Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

Except there is zero evidence that legends did arise. So I see no reason why my position is not justified. Do you?

Yes. It lack any support, as I have noted multiple times now. "We don't know" is the best that can be achieved for the specific issues under consideration (miracles, spoken words, activities of daily living).

You are just being dense now. The texts do say that the writers were in proximity to the eyewitnesses. Do you have evidence that they weren't? So Carp, did a love one of yours die 20-30 years ago? Do you remember what they died of or did you forget?

Again - internal and non-confirming evidence. The texts make a generic claim about access to eyewitnesses. You can show possible proximity. You cannot show connectivity. You are assuming.

What are you talking about. Luke knew Jesus' mother, Acts chapter one. And again, I'm speaking here of three specific unique claims. Christ as the Son of God, miracle worker, who came back from the dead.

And miracles are not subject to historical methodology. You have no tools for supporting these assertions.

What are you even talking about? Historical methodology does apply for the letters of Paul, the Gospels and Acts. And the majority of scholars do hold that Paul wrote the first seven of his letters, two more are contended, but possible. They pass your historical criterion. That criterion can not apply to miracles however.

Yes- and Paul was not an eyewitness. Back you your assumptions.

No we are back to Carp having no good reason to deny what is written in the New Testament, beside personal bias.

My basis is the lack of any substantiation for their truth with respect to miracles, spoken words, and day-to-day-details. Unlike you, I don't accept anything "on face value." I need to have cause to accept it - and that cause is lacking. SO far, all you have offered is speculation and leaping from information in the documents to hard/fast conclusions you cannot substantiate. And also this incessant tendency you have to try to make the discussion about what I believe to be true instead of what I am actually arguing: that you cannot substantiate what YOU believe to be true. I am quite aware that my beliefs about "what likely happened" are built on speculation - because the best I can achieve is "I don't know." You seem to be blind to the fact that the same is true for you.

[seer]

Yes. It lack any support, as I have noted multiple times now. "We don't know" is the best that can be achieved for the specific issues under consideration (miracles, spoken words, activities of daily living).

No Carp, we do know what they believed. So again, am I justified in holding the position I do. If not why not.

Again - internal and non-confirming evidence. The texts make a generic claim about access to eyewitnesses. You can show possible proximity. You cannot show connectivity. You are assuming.

That is just silly, there are very specific references to the specific people involved. Are you denying for instance that Paul knew Peter? How is that not connectivity?

And miracles are not subject to historical methodology. You have no tools for supporting these assertions.

Correct, but that tells us nothing about miracles - either way.

Yes- and Paul was not an eyewitness. Back you your assumptions.

What assumption? That Paul was a companion of the eyewitnesses?

My basis is the lack of any substantiation for their truth with respect to miracles, spoken words, and day-to-day-details. Unlike you, I don't accept anything "on face value." I need to have cause to accept it - and that cause is lacking. SO far, all you have offered is speculation and leaping from information in the documents to hard/fast conclusions you cannot substantiate. And also this incessant tendency you have to try to make the discussion about what I believe to be true instead of what I am actually arguing: that you cannot substantiate what YOU believe to be true. I am quite aware that my beliefs about "what likely happened" are built on speculation - because the best I can achieve is "I don't know." You seem to be blind to the fact that the same is true for you.

More BS, I have the texts and there are plenty of historical references to persons, places and things that can be verified. Lets face it Carp, like I said in the past, if we stripped all the supernatural claims out of the New Testament you would have little objection to the historicity of the rest.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, we do know what they believed. So again, am I justified in holding the position I do. If not why not.

Because you have failed to provide any defense for your assertions. I'm not sure how else to tell you this. All you have done is piled assumption upon assumption.

That is just silly, there are very specific references to the specific people involved. Are you denying for instance that Paul knew Peter? How is that not connectivity?

Why don't you try this: take a single quoted phrase attributed to Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels, and demonstrate how we know with any degree of certainty that Jesus actually said exactly that. Also, show the evidence chain that shows that the annunciation actually happened as described. If you don't want to go down the "miracle" chain, how about showing the evidence chain that shows that Joseph and his family slept in a stable on the night of his birth.

In attempting to do either of these things, I think you will see your problem.

Correct, but that tells us nothing about miracles - either way.

Which is my point. Thank you for confirming it.

What assumption? That Paul was a companion of the eyewitnesses?

That Paul was a companion of some of the Apostles is reasonably documented. That his claims about Jesus of Nazareth are an accurate reflection of accurate relating by those individuals is your problem.

More BS, I have the texts and there are plenty of historical references to persons, places and things that can be verified.

Constant appeal to the things that CAN be verified does not help you with the things that cannot, Seer. It's a bait and switch. The elements differ in kind.

Lets face it Carp, like I said in the past, if we stripped all the supernatural claims out of the New Testament you would have little objection to the historicity of the rest.

Actually, have pointed out objections to historicity on THREE counts, two of which you continue to ignore. You cannot support claims that the specific words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him, and you cannot support the claim that the details of day-to-day life documented actually occurred as described. I have listed the things you CAN historically defend as well as the ones you cannot. All you keep hearing is "miracles, miracles, miracles."

We already KNOW that you cannot historically defend the miracles. You were the one who pointed that out, remember? The other two things ALSO cannot be historically defended.

[seer]

Because you have failed to provide any defense for your assertions. I'm not sure how else to tell you this. All you have done is piled assumption upon assumption.

You keep saying that when all I'm doing is referencing the texts and relating what we know historically the early Christians believed. Really Carp, this is sad.

Why don't you try this: take a single quoted phrase attributed to Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels, and demonstrate how we know with any degree of certainty that Jesus actually said exactly that. Also, show the evidence chain that shows that the annunciation actually happened as described. If you don't want to go down the "miracle" chain, how about showing the evidence chain that shows that Joseph and his family slept in a stable on the night of his birth.

Carp, now you are moving the goal posts. I presented three claims about Christ that we know historically the early Christians believed. You have not offered one good reason to assume that these claims were inaccurate. So now you want to get into minutia. My position has been that the New Testament is generally reliable and accurate, it does not necessarily have to be inerrant. BTW there are scholars on both sides of the birth narrative issue.

Which is my point. Thank you for confirming it.

Which tells us nothing!!

That Paul was a companion of some of the Apostles is reasonably documented. That his claims about Jesus of Nazareth are an accurate reflection of accurate relating by those individuals is your problem.

So you admit now there was "connectivity?"

Constant appeal to the things that CAN be verified does not help you with the things that cannot, Seer. It's a bait and switch. The elements differ in kind.

So you admit that there are historically verifiable references. And what elements are you speaking of?

Actually, have pointed out objections to historicity on THREE counts, two of which you continue to ignore. You cannot support claims that the specific words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him, and you cannot support the claim that the details of day-to-day life documented actually occurred as described. I have listed the things you CAN historically defend as well as the ones you cannot. All you keep hearing is "miracles, miracles, miracles."

You are kidding right? And you can not support the idea that the teachings of Christ in the NT are not generally accurate, and you have not, on any level, shown that I am not justified in accepting the three claims about Christ I listed.

We already KNOW that you cannot historically defend the miracles. You were the one who pointed that out, remember? The other two things ALSO cannot be historically defended.

And I can not mathematically defend the idea that I loved my mother. Your whole objection is a non sequitur. Historical methods can not speak to miracles, but I can not defend miracles using the historical method, really? Your whole argument is idiotic...

[carpedm9587]

You keep saying that when all I'm doing is referencing the texts and relating what we know historically the early Christians believed. Really Carp, this is sad.

I agree. You're responses are truly getting sad.

Carp, now you are moving the goal posts. I presented three claims about Christ that we know historically the early Christians believed. You have not offered one good reason to assume that these claims were inaccurate. So now you want to get into minutia. My position has been that the New Testament is generally reliable and accurate, it does not necessarily have to be inerrant. BTW there are scholars on both sides of the birth narrative issue.

No - this is exactly what I have been saying:

Miracles - no historical methodology applies (you provided this)
Spoken words - inadequate evidence
Day-to-day details - inadequate evidence.

There is no moving of the goal posts. You claim you can defend these things (except miracles). So take any quote and defend it. Take any detail of the story (e.g., sleeping in the manger) and defend it. I predict you are going to dodge this because it exposes your problem.

Which tells us nothing!!

Also my point - so thanks again.

So you admit now there was "connectivity?"

Connectivity, as I used it, refers to the connection between the events in Jesus life and the claims made in the NT documents, Seer. You can show that the writers and some eyewitnesses co-existed. You cannot make the connection between the claims and the historical events they describe.

So you admit that there are historically verifiable references. And what elements are you speaking of?

I have never said otherwise, Seer. There are confirming resources that confirm cities, places, major personages, etc. There are even secondary sources confirming Jesus existed. These differ in kind from claims about miracles, exact spoken words, and detailed day-to-day activities.

You are kidding right?

Nope.

And you can not support the idea that the teachings of Christ in the NT are not generally accurate, and you have not, on any level, shown that I am not justified in accepting the three claims about Christ I listed.

And back you go to the argument you WANT to have instead of the argument we ARE having. First, I did not say anything about "generally accurate." I outlined three things you cannot substantiate historically: miracles, spoken words, details of day-to-day activities. I have never said I can refute your claims. I have said you have not adequately defended your claims. For these three things, "what happened" is lost to history (so far). And you have offered nothing except to repeatedly respond to things I am NOT saying, and try to shift the discussion to me "proving you wrong."

And I can not mathematically defend the idea that I loved my mother.

No one asked for this.

Your whole objection is a non sequitur. Historical methods can not speak to miracles, but I can not defend miracles using the historical method, really? Your whole argument is idiotic...

You do realize that you just confirmed my point again, right? ANd do you also realize that labeling me OR the argument with disparaging comments doesn't actually change the position you are in? Let me see if I can help you and reword the argument a bit - so you (maybe) can stay on track.

CLAIM: Seer cannot adequately defend historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth - specifically related to miracles, spoken words, and details of day-to-day activities described in the NT books.

"historical claims" means "claims that X happened in the past."

You have already acknowledged, multiple times, that it is not possible to historically defend miracles by any known means. So that part you have conceded. You can assert miracles, but you cannot defend that they are a real, historical event. I submit the same is true for spoken words and details of daily activity, but for a different reason: the historical method applies, but the evidence is missing.

I'm not sure how you're going to dodge it all this time, but you are resilient - so I'm sure you'll find another way.

[seer]

I agree. You're responses are truly getting sad.



No - this is exactly what I have been saying:

Miracles - no historical methodology applies (you provided this)
Spoken words - inadequate evidence
Day-to-day details - inadequate evidence.

There is no moving of the goal posts. You claim you can defend these things (except miracles). So take any quote and defend it. Take any detail of the story (e.g., sleeping in the manger) and defend it. I predict you are going to dodge this because it exposes your problem.



Also my point - so thanks again.



Connectivity, as I used it, refers to the connection between the events in Jesus life and the claims made in the NT documents, Seer. You can show that the writers and some eyewitnesses co-existed. You cannot make the connection between the claims and the historical events they describe.



I have never said otherwise, Seer. There are confirming resources that confirm cities, places, major personages, etc. There are even secondary sources confirming Jesus existed. These differ in kind from claims about miracles, exact spoken words, and detailed day-to-day activities.



Nope.



And back you go to the argument you WANT to have instead of the argument we ARE having. First, I did not say anything about "generally accurate." I outlined three things you cannot substantiate historically: miracles, spoken words, details of day-to-day activities. I have never said I can refute your claims. I have said you have not adequately defended your claims. For these three things, "what happened" is lost to history (so far). And you have offered nothing except to repeatedly respond to things I am NOT saying, and try to shift the discussion to me "proving you wrong."



No one asked for this.



You do realize that you just confirmed my point again, right? ANd do you also realize that labeling me OR the argument with disparaging comments doesn't actually change the position you are in? Let me see if I can help you and reword the argument a bit - so you (maybe) can stay on track.

CLAIM: Seer cannot adequately defend historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth - specifically related to miracles, spoken words, and details of day-to-day activities described in the NT books.

"historical claims" means "claims that X happened in the past."

You have already acknowledged, multiple times, that it is not possible to historically defend miracles by any known means. So that part you have conceded. You can assert miracles, but you cannot defend that they are a real, historical event. I submit the same is true for spoken words and details of daily activity, but for a different reason: the historical method applies, but the evidence is missing.

I'm not sure how you're going to dodge it all this time, but you are resilient - so I'm sure you'll find another way.

I'm done Carp, I will leave you with the last word...

[carpedm9587]

I'm done Carp, I will leave you with the last word...

I figured...

...when the going gets tough, the tough get...




Seer, I will close with this observation: turning your back on your problem doesn't make it go away. Trust me - I spent years turning my back on these problems. Eventually, I had to confront them. Intellectual honesty required me to explore them and (eventually) acknowledge them. Those were some of the first few steps that led me to my current beliefs - and to the general approach I have to life today: hold my precious "truths" loosely enough so that new information can be considered that might change the picture.

[seer]

I figured...

...when the going gets tough, the tough get...




Seer, I will close with this observation: turning your back on your problem doesn't make it go away. Trust me - I spent years turning my back on these problems. Eventually, I had to confront them. Intellectual honesty required me to explore them and (eventually) acknowledge them. Those were some of the first few steps that led me to my current beliefs - and to the general approach I have to life today: hold my precious "truths" loosely enough so that new information can be considered that might change the picture.

What a cheap shot!

[carpedm9587]

What a cheap shot!

Wow...spoken by the king of cheap shots. Seer, you can't seem to get through a post without "don't be dense" and "you're being dishonest" and "that's stupid/idiotic/ridiculous" and "this is sad" and "more BS."

Face it, Seer, you got backed into a debate corner, couldn't get out, and threw up your hands and walked out. Just acknowledging your problem would have been, well, a bit more intellectually honest (to borrow one of your "cheap shots"). And the closing paragraph was not intended to be a "cheap shot" (though the certainly was). It was a simple expression of what I see to be the reality of the situation. I think you are holding on to beliefs that simply cannot be defended.

That's why it says "atheist" under my name!

[Tassman]

It is a leap of faith to assume that you are not merely a character in my nightmare...

[Tassman]

You don't have legends growing up where the principles are still available. Unless they are intentionally deceiving. And yes Carp, these are things that one will not misremember, whether you want to admit it or not. And yes in many cases we do know who the eyewitness were. Peter, John, James the brother of Christ the other Apostles (save Judas) and a large number of the five hundred witnesses as referenced in the book of Acts, the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul. His earliest Epistles BTW.

[seer]

Nonsense:

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures,And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

It is in the context of the resurrection, and "optanomai" simply means to be seen or appear or to behold. No reference to it being a vision. And so what if it is the only place that mentions the 500, the resurrection is mentioned in many other places.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense:

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures,And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

It is in the context of the resurrection, and "optanomai" simply means to be seen or appear or to behold. No reference to it being a vision. And so what if it is the only place that mentions the 500, the resurrection is mentioned in many other places.

We have had claims of "visitations" by various Christian figures (Mary, Jesus, etc.) throughout the ages. To my knowledge, none have been verified to be "real." It is not clear to me why similar claims from the first century are worthy of any different treatment. And you have already noted that "miracles" are not subject to historical defense/analysis by any conventional historical methodology.

I'm not sure why this point keeps being put forward as if says anything. And continually prefacing your post with "nonsense" and "that's stupid" and all the rest is nothing other than "poisoning the well." It does nothing to further your argument, except underscore that you have to resort to these tactics because your argument is so weak.

[Tassman]

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures,And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

It is in the context of the resurrection, and "optanomai" simply means to be seen or appear or to behold. No reference to it being a vision.

appeared

And so what if it is the only place that mentions the 500, the resurrection is mentioned in many other places.

Indeed. Mostly in narratives set down 40 to 70 years after Jesus died by believers based upon tradition and hearsay.

[carpedm9587]

appeared

So I'm really kind of curious (and too lazy to read the entire thread). How did this segue become the topic of this thread?