Third Response To Jensen
In Jensen's next response, he chose to merge it in with his previous response. I suppose that might be helpful for people who hadn't already read any -- they are new to the conversation. But I think it harder for people that have already read the previous entries. So, I will continue to make my responses as separate entries.
Jensen: As I recall, I never asked Doland's permission to critique his article and Doland never asked my permission to critique my response. Likewise we didn't ask each other permission to refuse to respond to anything the other had written.
Exactly! Which is why I took umbrage at your demand on how I need to respond to you. You said:
Jensen: Doland needs to respond to my critique directly or simply refuse to answer it.
And I'm telling you no the hell I don't.
Jensen: I find it very strange Doland now acts as though I have some responsibility to respond to whatever portion of his writings he wants me to respond to.
And I find it strange that Jensen has such difficulty comprehending what I write. I never said what you said above. What I said was is that no, I don't have to respond to you per your demand above. It was YOUR demand that I was denying. True, I did say that you should be willing to read a few articles that I link to, and that's a true statement. Sure, you don't have to. But I don't have to spoon feed you either. If you can't read a few articles, then why should I bother with you at all? It is also true that I did not respond to all of your tome, but, I did read it all. And if you had linked to a relevant article or two, I would have read them too. That is all I was asking of you. Do it or not, but, remember, not doing it is proof to me that you don't actually have any desire to learn.
And, I might go back and respond to some of the rest of your tome, but, frankly, you aren't giving me much motivation here...
Jensen: Where, exactly, is there a contradiction? Yes, God does interfere in the world by creating us with each a given personality and certain abilities. That's not exactly interfering in our lives, that's making us what we are. But our ability to freely choose—for God to give us this is for God to say that here is a point at which I will not interfere. Does Doland think there is a contradiction in "interfering" in our lives at one point but not at another?
I think Jensen didn't read my revised article on free will. Specifically, I hope the Terminator analogy my be illuminating. I will quote it here:
Jensen: As I recall, I never asked Doland's permission to critique his article and Doland never asked my permission to critique my response. Likewise we didn't ask each other permission to refuse to respond to anything the other had written.
Exactly! Which is why I took umbrage at your demand on how I need to respond to you. You said:
Jensen: Doland needs to respond to my critique directly or simply refuse to answer it.
And I'm telling you no the hell I don't.
Jensen: I find it very strange Doland now acts as though I have some responsibility to respond to whatever portion of his writings he wants me to respond to.
And I find it strange that Jensen has such difficulty comprehending what I write. I never said what you said above. What I said was is that no, I don't have to respond to you per your demand above. It was YOUR demand that I was denying. True, I did say that you should be willing to read a few articles that I link to, and that's a true statement. Sure, you don't have to. But I don't have to spoon feed you either. If you can't read a few articles, then why should I bother with you at all? It is also true that I did not respond to all of your tome, but, I did read it all. And if you had linked to a relevant article or two, I would have read them too. That is all I was asking of you. Do it or not, but, remember, not doing it is proof to me that you don't actually have any desire to learn.
And, I might go back and respond to some of the rest of your tome, but, frankly, you aren't giving me much motivation here...
Jensen: Where, exactly, is there a contradiction? Yes, God does interfere in the world by creating us with each a given personality and certain abilities. That's not exactly interfering in our lives, that's making us what we are. But our ability to freely choose—for God to give us this is for God to say that here is a point at which I will not interfere. Does Doland think there is a contradiction in "interfering" in our lives at one point but not at another?
I think Jensen didn't read my revised article on free will. Specifically, I hope the Terminator analogy my be illuminating. I will quote it here:
|
Here is perhaps another way to think of it. I will use another analogy, this time from the movie The Terminator. In the terminator movies, humans programmed the terminators, but, they developed self awareness and progressed beyond their initial programming. I once encountered a Christian that argued that humans are somewhat akin to the terminator characters, wherein God conceived the original human "programming" but that our free will allows us to progress beyond that which God "programmed" into us.
At least theoretically, a terminator type scenario could happen with human programmers. I’m a programmer myself. I am not able to fully understand what results my code would produce in every possible scenario. That’s why there are bugs in software, the human engineer is imperfect. Now imagine God writing a computer program. Every line of code, He would know what it would do in every possible scenario. He could never write a ‘bug’ because he would never have any error. If God puts a line of code in that will result in “kill John Conner” He will know it. And if He didn’t want that result, He wouldn’t put in that line of code. So, now, to take this analogy to human personality, well, what’s the difference? It is much less predictable than lines of computer code, as a general rule. That is, for humans. But if there is a “line of code” in my personality that says “engage in illicit behavior in ‘X’ specific circumstance” God would know it is there – because HE PUT IT THERE! There is no way for God to make a terminator that does what He didn’t specifically program into it from the beginning. |
So, could God accidentally create a Terminator? Could God write a computer program that He wouldn't know exactly what every line of code would do in every situation? Could he program into a computer program a "free will"? What is the fundamental difference, besides complexity, to human personality and a computer program?
Further, whether this thing "free will" as being operated by a "spirit" or "soul" is technically possible or not, there is good evidence against its actual existence. Keith Augustine's article, "The Case Against Immortality" gives good evidence against the existence of the soul. I'd recommend reading it, but, if you won't, I'll give you one small piece of evidence I recently read from a different source. It may sound obscure and unrelated, but, give me a moment. I read an article about lithium as a nutrient. You may be aware that lithium is prescribed as a drug for some severe forms of depression and other mental illnesses. Well, in this article I read, it turns out the lithium, in small doses, is actually a necessary nutrient, involved in balancing neurotransmitters in the brain. A study of different towns in Texas showed that in towns with higher levels of lithium in the local drinking water had lower violent crime and mental illness. According to the study, the difference was very statistically significant, meaning not likely to be coincidental.
You could possibly challenge the study, but, for the moment, let us assume the study is accurate, low dose lithium is a necessary nutrient involved in the process of neurotransmitters in the brain and a deficiency of this nutrient increases one's risk of mental illness and propensity to violence. So, from my worldview, this makes perfect sense. Our brains are biochemical, our thoughts are biochemical. So, it is totally understandable how our behavior can be altered by even small changes in our brain's biochemistry. But from your worldview, how the hell is your "soul" knocked out of kilter by not having a few micrograms of lithium? How does that work? And, if you consider violent crime as a moral issue, as I presume we would, then your soul's morals are knocked out of kilter by missing a few micrograms of lithium. How can that be?
Jensen7: If one's biochemistry determines one's choices then one simply cannot be free; unless, of course, one can play with words to make them mean exactly the opposite of what they normally mean. Equivocation may allow one to win any argument no matter how absurd.
You may have heard this here fancy word "equivocation" but that doesn't mean you know how to use it. Equivocation is when one either accidentally, or deceptively changes the meaning of a word in mid-argument. My discussion of the meaning of the words in question was intentional, and pointed out! I made it a point that we need to consider the meaning of the terms. Theists often just don't grasp that the meanings of the words they throw about aren't always as obvious as they may think. Like even what is a "god" if a one exists? We have to comprehend the meanings of the terms being used. Again, I was not deceptive, or accidental. I was deliberate and pointed it out. That is NOT equivocation.
Now, you say that from your understanding of being "free" we cannot be "free" if our choices are pure biochemical. Okay. I can work with this. What I'm saying is that in that case, you cannot be "free" if we have a soul either. For our choices instead of being "biochemical" would instead be "soul-ical" for lack of a better word. Meaning that even if our thoughts have some nonphysical component, that component still has an operating mode that when x and y and z conditions are met, the "soul" makes choice "q". Per my Terminator analogy, there just isn't any way for an omnipotent/omniscient entity to create some mechanism that can do things that aren't programmed into it from the beginning.
Jensen7: Note: I do not think I am making a self-contradiction by saying "before time existed" because I think we can extend time into timlessness.
And I think that blue can extend into non blueness. You are just babbling complete gibberish. It's just utter garbage.
Jensen7: Doland is here making empty claims, claims he cannot support. First he says " 'creation' requires order, meaning time." We can imagine a well ordered crystal, say, eternally existing.
ARRGH! Wrong meaning of the word "order". I meant ordered as in sequential. Things happen one after the other. To create means an order or a sequence of events, that kind of order. And so the idea of "creating" time is incoherent. And therefore it is garbage.
Jensen7: I have shown that repentance and regret in this case do no indicate making an error. Think of my illustration of the surgeon. Part of him regretted and repented of doing the surgery, part of him rejoiced in doing it. There was no error in his thinking. And people are not condemned for making mistakes, they are condemned for knowingly rejecting God and God's offer of salvation.
First off, you are again placing constraints upon God, that He could ever be in a situation where He would have to make a choice that happens to require something negative in the mix. Humans, being imperfect, can find themselves in situations like the surgeon, that he is forced to make a choice that is overall the best and yet has negative aspects. A PERFECT GOD COULD NEVER BE SO CONSTRAINED! I've said this repeatedly. Secondly, *nobody*, NOBODY "knowingly rejects God's offer of salvation". If I believed that the offer was real, I'd take it and so would EVERYBODY. Now, I have of course heard of this alleged offer. I've heard of a lot of things. Am I supposed to believe everything I hear? And if you say no, I shouldn't believe everything, but I should believe this particular thing because there is good evidence for it, even if you are right, then I am making a mistake by misreading the evidence. So I would be sent to hell because of a mistake.
Jensen7: Think about what is involved in making a square circle. It isn't that there is a limit to God's power to fail to produce such a thing, rather it is just nonsense.
What if the only reason why a "square circle" is nonsense because God defined that things cannot simultaneously have the property of "no straight sides" and "four straight sides", but that if God defined otherwise, then "square circles" would exist? Of course I don't believe that. I'm just saying that if God was truly omnipotent, then that would be the case.
Jensen7: And logic is not something that is outside of God that even God is subject to. God is subject to logic or reason because it is part of God's nature.
Could God have had a different nature? And if he had a different nature, would it be possible for square circles to exist? If you say no, God couldn't have had a different nature to make square circles to exist, then you are saying that there are certain facts about reality that simply have to be that way period, God or no God, obviating the need for a god at all.
Jensen7: God is reasonable and good
Who defines "reasonable and good"? There is much in the Bible where God is NOT reasonable or good. You will of course say that I don't understand, or that there are good reasons, or whatever. But, THAT, my friend, is equivocation. I KNOW what reasonable and good mean, and God of the Bible does NOT have those attributes. So, if you want to throw these words around "reasonable and good" but they don't mean what "reasonable and good" *actually* mean, then *you* are equivocating! (See, I actually know how to use the word...)
I might send your response to Carrier to him, to see if he would like to respond, though, I doubt he would take the time. I'm not an expert on the history, but, I think I have responses to most of your claims, which will follow. I will concede that at least some of your counter-arguments to Carrier sound reasonable. And this proves what? It proves that history is hard! That is what it proves. Every single datapoint on any historical event can have multiple explanations. The trick is to find the most likely explanation that explains all of the evidence. So, let me discuss your points. Carrier discussed that Caesar had to cross the Rubicon in order to move his army. You say:
Jensen7: The existence of the war or invasion of Italy is not in question, just the crossing.
You miss the argument entirely! Carrier had claimed that there was no other route to take. I see that your source disputes this, claiming that there were other routes. Though I tend to think that Carrier probably knows what he is talking about, your source could be right for all I know, I'm not an expert on the terrain. So, can we compromise on a weaker claim that crossing the Rubicon was a reasonable choice given the need to move the army? If so, we have these pieces of evidence accepted:
1. Caesar moved his army.
2. Crossing the Rubicon was one reasonable way to so.
Just these two pieces of information BY THEMSELVES make Caesar having crossed the Rubicon a high-probability proposition. So, even if Caesar was lying, Cisero was lying, and the historians all were working from poor sources, we STILL have the crossing as being a high-probability event!
You had said Cisero might lie for the purpose of placing more crimes at the feet of Caesar. But you have already conceded that Caesar DID move the army, taking one route or another wouldn't make any difference as far as the crimes of Caesar. So, Cisero would seem to be without motivation to lie about the path he took.
I could carry this on further, but, you should get the point. The point is, it is indeed true that any one of the datapoints could be in error. But taken as a whole, it seems fairly unlikely.
Jensen7: Then why didn't Suetonius say why his account and his proffered reason for the crossing were different from Plutarch's? Why doesn't Plutarch claim the belief later offered by Suetonius' that Caesar saw a god on the river playing a reed pipe and this was his reason for crossing? (For some historians, the claim of seeing such a supernatural being would be sufficient to consider the account discredited . . .
First, be honest, you also doubt Caesar saw a god on the river playing a reed pipe? Right? And yet you probably would have to concede that some of what Suetonius said was correct. Right? I'm doing the exact same thing in regards to the Gospels as you do with Suetonius' report -- accepting the probable and discarding the improbable. EXACTLY the same. Now, that said, a historian may well accept Suetonius' report that Caesar thought he saw that, or claimed to see that. And I'm willing to accept that, at least possibly, the Gospel writers thought they saw the things they wrote. I happen to think it being intentional fiction, at least in the case of the first Gospel of Mark as being more likely, but, I don't pretend to be able to prove it. So it is possible that the authors thought they saw what is reported. Just like it is possible that Caesar thought he saw what Suetonius said.
Jensen7: Well, if Mark took Peter's first hand account of Jesus' words and the events of his life, this should be considered virtually his literal words. Even if Peter paraphrased Jesus' words (or portions of them), we still have essentially Jesus' teachings.
First, you'll notice Mark never said that. If this is what Mark did, you don't think he'd like, maybe MENTION IT? Pretend for a moment that Christianity is false. Don't you think people who believed Christianity would embellish in order to add credibility? Don't you think Muslims embellish Islam's claims? So, Christians saying that "oh, yeah, we got all the goods right here" isn't particularly compelling. Just like to you, the signed affidavits in the Book of Mormon saying "yeah, we got all the goods right here" isn't compelling to you. If they guy who wrote the thing didn't feel it important to tell us that he used Peter, how do you really think people living 50 years or more later have good scoop on this information? They didn't, or at least, we don't have any good reason to think so. Your evidence is nothing.
And, even if Mark did write based on Peter, you still can't be serious. If I was a traveler with you, and then wrote of our experiences years afterwards, do you REALLY think I'd have it down to be so close as to be "virtually your literal words"? Please. Sure, you might saw that Peter placed high importance on the teachings and therefore took extra care to remember them properly. Unfortunately, that doesn't help significantly. Studies of memories of people like holocaust survivors, who had strong emotional ties to the events, showed they didn't have particularly good memories. Indeed, the emotions can *hinder* correct recall! And, by the way, this much is not some peculiar bias against your religion. If some secular source made claims that they recalled exact or near exact words from twenty years earlier, I wouldn't buy that either.
You mentioned rhyme and meter. Which can indeed be a memory aid. It can also be an artistic tool of an author! The fact that some of what is attributed to what Jesus said has rhyme and meter, that doesn't mean that what he actually said did! And even if it did, that only includes his teachings. Events like the alleged virgin birth, (which nobody could know whether it is true or not) and the alleged Resurrection have no relevant rhyme, meter. So, even if you could argue that a fair amount of the teachings could be memorized, you still have lots of stuff you can't apply your argument to.
Jensen7: Suetonius even leads us to believe there were large numbers there in 49. The entire Jewish population was expelled from Rome because of one "Chrestus"
Reading Josh McDowell I take it? THIS CLAIM IS COMPLETE GARBAGE! First, McDowell, and his copycats, assume that Suetonius misspelled "Christus". There is NO EVIDENCE that Suetonius misspelled Christus, it is just assumed. Furthermore, Chrestus was a common name of the time, so, it is most probable that Suetonius was in fact talking about somebody named Chrestus and not Christus. And for the icing on the cake, look at the actual quote of Suetonius: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." Since nobody believes Jesus was in Rome in 49, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Suetonius was talking about Jesus! You made a claim that the history about the crossing of the Rubicon was just based on rumors, and then you offer up this "evidence". What a crock! What hypocrisy!
Jensen7: J.P. Holding points out that so do the gospels, most notably Luke. Also, since Luke's account is made up of much material found in the other Synoptics, this substantiates their material as his source material.
Luke is generally considered the best from a historical perspective. He does list some sources, and has some historically accurate details in the story. Even so, Luke is still far from a "critical historian". The following is a few paragraphs by Suetonius reporting on the birth of Caligula:
Further, whether this thing "free will" as being operated by a "spirit" or "soul" is technically possible or not, there is good evidence against its actual existence. Keith Augustine's article, "The Case Against Immortality" gives good evidence against the existence of the soul. I'd recommend reading it, but, if you won't, I'll give you one small piece of evidence I recently read from a different source. It may sound obscure and unrelated, but, give me a moment. I read an article about lithium as a nutrient. You may be aware that lithium is prescribed as a drug for some severe forms of depression and other mental illnesses. Well, in this article I read, it turns out the lithium, in small doses, is actually a necessary nutrient, involved in balancing neurotransmitters in the brain. A study of different towns in Texas showed that in towns with higher levels of lithium in the local drinking water had lower violent crime and mental illness. According to the study, the difference was very statistically significant, meaning not likely to be coincidental.
You could possibly challenge the study, but, for the moment, let us assume the study is accurate, low dose lithium is a necessary nutrient involved in the process of neurotransmitters in the brain and a deficiency of this nutrient increases one's risk of mental illness and propensity to violence. So, from my worldview, this makes perfect sense. Our brains are biochemical, our thoughts are biochemical. So, it is totally understandable how our behavior can be altered by even small changes in our brain's biochemistry. But from your worldview, how the hell is your "soul" knocked out of kilter by not having a few micrograms of lithium? How does that work? And, if you consider violent crime as a moral issue, as I presume we would, then your soul's morals are knocked out of kilter by missing a few micrograms of lithium. How can that be?
Jensen7: If one's biochemistry determines one's choices then one simply cannot be free; unless, of course, one can play with words to make them mean exactly the opposite of what they normally mean. Equivocation may allow one to win any argument no matter how absurd.
You may have heard this here fancy word "equivocation" but that doesn't mean you know how to use it. Equivocation is when one either accidentally, or deceptively changes the meaning of a word in mid-argument. My discussion of the meaning of the words in question was intentional, and pointed out! I made it a point that we need to consider the meaning of the terms. Theists often just don't grasp that the meanings of the words they throw about aren't always as obvious as they may think. Like even what is a "god" if a one exists? We have to comprehend the meanings of the terms being used. Again, I was not deceptive, or accidental. I was deliberate and pointed it out. That is NOT equivocation.
Now, you say that from your understanding of being "free" we cannot be "free" if our choices are pure biochemical. Okay. I can work with this. What I'm saying is that in that case, you cannot be "free" if we have a soul either. For our choices instead of being "biochemical" would instead be "soul-ical" for lack of a better word. Meaning that even if our thoughts have some nonphysical component, that component still has an operating mode that when x and y and z conditions are met, the "soul" makes choice "q". Per my Terminator analogy, there just isn't any way for an omnipotent/omniscient entity to create some mechanism that can do things that aren't programmed into it from the beginning.
Jensen7: Note: I do not think I am making a self-contradiction by saying "before time existed" because I think we can extend time into timlessness.
And I think that blue can extend into non blueness. You are just babbling complete gibberish. It's just utter garbage.
Jensen7: Doland is here making empty claims, claims he cannot support. First he says " 'creation' requires order, meaning time." We can imagine a well ordered crystal, say, eternally existing.
ARRGH! Wrong meaning of the word "order". I meant ordered as in sequential. Things happen one after the other. To create means an order or a sequence of events, that kind of order. And so the idea of "creating" time is incoherent. And therefore it is garbage.
Jensen7: I have shown that repentance and regret in this case do no indicate making an error. Think of my illustration of the surgeon. Part of him regretted and repented of doing the surgery, part of him rejoiced in doing it. There was no error in his thinking. And people are not condemned for making mistakes, they are condemned for knowingly rejecting God and God's offer of salvation.
First off, you are again placing constraints upon God, that He could ever be in a situation where He would have to make a choice that happens to require something negative in the mix. Humans, being imperfect, can find themselves in situations like the surgeon, that he is forced to make a choice that is overall the best and yet has negative aspects. A PERFECT GOD COULD NEVER BE SO CONSTRAINED! I've said this repeatedly. Secondly, *nobody*, NOBODY "knowingly rejects God's offer of salvation". If I believed that the offer was real, I'd take it and so would EVERYBODY. Now, I have of course heard of this alleged offer. I've heard of a lot of things. Am I supposed to believe everything I hear? And if you say no, I shouldn't believe everything, but I should believe this particular thing because there is good evidence for it, even if you are right, then I am making a mistake by misreading the evidence. So I would be sent to hell because of a mistake.
Jensen7: Think about what is involved in making a square circle. It isn't that there is a limit to God's power to fail to produce such a thing, rather it is just nonsense.
What if the only reason why a "square circle" is nonsense because God defined that things cannot simultaneously have the property of "no straight sides" and "four straight sides", but that if God defined otherwise, then "square circles" would exist? Of course I don't believe that. I'm just saying that if God was truly omnipotent, then that would be the case.
Jensen7: And logic is not something that is outside of God that even God is subject to. God is subject to logic or reason because it is part of God's nature.
Could God have had a different nature? And if he had a different nature, would it be possible for square circles to exist? If you say no, God couldn't have had a different nature to make square circles to exist, then you are saying that there are certain facts about reality that simply have to be that way period, God or no God, obviating the need for a god at all.
Jensen7: God is reasonable and good
Who defines "reasonable and good"? There is much in the Bible where God is NOT reasonable or good. You will of course say that I don't understand, or that there are good reasons, or whatever. But, THAT, my friend, is equivocation. I KNOW what reasonable and good mean, and God of the Bible does NOT have those attributes. So, if you want to throw these words around "reasonable and good" but they don't mean what "reasonable and good" *actually* mean, then *you* are equivocating! (See, I actually know how to use the word...)
I might send your response to Carrier to him, to see if he would like to respond, though, I doubt he would take the time. I'm not an expert on the history, but, I think I have responses to most of your claims, which will follow. I will concede that at least some of your counter-arguments to Carrier sound reasonable. And this proves what? It proves that history is hard! That is what it proves. Every single datapoint on any historical event can have multiple explanations. The trick is to find the most likely explanation that explains all of the evidence. So, let me discuss your points. Carrier discussed that Caesar had to cross the Rubicon in order to move his army. You say:
Jensen7: The existence of the war or invasion of Italy is not in question, just the crossing.
You miss the argument entirely! Carrier had claimed that there was no other route to take. I see that your source disputes this, claiming that there were other routes. Though I tend to think that Carrier probably knows what he is talking about, your source could be right for all I know, I'm not an expert on the terrain. So, can we compromise on a weaker claim that crossing the Rubicon was a reasonable choice given the need to move the army? If so, we have these pieces of evidence accepted:
1. Caesar moved his army.
2. Crossing the Rubicon was one reasonable way to so.
Just these two pieces of information BY THEMSELVES make Caesar having crossed the Rubicon a high-probability proposition. So, even if Caesar was lying, Cisero was lying, and the historians all were working from poor sources, we STILL have the crossing as being a high-probability event!
You had said Cisero might lie for the purpose of placing more crimes at the feet of Caesar. But you have already conceded that Caesar DID move the army, taking one route or another wouldn't make any difference as far as the crimes of Caesar. So, Cisero would seem to be without motivation to lie about the path he took.
I could carry this on further, but, you should get the point. The point is, it is indeed true that any one of the datapoints could be in error. But taken as a whole, it seems fairly unlikely.
Jensen7: Then why didn't Suetonius say why his account and his proffered reason for the crossing were different from Plutarch's? Why doesn't Plutarch claim the belief later offered by Suetonius' that Caesar saw a god on the river playing a reed pipe and this was his reason for crossing? (For some historians, the claim of seeing such a supernatural being would be sufficient to consider the account discredited . . .
First, be honest, you also doubt Caesar saw a god on the river playing a reed pipe? Right? And yet you probably would have to concede that some of what Suetonius said was correct. Right? I'm doing the exact same thing in regards to the Gospels as you do with Suetonius' report -- accepting the probable and discarding the improbable. EXACTLY the same. Now, that said, a historian may well accept Suetonius' report that Caesar thought he saw that, or claimed to see that. And I'm willing to accept that, at least possibly, the Gospel writers thought they saw the things they wrote. I happen to think it being intentional fiction, at least in the case of the first Gospel of Mark as being more likely, but, I don't pretend to be able to prove it. So it is possible that the authors thought they saw what is reported. Just like it is possible that Caesar thought he saw what Suetonius said.
Jensen7: Well, if Mark took Peter's first hand account of Jesus' words and the events of his life, this should be considered virtually his literal words. Even if Peter paraphrased Jesus' words (or portions of them), we still have essentially Jesus' teachings.
First, you'll notice Mark never said that. If this is what Mark did, you don't think he'd like, maybe MENTION IT? Pretend for a moment that Christianity is false. Don't you think people who believed Christianity would embellish in order to add credibility? Don't you think Muslims embellish Islam's claims? So, Christians saying that "oh, yeah, we got all the goods right here" isn't particularly compelling. Just like to you, the signed affidavits in the Book of Mormon saying "yeah, we got all the goods right here" isn't compelling to you. If they guy who wrote the thing didn't feel it important to tell us that he used Peter, how do you really think people living 50 years or more later have good scoop on this information? They didn't, or at least, we don't have any good reason to think so. Your evidence is nothing.
And, even if Mark did write based on Peter, you still can't be serious. If I was a traveler with you, and then wrote of our experiences years afterwards, do you REALLY think I'd have it down to be so close as to be "virtually your literal words"? Please. Sure, you might saw that Peter placed high importance on the teachings and therefore took extra care to remember them properly. Unfortunately, that doesn't help significantly. Studies of memories of people like holocaust survivors, who had strong emotional ties to the events, showed they didn't have particularly good memories. Indeed, the emotions can *hinder* correct recall! And, by the way, this much is not some peculiar bias against your religion. If some secular source made claims that they recalled exact or near exact words from twenty years earlier, I wouldn't buy that either.
You mentioned rhyme and meter. Which can indeed be a memory aid. It can also be an artistic tool of an author! The fact that some of what is attributed to what Jesus said has rhyme and meter, that doesn't mean that what he actually said did! And even if it did, that only includes his teachings. Events like the alleged virgin birth, (which nobody could know whether it is true or not) and the alleged Resurrection have no relevant rhyme, meter. So, even if you could argue that a fair amount of the teachings could be memorized, you still have lots of stuff you can't apply your argument to.
Jensen7: Suetonius even leads us to believe there were large numbers there in 49. The entire Jewish population was expelled from Rome because of one "Chrestus"
Reading Josh McDowell I take it? THIS CLAIM IS COMPLETE GARBAGE! First, McDowell, and his copycats, assume that Suetonius misspelled "Christus". There is NO EVIDENCE that Suetonius misspelled Christus, it is just assumed. Furthermore, Chrestus was a common name of the time, so, it is most probable that Suetonius was in fact talking about somebody named Chrestus and not Christus. And for the icing on the cake, look at the actual quote of Suetonius: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." Since nobody believes Jesus was in Rome in 49, it is IMPOSSIBLE that Suetonius was talking about Jesus! You made a claim that the history about the crossing of the Rubicon was just based on rumors, and then you offer up this "evidence". What a crock! What hypocrisy!
Jensen7: J.P. Holding points out that so do the gospels, most notably Luke. Also, since Luke's account is made up of much material found in the other Synoptics, this substantiates their material as his source material.
Luke is generally considered the best from a historical perspective. He does list some sources, and has some historically accurate details in the story. Even so, Luke is still far from a "critical historian". The following is a few paragraphs by Suetonius reporting on the birth of Caligula:
|
Gaius Caesar was born the day before the Kalends of September in the consulship of his father and Gaius Fonteius Capito. Conflicting testimony makes his birthplace uncertain. Gnaeus Lentulus Gaetulicus writes that he was born at Tibur; Pliny the Elder, that he was born among the Treveri, in a village called Ambitarvium above the Confluence. Pliny adds as proof that altars are shown there, inscribed "For the Delivery of Agrippina." Verses which were in circulation soon after he became emperor indicate that he was begotten in the winter-quarters of the legions: "He who was born in the camp and reared mid the arms of his country, Gave at the outset a sign that he was fated to rule." I myself find in the Acta Publica that he first saw the light at Antium.
Gaetulicus is shown to be wrong by Pliny, who says that he told a flattering lie, to add some luster to the fame of a young and vainglorious prince from the city sacred to Hercules; and that he lied with the more assurance because Germanicus really did have a son born to him at Tibur, also called Gaius Caesar, of whose lovable disposition and untimely death I have already spoken. Pliny, on the other hand, has erred in his chronology--for the historians of Augustus agree that Germanicus was not sent to Germany until the close of his consulship, when Gaius was already born. Moreover, the inscription on the altar adds no strength to Pliny's view, for Agrippina twice gave birth to daughters in that region, and any childbirth, regardless of sex, is called puerperium, since the men of old called girls puerae, just as they called boys puelli. Furthermore, we have a letter written by Augustus to his granddaughter Agrippina, a few months before he died, about the Gaius in question (for no other child of the name was still alive at that time), reading as follows: "Yesterday I arranged with Talarius and Asillius to bring your boy Gaius on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of June, if it be the will of the gods. I send with him besides one of my slaves who is a physician, and I have written Germanicus to keep him if he wishes. Farewell, my own Agrippina, and take care to come in good health to your Germanicus." I think it is clear enough that Gaius could not have been born in a place to which he was first taken from Rome when he was nearly two years old. This letter also weakens our confidence in the verses, the more so because they are anonymous. We must then accept the only remaining testimony, that of the public record, particularly since Gaius loved Antium as if it were his native soil, always preferring it to all other places of retreat, and even thinking, it is said, of transferring thither the seat and abode of the empire through weariness of Rome. |
The source of this particular quote from Suetonius comes from Richard Carrier's article, "Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?" in the section "Was Christianity Highly Vulnerable to Inspection and Disproof?" (Click! Read!) In that article, Carrier compares how a valid historical record compares with how Luke is written. Here is some of Carrier's analysis on the quote from Suetonius:
|
This is how a critical historian behaves. His methods and critical judgment become transparent and laid out for the reader to see. He names--or at least mentions or describes--his sources. In this particular case, Suetonius identifies Gaetulicus, Pliny the Elder, the Acta Publica, and the letters of Augustus, as well as an anonymous oral tradition and a public inscription at Ambitarvium, all in addition to "the historians of Augustus." He analyzes the conflicting claims and tells us how he decided on one over the other--indeed, it is already important that he tells us there were conflicting traditions. He lists the evidence and criticizes it. He gives us information about the reliability of his sources--for instance, he tells us when a source is anonymous, and admits that is a mark against it, and he tells us what evidence any given author appealed to, and remarks on their possible motives. He quotes documents or sources verbatim. And he is openly attentive to chronological inconsistencies.
Luke does none of these things. He never even mentions method, much less shows his methods to us, or any critical judgment at all. He never names even a single (relevant) source, nor does he give us anything like a useful description of any of his sources, and he certainly never tells us which sources he used for which details of his history. And Luke must surely have known there were conflicting claims, yet he never tells us about them, but instead just narrates his account as if everything were indisputable, never once telling us how or why he chose one version or detail and left out others. For example, though Luke copies Mark, he never tells us he did, much less for which material, and he changes what Mark said in some places. This entails either that Luke is fabricating, or preferring some other source that contradicted Mark. So why don't we hear of this other source? Or of why Luke preferred it? Likewise, it is impossible to believe that Luke "closely followed everything" and yet had never heard of the alternative nativity account presented in Matthew (unless, of course, Matthew wrote after Luke and made it all up). Moreover, Luke tells us nothing about the relative reliability of his sources--for instance, he never identifies what (if anything) came from anonymous sources, nor does he ever show any interest in distinguishing good from bad evidence or certain from uncertain information. For example, why did he trust Mark in the first place? Who wrote it? What sources did its author use? Luke doesn't say. He never even quotes any history, nor shows much concern for establishing a precise chronology (essentially giving us only a single date in 3:1, which is tied only to John and is thus ambiguous as to any event in the life of Jesus). |
Compare the difference between how the Gospels present the virgin birth versus how Suetonius reports on the birth of Caligula. The alleged virgin birth is reported in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which present the virgin birth as fact without providing any evidence -- despite the fact that there is no possible way for the writers to check whether it actually was true or not. While Suetonius reporting on the ordinary birth of Caligula lays out what he knows and doesn't know and how. So, no, the Gospels do NOT represent good historical reporting, not even for their era.
Jensen7:He shows extreme concern for accuracy and detail and his accuracy has been abundantly vindicated by historical and archeological research.
Luke is better than the other Gospels. But, there are historical errors in Luke: "The Historical Reliability of Luke/Acts" (Click! Read!)
Jensen7:He shows extreme concern for accuracy and detail and his accuracy has been abundantly vindicated by historical and archeological research.
Luke is better than the other Gospels. But, there are historical errors in Luke: "The Historical Reliability of Luke/Acts" (Click! Read!)
