Questions for Christians

[Free]

If we were then to conclude that we shouldn't trust what was written, to be consistent, we would have to conclude the same about nearly every non-fiction book in existence as well.

Don't you think that that is a grossly sweeping over-generalization? For example, who bombed Pearl Harbor, the Japanese, or the Canadians? Who first landed in North America and when? etc.

Based on this: "The state of the evidence is simply such that one can only conclude with the fact that the accounts of Jesus' miracles are written by biased individuals with a vested interest in, or specific intention of, "spreading the word," no, I don't think it is at all a "grossly sweeping over-generalization." You will be extremely hard-pressed to find just one unbiased, non-fictional account of anything. If we use your criteria for the Bible, we must be consistent and use them for all written accounts of everything. If not, then you have to justify why your criteria applies only to Scripture and not anything else.

And what about the other side of that coin? If we were to accept the gospels as historical fact, then what other miracle claims would we have to also accept on similar (or better?) levels of evidence? Can you name 3 non-biblical accounts of miracles that we should accept as historical fact, or do you only believe that the miracle accounts in your bible are good enough to be considered historical facts? More to the point, can you answer my question regarding the Sai Baba example I provided earlier (Oct 29, 10:12)? Only one person so far has, and I think it is the crucial question on this forum, since it addresses an apparent deity other than the one in whose belief you are all heavily invested.

I'll have to look into that post. I have not been able to keep up that much with the current discussion. Having said that, I will not deny that miracles happen outside Scripture or that some scientifically unexplainable events do happen. But one must be careful and realize that miracles in and of themselves do not prove whether or not a particular god exists or belief system is true; the entire system must be taken into account.

I remain interested in your response in our earlier discussion:

If the Christian god is apparently capable of providing us with a world where we can have free will yet not suffer, the how can this world be the best of all possible worlds, given that in this world, we are forced to suffer apparently because of our having free will?

As do I but I do not know what more I can add at this point.

 

[AAA]

Would our disbelief lie be grounded in the "bias" of the ... people who reported the healings? Obviously not.Our disbelief would rather be grounded much more in the a priori inclincation to disbelieve that "healings" can even take place.

Your statement, Drew, strongly supports the very foundation of Carl Sagan's comment that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[AAA]

You will be extremely hard-pressed to find just one unbiased, non-fictional account of anything. If we use your criteria for the Bible, we must be consistent and use them for all written accounts of everything. If not, then you have to justify why your criteria applies only to Scripture and not anything else.

Historians, lawyers and juries, scientists, heck - everybody - considers bias whenever assessing a claim. In no way am I advocating for the consideration of bias only for the historicity of the bible and nothing else.

Considering bias is a part of critical thinking, which I advocate using all the time. If you can make a good case that certain other historical conclusions are unfounded based on bias, then please do so, but here and now, we are considering a very specific historicity that directly relates to Christian Apologetics.

It seems to me that only Christians on this forum are advocating ignoring bias when it comes to assessing the (slim) evidence supporting Jesus' miracles.

 

[AAA]

Here's a quote from a historian who was once just like all of you in your core beliefs: Bart Erhman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

"Let me begin by explaining in simple terms what it is that historians do. Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past. We can't really know the past because the past is done with. We think we know that past in some instances because we have such good evidence for what happened in the past, but in other cases we don't know, and in some cases we just have to throw up our hands in despair.

It is relatively certain that Bill Clinton won the election in 1996. It may be somewhat less clear who won the election next time. It's pretty clear that Shakespeare wrote his plays, but there's considerable debate. Why? It was hundreds of years ago, and scholars come up with alternative opinions. It's probable that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but we don't have a lot of eyewitness testimony. Historians try to establish levels of probability of what happened in the past. Some things are absolutely certain, some are probable, some are possible, some are "maybe," some are "probably not."

What kinds of evidence do scholars look for when trying to establish probabilities in the past? Well, the best kind of evidence, of course, consists of contemporary accounts; people who were close to the time of the events themselves. Ultimately, if you don't have a source that goes back to the time period itself, then you don't have a reliable source. There are only two sources of information for past events: either stories that actually happened based on, ultimately, eyewitness accounts or stories that have been made up. Those are the only two kinds of stories you have from the past -- either things that happened or things that were made up.

To determine which things are the things that happened, you want contemporary accounts, things that are close to the time of the events themselves, and it helps if you have a lot of these accounts. The more the merrier! You want lots of contemporary accounts, and you want these accounts to be independent of one another. You don't want different accounts to have collaborated with one another; you want accounts that are independently attesting the results. Moreover, even though you want accounts that are independent of one another, that are not collaborated, you want accounts that corroborate one another; accounts that are consistent in what they have to say about the subject. Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another.

What do we have with the Gospels of the New Testament? Well, unfortunately we're not as well off as we would like to be. We'd like to be extremely well off because the Gospels tell us about Jesus, and they are our best sources for Jesus. But how good are they as historical sources? I'm not questioning whether they're valuable as theological sources or sources for religious information. But how good are they as historical sources?

Unfortunately, they're not as good as we would like. The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' death -- 35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation. They're not written by Jesus' Aramaic-speaking followers. They're written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from? I should point out that the Gospels say they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's just in your English Bible. That's the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from?

After the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith. They were trying to convert both Jews and Gentiles. How do you convert somebody to stop worshipping their God and to start worshipping Jesus? You have to tell stories about Jesus. So you convert somebody on the basis of the stories you tell. That person converts somebody who converts somebody who converts somebody, and all along the line people are telling stories.

The way it works is this: I'm a businessman in Ephesus, and somebody comes to town and tells me stories about Jesus, and on the basis of these stories I hear, I convert. I tell my wife these stories. She converts. She tells the next-door neighbor the stories. She converts. She tells her husband the stories. He converts. He goes on a business trip to Rome, and he tells people there the stories. They convert. Those people who've heard the stories in Rome, where did they hear them from? They heard them from the guy who lived next door to me. Well, was he there to see these things happen? No. Where'd he hear them from? He heard them from his wife. Where did his wife hear them from? Was she there? No. She heard them from my wife. Where did my wife hear them from? She heard them from me. Well, where did I hear them from? I wasn't there either.

Stories are in circulation year after year after year, and as a result of that, the stories get changed. How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another. You don't need to take my word for this; simply look yourself. I tell my students that the reason we don't notice there's so many differences in the Gospels is because we read the Gospels vertically, from top to bottom. You start at the top of Mark, you read through to the bottom, you start at the top of Matthew, read it through the bottom, sounds a lot like Mark, then you read Luke top to bottom, sounds a lot like Matthew and Mark, read John, a little bit different, sounds about the same. The reason is because we're reading them vertically.

The way to see differences in the Gospels is to read them horizontally. Read one story in Matthew, then the same story in Mark, and compare your two stories and see what you come up with. You come up with major differences. Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read. Did both robbers mock Jesus on the cross or did only one of them mock him and the other come to his defense? It depends which Gospel you read. Did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died or after he died? It depends which Gospel you read.

Or take the accounts of the resurrection. Who went to the tomb on the third day? Was it Mary alone or was it Mary with other women? If it was Mary with other women, how many other women were there, which ones were they, and what were their names? Was the stone rolled away before they got there or not? What did they see in the tomb? Did they see a man, did they see two men, or did they see an angel? It depends which account you read. What were they told to tell the disciples? Were the disciples supposed to stay in Jerusalem and see Jesus there or were they to go to Galilee and see Jesus there? Did the women tell anyone or not? It depends which Gospel you read. Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem or did they immediately leave Jerusalem and go to Galilee? All of these depend on which account you read.

You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eyewitnesses; they're Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They're not contemporary, they're not disinterested, and they're not consistent."

 

[Veritas]

Unfortunately, they're not as good as we would like. The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' death -- 35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later.

The assumption here is that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses nor written by people who were contemporaries of Jesus. However, those dates define a time period that would be within the time of contemporaries.

The way to see differences in the Gospels is to read them horizontally. Read one story in Matthew, then the same story in Mark, and compare your two stories and see what you come up with. You come up with major differences.

The differences have been mentioned by critics from all ages. Eusebius (b. 260AD) answered these criticisms a long time ago. I don't think there is much new here.

Usually, in "horizontally" parallel passages of the Gospels, we find that not one but two distinct events are described - or two distinct sayings recorded. Other differences are naturally entailed because of the unique literary methods used by each writer. Each writer has a respective purpose in describing Christ's words and deeds.

 

[Free]

AAA,

I hope you realize the number of fallacious assumptions in that quote you provided. It's late and I don't have the time or energy to go through it entirely nor thoroughly. Here are some quick things:

Unfortunately, they're not as good as we would like. The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' death -- 35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation. They're not written by Jesus' Aramaic-speaking followers. They're written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from?

And yet, what we find is that historians such as Gray give more credence to other books of antiquity which are dated significantly farther from the events that they portray. This argument also ignores the more than obvious fact that many of the people alive during Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection would still be alive and could be interviewed as eyewitnesses. Not only that, it ignores that their society was an oral society. See below.

After the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith. They were trying to convert both Jews and Gentiles. How do you convert somebody to stop worshipping their God and to start worshipping Jesus? You have to tell stories about Jesus. So you convert somebody on the basis of the stories you tell. That person converts somebody who converts somebody who converts somebody, and all along the line people are telling stories.

Well, I've been wanting to start a thread on the resurrection of Jesus and how its being a historical fact is the only rational conclusion for the rise of Christianity. Maybe now is the time.

The way it works is this: I'm a businessman in Ephesus, and somebody comes to town and tells me stories about Jesus, and on the basis of these stories I hear, I convert. I tell my wife these stories. She converts. She tells the next-door neighbor the stories. She converts. She tells her husband the stories. He converts. He goes on a business trip to Rome, and he tells people there the stories. They convert. Those people who've heard the stories in Rome, where did they hear them from? They heard them from the guy who lived next door to me. Well, was he there to see these things happen? No. Where'd he hear them from? He heard them from his wife. Where did his wife hear them from? Was she there? No. She heard them from my wife. Where did my wife hear them from? She heard them from me. Well, where did I hear them from? I wasn't there either.

Entirely conjecture and irrelevant. I may as well ask James Gray if he was there and knows that this is how it happened. He is making this up and in the process he is also ignoring the very plain fact that this was an oral society. That is how they taught and passed things on. He is projecting the way society today has problems remembering things onto a society where this problem would be next to non-existent. Their's was an oral society, based on memorization; our's is not. To ignore this point is a grave mistake for a historian to make.

Its really worse than that: these "multiple accounts" rely heavily on each other for their content.

Yet:

For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They're not contemporary, they're not disinterested, and they're not consistent."

This is what I refer to as the argument that Christians cannot win. If the accounts are the same, they copied each other. If there are some discrepancies, they're not consistent and made up. Either way, somehow the accounts are proved false.

You can't have it both ways.

The thing is that they are multiple accounts and they did not rely heavily on each other.

The fact is that most historians, at least the most popular ones often seen in the media, do not treat other books of antiquity the same way they treat the Bible. Quite honestly, that is about the worst quote from a historian you could use. It's amazing how many times he misses the forest for the trees. I think Gray's bias is pretty evident.

 

[seekandlisten]

Just to clarify, is the point being discussed the question of whether the bible measures up as a historical book? Whether the bible is a totally accurate, without error account of Jesus and his teachings? Or just that the bible is false in general nothing more than stories and myths? Just wondering what the real question was here. Thanks

 

[wavy]

So many things wrong with this thread...


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Widely agreed by whom??? Other atheists?

No, the majority of biblical scholars. I believe I addressed this in another thread where you and others were present and cited literature. I never saw a rebuttal so I'll assume nobody has one.

While the written accounts that we NOW have were written 30 years later, it does not follow that they were not eyewitness accounts. That's nonsense. I can write an eyewitness account of a car accident I saw 30 years ago - it was a significant event in my life and remember it like it was yesterday...

Life-expectancy back then was shorter, if I am not mistaken. But that's besides the point. No reputable scholar I'm aware of makes the argument that because they were written later that they couldn't be eyewitness accounts.

To the Gospels, first, you are not taking into account the ORAL tradition that was passed on initially.

I'll address this in a subsequent post.

In other words, the Gospels were taught by word of mouth by the same apostles who wrote the Scriptures. It is hard to contemplate how the most amazing events in their lives (witnessing a prophet who healed the dead and cured the blind - and then appeared to them AFTER he was killed) was forgotten, while they made it part and parcel of their lives! Every day, they lived by what they were taught by the most amazing man they had ever witnessed. You don't just forget that sort of thing, just like you don't forget witnessing a car accident where someone died.

Well, they certainly don't appear to remember where this man appeared to him after he was killed, seeing as how the gospels place the initial appearances at two opposite ends of Palestine. (see this thread)

Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

The people writing these gospels were trying to convince other highly superstitious iron-age thinkers of the validity of their faith, so not only are these reports not contemporaneous eye witness accounts, but they are also not unbiased. Accordingly, 2 of the most important features of historical evidence are sorely lacking from the gospels.

I agree that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. But with respect to the matter of bias, I believe that is simply naive to think that any historian is unbiased. Every perspective on historical events is somebody's perspective. So I suggest it is somewhat unrealistic to expect an historical account to be written by an "unbiased" person in order to at least be considered as credible.
I suggest that we need to accept the universality of bias and come up with other criteria to judge the factual correctness of historical accounts.

The gospel authors weren't historians (Luke included). They never cite sources, Matthew and Luke freely plagiarize Mark and embellish, (we only deduce that Mark is their source from literary analysis), and we don't know the reliability of their sources either because they derive from the very groups that are religiously devoted to these stories being true. If you wanted to evaluate the historicity of Joseph Smith receiving golden tablets from an angel, for example, you don't tap all your information from a fanatic group of illiterate Mormons and ask them about the 'truth' of their beliefs. All you're invariably going to receive is a unilateral, tendentious version of the 'facts' involved principally concerned with supporting the validity of Mormonism...on the basis of Mormon beliefs themselves! This kind of 'exclusive bias', in a manner of speaking, cannot be seriously compared, I don't think, with the ineluctable, 'universal bias' that everyone shares, since we all individually hold a unique 'perspective' on things.

John is a different story altogether, and a case in point of how the gospel tradition was in the process of evolving, since with this gospel we cannot prove literary dependence. But its proof that these traditions were not fixed. Every NT scholar recognizes the problems posed by John's divergent traditions from the Synoptics, even if some of them have highly implausible ways of solving them.


Finis,
Eric

 

[wavy]

And yet, what we find is that historians such as Gray give more credence to other books of antiquity which are dated significantly farther from the events that they portray. This argument also ignores the more than obvious fact that many of the people alive during Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection would still be alive and could be interviewed as eyewitnesses. Not only that, it ignores that their society was an oral society. See below.

I don't know who 'Gray' is, but to propound some kind of detective work on the part of the early believing Christian community (constituted mostly of the poor and uneducated) is simply an absurd scenario. Experience and probability tell us that this just wasn't happening.

Entirely conjecture and irrelevant. I may as well ask James Gray if he was there and knows that this is how it happened. He is making this up and in the process he is also ignoring the very plain fact that this was an oral society. That is how they taught and passed things on. He is projecting the way society today has problems remembering things onto a society where this problem would be next to non-existent. Their's was an oral society, based on memorization; our's is not. To ignore this point is a grave mistake for a historian to make.

I think this is a naive way to look at the dynamics of oral transmission. It takes time for traditions to crystallize. The Hellenistic-Roman era is not my area of interest, but from studies in the Hebrew bible I know that scholars recognize the importance of the pre-literary history of the traditions in it; this doesn't nothing to prevent their conclusions on the evolution of these traditions.

And again, I know not this 'James Gray'.

The fact is that most historians, at least the most popular ones often seen in the media, do not treat other books of antiquity the same way they treat the Bible. Quite honestly, that is about the worst quote from a historian you could use. It's amazing how many times he misses the forest for the trees. I think Gray's bias is pretty evident.

I think this is nothing but a groundless, sweeping indictment of 'most historians'.


Finis,
Eric

 

[stranger]

wavy wrote:

The gospel authors weren't historians (Luke included). They never cite sources, Matthew and Luke freely plagiarize Mark and embellish, (we only deduce that Mark is their source from literary analysis), and we don't know the reliability of their sources either because they derive from the very groups that are religiously devoted to these stories being true.

Hello wavy,

Luke's perspective is very different from yours:

Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught....
Acts 1:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach...

Luke/ acts taken together forms a longer account that is primarily a historical narrative. Luke does cite some of his sources - by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. These most likely were the apostles whom he quotes at length eg Peter. While there were many eye witnesses - not all eye witnesses were described as servants of the word. Again servants of the word narrow the field and the apostles were certaintly that. Luke also cites literary sources such as psalms (acts 1:20) and prophesies (acts 2:16) as sources.

The case for reliability of the witnesses ultimately rests upon the apostles and apostolic authority, and the rest is history.

John is a different story altogether, and a case in point of how the gospel tradition was in the process of evolving, since with this gospel we cannot prove literary dependence. But its proof that these traditions were not fixed. Every NT scholar recognizes the problems posed by John's divergent traditions from the Synoptics, even if some of them have highly implausible ways of solving them.

John no doubt had his sources - but was an eyewitness and apostle as well, so he is not to be discounted as a source and author. Would you say that liberal scholars or conservative scholars for that matter, can offer a better witness to the historical apostolic faith (and what other faith is there?) than that of the apostles?

blessings

 

[wavy]

Luke/ acts taken together forms a longer account that is primarily a historical narrative. Luke does cite some of his sources - by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. These most likely were the apostles whom he quotes at length eg Peter. While there were many eye witnesses - not all eye witnesses were described as servants of the word. Again servants of the word narrow the field and the apostles were certaintly that. Luke also cites literary sources such as psalms (acts 1:20) and prophesies (acts 2:16) as sources.

'Psalms' and 'prophecies' are not historical sources bearing on the events in the first century. Funny that you would suggest it. And anyway, that Luke traces his sources ultimately back to 'eyewitnesses' doesn't mean he received this testimony directly, e.g., as in the case of Mark whose gospel he plagiarized and which his gospel, like Matthew's, is meant to supersede. That's why they arrogate his material without a word to his credit.

Luke's opening rhetoric doesn't change the fact that his 'history' doesn't come up to par with the lengthy Greek histories of which we have numerous examples. Luke is primarily a theologian before he is any kind of 'historian'. I'd invite anyone to read a Greek history to make the comparison. And the speeches in Acts are likely made up. More sophisticated Greek historiographers openly admit that they do this, as there would have obviously been no stenographers in those days recording these alleged public speeches of the apostles.

John no doubt had his sources - but was an eyewitness and apostle as well, so he is not to be discounted as a source and author. Would you say that liberal scholars or conservative scholars for that matter, can offer a better witness to the historical apostolic faith (and what other faith is there?) than that of the apostles?

The author of the gospel of John was not likely an eyewitness, and I was responding to Drew upon our mutual assumption that he wasn't.


Finis,
Eric

 

[AAA]

I remain interested in your response in our earlier discussion:

If the Christian god is apparently capable of providing us with a world where we can have free will yet not suffer, the how can this world be the best of all possible worlds, given that in this world, we are forced to suffer apparently because of our having free will?

As do I but I do not know what more I can add at this point.

Thus, the theory that free will explains evil (ie. that free will is a response to the problem of evil) is itself problematic. (1) It leaves unanswered the issue of free will without suffering in heaven (the Christian god must somehow take care of that but nobody knows how), and (2) it suggests that this world that the Christian god has created for us is not the best of all possible worlds that he could have created for us. How can we then trust that the Christian god is omnipotent and all-loving in that case?

In every other sphere of conversation, when a theory is proposed to explain a phenomenon or state of affairs, and that theory runs up against some serious explanatory problems, the theory is either seriously questioned or discarded.

I would propose that the Christian free will theory of explaining evil and the logical problem posed by evil be discarded.

 

[seekandlisten]

I would propose that the Christian free will theory of explaining evil be discarded.

I would agree with you as it is an incorrect assumption. It doesn't even make sense. God created us with free will why would he limit it?? Evil, suffering, etc. is caused, plain and simple, by our separation from God. It is nothing more than our own selfish desires that cause evil and suffering. If we all could show God's unconditional love there wouldn't be any suffering now would there?? It's a shame so many christians limit their freedom in Christ.

 

[Free]

Thus, the theory that free will explains evil (ie. that free will is a response to the problem of evil) is itself problematic.

Free will is a response to the problem of evil? What do you mean? Free will is how evil entered the world and continues to exist.

(1) It leaves unanswered the issue of free will without suffering in heaven (the Christian god must somehow take care of that but nobody knows how),

But you are continuing to ignore the main point in this regard, namely, that those in heaven have already exercised their free will in their choice to love God. Similarly, those who, in this life, use their free will to choose not to love God, they will no longer have a choice in whatever end they meet.

(2) it suggests that this world that the Christian god has created for us is not the best of all possible worlds that he could have created for us.

No, it does not.

I would propose that the Christian free will theory of explaining evil be discarded.

And what do you propose to take its place? What better explanation for evil do you have? You may disagree with it but if you have nothing better to replace it with, then why discard it.

I would agree with you as it is an incorrect assumption. It doesn't even make sense. God created us with free will why would he limit it?? Evil, suffering, etc. is caused, plain and simple, by our separation from God. It is nothing more than our own selfish desires that cause evil and suffering. If we all could show God's unconditional love there wouldn't be any suffering now would there?? It's a shame so many christians limit their freedom in Christ.

You've actually just shown that it does in fact make sense, except that your explanation is too simple--it ignores natural evil. And I have no idea how this has to do with a Christian limiting their freedom in Christ.

 

[AAA]

Free will is a response to the problem of evil? What do you mean? Free will is how evil entered the world and continues to exist.

I know that you may not see it this way, but many Christians, when faced with the traditional problem of evil as posed by Hume, reconcile the evil and suffering we experience in "creation" with the notion of an all-loving omnipotent god by claiming that such a god has actually provided us with the best of all possible worlds and this best possible world includes the loving gift of free will, which in turn necessarily introduces evil and suffering. My point is that this line of reasoning leads to serious explanatory problems as I have described in previous posts and therefore, ought to be abandoned. So far, I haven't heard any reasoned rebuttals.

(2) it suggests that this world that the Christian god has created for us is not the best of all possible worlds that he could have created for us.

No, it does not.

Are you just going to assert that?

Moving on...

(1) It leaves unanswered the issue of free will without suffering in heaven (the Christian god must somehow take care of that but nobody knows how),

But you are continuing to ignore the main point in this regard, namely, that those in heaven have already exercised their free will in their choice to love God. Similarly, those who, in this life, use their free will to choose not to love God, they will no longer have a choice in whatever end they meet.

I think that I have well understood the notion that we have free will in this world. My point is that according to your explanation, it is not mandatory that free will introduce suffering, so one must question why free will is considered an appropriate explanation for suffering in this world.

I would propose that the Christian free will theory of explaining evil be discarded.

And what do you propose to take its place? What better explanation for evil do you have? You may disagree with it but if you have nothing better to replace it with, then why discard it.

Given that I am an atheist, I am sure you will understand that I respectfully decline to contribute to Christian apologetics. That seems to be your role here.

Moving on again...

In an earlier post, I wrote that I have some other questions for you. Here's what you wrote about the solution to the logical problem of evil:

The central event in God's plan is sending the Son to die and be raised again. The Church at large is not entirely correct for making the events of the cross and resurrection a mere matter of salvation. This was the point in time when God himself overcame the power of evil with finality and broke into the world with newness of life. This is the answer to the problem of evil. And, I would argue, the only answer.

Can you please explain (1) what is meant by "God himself overcame the power of evil with finality and broke into the world with newness of life" (2) how the crucifixion and resurrection indicate that the extent with which we experience and observe evil and suffering is logically compatible with an omnipotent and all-loving god?

I remain interested in your response to the question posed in my earlier Sai Baba post. There has so far been an underwhelming response to that one which I think reveals the real bias at play in this thread regarding the gospels...

 

[AAA]

No reputable scholar I'm aware of makes the argument that because [the gospels] were written [30-70 years after Jesus' death] that they couldn't be eyewitness accounts.

Since you have agreed that the majority of historical or textual critics reject the gospels as eye-witness accounts, and given your apparent expertise in this field, can you summarize why most historical or textual critics do reject the gospels as eye-witness accounts?

Thanks in advance...

 

[stranger]

wavy wrote:

'Psalms' and 'prophecies' are not historical sources bearing on the events in the first century. Funny that you would suggest it. And anyway, that Luke traces his sources ultimately back to 'eyewitnesses' doesn't mean he received this testimony directly, e.g., as in the case of Mark whose gospel he plagiarized and which his gospel, like Matthew's, is meant to supersede. That's why they arrogate his material without a word to his credit.

Luke's opening rhetoric doesn't change the fact that his 'history' doesn't come up to par with the lengthy Greek histories of which we have numerous examples. Luke is primarily a theologian before he is any kind of 'historian'. I'd invite anyone to read a Greek history to make the comparison. And the speeches in Acts are likely made up. More sophisticated Greek historiographers openly admit that they do this, as there would have obviously been no stenographers in those days recording these alleged public speeches of the apostles.

The author of the gospel of John was not likely an eyewitness, and I was responding to Drew upon our mutual assumption that he wasn't.

Hello,

dates and authorship

With dates and authorship I favour the earliest external sources, together with internal evidence, unless new manuscript evidence is found. So a statement from the first few centuies AD carries more weight with me than a proposed theory of a later age. In a court of law what is the point of submitting evidence with a tag - 'exhibit Q' and have nothing attached to it? Also I appreciate that you would not believe in predictive prophesy whereas I do.

luke
My guess is the lengthy Greek histories you refer to aren't about the life of Jesus or the apostles, but that you are referring to historical method. Making up speeches would constitute bearing false witness wouldn't it? More credible would be the likelyhood that Luke (and Mark) travelled with Peter (and Paul) on some of their respective journeys.

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

cfLuke 1:2
... just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word

I would argue that Luke's account includes part of Peter's firsthand witness for the above likely reason that they travelled together.

blessings

 

[Free]

I know that you may not see it this way, but many Christians, when faced with the traditional problem of evil as posed by Hume, reconcile the evil and suffering we experience in "creation" with the notion of an all-loving omnipotent god by claiming that such a god has actually provided us with the best of all possible worlds and this best possible world includes the loving gift of free will, which in turn necessarily introduces evil and suffering. My point is that this line of reasoning leads to serious explanatory problems as I have described in previous posts and therefore, ought to be abandoned. So far, I haven't heard any reasoned rebuttals.

The problem with the problem of evil as it is traditionally posed is that it is too simple and ignores the complexity of evil.

Are you just going to assert that?

Umm....yes. ;)

And what do you propose to take its place? What better explanation for evil do you have? You may disagree with it but if you have nothing better to replace it with, then why discard it.

Given that I am an atheist, I am sure you will understand that I respectfully decline to contribute to Christian apologetics. That seems to be your role here.

I wasn't really asking you to contribute to Christian apologetics. Rather, pointing out that every worldview must provide answers as to how evil came to exist, why it continues to exist and what the solution is. If evil didn't come about through free will, then just how did it come about?


I started typing out a more detailed response to your other points but I am going to have to put more thought into this instead of just rehashing the typical answers. I'll try and respond at some point today.