How can we know that God is?

[tabibito]

Only to the ignorant or the bigoted.

Qualifications and academic experience carry some weight even if one might disagree with what the individual academic is proposing.

Arguments stand or fall on the strength of their own merits, not on the basis of the prestige (or lack thereof) of their proponents. Scholars will admit to that fact even when their actions show that they don't believe it.

[rogue06]

Arguments stand or fall on the strength of their own merits, not on the basis of the prestige (or lack thereof) of their proponents. Scholars will admit to that fact even when their actions show that they don't believe it.

Credentials fallacy, a.k.a., authority fallacy, and appeals to accomplishment.

[tabibito]

Credentials fallacy, a.k.a., authority fallacy, and appeals to accomplishment.

An essay submission with the claim that "X is true because Furigana sensei says so" is guaranteed to meet with a less than enthusiastic response from the lecturer or any other assessor. However, repeating Furigana sensei's argument uncritically will get past assessors all too often, as any number of published theses and dissertations from Britain and Europe show.

[rogue06]

An essay submission with the claim that "X is true because Furigana sensei says so" is guaranteed to meet with a less than enthusiastic response from the lecturer or any other assessor. However, repeating Furigana sensei's argument uncritically will get past assessors all too often, as any number of published theses and dissertations from Britain and Europe show.

I can't help but suspect that you're trying to slip an anime character reference past me

[Tassman]

By early church, you seem to mean the Constantinian church, or the timeframe of its formation. No exegesis of Biblical content leads to a reasonable conclusion that all of the Bible's content is "the word of God."

I was referring to the canonical scripture, all of which is considered God’s Word by believers.

It has already been pointed out that a non material encounter does not preclude the existence of a material body. (Skype eg)

Again, I am referring the canonical scriptures in which no material touchable body such as we get in the Gospels was recorded as being seen by Paul or his companions. A significant indication of the evolving concept of Jesus.

Majority consensus doesn't exactly change with the wind but it does change quite frequently, and consensus does not always adequately take into account all known relevant details.

Experienced professional scholars are more likely than amateurs to be aware of and “take into account all known relevant details” with professional detachment from bias.

In the citation Brown reports the majority consensus. He does not assert that the consensus is correct, though he does say that it is likely to be correct. My own assessment is that the consensus claim is unlikely.

The consensus of qualified, scholars is preferable to relying on the personal views of interested laymen with an agenda to promote.

[tabibito]

I can't help but suspect that you're trying to slip an anime character reference past me

Furigana - 振り仮名 - the kana ("letters") used above or beside kanji (chinese characters) to guide pronunciation.
Thinking about it, Okurigana sensei would be more appropriate.

[tabibito]

I was referring to the canonical scripture, all of which is considered God’s Word by believers.

It seems, given that you make a call here to (what you think is) majority lay opinion, that you rely on scholarship only when it is not inconvenient to do so.

Some believers, very much a minority in my experience, believe all the Bible to be inspired scripture. In a first Bible study session when I conduct a course, the first step is to guide attention to what the Bible itself says about inspired scripture. When the exercise is complete, students (almost without exception) accept that not all of the Bible's content is inspired - not because they have been told as much, but because they themselves have assessed the Biblical record itself.

Again, I am referring the canonical scriptures in which no material touchable body such as we get in the Gospels was recorded as being seen by Paul or his companions. A significant indication of the evolving concept of Jesus.

I am aware that you think it is what you refer to.

Experienced professional scholars are more likely than amateurs to be aware of and “take into account all known relevant details” with professional detachment from bias.

Your own experience should have taught you more caution. It was a professional scholar that you relied on for the significance and definitions of certain words, which in the final analysis had not been provided with anything like accuracy.

The consensus of qualified, scholars is preferable to relying on the personal views of interested laymen with an agenda to promote.

So? and what do you think my agenda is? Perhaps you know more about my agenda than I do. Whether a scholar with a reputation and income to protect is more objective than a layman would depend on whether the layman, with less skin in the game, researches his material. It also depends on what the layman's agenda is. What you believe the layman's or the professional's agenda to be has no influence on the facts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Arguments stand or fall on the strength of their own merits, not on the basis of the prestige (or lack thereof) of their proponents. Scholars will admit to that fact even when their actions show that they don't believe it.

Arguments are constructed on evidence. They are not plucked out of the ether like some abstract fruit and the strength of the argument will be premised on the evidence marshalled by the person presenting that argument.

And to repeat what I initially wrote, while no academic should automatically be deferred to simply because they have letters after their name, it cannot be denied that someone who has both the skills and experience in the discipline will have more understanding of that discipline than most lay persons.

Certainly some some academics have put forward some rather unusual contentions while others have their own "pet" theories. [James Tabor comes to mind]. And there is always ego. The eminent individual who dismisses the nonsense of the young upstart [e.g. Eddington and Chandrasekhar]. There is also the clash between those who hold to different theories [e.g. Steady State versus the Big Bang] or whether the resurrection is fact or fiction [e.g. Craig Evans and Lüdemann].

So far, I have seen nothing from you apart from your own interpretations and suggestions. That is personal opinion, not an argument.

[tabibito]

So far, I have seen nothing from you apart from your own interpretations and suggestions. That is personal opinion, not an argument.

My personal opinions are usually based in the material available from the Bible itself. Those opinions can be checked, oft-times by no more than a simple reading comprehension exercise, against copies of the source documents - or even betimes, the mere translations thereof. You declare those opinions invalid without ever bothering to actually check them for yourself. Nor do you subject contrary claims that you do accept as valid to any kind of scrutiny.

[tabibito]

My personal opinions are usually based in the material available from the Bible itself. Those opinions can be checked, oft-times by no more than a simple reading comprehension exercise, against copies of the source documents - or even betimes, the mere translations thereof. You declare my opinions invalid without ever bothering to actually check them for yourself. Nor do you subject contrary claims (that you do accept as valid) to any kind of scrutiny.

Edited to eliminate ambiguity

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My personal opinions are usually based in the material available from the Bible itself. Those opinions can be checked, oft-times by no more than a simple reading comprehension exercise, against copies of the source documents - or even betimes, the mere translations thereof. You declare those opinions invalid without ever bothering to actually check them for yourself. Nor do you subject contrary claims that you do accept as valid to any kind of scrutiny.

I do not consider using the texts to prove the texts a particularly rigorous approach to a very complex topic Nor do I consider speculative comments about what might have happened [despite nothing to support such speculation in the texts as they have come down to us] to have any credibility.

[tabibito]

I do not consider using the texts to prove the texts a particularly rigorous approach to a very complex topic

Ah, so you don't consider it necessary to examine the texts to determine what they actually do say before you decide what they say.

Nor do I consider speculative comments about what might have happened [despite nothing to support such speculation in the texts as they have come down to us] to have any credibility.

Ah, so you don't consider your sources valid.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ah, so you don't consider it necessary to examine the texts to determine what they actually do say before you decide what they say.

I never wrote that.

Ah, so you don't consider your sources valid.

I never wrote that either.

[tabibito]

I never wrote that.

You don't examine the texts to see if they actually say what your preferred commentators claim they do before making claims about the texts. You didn't need to actually say it.

I never wrote that either.

You don't compare the texts with your preferred commentators claims about the texts before making judgements about the texts, even when the opportunity to do so is presented. You didn't need to actually say it.

Your claim to being any kind of scholar is seriously in doubt.

[rogue06]

Your claim to being any kind of scholar is seriously in doubt.

So is she back to being a professional historian again or is she still pretending to be an anthropologist?