a “book.” It is an anthology of many documents written over a wide range of time. It never identifies itself as “the Bible.” It never identifies a list of documents comprising “the Bible.” It never asserts inerrancy or infallibility for anything called “the Bible.” The Bible was a creation of the Church, which not only selected the books, but quibbled over them and eventually canonized and assembled them into “the Bible.” So to say the Bible “assumes that you will read it according to its own terms” is simply an impossibility, not to mention being an insupportable opinion.
Second, we can see how both Matthew and Luke treated the writings that preceded them. They did not regard them as inerrant, because they felt free to change them. Attributing infallibility to them, declaring them “the Word of God,” is something that none of the three claim. That is a claim made for them later by the Church, and it is a completely indefensible claim.
John M also wrote:
“One, you will never come to an understanding of the truth of Scripture unless you the read the Bible as a Divine-Human book.”
So far, John, you have not offered the slightest evidence that it is anything other than a very human and fallible collection of documents. Your statement is predicated upon the premise that it is “Divine-Human,” it seems, but you neither define that nor support it in any way. And I have already demonstrated the abundant evidence of simple human fallibility that shows us the Bible is not the “Word of God” but rather the word of men.
John M. wrote:
“Scripture is clear that because Christ has rose from the dead, he is coming again….”
What is clear from “Scripture” is that Jesus was supposed to come before all the generation that supposedly knew Jesus died out. And even the Apocalypse has Jesus saying that he was going to come “quickly.”
By no stretch of the imagination is some 2,000 years and counting “quickly.” It is just another failed prophesy.
I want to remind you that what we are discussing here is just a very small bit of the very great number of discrepancies not only in the resurrection accounts. but also in the rest of the NT — and we have not really even begun to discuss the immense problems in the OT.
Again, it is just the tip of the iceberg. So read your Bible but read it well and perceptively, and you may eventually find your way out of the fundamentalistic labyrinth in which you have become lost.
As William Blake wrote, “If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.”
Frasier,
You used so many words and said virtually nothing. You seem to be lost in a fog of abstractions and verbiage that get you nowhere.
The simple fact is that that I can use evidence and reason to demonstrate the human and fallible nature of the Bible. You can question the value of reason and evidence in doing so, but that just means your belief is irrational, and reason and evidence have no effect on it because you put irrational belief about reason and evidence.
I would be happy to discuss the overwhelming evidence for biblical fallibility if you can bring yourself to deal with concrete matters rather than airy abstractions. But at present you seem to be just chewing over the same old dry bone again and again, so it is no wonder that even you are tiring of saying the same things over and over again. That is why I expressed my hope in my last message that you would say something new. But hope springs eternal, and perhaps you will get down to dealing with the realities of the Bible, example by example, and then we shall have something worth talking about (and perhaps worth others reading).
Hokku,
I understand where you are coming from. You don’t know how to answer me and so have chosen to resort to insults. If you can’t address someone’s challenge to your view, then just dismiss it as unreasonable and call it foggy. Rhetoric is fine for politicians but you’ll have to get by on substance in this forum. What I have written is perfectly clear. I can explain it to you and explain it well, but I can’t understand it for you. That’s your part, and unfortunately you’ve chosen to misunderstand.
I appeal to the fairness of the readers to say whether I was so unclear and so abstract as to say “virtually nothing” with full confidence that what I have said is quite understandable to someone of your intelligence.
You’re frustrated that I haven’t engaged you on the evidence, but we haven’t even established the rules for how to look at evidence. John Meade has chosen to focus on challenging you according to the evidence and I’ve chosen to focus on your underlying assumptions that govern how you look at the evidence in an effort to challenge you on multiple fronts. What I’ve demonstrated is that you are blind (willingly perhaps) to your own assumptions that this blindness has resulted in a hypocrisy and a double standard on your part. I can only challenge you to consider what you are assuming that I am not that makes you call Christians unreasonable, but at present you have insisted that you are the objective one and that Christians are the wishful thinkers.
You keep calling me irrational, but you’ve yet to explain why I’m irrational. When the dust settles all that you can say is that I’m irrational according to your personal standards, but you’ve yet to explain why I should care even the slightest bit about your personal standards. Unless you have some standard of rationality that transcends human beings, when you call me irrational all you can mean is that there are people who disagree with what I say.
Hokku, I appreciate the time you’ve taken to challenge my belief. You are welcome to comment on any post. I will be praying that in your study of Scripture that you find the Lord of Scripture who can deliver you from your guilt and give you abundant life in Christ.
Frasier wrote:
“You don’t know how to answer me and so have chosen to resort to insults.”
They are not insults at all. They are simply an expression of the confusion that comes through your postings. You do not deal with concrete issues. You deal with foggy mental abstractions. You seem to enjoy quibbling over such abstractions. I have answered you many times and yet you bring up the same failed issues over and over.
So in an effort to move from the abstract to the concrete, I will ask you some questions:
1. In what sense is the Bible as it exists today in the Protestant canon “the Word of God”?
2. In what sense is the Bible as it exists today in the Protestant canon “infallible” or “inerrant”?
3. Does the Bible ever self-identify itself as an entity?
4. Does the Bible ever clearly identify its contents (the documents that comprise it)?
4. Are there outright contradictions in the Bible?
5. Are there errors of science and fact in the Bible?
6. Do all the authors of all the books of the Bible characterize their writings as “the Word of God,” “inerrant,’ or “infallible” in toto? If not, do you nonetheless accept them as such?
7. Was the biblical canon in its entirety in place in the supposed “apostolic” period?
8. Are the first two chapters of Genesis to be understood as “literally” true or “allegorically” true and factual? If a mixture of the two, how do you tell when allegory begins or leaves off?
9. Are the first two chapters of Genesis in any way in conflict with our scientific knowledge of the universe? Be prepared to support your answer.
Finally, you wrote:
“You keep calling me irrational, but you’ve yet to explain why I’m irrational.”
I have explained it several times. You put blind belief above evidence and logic. That is irrationality. As you see, I have introduced a new direction to this conversation in which I will support that contention based on your responses to my questions.
In has last message, Frasier posted one remark that should not go unanswered, for the sake of clarity:
He wrote:
“You are wildly mistaken here. A law is not simply an explanation. There is something that is regulating behavior. There’s a reason than things fall downward on our planet and not upward. And the law of gravity is the reason not just the explanation.:
Science is not your strong point. You seem to mistake a “law” for a “force” or “thing.”
A scientific law explains and predicts occurences. It is not the occurence itself. A law in science is simply a principle or rule that holds true universally under certain conditions.
We say that the earth is held in its solar orbit by gravity. The law of gravity explains such behavior. It is not the behavior itself. A scientific law is not a “Ding an sich,” as the Germans say — it is not a thing in itself. I think this mistake is fundamental to your misunderstanding of logic and reason. You seem to mistake priciples and laws for self-existent entities.
I invite you to check any reputable science dictionary for its definition of law.
John M,
I hope you do not think that Luke’s rewriting of the Galilee prediction as a Galilee remembrance is the only or even an isolated example of rewriting to fit the wishes of a biblical author. Without even going outside the resurrection narratives we find another obvious example in Matthew’s account of the women coming to the tomb.
Mark tells us the women come to the tomb on “Easter” morning to anoint the body;
Matthew tells us the women come merely to “see the tomb”;
Luke tells us the women came to the tomb bringing spices;
John, with his single visitor Mary Magdalene, gives no reason for her visit.
Why these differences? To everything there is a reason, and we can easily see that by looking at these examples more closely.
Why would Matthew tell us the women came merely to “see the tomb” instead of coming to anoint the body as Mark would have it? Simply because Matthew is the only evangelist to have come up with an apologetic story that the tomb was guarded by soldiers and that the tomb was purposefully sealed. No point in women coming to anoint a body in a guarded and sealed tomb.
Mark’s women say, “Who will roll away the stone for us?” The women in Matthew do not say that, because not only would a sealed tomb and guard prohibit that, but also because they are not there to anoint the body, but merely to “see the tomb.”
Luke, however, will have nothing of such a guard and seal on the tomb, so he is free to have the women come with spices for anointing.
But why would John not have his single visitor to the tomb, Mary Magdalene, bring spices? He does not know of a guard or seal on the tomb. The reason is simple. In John the body was anointed at its burial with some 100 pounds of spices. There is no need for more.
Luke again, however, has no 100 pounds of spices, so his women come bringing them.
And of course Mark has no 100 pounds of spices either, so his women come bringing them.
Again, what we see here is simply manipulation of the same basic material to fit the wishes of individual writers. None of it can be considered historical and factual.
hokku,
I have been following this conversation not so much with interest as with curiosity at someone who is so completely unaware of the assumptions from which he or she reasons.
For example: you write in comment 40, “That is irrationality.” Can you not see that that is an assertion which (whether right or wrong) can never be proven by examination of evidence?
Anyone can reply to that assertion about irrationality, “Says who?” What are rationality, evidence, and logic, and who says they are good things? From what you have said above, I take it you would say “all intelligent people.” There again, you have an assertion which you cannot prove. Have you interviewed all “intelligent people” to find out their opinions on that question? Could you? Even if you could, on what grounds do you categorize a person as either “intelligent” or not so, and what evidence do you have to support that standard?
Furthermore, even if you could conclusively prove who is and is not intelligent and collect the data of the opinions of all intelligent people, you still cannot prove by observation and evidence that “intelligence” is a even good thing.
So, tell me why anyone should care whether you think they are rational, intelligent, secure, hypocritical, or even cheery? Your answers so far have amounted to nothing but “people should care what I think and agree with me because I believe I’m right and I believe that a lot of other people believe I’m right.” Big deal! Everyone thinks that their beliefs are right–otherwise they wouldn’t hold them.
I won’t pretend to have the patience of Fraiser. I expect you will dismiss me with insults and silly statements about the superiority of your own intelligence. I won’t waste my time responding unless you can do better than that.
FelixCulpa wrote:
“For example: you write in comment 40, “That is irrationality.” Can you not see that that is an assertion which (whether right or wrong) can never be proven by examination of evidence?”
I am of course using it according to the dictionary definition signifying “not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical.”
Here is what I said:
“You put blind belief above evidence and logic. That is irrationality.”
To me it is self-evident that putting belief above evidence and logic is “not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical” by definition. It should be to anyone who speaks and reads English.
If that does not make obvious sense to you, better change your name to “Maxima Culpa.”
Other than your standard insults (which I won’t bother with), all you have added is that you believe that “the dictionary” agrees with you. So are you appealing to “the dictionary” as the transcendent authority behind unprovable assumptions?
That doesn’t really change anything. You are still basically saying “I think people should care what I think and agree with me because I believe that a lot of other people (in this case the editors of the alleged “the dictionary”) believe that I’m right.” Big deal. There is still nothing compelling in that assertion. Lots of self-deluded lunatics believe that. Why should anyone reading assume that you are different?
Felix Culpa wrote:
“So are you appealing to “the dictionary” as the transcendent authority behind unprovable assumptions?”
You have not been paying attention. Frasier is the one who posits an invisible and unproveable “transcendent authority.”
I just stick with the evidence.
Only what you believe to be evidence. Big deal. Everyone believes they are following “the evidence.” You still haven’t offered anything to distinguish your position from that the self-deluded lunatic I just mentioned.
Anyway, the point was that your appeal to “the dictionary” is an appeal to authority. You can’t prove anything–you just assume that whatever you claim comes from “the dictionary” is unquestionable. The problem is that it can be questioned, just like the things which seem “self-evident” can be questioned. Lots of lunatics believe what you believe, and many of them offer much more compelling defenses than you do.
Felix Culpa wrote:
“Your appeal to “the dictionary” is an appeal to authority.”
I will leave you to your dictionary fixation. When you decide to deal with the biblical evidence for human fallibility, then I will perhaps respond again. As it is, you are offering nothing worth discussing.
If more insults are all you have to contribute, then it would seem that the great confidence which you feign really is bankrupt, as is my allotment of patience. You may respond as you wish; the readers can judge. I am on to tasks of more interest and merit.
Don’t feel too bad if Hokku has belittled and insulted you, FelixCulpa.
He hasn’t even addressed me as yet. He’s obsessed with the Gospels being filled with errors, and can’t bear to look at himself in the mirror, let alone converse cogently with folks on this blog.
As far as we can figure, Hokku considers himself to be the sole transcendent authority around here. All hail the great, omniscient Hokku!