OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB,

Crap. I just realized that I hit "Edit" instead of "Quote" to respond to your comments on the law case; therefore, my reply is now under your name and your previous message is lost except what I quoted.

I apologize for this blunder and hope it does not cause confusion for anyone.

Yer a bad person. :p

Why would it be overruled? I would claim that their testimonies are immaterial to the case of proving the resurrection. How would you counter that they are relevant to the case?

Because I wouldn't be offering their testimony as "eyewitness" testimony - obviously, they're not eyewitnesses. The materiality of their testimony would rest on whether I could qualify them as experts. That's open for debate, but I think I could get that done

An experts testimony will be allowed when:
A) The witness' testimony relates to matters beyond the expierence of a lay person, or dispels a misconception common among lay persons
B) The witness qualifies as an expert by specialized skills, knowledge, training
C) The witness' testimony is based on reliable scientifice, technical or otehr specialized information.

They are not required to testify about facts, they offer opinions. I would, again, be offering the testimony not for fact, but instead to advance an alternative theory.

I'm trying to provide the counter arguments in order to show that your attempts to dismis Paul's, Peter's or any of other disciple's testimony as not being trustworthy are flawed because they are simply crap thrown against the wall in order to see what sticks rather than being grounded in true ways to determine the trustworthiness of their statements (perhaps my bias of being a qualitative researcher is showing here in that radically different standards are used to determine trustworthiness in such scientific endevours than in a court of law--in other words, just because you can provide other possible interpretations does not mean the interpretation I present is not trustworthy).

Well, whether or not they are crap thrown against a wall or not is up to the jury. What I'm doing is attacking their credibility, and I have to disagree with you... it is a way to determine the trustworthiness of their testimony. If I can elicit bias, or some sort of infirmary, etc. the jury is afforded a reason to consider whatever the testimony is in light of the bias/infirmary and make a determination as to if the witness is to be believed.

Another thing I would be able to do is attack the veracity of a wintesses claims in the following manner.

Matthew Chapter 1 discusses the geneology of Jesus. The author of Mattew "testifies" to this without indication of where he allegedly learned of this information. It's - according to the testimony, anyway - not something to could be in his common expierence, or something he observed. This is best exemplified in Matt 1:20 - 21 where Matthew testifies:

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew isn't competent to testify as to what visions Joseph has had. These events occured before Matthew had any association with Jesus, which was some 20 to 30 years after Jesus' birth. Matthew's inclusion of the testimony - of which he is NOT a witness - cuts towards the bias or believability of other remarks. He is more likely to testify in favor of the resurrection because he's on record as having "made up" testimony seeking to establish meaning in the alleged resurrection.

Obviously, I would prefer to offer a much more developed analysis which unfortunately time is not allowing today. But, I hope you can see some of the techniques at play here in how to consider the validity of testimony. What I'd be driving at (with the proper amount of preparation and time) is that Matthew is a story teller, with an axe to grind, and his testimony re: the resurrection is not to be believed, as Matthew has a history of "making things up" to fit his objective (that Jesus is the Christ).

I was watching a program last night called "the lost years of Jesus" on... the History Channel, I think it was... anyway... a interesting point was brought up with respect to the "testimonies" regarding the life and times of Jesus, and is one which I would attempt to elicit in this trial.... here's the jist of the point that was made:

Despite the fact that there were historians on the Emporer's payroll (charged with recording all sorts of important things) in Jesus' time, and despite the fact that the authors of the Gospels spend so much time outlining the relative importance of the man Jesus, his life and death, there is no mention of Jesus in any other texts from the time. What is the signifigance of this silence?

Well, getting back to something that was said above but deleted by accident... You mentioned that the Gnostics might testify that Jesus was a phantom... The silence from "official records" supports the contetion that Jesus the man didn't even exist, much less was he crucified and resurrected. Leaving the jury the ability to consider that the only people who testify about him are clearly biased and without any independant (I'll say non-consiratorial, though I don't quite feel right with the word "conspiracy") non-conspiratorial documentation or confirmation. In essence, it is the same as ten witnesses in a court of law telling the same fabrication on behalf of a mob boss.

Likwise, the silence of "official" records could well mean, even if Jesus did exist, very few people considered his life important enough to record. That is to say, despite the word of the Gospel testimonies, Jesus wasn't considered particularly important, certainly not important enough to record his existence as a "enemy" conquered by Rome.... even despite the Gospel testimony that Pilate was directly contacted regarding Jesus' "Threat" Pilates records make no mention of any meeting with Jesus. Despite Pilate allegedly finding Jesus "not guilty" on the counts charged (Luke 23:1-5), no official records exist from Pilate documenting this event. Did it happen? Maybe. Maybe not. That's for the jury to decide, of course.

John seems to think it happened... See, John 18:33-19:12 for his testimony.... But, John isn't competent to testify about this... he wasn't there. (Modern Experts think John was a non-witness) John is on record as admitting his purpose in writting, specifically the miricales (which he didn't witness) is to convince people Jesus is the Son of God.... John 20:30-31. A clear example of his bias.

.....

Obviously I don't intend for these quick rambling to be the full extent of the argument. But, again, I hope it gives you an idea of how the story of Jesus could be attacked in regard to whether or not it is "true" or if Jesus survives the "reasonable doubt" inquiry.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If you claimed that you had a vision of Christ, I would consider it a possibility as I believe he has/does appear to people in dreams and visions. Now if you claim you have a message from him, then the verasity of your claims of what he said would be measured against Scripture. As long as nothing contradicted Scripture, then yes, I would consider a visitation a real possibility.

But, didn't Jesus' views contradict the "scripture" of his day? Why is he to be believed?

It is very possible they were real visitations. Again, I would have to know what her vision stated in order to determine if it was Jesus or something else.

She wrote a book about it, as well as some number of songs which she claims we revealed to her by God (that is, she didn't write them, God did.) She had no musical training of any kind, and yet she learned how to play the guitar and sing these songs in a matter of days. If you would like a copy, PM me.

I would never judge someone insane merely because they believe they had a vision, even if it was something else other than Christ. I believe very much in a spiritual world. Furthermore, although I have never had a vision, I have had two occassions where I have heard the voice of God while praying and worshipping Him.

Cool. I figured you'd say that, actually... Come to think of it, I think we've talked about that before.

 

[Brewtus]

I would not agree that is entirely true. You need some evidence in order to have faith. It does not have to be verifiable, repeatable, scientific evidence; but some evidence or experience none the less. Otherwise, you have an empty faith. I would also hope that evidence is somewhat "solid" in nature, otherwise one could easily be lead astray.

If by "some evidence" you mean a holy book that claims it is the divinely inspired word of god or a spiritual experience, then this is what I deem to be just basic faith and not solid or supported by any real evidence. This is precisely why there are so many religions and "faiths" in the world that are mutually exclusive - they all claim to be the one true religion and god but are all equally plausible in a spiritual sense because they are subject solely to faith, not any sort of solid evidence. Yes I agree that many historical events that are described in the Bible and other holy books actually did take place, but belief in god (pick any one you want) is simply based on "empty faith". All followers of any god have been lead astray in the sense that one faith is as well supported as any other religion's faith.

 

[CookyPuss]

If by "some evidence" you mean a holy book that claims it is the divinely inspired word of god or a spiritual experience, then this is what I deem to be just basic faith and not solid or supported by any real evidence. This is precisely why there are so many religions and "faiths" in the world that are mutually exclusive - they all claim to be the one true religion and god but are all equally plausible in a spiritual sense because they are subject solely to faith, not any sort of solid evidence. Yes I agree that many historical events that are described in the Bible and other holy books actually did take place, but belief in god (pick any one you want) is simply based on "empty faith". All followers of any god have been lead astray in the sense that one faith is as well supported as any other religion's faith.

Actually, I think that evidence needs to go well beyond any "holy book." I also happen to believe that although many faiths can be valid and not necessarily mutally exclusive. My point is that one needs to move beyond the basics and truly weigh the evidence, not just to have blind faith. By "led astray" I was more or less referring to those which most of us would refer to as "nut jobs." And as we all know, nut jobs come in all flavor of faith.

 

[Brewtus]

Actually, I think that evidence needs to go well beyond any "holy book." I also happen to believe that although many faiths can be valid and not necessarily mutally exclusive. My point is that one needs to move beyond the basics and truly weigh the evidence, not just to have blind faith. By "led astray" I was more or less referring to those which most of us would refer to as "nut jobs." And as we all know, nut jobs come in all flavor of faith.

But wouldn't you agree that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (which constitute about 70% of the world's population) are all mutually exclusive? Certainly no Christian or Muslim would claim that the other religions are worshiping the same god and have the same spiritual beliefs as they do. So what is the evidence that makes one of these religions more credible than the others? If I had been raised in isolation someplace and had no prior exposure to any religions, how would a follower of each of these religions convince me to worship their god and that their religion was true without ultimately relying solely on faith?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Brew - the point you're hitting on is one of the key reasons why I don't subscribe to "organized" religion and stand by my belief that if there is indeed a God, He has very little to do with the Bible, Koran, etc. and is more likely to be found... or his "fingerprints" if you will... by studying his creation itself. (ie the universe).

 

[CookyPuss]

But wouldn't you agree that Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (which constitute about 70% of the world's population) are all mutually exclusive? Certainly no Christian or Muslim would claim that the other religions are worshiping the same god and have the same spiritual beliefs as they do. So what is the evidence that makes one of these religions more credible than the others? If I had been raised in isolation someplace and had no prior exposure to any religions, how would a follower of each of these religions convince me to worship their god and that their religion was true without ultimately relying solely on faith?

I agree that all religion is ultimately based upon faith, but not solely faith. Tradition, experience, and reason are equally important factors and means of producing "evidence" of a faith's validity.

It is also quite possible to believe that other religions have validity. In fact, the Unitarian Universalits are a prime example of this: Wiki

Edit: Almost forgot... last time I checked, Mulims and Christians do claim to worship the same God, the same one as the Jews.

 

[Brewtus]

Brew - the point you're hitting on is one of the key reasons why I don't subscribe to "organized" religion and stand by my belief that if there is indeed a God, He has very little to do with the Bible, Koran, etc. and is more likely to be found... or his "fingerprints" if you will... by studying his creation itself. (ie the universe).

Unfortunately you and your spiritual philosophy are in a very small minority of "believers" and it's a shame that more people don't approach religion in your way. The problem with the major organized religions is that they breed intolerance, corruption, dogmatism, discrimination, ignorance, etc. and are all equally plausible (or implausible as I see it).

 

[Brewtus]

I agree that all religion is ultimately based upon faith, but not solely faith. Tradition, experience, and reason are equally important factors and means of producing "evidence" of a faith's validity.

But that "evidence" is non-existent in the sense that it unilaterally supports the existence of one god or the divine beliefs of one religion over the others. There is strong evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun which is why just about every person on Earth believes this to be true, however there is no evidence supporting the spiritual beliefs of one religion over another which is why there are thousands of religious beliefs.

It is also quite possible to believe that other religions have validity. In fact, the Unitarian Universalits are a prime example of this: Wiki

It takes a lot less faith to be a UU than it does the other 3 religions I listed, as evidenced by the number of Atheists and Agonistics that are members.

Edit: Almost forgot... last time I checked, Mulims and Christians do claim to worship the same God, the same one as the Jews.

I disagree. The holy books and teachings of these organized religions are all mutually exclusive. The gods of each of these religions make completely different demands of their followers and require separate beliefs in order to go to heaven, etc.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Like this perhaps.

Maybe so, maybe not. Is the eyewitness reliable? Easily confused as to appearance? Or on cross examination allows that is looks like him, then somewhat like him -- and so on down that slippery slope toward nullification of the eyewitness account.

Lawyer: So you say you saw the defendant on the night in question?
Witness: Yes sir it was that man right there.
Lawyer: Sir do you normally wear glasses?
Witness: Well...yes...
Lawyer: Were you wearing your glasses on the night in question?
Witness: Well...no I had left them at home, but I am sure it was him.
Lawyer: What time of day was it when you claim you saw the defendant?
Witness: Oh I don't know around 7:00 pm.
Lawyer: So it was getting dark?
Witness: Yes, I would say so.
Lawyer: About how far away were you from the defendant when you claim to have seen him?
Witness: Oh I was across the street I guess.
Lawyer: And what were you doing before you claim to have seen the defendant?
Witness: Well I was at dinner with my friends.
Lawyer: Did you have anything to drink at dinner that evening?
Witness: Well...yes...I had three glasses of red wine.
Lawyer: So to summarize after three glasses of wine, from across the street, at night, without your glasses you saw the defendant, and you are CERTAIN that you saw him and not someone else?
Witness: Yes I'm sure.
Lawyer: No further questions.

 

[CookyPuss]

But that "evidence" is non-existent in the sense that it unilaterally supports the existence of one god or the divine beliefs of one religion over the others. There is strong evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun which is why just about every person on Earth believes this to be true, however there is no evidence supporting the spiritual beliefs of one religion over another which is why there are thousands of religious beliefs.

There are general trends in religion over history much like your Earth/Sun example. Over the centuries there has been a movement for multi to monotheistic belief globally. It was as sudden as the shift from the believing the sun revolved around the earth, but the shift has occurred. Each faith presents its own "evidence" and obviously some faiths are more compelling than others as their gather followers. Everything we "know" is ultimately based upon some level of faith. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. There are some agreed upon theories to which most people subscribe, but we must also acknowledge that tomorrow we may wake up to a new discovery that will change "everything." I think the original Matrix movie deals with this philisophical point as well as any scholar's work on the subject. So, no, there exists no evidence that proves one religion over another. However, each has its own evidence to exhibit its validity. Overtime, certain beliefs have carried forward more than others and tend to be a part of all major faith systems.

It takes a lot less faith to be a UU than it does the other 3 religions I listed, as evidenced by the number of Atheists and Agonistics that are members.

How so? I think it takes an amazing amount of faith to belong to UU. I am not a member myself, but I think it takes a great deal of faith to believe that their are greater principles than one's own and to explore one's own faith journey in the face of contradictory belief systems. The Unitarian movement was originally a Christian movement which branched out to be inclusive of other faiths to promote greater understanding. You commend BKB for going his own way, but you readily dismiss an organiztion which allows its members to do just that.

I disagree. The holy books and teachings of these organized religions are all mutually exclusive. The gods of each of these religions make completely different demands of their followers and require separate beliefs in order to go to heaven, etc.

Various sects of each faith do fall into your depiction. However, the religious tenants on which each faith is based are essentially the same. They have been presented as mutually exclusive by many, but I would argue strongly that to view them only as such is very narrow-minded. Jews and Christians managed to co-exist in synagogues for decades before they split (primarily for political and not theological reasons). Muslims also worship the God of Abraham and regard Jesus as a prophet.

 

[Brewtus]

There are general trends in religion over history much like your Earth/Sun example. Over the centuries there has been a movement for multi to monotheistic belief globally. It was as sudden as the shift from the believing the sun revolved around the earth, but the shift has occurred. Each faith presents its own "evidence" and obviously some faiths are more compelling than others as their gather followers. Everything we "know" is ultimately based upon some level of faith. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. There are some agreed upon theories to which most people subscribe, but we must also acknowledge that tomorrow we may wake up to a new discovery that will change "everything." I think the original Matrix movie deals with this philisophical point as well as any scholar's work on the subject. So, no, there exists no evidence that proves one religion over another. However, each has its own evidence to exhibit its validity. Overtime, certain beliefs have carried forward more than others and tend to be a part of all major faith systems.

But religion and faith are not subject to revision based on new discoveries or evidence as science is. That is what faith is all about - believing in scripture that was written thousands of years ago which is not subject to new evidence. If it were confirmed tomorrow that the actual body of Christ was found buried in his tomb, would every Christian then just decide that their religious beliefs were nice while they lasted but now that it's been proved that Christ did rise from the dead they should look for another god?

How so? I think it takes an amazing amount of faith to belong to UU. I am not a member myself, but I think it takes a great deal of faith to believe that their are greater principles than one's own and to explore one's own faith journey in the face of contradictory belief systems. The Unitarian movement was originally a Christian movement which branched out to be inclusive of other faiths to promote greater understanding. You commend BKB for going his own way, but you readily dismiss an organiztion which allows its members to do just that.

I know very little about the UU, but to me it seems a more plausible spiritual pursuit than the other 3 religions I mentioned and I did not mean to dismiss it the same.

Various sects of each faith do fall into your depiction. However, the religious tenants on which each faith is based are essentially the same. They have been presented as mutually exclusive by many, but I would argue strongly that to view them only as such is very narrow-minded. Jews and Christians managed to co-exist in synagogues for decades before they split (primarily for political and not theological reasons). Muslims also worship the God of Abraham and regard Jesus as a prophet.

Yes they all share some of the same historical foundations, but I still would argue that they are mutually exclusive in their core beliefs. Christians believe that Christ was the son of God who died for the sins of man and then was resurrected. This is the primary core tenant of Christianity and if one does not believe this, they cannot call themselves Christian. Jews and Muslims do not share this belief and in fact are told in their holy books to kill those who worship other gods (i.e. Christ). There is no way you can argue that they all worship the same god, live by the same tenants and commandments and believe that they are going to the same heaven.

 

[Bleed S & G]

All the 'science' guys out there.. without the exsitence of a supreme being, one that supercedes the laws of nature.. how is it possible we are here? I mean if matter cannot be created nor destroyed.. where did it come from? Before I get 'the big bang' back as an answer.. the big bang only dispersed.. it didn't create.

 

[sandgk]

All the 'science' guys out there.. without the exsitence of a supreme being, one that supercedes the laws of nature.. how is it possible we are here? I mean if matter cannot be created nor destroyed.. where did it come from? Before I get 'the big bang' back as an answer.. the big bang only dispersed.. it didn't create.

42

 

[Brewtus]

All the 'science' guys out there.. without the exsitence of a supreme being, one that supercedes the laws of nature.. how is it possible we are here? I mean if matter cannot be created nor destroyed.. where did it come from? Before I get 'the big bang' back as an answer.. the big bang only dispersed.. it didn't create.

This is known as the "Argument from First Cause". You can do a Google search for it to read more, but in essense it comes down to if the creation of the Universe requires a first cause (i.e. God), then God would also require a cause. Or also, if a first cause is required why would it have to be God? This could be a whole new discussion thread.:)