by jimwalton » Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:29 pm
> But if you can't prove that he did, then your claim fails, and you just admitted you can't prove he did.
My claim doesn't fail. I just can't substantiate it. There are many pieces from history that are gone to us now. We can't substantiate many things that are historical references. That doesn't mean my claim fails. My claim is that faith is based on evidence, and in the case of Moses, he was not asked to believe until he had been evidence, so my claim stands. I can't substantiate that evidence, but my assertion that the Bible teaches that faith is based in evidence stands firm.
> The people of the day that you can't even know existed.
Again, my point is that the Bible teaches that faith is evidentiary. While there are many people in the Bible who can't be corroborated from extrabibilical sources, so also there many people from history who are mentioned only once whose existence can't be corroborated from other sources. It doesn't discredit the Bible any more than it discredits thousands, if not millions, of people mentioned in various artifacts and records. I was just reading an article the other day about Aper-El. His tomb was recently found in Egypt. He was Semite who rose to power with the title of vizier. There is no corroboration of this man, and we don't know who authored the artifacts. Do we just throw it out? Of course not. There are many people we know from antiquity who can't be corroborated.
> But you don't know that a burning bush spoke to Moses or that gods even exist. Clear difference.
There are many logical and experiential evidences for the existence of God. His existence is not only possible, but logically probably. And if such a deity exists, his speaking in a burning bush is as easy as lighting a campfire.
> Not really.
Uh huh.
> "A woman shall not instruct a man"
A little research would be of benefit. Paul is writing to a particular city in a particular culture context dealing with a particular problem. This is nowhere near a universal rule, but a solution for a limited problem. There's no more problem with this than firing a particular person from a company because he's a problem, or convicting a politician who has done something illegal. We don't take small solutions and elevate them to universal principles.
> the Exodus, which is essentially debunked
Again, a little research would be beneficial. The Exodus is nowhere near being debunked. There is no positive evidence to substantiate it, but neither is there any negative evidence to debunk it. Much of the information given in Exodus 1-14 is well substantiated, just not the exodus itself. But there is zero evidence that debunks it.
> the flood
Again, a little research is beneficial. The flood was not a global deluge but a massively regional catastrophe. We can talk about this more if you wish, but I can't spend a page giving you the cases for each of your casuals toss-off topics here.
> the ressurection has no source outside the bible
Sure it does. Many of the Church Fathers speak of it.
> nor any of the supposed miracles
A bowl recently discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, dates somewhere from about 125 BC to the first century AD. The engraving reads (in Greek) "dia chrstou o goistais," translated by the excavation team as "through Christ the magician." It is speculated that a first-century magician used it in the work he was doing to invoke the name of Jesus, showing from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known for his miracles.
> Herod and Quirinias weren't both ruling at the same time as Herod died at least 10 years before Quirinias took over.
First of all, Luke says that this was the "first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Since Josephus mentions only one for Quirinius, there obviously is still some information yet to be discovered before we cavalierly brush off Luke. Secondly, while many people are willing to brush off Josephus entirely (since Christians claim he mentions Christ), they are tenacious to hold onto to Josephus's mention of Quirinius. It's a little bit of a double standard. Third, Quirinius is called a "hegemon" by Luke. This is a different term than "governor." Luke may be speaking of something different than Josephus. Fourth, there are different ways to translate "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." This is all a much longer discussion, but suffice it to say that your quick toss-off is not so quick and/or settled.
> Not ot mention that the census AND the baby billing never happened in either story.
As far as we know, Rome took censuses every 14 years. We know of one in AD 6, which means the previous one would probably have taken place in 8 BC. Since Jesus was probably born in 6 or 5 BC, and since censuses took several years to execute, a census in Palestine in 6 or 5 BC is warranted. Second, Luke doesn't use the word "census," but rather "registration." third, we have from official records that Caesar Augustus laid down requirements for an ongoing process, not one massive poll taking. Evidence from Egypt shows an ongoing census at the time of Christ’s birth with 14-year intervals for enrollment. Birth records from the early second-century in Egypt indicate that the census was still in operation, and it gives us a look at the method used for organization of the census. I addition, *The Deeds of the Divine Augustus* (paragraph 8, lines 2-4) confirms that Augustus himself ordered a census in 8 BC —a census that sounds empire-wide in scope (with 4 million citizens in an empire in which most people were not citizens). In a world without the ability to travel and communicate nearly as speedily as ours today, it would be expected that it might take such an endeavor years to unfold and come to both fruition and completion. In other words, it's not nearly as clean cut and settled as you seem to think. These are vast, ongoing research and conversations.
As far as the baby killing (I assume you mean baby killing, not billing), you're right that history doesn't record this particular slaughter. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Documents were often written for archives, generally either of an economic or legal nature. There is no reason to think that a furtive jealous raid on a tiny village (10-15 killed) would make it to the official annals. Herod's murderous practices, however, are well documented.
At the same time there are at least two references in ancient writers that make one wonder if the event was known. The Jewish pseudepigraphal Testament of Moses (6.4), which contains other after-the-fact “prophecies” about Herod the Great, makes an elliptical reference to the fact that “he will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none.” Since Josephus narrates no murders of children, might the young here refer to the incident in Matthew? The Latin writer Macrobius (Saturnalia 2.4.11) in the late 4th century states more plainly, “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked “It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son.” The fact that Macrobius mentions it more tangentially makes it less likely to have been invented. He could have known it from Matthew’s Gospel, but since he was not a Christian he may have had no cause to believe it from that source alone.
> The number of people at the tomb is inconsistent, what Jesus said, who he showed up two.
Yes they are, but not contradictory. Suppose there's a big party at my house, and when talking to someone the next day I say, "My two best friends were there." I am not implying that's all who were there. The Gospel accounts of the resurrection are in the same vein.
> One account has zombies flooding the streets which no other account (or ANY other source) describes.
Matthew's narrative of the "zombies" (your casual toss-off) is worthy of a deeper discussion. Suffice it to say, a little research is of benefit.
> Except Thomas is CHASTISED for doubting.
Yes, Thomas is chastised. All of his fellow apostles unanimously told him they had seen Jesus. That should have counted for something. He should have respected them enough to at least wonder.
> So yes, a bit, because what you're drawing from the story is exactly the opposite meaning.
No, not at all. The exact meaning of the text is Jesus giving evidence of himself to various people in various places at various times. Thomas is part of that narrative. The point of the Thomas pericope is not "Faith means believing things there's no evidence for," but rather that Jesus was flesh-and-blood resurrected from the dead giving evidence of such in numerous ways, places, and times.
> Those two sentences mean exactly the opposite things.
A little research would be of benefit. What Jesus said is μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός: "Stop becoming disbelieving but instead believe." The Old Testament Scriptures point to the resurrection. Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection to the disciples at least a half a dozen times (verbal evidence). Repeatedly they had seen Jesus do miracles, even raising the dead (physical evidence). Thomas has had the unanimous testimony of his fellow apostles (experiential evidence, eyewitness testimony). Of course Thomas is being chastised. He has had enough evidence to make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to show that the assumption is reasonable. It certainly doesn't mean that faith is believing in things for which there is no evidence.
> The bible is the claim, not the evidence. You show me a secular source stating people came back to life and started roaming around Jerusalem and then we'll talk. Until then, no, there isn't any evidence.
Well, if that's your only criteria, no wonder you don't want to talk. A wiser course, in my opinion, would be for you to open your mind a little bit to a wider scope of knowledge. There are many things to learn here, and they don't all depend on secular corroboration that dead people walked around Jerusalem. But we can't talk about that, as you wish.
> But if you can't prove that he did, then your claim fails, and you just admitted you can't prove he did.
My claim doesn't fail. I just can't substantiate it. There are many pieces from history that are gone to us now. We can't substantiate many things that are historical references. That doesn't mean my claim fails. My claim is that faith is based on evidence, and in the case of Moses, he was not asked to believe until he had been evidence, so my claim stands. I can't substantiate that evidence, but my assertion that the Bible teaches that faith is based in evidence stands firm.
> The people of the day that you can't even know existed.
Again, my point is that the Bible teaches that faith is evidentiary. While there are many people in the Bible who can't be corroborated from extrabibilical sources, so also there many people from history who are mentioned only once whose existence can't be corroborated from other sources. It doesn't discredit the Bible any more than it discredits thousands, if not millions, of people mentioned in various artifacts and records. I was just reading an article the other day about Aper-El. His tomb was recently found in Egypt. He was Semite who rose to power with the title of vizier. There is no corroboration of this man, and we don't know who authored the artifacts. Do we just throw it out? Of course not. There are many people we know from antiquity who can't be corroborated.
> But you don't know that a burning bush spoke to Moses or that gods even exist. Clear difference.
There are many logical and experiential evidences for the existence of God. His existence is not only possible, but logically probably. And if such a deity exists, his speaking in a burning bush is as easy as lighting a campfire.
> Not really.
Uh huh.
> "A woman shall not instruct a man"
A little research would be of benefit. Paul is writing to a particular city in a particular culture context dealing with a particular problem. This is nowhere near a universal rule, but a solution for a limited problem. There's no more problem with this than firing a particular person from a company because he's a problem, or convicting a politician who has done something illegal. We don't take small solutions and elevate them to universal principles.
> the Exodus, which is essentially debunked
Again, a little research would be beneficial. The Exodus is nowhere near being debunked. There is no positive evidence to substantiate it, but neither is there any negative evidence to debunk it. Much of the information given in Exodus 1-14 is well substantiated, just not the exodus itself. But there is zero evidence that debunks it.
> the flood
Again, a little research is beneficial. The flood was not a global deluge but a massively regional catastrophe. We can talk about this more if you wish, but I can't spend a page giving you the cases for each of your casuals toss-off topics here.
> the ressurection has no source outside the bible
Sure it does. Many of the Church Fathers speak of it.
> nor any of the supposed miracles
A bowl recently discovered in Alexandria, Egypt, dates somewhere from about 125 BC to the first century AD. The engraving reads (in Greek) "dia chrstou o goistais," translated by the excavation team as "through Christ the magician." It is speculated that a first-century magician used it in the work he was doing to invoke the name of Jesus, showing from an extra-biblical source that Jesus was known for his miracles.
> Herod and Quirinias weren't both ruling at the same time as Herod died at least 10 years before Quirinias took over.
First of all, Luke says that this was the "first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Since Josephus mentions only one for Quirinius, there obviously is still some information yet to be discovered before we cavalierly brush off Luke. Secondly, while many people are willing to brush off Josephus entirely (since Christians claim he mentions Christ), they are tenacious to hold onto to Josephus's mention of Quirinius. It's a little bit of a double standard. Third, Quirinius is called a "hegemon" by Luke. This is a different term than "governor." Luke may be speaking of something different than Josephus. Fourth, there are different ways to translate "This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." This is all a much longer discussion, but suffice it to say that your quick toss-off is not so quick and/or settled.
> Not ot mention that the census AND the baby billing never happened in either story.
As far as we know, Rome took censuses every 14 years. We know of one in AD 6, which means the previous one would probably have taken place in 8 BC. Since Jesus was probably born in 6 or 5 BC, and since censuses took several years to execute, a census in Palestine in 6 or 5 BC is warranted. Second, Luke doesn't use the word "census," but rather "registration." third, we have from official records that Caesar Augustus laid down requirements for an ongoing process, not one massive poll taking. Evidence from Egypt shows an ongoing census at the time of Christ’s birth with 14-year intervals for enrollment. Birth records from the early second-century in Egypt indicate that the census was still in operation, and it gives us a look at the method used for organization of the census. I addition, *The Deeds of the Divine Augustus* (paragraph 8, lines 2-4) confirms that Augustus himself ordered a census in 8 BC —a census that sounds empire-wide in scope (with 4 million citizens in an empire in which most people were not citizens). In a world without the ability to travel and communicate nearly as speedily as ours today, it would be expected that it might take such an endeavor years to unfold and come to both fruition and completion. In other words, it's not nearly as clean cut and settled as you seem to think. These are vast, ongoing research and conversations.
As far as the baby killing (I assume you mean baby killing, not billing), you're right that history doesn't record this particular slaughter. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Documents were often written for archives, generally either of an economic or legal nature. There is no reason to think that a furtive jealous raid on a tiny village (10-15 killed) would make it to the official annals. Herod's murderous practices, however, are well documented.
At the same time there are at least two references in ancient writers that make one wonder if the event was known. The Jewish pseudepigraphal Testament of Moses (6.4), which contains other after-the-fact “prophecies” about Herod the Great, makes an elliptical reference to the fact that “he will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none.” Since Josephus narrates no murders of children, might the young here refer to the incident in Matthew? The Latin writer Macrobius (Saturnalia 2.4.11) in the late 4th century states more plainly, “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, [Augustus] remarked “It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son.” The fact that Macrobius mentions it more tangentially makes it less likely to have been invented. He could have known it from Matthew’s Gospel, but since he was not a Christian he may have had no cause to believe it from that source alone.
> The number of people at the tomb is inconsistent, what Jesus said, who he showed up two.
Yes they are, but not contradictory. Suppose there's a big party at my house, and when talking to someone the next day I say, "My two best friends were there." I am not implying that's all who were there. The Gospel accounts of the resurrection are in the same vein.
> One account has zombies flooding the streets which no other account (or ANY other source) describes.
Matthew's narrative of the "zombies" (your casual toss-off) is worthy of a deeper discussion. Suffice it to say, a little research is of benefit.
> Except Thomas is CHASTISED for doubting.
Yes, Thomas is chastised. All of his fellow apostles unanimously told him they had seen Jesus. That should have counted for something. He should have respected them enough to at least wonder.
> So yes, a bit, because what you're drawing from the story is exactly the opposite meaning.
No, not at all. The exact meaning of the text is Jesus giving evidence of himself to various people in various places at various times. Thomas is part of that narrative. The point of the Thomas pericope is not "Faith means believing things there's no evidence for," but rather that Jesus was flesh-and-blood resurrected from the dead giving evidence of such in numerous ways, places, and times.
> Those two sentences mean exactly the opposite things.
A little research would be of benefit. What Jesus said is μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός: "Stop becoming disbelieving but instead believe." The Old Testament Scriptures point to the resurrection. Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection to the disciples at least a half a dozen times (verbal evidence). Repeatedly they had seen Jesus do miracles, even raising the dead (physical evidence). Thomas has had the unanimous testimony of his fellow apostles (experiential evidence, eyewitness testimony). Of course Thomas is being chastised. He has had enough evidence to make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to show that the assumption is reasonable. It certainly doesn't mean that faith is believing in things for which there is no evidence.
> The bible is the claim, not the evidence. You show me a secular source stating people came back to life and started roaming around Jerusalem and then we'll talk. Until then, no, there isn't any evidence.
Well, if that's your only criteria, no wonder you don't want to talk. A wiser course, in my opinion, would be for you to open your mind a little bit to a wider scope of knowledge. There are many things to learn here, and they don't all depend on secular corroboration that dead people walked around Jerusalem. But we can't talk about that, as you wish.