tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65382558775065815152024-02-19T04:54:11.456-08:00AtheistwatchTo Understand the atheist truth regime in terms of its ideology and keep tabs on its propaganda and tactics. <br>
<br><b>Warning: Dyslexic at work: there be occasional spelling errors becuase I can't see the words the way you do.</b>
Watch for new posts every MWFJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger938125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-33056454745194716572019-07-01T08:14:00.000-07:002019-07-01T08:14:16.359-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
(<b>1) Is just plain wrong. The ordering in a snowflake or salt crystal is efficient and dependable, but due entirely to natural processes.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><b>that is totally begging the question you have no proof that it;s natural you have no evidence you are asserting it because it deals with nature you assert a prori no God therefore no God</b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>(2) "Usually"? You need to do better than that in a proof.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><b>why? minor exclaims would not disprove the perponderemce of evidence</b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>(3) and (4) are basically the sad out argument that a law of nature needs a law maker, failing to realise that a law in nature is quite different to a legal law.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><b>wrong on 2 commits: (1) I don't argue from a lawmaker analogy,I never assumed it;s a legislator and say that.(2) saying indicative of mind does not make it the legislature analogyy .The law-like dependability is that the thing being described (assuming Physical laws are observations of universal behavior ) is unfailing as though obeying. mind is indicated due to purposiveness but not from analogy but from the behavior of the universe,</b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>(5) "fits the major job description"? You need to do better than that in a proof.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><b>Ot's spot on and you know ot/ Again your assumption is a priori no God therefore a prori no </b><b>god. it is such</b><b> an obvious fit you can;t have it, you reonl yspoiuting ieologicalbroimides at it</b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Then (6)... Well, it turns out that you do use the word "warrant" when using this argument too!</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b> <b>Not in the argument, but as the decisions making paradigm is exactly how Isaid it is sed, you do not understand the issues involved .</b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>So your claim that you do not use "warrant" in all your arguments is based on two arguments, both of which do exa</b>ctly what I said!<br />
<br />
<b>It's not in the argument dumb ass it;s over it,</b></div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-4304975949936945862016-08-11T02:51:00.001-07:002016-08-11T02:55:51.226-07:00My Book, The Trace o God by Joseph Hinman, on Amazon<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<i><a href="http://s15.photobucket.com/user/Metacrock/media/frontcover-v3a_zps9ebf811c.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img alt=" photo frontcover-v3a_zps9ebf811c.jpg" border="0" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/frontcover-v3a_zps9ebf811c.jpg" /></a></i><br />
\<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Arguments for God from religious experience have always been considered a secondary level of argument. It's always been assumed that their subjective nature makes them weak arguments. The atheist scared to death of subjectivity. This work, compiling empirical scientific studies that show that religious experience is not the result of emotional instability but are actually good for psychologically, constitutes a ground breaking work that places religious experiences on a higher level.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>The Trace of God</i> is an exposition (445 pages) employing both philosophical investigation and social science research. The book analyzes and discusses a huge body of empirical research that has up to this point been primarily known only in circles of psychology of religion, and has been over looked by theology, apologetics, Philosophy of religion and more general discipline of psychology. This body of work needs to be known in each of these interested groups because it demonstrates through hundreds of studies over a 50 year period, the positive and vital nature of the kind of religious experience known as “mystical.” Even though most of the studies deal with “mystical” experience, linking studies also apply it to the “born again experience” as well as “the material end of Christian experience.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The book opens with a discussion as to why arguments for the existence of God need not “prove” God exists, but merely offer a “warrant for belief.” It discusses why there can’t be direct empirical evidence for God and why that is not necessary. It also lays out criteria for rational warrant. In Chapter two it presents two arguments that are based upon religious experience and then shows how the various studies back them up. This is not an attempt to present directly empirical evidence for God but to show that religious experiences of a certain kind can be taken as “the co-determinate” or God correlate. It’s not a direct empirical view of God that is presented but the “God correlate” that indicates God, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>just as a fingerprint or tacks in the snow indicate the presence of some person or animal. Religious experiences of this kind are the “trace of God.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>These studies demonstrate that the result of such experiences is life transforming. This term is understood and used to indicate long term positive and dramatic changes in the life of the one who experiences them. People are released form bondage to alcohol and drugs, they tend to have less propensity toward depression or mental illness, they are self actualized, self assured, have greater sense of meaning and purpose, generally tend to be better educated and more successful than those who don’t have such experiences. These studies prove that religious experience is not the result of mental illness or emotional instability. The methodology of the studies (which includes every major kind of study methodology in the social sciences) is discussed at length.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>One of the major aspects of the book is the discussion of the “Mysticism scale” (aka “M scale”) developed by Dr. Ralph Hood Jr. at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. The importance of this “M scale” (that is a test made up of 32 questions) is that it serves as a control on the valid religious experience. One can know through the score on the test if one’s experience is truly “Mystical” or just “wool gathering.” Without a control we can’t know if one has had a true experience and thus we can’t measure their effects. Being able to establish that one has had true “mystical experience” one can determine that the effects of that experience are positive and long term. Thus that sets up the rationally warranted arguments for God.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is also vital to know if the experience is valid because those who seek to discredit religious belief and claim to have produced such experiences by stimulating the brain don’t use controls to determine if the experience is valid or not. They must make assumptions that anything to do with God talk is a religious experience then claim to have produced it by stimulating the brain. The M scale works by comparing theories of British philosopher W.T. Stace with current modern mystics (research began in the 1970s on American campuses and went international in the 80s). It is statistically extremely remote that they would be able to accidentally hit upon the right combination of questions to reflect validation of Stace’s theory. They have to agree with Stace’s theory on all 32 points. It’s even harder to imagine they might lie. In the international studies Iranian, Indian, and Japanese peasants were questioned. Most of them did not read English it’s absurd to think they could tell what Stace’s theory was much less what they had to lie about. Most of them would know nothing about W.T. Stace or his theories. The Studies showed that modern mystics in Iran, India, Japan, Sweden, the UK all experience exactly what Stace said they would experience. Thus that creates the ground for comparison. It gives us a control for the experience.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The book also discusses the theories of Wayne Proudfoot a philosopher who tried to disprove mystical experience by reductionism, re-labeling and losing the phenomena. Studies of brain chemistry are analyzed as well as the Placebo effect. The question all comes down to a tie between naturalistic brain chemicals vs. the idea that the naturalistic neurological route is just the way God created for us to communicate with him, and that stimulation of those chemicals is just opening the receptors that also receive God’s presence. The problem is resolved by eight tie breakers that are presented at the end of the next to the last chapter. The last chapter deals with philosophical and theological problems surrounding language and faith.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The book provides a ground breaking chunk of fiber fortifying the arguments for God from religious experience that has been lacking since the days of Father<span class="st">Frederick C. </span><i><span style="font-style: normal;">Copleston</span></i> and his debate with Bertrand Russell. <i><span style="font-style: normal;">Copleston didn’t have these studies to back his argument. This body of work has been growing for 50 years and it’s time it was known to the theological world. These studies, especially the M scale, establish that religious experiences are the same the world over. There may be other kinds but of those kind know as “mystical” when we control for the names being different, and doctrines of various faiths use dot explain the situation, we look at the experience itself they are all the same. That implies that all of these people around the world in different faiths are experiencing a reality external to their own minds. It also implies that God is working in all faiths. The Author, Joseph Hinman, is a Christian and he does believe in the exclusivity of Jesus Christ but he also recognizes God’s </span>prevenient</i><i><span style="font-style: normal;"> grace to all people.</span></i><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></i>"A great contribution to discussions of the rationality of belief in God"<br />
<br />
William S. Babcock, Professor Emeritus of Church History, Southern Methodist University<span class="equalizer-inner" style="display: block; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span><br />
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
<span class="equalizer-inner" style="display: block; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></span><br />
Ralph Hood says:<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-style: normal;">"A fine exploration of the meaningfu</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;">lness of arguments</span><i><span style="font-style: normal;"> from human experi</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;">ence to the reality of God."</span><i><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(Ralph Hood Jr. inventor of the M scale and professor of psychology of religion University of Tennessee Chattanooga.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Wordgazer, a prominent blogger on Women's issues says:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Why should I mistrust my own experiences of God's presence?" Joe Hinman taught me to ask. After all, we don't mistrust other things we experience. We don't doubt that the chair we're sitting in will hold us, unless we have some good <i>reason</i> to think something has gone wrong with our senses. We don't have to accept the self-proclaimed expert in science as an expert in metaphysics. Nor need we accept the standard of "absolute proof" in terms of scientific categories that may be inadequate for the phenomenon in the first place. We can have good, reasonable reasons -- what Hinman calls a "rational warrant" to believe. His newer website, <a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/">The Religious A Priori</a>, explores belief and rational warrant from a number of different angles.<br />
<br />
And now Joe Hinman has encapsulated some of his best thinking into a new book: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401508414&sr=1-1&keywords=trace+of+god+hinman">The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>The Trace of God</i> is a scholarly work, but written in a style that a layperson can follow. Its main point is that experiences like the one I describe above (called "religious experiences" or "peak experiences"*) do constitute good evidence, even from a scientific point of view, of the existence of God.</blockquote>
<br />
This is a ground breaking work. These studies have never been put together in this context and analyzed and argued for in this way before. The God arguments form religious experience have always been considered weak but no more. This body of work puts them up on a higher level, it's put fiber into their diet.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">See <a href="http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2014/05/book-recommendation-trace-of-god-by.html">Word Gazer's Review</a> of my book on her blog </span><br />
<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">see message board interview, the whole thread is he interview of me about my book on <a href="http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=5620">Evangelical Universalism board.</a></span><br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"><br /></span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408714/">Order the book from Aamzon</a></span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<br /></div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-11651546867974045822016-08-07T08:39:00.001-07:002016-08-07T08:39:41.775-07:00 Bowen-Hinman Debate: Hinman's 5th argument, historical methods<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Bowen-Hinman Debate: Joe <a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.hr/2016/06/my-argument-v-in-my-debate-with-bowen.html" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title="">Hinman’s fifth argument</a> for the existence of Jesus is presented in three section.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b> Hinman’s first principle of historical investigation is this:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">P1. The document, not the people, is the point.</strong><br />
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">I don’t know what (P1) means, and Hinman’s discussion of this idea does not make it any clearer. Hinman’s discussion of (P1) makes a number of assertions that are interesting and worth thinking about, but I will comment on those more specific points in my next post on “Historical Methods”. I won’t criticize what I don’t understand, so Hinman needs to clarify this principle before I will attempt to evaluate it.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman: </span></b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">The Document not the people means, as I said,"</span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 24px;">Historians don't base their conclusions upon the documents we lack but upon those we possess</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">" so we don't start from the premise Jesus, did he exist or not? Well if so why we have more documents. No we start from these gospel things what is their historical validity? Too much attention is paid to speculations rather than facts about what we do have and can show. More of my words of wisdom: </span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">--</span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 24px;">The objection that we don't have anyone who knew Jesus personally writing about him (supposedly), is bunk. Start from what what the documents we do have tell us about him. Chitneis emphasizes internal and external aspects of the document. External is getting back to the original document itself: author, audience, why written. Internal aspects are inconsistency or consistency within the document. The practice of history is largely about evaluating documents.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The second principle put forward by Hinman is a bit clearer:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">P2. Supernatural content does not negate historic aspects.</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">A comment by Hinman provides further clarification of (P2):</span><strong style="background-color: white;">Historians do not discount sources merely for supernatural contents. Even when they don’t believe the supernatural details, they don’t just deny everything the source says.</strong></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">This is certainly a true point about how historians work, and I have no problem with the basic point. However, there are some qualifications that I would add to this principle.</span><span style="background-color: white;">First, the Gospels don’t just have a few “supernatural details”. They are <em>filled with supernatural beings and events</em>, from start to finish. Here are a few supernatural elements from the beginnings of two Gospels (Matthew and Luke):</span></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: square; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><i>[i deleted the liswt as I don't need to refer to it]</i></span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The Gospels do not just contain a few “supernatural details”. They are filled with supernatural beings (angels and demons and spirits) and supernatural events (miraculous healings, resurrections, mind reading, and nature miracles like levitation, walking on water, and controlling the weather).</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<b style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman:</b><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> He's just multiplying examples. The issue is not how many miracles. He's not going to accept it if there are only two let's say,. he is still going to deny even one miracle. I do not them them ideologically. I don't deny them because science tells me to or because my philosophical outlook tells me to. .It's totally a matter of why are we talking about them? For example Jesus' Resurrection and his resurrections of other people were not proof that he was divine but they were signatures to show he was messiah because Messiah was in charge of life and death. Just working a miracle was not the issue, working that particular miracle had importance Mechanistically.</span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Second, the supernatural elements in the Gospels are often essential to the stories related in the Gospels. If we strip out all of the supernatural beings and events from the birth narratives, for example, there is not much left over. If 75% of the assertions in the birth narratives are fictional, then why believe the 25% that remains?</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">For that reason they serve literary function and theological function so it's less important weather or not they actually happened. That is not to be confused with saying it doesn't matter if the story is is true or not.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">It is possible that the very minimal historical claim “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” could be true, but given the <em>general unreliability</em> of the birth narratives (due in part to their being filled with supernatural beings and events), this also casts doubt on the tiny bit of historical “information” that remains after stripping out all of the clearly fictional B.S. Given that Christians believed that the Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and given that most of the other assertions in the birth narratives are historically dubious, we ought to be very skeptical about the claim “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” even though this claim does not, by itself, involve any supernatural elements. It might represent prophecy that was used to formulate “history”.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman:</b></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;"> </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">There is no logical reason why it should cast doubt. You are violating the principle and making the SN aspect the determining factor that's not what historians do,. They merely control for it element the whole work. If anything it makes birth in Bethlehem more likley because it might indicate they had a motive to to fix up what is an otherwise not too glamours origin in a one horse town,.</span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">What remains of the story of Jesus at the wedding in Cana if we delete his miracle of turning water into wine? Not much: Jesus went to a wedding in Cana. What remains of the story of Jesus walking on water on the sea of Galilee if we remove the walking on water part? Not much: Jesus went in a boat with some of his disciples on the sea of Galilee. What remains of the transfiguration story if we remove the part about how Jesus began to shine like a bright light and if we remove the appearance of Moses and Elijah? Not much: Jesus prayed with some of his disciples on a mountain top. In a few stories the supernatural beings or events might be a detail that can be ignored, but in many cases the supernatural being or event plays an important role in the story, so that removing the supernatural element guts the story or seriously changes the meaning of the story or makes the story illogical and incoherent.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">See you are missing huge chunks of the text that your not even willing to think about because you are only focused on miracles.Believe it or not there are more reasons to look at biblical text than just thinking about miracles. The important point might be that it;s a wedding that it's in Canna. That his mother was there. the point revolves around a miracle but that doesn't mean the point is the miracle.</span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">As David Friedrich Strauss argued long ago in <em>The Life of Jesus</em>, the attempt of skeptics to strip out all of the supernatural elements of the Gospels while still maintaining the basic historicity of the Gospel accounts <em>makes no sense</em>. It makes far more sense to admit that Gospels are filled with legends and myths and fictional stories, and that only a few bits and pieces here and there, at best, are factual and historical.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">You are citing those crack posts of the first generation Jesus mythers, do you really that's impressing me? He's one of those Schweitzer debunked as imposing 18th century enlightenment image over Jesus.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">no it makes far ,more sense to stop reducing every thing to that one issue and start figure out what it's really about. Baultmann said he wanted to demythiolgize the Bible because miracles were the wrong stumbling block .They gave the skeptic the excuse of ignore it all by reducing it all that one issue.</span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">You are willing to let that one issue determine the whole text. But weather or not Jesus lived has nothing at all do with how the redactor up the passages, you seem to assume the NT is made of transcripts from a video recording. It's set up to say </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">something. Each passage is there for a reason not just to record a bunch of miracles.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Third, the assertion of this principle borders on a STRAW MAN fallacy. There is the suggestion here that Jesus skeptics doubt the historicity of the Gospels ONLY because the Gospel stories contain supernatural elements. Skeptics do NOT doubt the historicity of the Gospels ONLY because of there are a few supernatural details in them, nor do skeptics doubt the historicity of the Gospels ONLY because the Gospels are filled with supernatural beings and events.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">B0wen has no room to talk about strawman arguments,he makes them all the time. Below he distorts my words to say something totally different than what I was saying and in such a way that it served his rhetorical interest, that is the essence of straw man argument,</span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Take the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke for example. They include many supernatural elements, both supernatural beings (angels), and supernatural events (virgin birth, a star that guides people to a specific location). These supernatural elements are one reason for doubting the historicity of these stories, but there are other reasons as well. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke use Mark as a primary source of information about Jesus, but there is no birth story in Mark. When Matthew and Luke follow the narrative framework in Mark, they generally agree with each other, but when they provide birth stories, their stories contradict each other, indicating that when they depart from the information in Mark, at least one of the two Gospels provides a fictional birth story, and perhaps both birth stories are fictional.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman:</b> One has Shepards one has angles,no contradiction so they could have both,</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">There are also some historically improbable details in both accounts beyond the supernatural elements. The census in Luke is historically improbable for various reasons. The slaughter of the innocents story in Matthew is historically improbable. </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">I don't want to get off on that it's far more definable than you think. I am not into inerrancy so I don't have to argue that are no mistakes, there can be mistakes,I don't care. That's not the issue. I'm sure you have loads of things to doubt, my point you reduce it all to matter of miracles rather than the ideas of point the text is making. You are missing the point because you are worried abouit having things to criticize and disbelieve, </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">I don't have time to open the topic up to everything.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"> The relocation of the holy family to Egypt is historically improbable. The fact that both Matthew and Luke place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in accordance with an alleged messianic prophecy, casts doubt on the historicity of that key shared claim between the two birth stories.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: what I just said!</b><span style="font-size: small;"> Ok I'll answer that one point, I believe the sojourn into Egypt because it's one of the few times I actually use the criterion of embarrassment. The Jews used the sojourn into Egypt as part of their polemic saying he learned black magic in Egypt. So either they had to have a basis for it that was true in fact (they went to Egypt) or the Christians had a reason why they could not deny that he went to Egypt. Either way it makes no sense that he had nothing to do with Egypt, the enemies use it as a polemic and yet they still put it in the Gospel. Most parsimonious answer, he did go there.</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Hinman’s third principle of historical investigation is a bit vague:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">P3. What people believed tells us things, even if we don’t believe it.</strong><br />
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">I’m not sure what Hinman is getting at here, but taken straightforwardly, this principle seems obviously correct. Using an historical document to determine <em>what early Christians believed about God or Jesus</em> “tells us things”, even if the historian rejects some or all of those beliefs. At the very least, this tells us <em>what early Christians believed about God or Jesus!</em></span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> </span></span><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">I said that because i had just found a quote by Crosson where he said almost the same thing. I was almost quoting him directly. The point is the fact that the early church believed Jesus was a historical person is a good reason to think he was. They were in a position to know and there's no reason to think they made it up. We should expect the accounts to reflect the historical situation of the authors at least generally.</span></span><br />
<b style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b><b style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">This information about the beliefs of early Christians can also help historians to better analyze and evaluate particular Gospel stories and passages. If early Christians believed that Jesus lived a perfectly sinless life, then historians could anticipate and look for places where the Gospels of Matthew and Luke modify some story or passage from Mark in order to make Jesus appear to be sinless, and to the extent that historians do find such modifications of Mark by Matthew and Luke, this provides further evidence that early Christians believed Jesus was sinless and also provides evidence that Matthew and Luke alter information from their sources to make the story or quotation fit better with their theological beliefs or the theological beliefs of their early Christian readers.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 24px;">I'm sure Mark really painted Jesus as a sinner,</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">One of the things that the Gospels tell us is that early Christians were gullible and superstitious, at least if we assume that early Christian believers read the Gospels literally. They believed in astrological signs, in angels, in demons, in demon possession, in the devil, in faith healing, in prophetic dreams, in levitation, in mind reading, in spirits of the dead, in raising the dead, in prophecy. </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman:</b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> I am sure that the society in which they lived were full of such ideas The society in which we live is full of such ideas, the national enquirer is full of such ideas. They weren't writing a hand book on critical thinking you know.</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">They believed all of these things without demanding strong evidence for claims of such events; they believed such things on the basis of hearsay and testimonial evidence, on the basis of contradictory reports in the canonical Gospels, and without conducting serious skeptical investigations into the facts. This is an important fact about early Christians that we can learn from reading the Gospels. We can learn of the gullibility of early Christian believers even if we reject some or all of the beliefs that they formed in gullible and uncritical ways.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">[delete long parade of things]</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman:</b><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">not taking bait today ;-)</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><b style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">P4. Everyone is biased.</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Based on Hinman’s discussion of (P4) and (P5) it appears that this principle is given in part as a reply to an objection about an alleged bias of scholars on the issue of the historicity of Jesus. Here are two plausible claims about NT scholars along such lines:</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-size: small;">That's just the kind of thing I like to point out</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: square; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><strong style="background-color: white;">The <em>vast majority</em> of NT scholars have a <em>significant bias</em> in favor of the historicity of Jesus.</strong></li>
</ul>
<ul style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: square; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><strong style="background-color: white;"><em>Most</em> NT scholars have a <em>strong bias</em> in favor of the historicity of Jesus. </strong></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<div>
<b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">that's because the have strong aversions to argument from silence and begging the question. besides Jesus existence has presumption, no myther has ever e e tried to over turn presumption they don't even know what the term means.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(1) not a single piece of physical evidence supports the myther BS, nothing, By their own logic that should cook their stance.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(2) not one single figure in history for 1900 years ever questioned Jesus' existence. Some of those Jewish polemics said the most absurd things about him but no one ever questioned his existence.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(3) His enemies not only admitted he existed but actually made up stuff about his background</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(4) we have writings of people who knew his friends,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(5) his movement always affirmed his existence from as far back as we can go.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">all of that spells out presumption, We do not need to prove his existence, it is aqssumed as a historical fact, unquestioned, If you want to question it fine, but you must do the proving,we do not have to prove!</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div>
<b style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">So, one question to keep in mind is whether (P4) provides a strong reply to such criticisms about NT scholars.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Since everyone is biased the real issue becomes how up front are we in being honest about our biases.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><b style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">The principle (P4) is a bit vague and ambiguous. Here are a couple of different possible interpretations of (P4):</span><strong style="background-color: white;">P4a. Everyone has a bias on some issue or other.</strong><strong style="background-color: white;">P4b. For any given theory, everyone is either biased in favor of the theory or biased against the theory.</strong></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-size: small;">all we can really do is check our own biases.</span></span><br />
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b></span><span style="background-color: white;">Principle (P4a) is no doubt true, but it is insignificant and unhelpful in this context, because it leaves open the possibility that some people have a bias when it comes to the issue of the historicity of Jesus and other people do NOT have a bias on this issue. Because (P4a) leaves this possibility open, it does not help us any in dealing with this particular issue; it fails to provide a strong reply to the above criticisms about NT scholars.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Principle (P4b) on the other hand, would certainly be of some significance to the issue of the historicity of Jesus, but, alas, (P4b) is a very broad generalization that is clearly false. So, principle (P4b) is of no use, and fails to provide a strong reply to the above criticisms of NT scholars, because (P4b) is false.</span><span style="background-color: white;">We could try to rescue (P4b) by <em>narrowing the scope</em> to focus exclusively on the issue of the historicity of Jesus:</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>everyone is willing to be honest about the other guy's biases that's not the Challenger,</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: 24px;">I think at this point we are not saying anything helpful about the issue.</span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">P4c. Everyone is either biased in favor of the historicity of Jesus or is biased against the historicity of Jesus.</strong></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>written like a true ideologue, the world revovles aroumd myi ideology you are either for it or against it,. no complexity, no neutrality,</span><br />
<strong style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></strong><strong style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></strong><strong style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">But (P4c) is still somewhat dubious. The issue of the historicity of Jesus is more controversial than many other issues, but controversiality is based on <em>the feelings and attitudes</em> of people <em>in general</em>, and there are almost always exceptions to such general psychological phenomena. In other words, although most people have strong feelings about this issue, it seems fairly certain that there are at least a few people who don’t have strong feelings or opinions about the historicity of Jesus. So, in order to rescue the (P4c) in terms of truth, we would need to either <em>qualify the degree of bias</em> that is being asserted or <em>revise the quantification</em> in terms of the proportion of people in scope:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>I'm not biased I just happen to be right <span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">;-) </span>Seriously I do have a strong biased against the Jesus myther idea but somehow that hasn't helped them dig up any more evidence.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">P4d. <em>Everyone</em> is either biased <em>at least a tiny bit</em> in favor of the historicity of Jesus or biased <em>at least a tiny bit</em> against the historicity of Jesus.</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">P4e. <em>Most people</em> are either <em>significantly biased</em> in favor of the historicity of Jesus or <em>significantly biased</em> against the historicity of Jesus.</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">These generalizations are at least plausible. However, (P4d) leaves open the possibility that some people (e.g. NT scholars) have <em>a strong bias</em> in favor of the historicity of Jesus, while other people (e.g. Jesus skeptics)<em> have only a tiny bit of bias</em> against the historicity of Jesus. This would clearly not help Hinman’s case for the existence of Jesus, and fails to provide a strong reply to the above criticsims about NT scholars.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">Also, (P4e) leaves open the possibility that some people (e.g. NT scholars) have <em>a strong bias</em> in favor of the historicity of Jesus, while a few people (e.g. Jesus skeptics) <em>have no significant bias</em> on this issue. Again, this would not be of help for Hinman’s case, and fails to provide a strong reply to the criticisms of NT scholars.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">I have considered a number of different possible interpretations of principle (P4). The principle is false or dubious on some of those interpretations, and on the interpretations where the principle is true or plausible, it is either insignificant and unhelpful or appears to be of no help to Hinman’s case, and fails to provide a strong reply to the above criticisms of NT scholars.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> Historians agree with the scholars on historicity of Jesus, my department chair and the chair of my dissertation and the guy I worked for as a TA were all atheists and historians who did not study the bible they called Daugherty an idiot and never heard of carrier and support the historicity of Jesus not even willing to talk about it. As far as they are concerned you are against historical fact. The mythers are to historians what creationists are to scientists.that's their statement.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><strong style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">If Hinman wants to continue to advocate this principle, he needs to clarify it in terms of the <em>quantification</em> of the portion of people who are being characterized and he needs to clarify it in terms of <em>the scope of issues</em> to which it applies, and he needs to clarify it in terms of <em>the degree of bias</em> that is being alleged (because there is a big difference between a <em>strong bias </em>and a <em>very tiny bit of bias</em>). Principle (P4) cannot be rationally evaluated unless and until it is re-stated in a much clearer and more specific form.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">As with (P4), the final principle is in need of clarification:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;"><b style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman:</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I don't think so but I did clarify it. It's Bowen who wrote 10 different versions of my words and never even bothered to ask whist my words meant,</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">P5. The historicity of a single persona cannot be examined apart from the framework.</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">What matters in this context is whether this principle applies to (or is correct in terms of) the issue of the historicity of Jesus, so we can focus on this instantiation of (P5): ”</span><strong style="background-color: white;">IP5. The historicity <em>of Jesus of Nazareth</em> cannot be examined apart from the framework.</strong></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">The term “the framework” is unclear and vague. However, based on Hinman’s discussion of this principle, this phrase appears to refer to the view or theory that Jesus existed, that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical person. Given this understanding of “the framework”, the principle is still ambiguous. Here are two different possible interpretations:</span></blockquote>
<b style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: white; font-size: small;">Wrong assumption. I said we need to pay more attention to the frame work than to historicity so he assumes the frame work is historicity? Obviously I'm talking about the framework in which we understand the text: who wrote it? when?why? to whom?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: small;">I am saying getting this stuff nailed down is prior to the historicity question and will help solve it, I see no reason to begin with the assumption that history is wrong, Jesus is a fact of history, there's no point in denying it unless you are just trying to kill Christianity. Of course the myther is working at huge disadvantage because she is trying to argue against historical fact and with no evidence. We don't need to go to any great lengths to argue for it because it's assumed by history. We should concentrate on others like the reasons for writing the Gospel.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: small;">I just delight in laying this little adage on atheists since they like to lay it on us: extraordinary claims...you know...</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong>IP5a.</strong> <strong>The historicity <em>of Jesus of Nazareth</em> cannot be examined apart from assuming that Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh-and-blood historical person.</strong></span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: white; font-size: small;">a straw man argument, I did not make this argument, he did by re writing my words. he set it up. </span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">I would assume Jesus' was a flesh and blood man because that;s the presumption of the historical view, that's not what I am calling the framework. That's the assumption I', entitled to make., you must prove he wasn't. </span></span></span><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">The framework is the assumptions we make about the text. It might support the assumption of Jesus' historicity but that's not the point of it. It consists of issues that used to be called'higher criticism: who wrote the boo? When Where To whom and why?</span></span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong></strong></span><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>IP5b.</strong> <strong>The historicity <em>of Jesus of Nazareth</em> cannot be examined apart from examining the issue of whether Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh-and-blood historical person.</strong></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Hinman </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">I did not say that at all. These are his words not moimne, Now I feel that since Jesus historicity is taken as fact by history I ma well within my rights to assume it,l When I say we need need to pay more attention ot other matters that;s just what I mean. Only if the myth somehow finds some real evidence do we need to discuss it., Speculation, Bayes based probabilities, and argument from silence are not evidence.</span></span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><br /></strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Principle (IP5a) clearly involves circular reasoning. If one simply assumes that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical person, then one begs the question of the historicity of Jesus. </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: total bull shit, </b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">First, that's the assumption all historians make., There is no reason to assume he's not, No basis for it,. the presumption is with historicity not against. The text asserts it the early church claimed to know it first hand and all historic commentators no one ever undoubted t for 1900 years.</span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">He is asserting that there is some mark that stands against historicity and it has to get out from under the cloud of doubt before we can assert it or we beg the question,there is no question there is no mark, made up and it flies in the fade of the vast preponderance of evidence and vast majority of historians.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"> So, we must reject (IP5a) because it is an unreasonable and illogical principle.</span><span style="background-color: white;">Principle (IP5b), on the other hand, is completely and undeniably true. But it is true because it is a trivial and uninformative tautology. The question of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth <em>just is</em> the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh-and-blood historical person. So, this principle is of no significant help or use (other than to clarify the question at issue for those who are ignorant or confused).</span></blockquote>
<b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">suits me because that's not my principle,. that's your tweaked version, sorry you don't get the importance of the issue, I'm saying we doesn't even need to consider the historicity of Jesus it's a given, it's a waste o time to argue about it., my principle says matters not the historicity but an understanding of the framework in <span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">which historicity is derive</span>d, are what we should focus upon. If there is some hidden evidence lurking it;s only goimng to be found by understand more about the text.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">There is one other interpretation, which seems both plausible and significant:</span><strong style="background-color: white;">IP5c. <strong>The historicity <em>of Jesus of Nazareth</em> cannot be examined apart from treating this question as a question about <em>which framework or theory</em> among available alternatives <em>best accounts for all of the available evidence</em> (e.g. the theory that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical person vs. the theory that Jesus was just a myth).</strong></strong></blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>that should have been the only one he brought up.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Because this interpretation is both plausible and significant, </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>glad I thought of it! ;-)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">the Principle of Charity indicates that this is the best interpretation, at least of the possible interpretations considered so far.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">I have no objection to (IP5c). However, it is obvious to any intelligent and informed Jesus skeptic that (IP5c) is true, and intelligent and informed Jesus skeptics usually think and argue in keeping with (IP5c). G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and Richard Carrier all accept this principle and they all think and argue in keeping with this principle, at least most of the time. So, emphasis on this principle appears to me to be bordering on a STRAW MAN fallacy.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>t</span><br />
<br />
All of their evidence amounts to making positive statements about a posity of evidence,<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Jesus skeptics do NOT argue that because this or that Gospel story is historically problematic, therefore Jesus is just a myth. </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> all the time</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"> The case against the historicity of Jesus is much broader than that and deals with a wide range of evidence both from the NT and from external (non-biblical) historical sources. Emphasis of this principle is a way of suggesting that Jesus skeptics and Jesus mythicists are idiots who don’t think and argue in keeping with this principle, but that suggestion is false and slanderous. There are some stupid and unreasonable Jesus skeptics, but the major published Jesus skeptics accept (IP5c) and generally conform their thinking to this principle.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/08/04/d</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman </span></b> No it's not. It's nothing but argument from silence and incredulity is no one piece of evidence in a posative vain that supports the thesis. </span></div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-55696223686325979242016-08-03T06:22:00.000-07:002016-08-03T06:22:39.905-07:00Bowen-Hinman Debate: Josephus (last)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This brings us up to date with the debate, there may be one more but I've told Bowen It's ok if we stop,. I feel I've won all for exchanges,<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="post uncustomized-post-template" style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; height: 24244px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="cover" style="background-repeat: repeat-y; margin: 0px;">
<div class="entry" style="margin: 0px 12px 20px 0px; padding: 5px 0px 0px; text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">In this debate you will see my opponent has some good arguments but they are of a speculative nature. He has no textual evidence in his favor. My side is backed by some textual evidence. My textual evidence:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b> There no copies of texts of Josephus not containing the TF. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>The brother passage (BP) uses a Greek phrase that means "so-called" or "alleged" in connection with Jesus as messiah: it refers to him as "the so-called messiah."</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>No one would go to the trouble to fabricate a passage or to alter or doctor it and then fail to make it strong enough to suit his purpose. No Christian would call Jesus the "so called" messiah.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue;">*</b>Bowen will argue that the TF does not say "so called" and the same person tweaking the TF would surely Tweak the BP. But they do actually agree. There are two other versions, Jerome's and Syriac, where the TF says "so called Christ." (<a href="http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf" style="color: #0099cc; text-decoration: none;">Alice Wealey</a>)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue;">*</b>The best solution is that the original version said "so called" because Josephus was skeptical of Jesus' claim. No Christian would say that, so a Christian scribe tweaked the TF by taking that word out and adding some other things. He did not do the BP because it was obscure and he did not have a reference book. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The BP mementos Jesus as messiah (although sarcastically) in passing, indicating the reader is already familiar with him; that's because Josephus had already mentioned him in the TF.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">The only thing Bradly has for evidence is the facts of dating, allowing the possibility of his speculations.</span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: red;"><b>Bowen</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Perhaps Hinman believes that (JW) is <i>obviously true</i> and thus it is not in need of supporting evidence or reasoning. Since (JW) is not obviously false and not obviously problematic, I’m comfortable with attributing this argument to Hinman even though he did not clearly and explicitly state this argument in his post on Josephus. I believe that this is a reasonable “educated guess” at the argument Hinman had in mind concerning the external evidence of Josephus.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>I think I was pretty clear that my argument is that there is a historical core passage in the TF and that the BP is un tweaked. Jo spoke of Jesus as a man in history because he knew him to be such. He learned that from common knowledge including NT, Christian witness of other kinds, early Gnostic and Jewish polemics.</span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">It is also the case that Hinman provides <i>very little evidence</i> in support of his primary factual premise (1). The link to more in-depth discussion of the Josephus evidence points to an article that makes no attempt to support premise (1):</span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b> Doesn't take much. The passage proves he existed if it's authentic but most historians think it is: there's no evidence against it.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: medium; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24px;">*</span><b style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"> </b><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Now at this point he's going to make an argument based upon the fallacy of guilt by association. </span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: red; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; line-height: 24px;"><b>Bowen:</b></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; text-decoration: underline;"><b>QUESTION 3: Is the “brother passage” in <i>Antiquities</i> Authentic?</b></span><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">A. Christian Copyists Altered their Own Sacred Scriptures</b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">. We know that Christian copyists made many alterations to the Greek text of the New Testament documents, both intentionally and unintentionally, even though those documents were considered to be sacred scripture by many Christians. Bart Ehrman provides several examples of alterations by Christian copyists to NT texts in his book <i>Misquoting Jesus, </i>and he makes the following relevant comment in the concluding chapter:</span><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">…whatever else we may say about the Christian scribes–whether of the early centuries or of the Middle Ages–we have to admit that in addition to copying scripture, they were changing scripture. Sometimes they didn’t mean to–they were simply tired, or inatentive, or, on occasion, inept. At other times, though, they did mean to make changes, as when they wanted the text to emphasize precisely what they themselves believed, for example about the nature of Christ, or about the role of women in the church, or about the wicked character of their Jewish opponents.</b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b> This conviction that scribes had changed scripture became an increasing certitude for me as I studied the text more and more. </b>(<i>Misquoting Jesus</i>, p.210)</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"> For examples supporting this view, see Chapter 2 (“The Copyists of Early Christian Writings”) and Chapter 6 (“Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text”) of <i>Misquoting Jesus </i>by Bart Ehrman.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;"> </span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">There is a great deal wrong here. First, though I do respect </span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Ehrman he is not without biases. Using the term "scribe" is misleading. They did not have Christian scribes in the sense of temple scribes in Judaism. Their redaction of NT material was not carried out in a time when the material was considered scared. They had no idea they were editing sacred text. That came later with the canonization process.</span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"> Redaction came in the formation process when the stuff was being written</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">.</span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Secondly</span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">, Ehrman never argues this is a reason to assume that the brother passage is redacted. To make that assumption just imposes an assumption not in evidence.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Surely, if Christian editors and copyists altered the texts of</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"> </span><i>their own sacred scriptures</i><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">, they would be likely to alter the texts of a Jewish historian as well.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> (1) they weren't sacred scripture at the time they altered it.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(2) they didn't "alter" it. They <b><i>redacted </i></b>it., huge difference. Redaction is editing. Altering is seeing a finished product and fabricating it by change. They weren't doing that, they were editing. They didn't say "let's change this to prove lies." They were re-organizing and incorporating new materiel. That's not the same as saying I'll just slip this in here that James was the brother of Jesus.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">B. Christians Clearly Altered (or Created) the Only Other Passage about Jesus in <i>Antiquities</i> </b></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>the TF is not our only statement about Jesus in antiquity,</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Robert Van Voorst describes the views of modern scholars about the TF passage:</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b> While a few scholars still reject it fully and even fewer accept it fully, most now prefer two middle positions. The first middle position reconstructs an authentic Josephan passage <i>neutral</i> towards Jesus, and the second reconstructs an authentic passage<i> negative</i> toward Jesus. </b> (JONT, p.93) </span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The viewpoints in order of descending acceptance by modern scholars:</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<ol style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Middle Positions (most scholars believe that Christians made a few alterations to the TF passage).</span></li>
</ol>
<ol style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Full Rejection (a few scholars believe that Christians created the whole passage, or that it is simply not possible to determine what parts of the passage were originally written by Josephus).</span></li>
</ol>
<ol style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Full Acceptance (a very few scholars believe the entire passage is authentic, that all of the passage was written by Josephus).</span></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">All but <i>a very few scholars</i> have concluded that the TF passage was either partially or completely the creation of Christians. There are only two passages that refer to Jesus in <i>Antiquities, </i>the other passage being the “brother passage”. So, it is reasonable to conclude that Christians altered (or created) the TF passage, the only other passage about Jesus besides the “brother passage”. This background information suggests that it is likely that Christian copyists also altered the “brother passage”.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;">That is a totally screwed way to look at it. It's glass half empty but it's also very misleading. He emphasizes that two of three groups support that the text was altered to make it sound like the majority opposes historicity of Jesus. Actually it's the opposite. We can divide scholars into three groups, two of the three think Jesus existed as a man in history and Joe wrote about him. Most of those who think the TF is totally fabricated might think Jesus existed. The majority think Jo wrote about him. </span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">*</span></b><span style="line-height: 24px;">Before going down this road let's observe that it has no bearing on the brother passage:no matter how much tweaking was put on the TF that does not prove the brother passage wastweaked.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">The statement that there's two mentions of Jesus in antiquity, that is utter tripe and we all know it. Celsus refers to Jesus and argues from him being flesh and blood; but by default, I agreed not to discuss the Roman passages they are not strong but to say they don't exist is a lie. Not saying they are good evidence but they exist and they do refer to Jesus:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: palatino;"><b>*</b></span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"> Thallus (c. 50-75AD)</b><br /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: palatino;"><b>*</b></span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;">Phlegon (First century)</b><br /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: palatino;"><b>*</b></span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"> Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)</b><br /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: palatino;"><b>*</b></span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"> Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)</b><br /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: palatino;"><b>*</b></span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"> Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)</b><br /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: palatino;"><b>*</b></span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"> Galen (various writings, c.150)</b><br /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: blue; font-family: palatino;"><b>*</b></span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"> Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).<br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b>*</b></span><b> Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)</b><br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b>*</b></span><b> Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)</b><br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b>*</b></span><b>Lucian (Second century)</b><br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b>*</b></span><b>Numenius (Second cent.)</b><br /><br /><span style="color: blue;"><b>*</b></span><b>Galerius (Second Cent.)</b></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(2) The vast majority of scholars still believe in the historicity of Jesus, they accept a core passage of TF that does include Jesus' existence.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">(3)</span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">here is Tabor's core passage with emendations in capital highlights</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: palatino; font-size: x-small; line-height: normal;">There are two passage in which first century Jewish historian Jospehus speaks of Jesus of Nazerath. The first passage is known as the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><b>Testimonium Flavianum (hense forth "TF").</b></i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: palatino; font-size: x-small; line-height: normal;">The second passage gives Jesus just a passing mention and it really about the high presit Annas, and his stoning of Jesus' brother James ('I'll call it the "James passage").</span><br /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;" /><a href="http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Josephus_3.html" style="background-color: white; color: cornflowerblue; font-family: Palatino; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-decoration: none;"><b>(for my take on "James" passage go here</b></a></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Palatino; padding: 20px 10px;">
<br /><span style="font-family: "arial narrow";"><b>The TF:</b></span><br />Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man <span style="color: #ffcc00;"><b>IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN,</b></span> for he was a doer of wonders, <span style="color: #ffcc00;"><b>A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE.</b></span> He drew many after him <span style="color: lightskyblue;"><b>BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST.</b></span> When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, <span style="color: #ffcc00;"><b>FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM,</b></span> and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities 18:63-64).</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;">
<span style="font-family: "arial narrow";"><b>A List of Scholar who accept at least some core passage.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;">
</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Palatino; padding: 20px 10px;">
John P. Meier<br />Raymond Brown<br />Graham Stanton<br />N.T. Wright<br />Paula Fredrickson<br />John D. Crossan<br />E.P. Sanders<br />Geza Vermes<br />Louis Feldman<br />John Thackeray<br />Andre Pelletier<br />Paul Winter<br />A. Dubarle<br />Ernst Bammel<br />Otto Betz<br />Paul Mier<br />Ben Witherington<br />F.F. Bruce<br />Luke T. Johnson<br />Craig Blomberg<br />J. Carleton Paget<br />Alice Whealey<br />J. Spencer Kennard<br />R. Eisler<br />R.T. France<br />Gary Habermas<br />Robert Van Voorst<br />Shlomo Pines<br />Edwin M. Yamuchi<br />James Tabor<br />John O'Connor-Murphy<br />Mark Goodacre<br />Paula Frederiksen<br />David Flusser<br />Steve Mason</blockquote>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;">
<span style="font-family: "arial narrow";"><b>Alice Whealy, Berkely Cal.<br /><br /><a href="http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:G0_JJE4J7wAC:josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf+http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" style="color: cornflowerblue; text-decoration: none;">The TF controversy from antiquity to present</a></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;">
</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Palatino; padding: 20px 10px;">
Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
Now he's going wild on the TF even I said that would not be any focus, That's because he has nothing on the brother passage, it's point blank proof Jesus existed and NO serious scholar thinks otherwise,</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">C. The Oldest Greek Manuscripts of <i>Antiquities</i> are from Long After Christians Altered the Text</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">According to John Meier, “we have only three Greek manuscripts of Book 18 [which contains the <i>Testimonium Flavianum</i> passage] of <i>The</i> <i>Antiquities, </i>the earliest of which dates from the 11th century.” (<i>A Marginal Jew</i>, Vol. 1, p.62). But Eusebius quoted from the altered version of the TF early in the fourth century, so the Christian alterations were made in the second or third centuries:</span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Meier agrees with a core historical passage proving Jesus' historoicioty</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>The first witness to this passage as it stands now is from Eusebius in about 323 (<i>Ecclesiastical History</i> 1.11). </b>(JONT, p.92)</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">This means that <i>textual criticism</i> is of no help in determining the authenticity of the TF:</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>Because the few manuscipts of Josephus come from the eleventh century, long after Christian interpolations</b> <b>would have been made, textual criticism cannot help to solve this issue. ..We are left to examine the context, style, and content of this passage to judge its authenticity.</b> (JONT, p.88-89).</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">It's quoted in other places that are not a MS of Josephus such as Jerome's quotation and other early church luminaries. Jerome's quote takes it back to 400's.As I pointed out it's a mistake to think latter texts don't have earlier readings. Jerome's version is probably the original version because it says "so called Christ" in both TF and BP. It is also corroborated by the Syriac version. (Alice Wealy quoted in Roger Pearce PDF: </span></span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><a href="http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf" style="color: #0099cc; text-decoration: none;">http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf</a></span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">)</span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"><span style="font-family: "arial narrow"; font-weight: bold;">a) Jerome's Reading.</span><br />St. Jerome quoted from the TF as saying "he was <i>believed to be</i>the Messiah," rather than "he was the Messiah." This has led many scholars to believe that Jerome knew of another, perhaps older version of the TF that read differently and lacked the "tweeked" parts of the passage.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "arial narrow"; font-weight: bold;"><b></b></span></dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"></dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"></dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"><span style="font-family: "arial narrow"; font-weight: bold;">b)The Arabic Text.</span><br /><br /><b>A Jewish scholar named Sholmo Poines foudn an Arabic Text that reads differently then does the recieved version of the TF.</b><br /><div style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-family: "arial narrow";">Josephus'Testimony to Jesus<br />James D. Tabor<br /><a href="http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/saw.html" style="color: cornflowerblue; text-decoration: none;">(Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus, Antiquities 18. 63-64</a></span></div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Tabor: </span>"Professor Shlomo Pines found a different version of Josephus testimony in an Arabic version of the tenth century. It has obviously not been interpolated in the same way as the Christian version circulating in the West:"<br /><blockquote style="background-color: #f2f2f2; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<b>"</b>At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wo<b>nders."</b></blockquote>
<br /><div style="font-weight: bold;">
<span style="font-family: "arial narrow";"><b></b></span></div>
</dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"></dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"></dd><dd style="background-color: white;"><div style="font-family: palatino;">
<span style="font-family: "arial narrow"; font-weight: bold;">c) Syriac text.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: palatino;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: palatino;">
<span style="font-family: "arial narrow"; font-weight: bold;"><b><a href="http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf" style="color: #0099cc; text-decoration: none;">Alice Whealy, Berkely Cal.</a></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: palatino;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: palatino;"><a href="http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf" style="color: #0099cc; text-decoration: none;">http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf</a></span><br /><div style="font-family: palatino; font-weight: bold;">
</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: #f2f2f2; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: palatino; padding: 20px 10px;">
In the second major twentieth century controversy over the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, the erudite Near Eastern studies scholar, Shlomo Pines, tried to argue that the paraphrase of the Testimonium that appears in a Christian Arabic chronicle dating from the tenth century might be more authentic than the textus receptus Testimonium. 21 Reaction to Pines' thesis was mixed, but the most important piece of evidence that Pines' scholarship on Christian Semitic sources brought to light was not the Arabic paraphrase of the Testimonium that he proposed was more authentic than the textus receptus, but the literal Syriac translation of the Testimonium that is quoted in a twelfth century chronicle compiled by the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch (1166-1199). 22 It is this version of the Testimonium, not the Arabic paraphrase of it, that has the greatest likelihood of being, at least in some ways, more authentic than the textus receptus Testimonium because, as noted earlier, this version of the text agrees with Jerome's Latin version of the text in the same crucial regard. The medieval Syriac Testimonium that Pines uncovered is very strong evidence for what many scholars had argued since birth of the controversy over the text in the Renaissance, namely that Jerome did not alter the Testimonium Flavianum to read "he was believed to be the Christ" but rather that he in fact knew the original version of the Testimonium, which he probably found in Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica , which read "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ."</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: palatino;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: palatino; font-weight: bold;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial narrow";">(2) No Textaul evidence</span></b><br /><br />No textual evidence supports the charge that Origin or Eusbius made up the passage.</div>
</dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"></dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"><b>a) All copies we have contain the quote.</b><br /><br /><b>If it had been forged we should have some copies that don't contian it.</b><br /><br /><b>New Advent Encyplopidia:</b><br /><blockquote style="background-color: #f2f2f2; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
"all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way."</blockquote>
</dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"></dd><dd style="background-color: white; font-family: Palatino;"><b>b) Passage known prior to Eusebius</b><br /><br /><b>Nor is it ture that our first indication of the existence of the Passage begins with Eusebuis:</b><br /><br /><blockquote style="background-color: #f2f2f2; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47).</blockquote>
<div style="font-weight: bold;">
<br /></div>
</dd><br /><div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b>Back to Brother</b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Examiniation of context, style, and content of the “brother passage”, however, cannot provide sufficient reason to be fully confident that <i>no alterations</i> were made to this passage by Christian copyists. So, if small changes by copyists could make a big difference to the significance of this passage as evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, then premise (1) of Hinman’s argument would be cast into serious doubt.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 24px;">Hinman:</b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> That is nonsense. No major scholar agrees with that, wrong on call counts:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: 24px;">Context</span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: 24px;">Style</span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: 24px;">Content</span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">The passage reads like it's referring to a passage already made which could be the historical core passage. He talks like he's already mentioned Jesus before</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">D. Small Changes to the “brother passage” by Christian Copyists Would Make a Big Difference</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">If the entire “brother passage” was invented by a Christian copyist, then obviously the passage would be a complete fake and provide no evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth whatsoever.</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">However, if the passage was NOT completely fake, but has been <i>modified slightly</i> by the addition of a phrase or two, then the evidence provided by the passage could be seriously diminished or even eliminated.</span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 24px;">(1)</span><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 24px;"> </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Obviously it depends upon what is being Tweaked. He has no proof that anythying is, it's total speculation. His only criteria is wouldn't this be damaging ot the Jesus myth cause so it must be made up"?</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(2) No major scholar credits this view with any seriousness because there is no evidence, the reason he phrases it as conditional is because he has no evidence,</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<ul style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: square; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">If the phrase “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” was added by a Christian copyist, then the passage provides no significant evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, even if the rest of the passage was authentic.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Not likely that a Christian had this great sounding stuff lauding Jesus in the TF then turn around and sasy "the </span><b style="line-height: 24px;"><i>so called. </i></b><span style="line-height: 24px;">Christ." No one would change it to support their guy then degrade him in that way,"</span></span></span><br /><br /><br /> <b style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Bowen:</b><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<ul style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: square; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">If the original passage mentioned “the brother of the so-called Christ” and a Christian copyist added the name “Jesus” to that phrase, then the passage would provide only weak evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, because “James” was a very common Jewish name, and because there have been many Jews who claimed to be the Messiah or who were believed by others to be the Messiah.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<div>
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">You would have to produce another candidate in that era to be messiah, brother of what messiah?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<b style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Bowen:</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<ul style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: square; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">If the original passage included the phrase “the brother of Jesus” but said nothing about Jesus being “the so-called Christ”, then this passage would provide only weak evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, because “James” and “Jesus” were both common Jewish names at that time.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<div>
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">which is total speculation Even if this were true it woudl not be too weak because there would be no other Jesus for it to be. He would have to be famous opr not worth pointing it out. Jesus who? He mentions brother because the brother is known and thus noteworthy.</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<b style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">Bowen:</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<ul style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: square; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">If the original passage included the phrase “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” but a Christian copyist added the phrase “whose name was James” to this passage, then the passage would provide only weak evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, because “Jesus” was a common Jewish name, and because there have been many Jews who claimed to be the Messiah or who were believed by others to be the Messiah.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">there would be no point in adding it at this point unless they had a connection between this James and Jesus. Why pick this guy out to connect? Jesus was a common name but it would b e pointless to mention a common guy at this point, The only reason to bring his brother into it is if he would be known to the reader.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The “brother passage” provides <i>significant evidence</i> for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth only if the phrase “the brother of Jesus” AND the phrase “the so-called Christ” AND the phrase “whose name was James” are all authentic, only if ALL THREE of these phrases were in the original text of <i>Antiquities</i> written by Josephus.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">as long as it says Jesus in the original it's evidence, <b><span style="color: red;">UNLESS you show an alternative Jesus but he had to be famous.</span></b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">E. The Difficulty of Determining the Authenticity & Significance of the “brother passage” given the Above Facts</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;">you have no facts, it's sheer speculation motivated by ideology</span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Given that Christian copyists altered the texts of <i>their own sacred scriptures</i>, and given that Christian copyists have <i>clearly altered </i>(or possibly created) the TF passage in <i>Antiquities, </i>it is probable that Christian copyists also altered (or possibly created) the only other passage in<i> Antiquities</i> that refers to Jesus: the “brother passage”.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;">He continues with that implication they so dishonest they would even change their sacred writings, Therefore they just running around changing everything, that is so ridiculously unfair and dishonest (1) not changing it they are editing (2) they weren't sacred when they did it, they were just accounts, they didn't change the content, (3) that still doesn't prove they got hold of the brother passage.<b><i><span style="color: red;"> if they did they would not say ":so called Messiah,"</span></i></b></span><br /><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: medium;"><br /></b><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b><br /><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: medium;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Furthermore, the most crucial evidence for determining whether any alterations were made to the “brother passage” is <i>unavailable</i>: the only Greek manuscript copies that we have were made <i>many centuries after</i> the TF passage was altered by Christian copyists (and presumably many centuries after the “brother passage” was altered, if it had been altered). Finally, since the evidence provided by the “brother passage” would be seriously diminished if <i>just one of the three key phrases</i> had been added by a Christian copyist, this passage can be viewed as providing significant evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth ONLY IF we can be very confident that NONE of the three key phrases was added by a Christian coyist.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Does this guy sell aluminum siding? This is the kind of tactic in college debate we would've called "greasy." He asserts the Christian copyists changed as though it's an established fact but he knows damn well it isn't, He acknowledged it above he has no evidence at all. He's merely asserting it and the incidence is against it because if they did changed it they would have done a better job.</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></span> <span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Given that the general background evidence indicates that it is <i>probable</i> that a Christian copyist altered the “brother passage”, </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b style="background-color: transparent; color: blue;">Hinman: </b>what? I can't believe I'm reading this. This guy has presented no evidence of any now he baldfaced refer to evidence! does he mean his fallacious assertion of guilt by association: Some Christian fabbed the TF therefore they must have Fabbed the BP too, is that what he;s calling "evidence?" That's nothing more than fallacy and don't forget my counter assertion that the reading doesn't warrant the assumption because had they tweaked it they would have made it more favorable to Jesus. Ah yes speaks of probable. but the probability is against for the reason I just said.</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">and given that the crucially important evidence needed to determine whether this passage is completely authentic is <i>unavailable</i> (no early Greek manuscript copies of <i>The Antiquities</i> are available), </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman:</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"> what's he talking about? making more fictional evidence? He has presented no evidences of any kind that woudl prove this, He speculated about it, That's not proof.</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">and given that the addition of a single word (“Jesus”) or one phrase (“the brother of Jesus” or “the so-called Christ” or “whose name is James”) by a Christian copyist would <i>seriously diminish</i> the strength of the evidence that this passage provides for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, I see no rational way to be very confident that the “brother passage” provides significant evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Considerations about context, style, and content of the “brother passage” will simply not be able to provide a rational basis for being very confident that NONE of the three key phrases was added by a Christian copyist.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman:</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"> I'm sorry my friend that is one of the least rational arguments I've ever heard. He is saying that because one word would change it seriously then that increasing the probability that it was changed, that is not rational. It could also be said of any quotation. Add <i>not</i> or take it away from anything would damage the meaning,m therefore, everything is fabricated. One word is not so much easier to add than 10.</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">F. IF the TF Passage Is Completely Inauthentic, THEN the “brother passage” is Probably NOT Completely Authentic</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The majority view among modern scholars who study Josephus is that the TF passage is <i>partially authentic</i>, but not completely authentic. The majority view is that Christian copyists made a few significant additions or changes to that passage. Given this view, I have argued that it is probable that the “brother passage” was also altered by Christian copyists. So, that is one way in which a judgment about the authenticity of the TF passage impacts our judgement about the authenticity of the “brother passage”.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-size: x-small;">that argument depends entirely upon the TF being entirely fabricated. The odds of that are extremely low. As the Wealy quote told us the 19th century scholarship saw it as such out of an ideological party line but modern scholarship is vastly against it The majority accept the historical core then a small contingent think there's no fabrication so the group that accepts it as entirely fabricated is extremely small.</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">But there are other possibilities concerning the TF passage. Some scholars argue that the TF passage is <i>completely inauthentic</i>, that all or nearly all of the passage was created by Christian editors or copyists. If these scholars are correct, then that would make it very probable that the “brother passage” was not completely authentic. </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-size: x-small;">That can be eliminated because it's an extreme minority view flies in the face of the evidence. There are pre Eusbian versions and no MS exist without the TF.</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"> As Hinman points out, the authenticity of the “brother passage” is evidence for the authenticity of the TF passage:</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Josephus refers to James by referencing Jesus as though he’s mentioned Jesus or the reader should know who he is. Jewish scholar Paul Winters states: “if…Josephus referred to James as being ‘the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,’ without much ado, we have to assume that in an earlier passage he had already told his readers about Jesus himself.”</b></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">In other words, if Josephus refers to “Jesus” in the “brother passage” without providing an explanation of who this “Jesus” person was, then this implies (or makes it very probable) that Josephus had referred to “Jesus” in the earlier TF passage. But in that case, if the TF passage was <i>completely inauthentic</i>, as some scholar argue, then this would be significant evidence that the “brother passage” was NOT completely authentic. </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman:<span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;"> </span></b><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; font-size: x-small;">Good God one of the most convoluted pieces of reasoning I've ever seen. he is saying BP indicates by the way it reads that Jo refereed to Jesus before.From that he concludes that if the TF is inauthentic the BP is also, but we've already ruled that out as extremely unlikely.Since the historical core is much more likely it makes since to say that is the mention of Jesus so it's authentic</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">[cut repetition of the same idea] </span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></b><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></b><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></b><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">A similar issue arises even if we assume that the TF passage was <i>partially authentic</i>. One of the two “Middle Positions” taken by modern scholars who study Josephus is that the original TF passage was neutral and Christian copyists simply inserted a few phrases.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">Hinman:</span><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; color: blue; font-weight: bold;"> </span> He's talking about the historical core passage</span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"> The leading Jesus scholar John Meier argues for a neutral re-construction of the TF passage, in which the sentence “He was the Christ.” is removed (along with some other phrases and sentences) on the assumption that this sentence was added by a Christian copyist.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: x-small; font-weight: bold;">Hinman:</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small; font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;">No big deal the Tabor versiomn took it out too but still includes reference to Jesus.</span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">But if this neutral reconstruction of the TF passage is correct, then the part of the “brother passage” that refers to Jesus as “the so-called Christ” is suspect, because the previous mention of Jesus in the TF did not use the term “Christ” to describe or identify the “Jesus” in that passage. Since “Jesus” was a common Jewish name in that time, the absence of the term “Christ” in the TF passage would make it unclear that the “Jesus” in the “brother passage” was the same person as the “Jesus” in the TF passage. Thus, it seems unlikely that Josephus would write about “Jesus the so-called Christ” and expect his non-Christian Gentile readers to know that he was referring back to the same “Jesus” that he had mentioned in the TF passage.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: x-small; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </span><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">That is answered by the second Whealy quote already given above</span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: palatino; font-size: medium;">
<span style="font-family: "arial narrow"; font-weight: bold;">Alice Whealy, Berkely Cal.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: palatino; font-size: medium;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: palatino; font-size: medium;">
<div>
<a href="http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:G0_JJE4J7wAC:josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf+http://www.josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" style="color: cornflowerblue; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The TF controversy from antiquity to present </a></div>
<a href="http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf" style="color: #0099cc; text-decoration: none;">http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/whealey2000.pdf</a></div>
<div style="font-family: palatino; font-size: medium; font-weight: bold;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span></div>
<blockquote style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: palatino; font-size: medium; padding: 20px 10px;">
In the second major twentieth century controversy over the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, the erudite Near Eastern studies scholar, Shlomo Pines, tried to argue that the paraphrase of the Testimonium that appears in a Christian Arabic chronicle dating from the tenth century might be more authentic than the textus receptus Testimonium. 21 Reaction to Pines' thesis was mixed, but the most important piece of evidence that Pines' scholarship on Christian Semitic sources brought to light was not the Arabic paraphrase of the Testimonium that he proposed was more authentic than the textus receptus, but the literal Syriac translation of the Testimonium that is quoted in a twelfth century chronicle compiled by the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch (1166-1199). 22 It is this version of the Testimonium, not the Arabic paraphrase of it, that has the greatest likelihood of being, at least in some ways, more authentic than the textus receptus Testimonium because, as noted earlier, this version of the text agrees with Jerome's Latin version of the text in the same crucial regard. <b><i>The medieval Syriac Testimonium that Pines uncovered is very strong evidence</i></b> for what many scholars had argued since birth of the controversy over the text in the Renaissance, <b><i style="background-color: orange;">namely that Jerome did not alter the Testimonium Flavianum to read "he was believed to be the Christ" but rather that he in fact knew the original version of the Testimonium, </i></b>which he probably found in Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica , which read "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ."</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-small; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">There is a good chance that the neutral view of the TF passage is correct. But if that view is correct, then the TF passage did not refer to Jesus as “the Christ” nor as “the so-called Christ”. But in that case, it seems likely that the phrase “Jesus the so-called Christ” in the “brother passage” was not written by Josephus, but was added later by a Christian copyist AFTER the TF passage was altered to refer to Jesus as “the Christ” (or after it was altered to refer to Jesus as “the so-called Christ”).</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">He has not evidence to establish that he is asserting it, but what I just quoted disproves </span></span></span><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">it.</span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></b><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Given that the vast majority of modern scholars who study Josephus have concluded either that the TF passage is <i>partially inauthentic</i> or that it is <i>completely inauthentic</i>, that either some parts of the TF passage were created by a Christian copyist or that the entire passage was created by a Christian copyist, there is a good chance that the name “Jesus” was inserted into the TF passage by a Christian copyist. </span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 24px;">Hinman </b><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">He's fudeging the data, they have really concluded that the Jerome passage is the original and it says "so called." Look </span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">at </span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">it logically why would anyone </span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">insert commendations</span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">into a text to gain support for their candidates for Messiah and the say "so called." Accept Jesus as your co called savior. no one says that. </span></span></span><br /><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">[delete more useless repetition]</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; text-decoration: underline;"><b>QUESTION 4: Is the Information in the “brother passage” INDEPENDENT of the NT writings?</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">A. Authenticity is NOT Enough</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">One important question is about <i>the</i> <i>source of the information</i> that Jospehus presents in the “brother passage”. If this information came either directly or indirectly from the Gospels or from other New Testament writings (e.g. the letters of Paul), then the “brother passage” does not provide evidence for the existence of Jesus that is INDEPENDENT from the New Testament. If the “brother passage” does not provide evidence that is independent from the NT, then it does not count as external evidence for the existence of Jesus, but is merely an echo of the evidence from the NT.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">First of all the old atheists that the Bible is just av pile of crap and can't be accepted as evidence on any level is just as washrooms Trump supporters. It's an artifact it tells us what they believed, Since there is no other candidate for famous Jesus (they had to mention him for a reason--common name but we know of no other Jesus who did anything note worthy) that info being supplied by Christians makes very little difference.</span></span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">He has no basis for establishing thiat he's only basing it upon the date of composition.</span></span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">B. <i>Antiquities</i> was Written AFTER the Gospels and the Letter of Paul to the Galatians</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Josephus wrote <i>The Antiquities</i> in either 93 or 94 CE. Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians about 50 to 55 CE. The gospel of Mark was probably written about 70 CE, and the gospel of Matthew was probably written about 85 CE. Thus Josephus wrote the “brother passage” about 40 years after Paul wrote to the Galations, about 25 years after the gospel of Mark was written, and about a decade after the gospel of Matthew was written. Each of these NT documents states or implies that Jesus of Nazareth had a brother named James, and that some Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah or “the Christ”:</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">55 CE:</b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. </b>(Galatians 1:19, New Revised Standard Version)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">70 CE:</b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. </b> (Mark 6:3, New Revised Standard Version)</span><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">85 CE:</b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? </b><span class="text Matt-13-55" id="en-NRSV-23595">(</span><span class="text Matt-13-55" id="en-NRSV-23595"><span class="passage-display-bcv">Matthew 13:55, New Revised Standard Version</span><span class="passage-display-version">)</span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Josephus could have learned the idea that there was a man named Jesus who was the brother of a man named James, and who was believed by some Jews to be the Messiah or “the Christ” from reading the letter of Paul to the Galatians, or the gospel of Mark, or the gospel of Matthew. </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>Date of comp is the only thing he has that passes for evidence, that proves nothing it only makes it possible not likely.</span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
[delete useless repetition] He lists a bunch of different ways that Jo could have learned it from Christian but that;s just more of the same non proof.</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">C. The Information in the “brother passage” could have Come from More than One Source</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Just as it is important to recognize that the TF passage could be partially authentic and partially inauthentic, so it is also important to recognize that the “brother passage” could be partially independent of the NT and partially dependent on the NT. The death of James the brother of Jesus is not described in the NT, so clearly the basic story in the “brother passage” did not come from the NT. However, it is possible that the idea that James was “the brother of Jesus” and that Jesus was “called the Christ” could have come from the NT, could be dependent on someone having read one or more writings from the NT.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">He's just trying to evoke the "Bible is garbage and cam't be evidence 'prejudice of atheist circles. Let's say it's true where else is he going to hear about it? Apart from circles related to Christianity?: Who else would talk about it? There might be a mention in the Talmud.Why wouldn't he turn to Christian circles to learn about Jesus? Why would that then make it become untrue? </span></span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">There is a apocryphal James literature such as the Apocrypha of James. Paul's mention of James establishes him as a famous person on the embryonic church scene, of course if he wasv head of Jerusalem. This text </span><i style="line-height: 24px;">secret book of James [apocryphon] </i><span style="line-height: 24px;">is established by Ron Cameron [</span></span></span><i style="background-color: white;">Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James</i><span style="background-color: white;">(HTS 34; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1984</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">] as independent</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"> of the New</span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">testament. It's saying gospel so maybe very early,.[Peter Kirby <i>Early Christian Writings URL: </i></span></span></span><a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretjames.html" style="color: #0099cc; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><i>http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretjames.html</i></span></span><i style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;"> ]</i></a> [see aslko Helmutt Koester<i>Ancient Christian Gospels </i>1992, <span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;">187-200</span>]<br /><br />That establishes an independent tradition about ajames as leader and fist witness to resurrection that could be source Jo used.<br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Josephus could have had a story about a man “whose name was James” from a non-Christian source who obtained this information independent of the NT. But if Josephus wanted more information about this person named “James”, he could have obtained this additional information from a Christian source (who had read or heard Mark, Matthew, or Galatians), or from a non-Christian acquaintance who obtained information from reading Mark, Matthew, or Galatians or from conversations with a Christian (who had read or heard Mark, Matthew, or Galatians). In this case, even if the entire phrase “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ” was written by Josephus, this part of the “brother passage” would NOT provide independent evidence of the existence of Jesus, even though the passage as a whole does provide some historical information that is independent of the NT.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman:</b><span style="line-height: 24px;"> he is just writing fiction again. He has not one shred of evidence all he has is a mere possibility and even if it were true it wound still not mean it;s bad evidence, Crosson accepts the historicity of Jesus based upon the NT.</span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">D. There is a Significant Chance that the “brother passage” is Partially DEPENDENT on the New Testament </b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Because there is a significant chance that both references to “Jesus” in <i>Antiquities </i>are either directly or indirectly dependent on the writings of the NT, the NT scholar Bart Ehrman concludes that these references to Jesus fail to provide significant evidence for the existence of Jesus:</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">There is no evidence. The only thing like evidence he has is that the dates of composition make it possible. They don't make it likely,</span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>My main point is that whether the Testimonium is authentically from Josephus (in its pared-down form) or not probably does not ultimately matter for the question I am pursuing here. Whether or not Jesus lived has to be decided on other kinds of evidence from this. And here is why. Suppose Josephus really did write the <i>Testimonium. </i>That would show that by 93 CE–some sixty or more years after the traditional date of Jesus’s death–a Jewish historian of Palestine had some information about him. And where would Josephus have derived this information? He would have heard stories about Jesus that were in circulation. There is nothing to suggest that Josephus had actually read the Gospels (he almost certainly had not) or that he did any kind of primary research into the life of Jesus by examining Roman records of some kind (there weren’t any). But as we will see later, we already know for lots of other reasons and on lots of other grounds that there were stories about Jesus floating around in Palestine by the end of the first century and much earlier. So even if the Testimonium, in the pared-down form, was written by Josephus, it does not give us much more evidence than we already have on the question of whether there really was a man Jesus. </b>(<i>Did Jesus Exist</i>, p.65)</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">Now he is just gainsaying the evidence, That could be true anytime for any historical writing. If we are going to strut Jo as a historian then we have to trust him on this tool Historians do trust him, he is known as the primary source for first cincture history, that is especially true for matters involving Palestine,</span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Ehrman believes that the references to “Jesus” by Josephus fail to provide significant evidence for the existence of Jesus even though it is Ehrman’s purpose in the book quoted above to refute Jesus Mythicists and to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person. Ehrman does not reject these passages from Josephus in order to support the belief that Jesus is a myth; he rejects them because there is a good chance that the information about Jesus in those passages is DEPENDENT on one or more of the writings of the NT.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 24px;">Bradley needs to quote that quote. I doubt that he has that right because Jo is one of the Major reasons that historians overwhelming accept the historicity of Jesus,</span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Robert Van Voorst is an NT scholar who has also carefully studied the external evidence for Jesus, including the two passages by Josephus that refer to Jesus. Van Voorst is much more positive about this evidence that Ehrman is,</span></blockquote>
<br /><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;">see, historians love this guy</span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"> but Van Voorst is honest enough to admit that his positive evaluation of the external evidence from Josephus rests on a somewhat shaky assumption, the assumption that the information Josephus had about Jesus was obtained INDEPENDENTLY of the writings of the NT:</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>These items rule out Josephus’s obtaining this wording [in the TF passage], and <i>probably the information behind it</i>, from the New Testament or other early Christian writings known to us.</b> (JONT, p.102-103,<i> emphasis</i> added)</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The evidence only “probably” rules out the hypothesis that Josephus obtained the information about Jesus in these passages from the New Testament or other early Christian writings. Van Voorst does not assert that the evidence “certainly” rules this out, nor that it “almost certainly” rules this out, nor that it “very probably” rules this out. Thus, Van Voorst tacitly admits that <i>there is a significant chance</i>that Josephus obtained his information about Jesus from the New Testament.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>Most of Bradley's arguments have been based entirely upon not just probability but pure </span></span></span><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">speculation</span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">Further comments by Van Voorst reinforce his admission of the shakiness of the assumption that the TF passage and the “brother passage” contain <i>independent historical information</i> about Jesus:</span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>Did this information [about Jesus] come indirectly from Christians or others to Josephus? <i>We can be less sure about this</i> [i.e. we can be less sure about ruling this out than ruling out that Josephus obtained the information about Jesus by reading some of the NT writings himself]<i>, </i>althought the totality of the evidence points away from it. </b>(JONT, p.103, <i>emphasis</i> added)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">Hinman: </b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Reading NT does not make it bad eviodence but it is by no means the case that he had to do this. </span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b>A more plausible hypothesis is that Josephus gained his knowledge of Christianity when he lived in Palestine. He supplemented it in Rome, as the words “to this day” may imply, where there was a significant Christian presence. <i> Whether Josephus aquired his data by direct encounter with Christians, indirect information from others about their movement, or some combination of both, we cannot tell. </i>John Meier is correct to conclude that none of these potential sources is verifiable, yet the evidence points to the last option as the more commendable. </b>(JONT, p.102, <i>emphasis</i> added).</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;">Hinman:</b><span style="line-height: 24px;"> It is just as plausible that he had evidence, maybe supplementary from Rabbinical sources. The odds are he would have concluded them, there is also the Gnostic source already mentioned which is interdependent of NT.</span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><b><b style="color: blue; font-size: medium;"><b style="color: black; font-size: 16px;"><b style="color: red; font-size: medium;">Bowen:</b></b></b></b></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 20px 10px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; text-decoration: underline;"><b>QUESTION 5: Is the Information in the “brother passage” probably true?</b></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">If I understand Hinman’s argument correctly, he is trying to provide evidence for an intermediate conclusion about a man named “James”:</span><b style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">(2A) <i>It is probable that</i> there existed a man named “James” who was in fact the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.</b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The fact that Josephus asserted that there was such a man, does not prove that there was such a man. One can also challenge the assumption that the fact that Josephus asserted that there was such a man is sufficient evidence to show that it is PROBABLE that such a man exists. Thus, the considerations of authenticity and independence are not sufficient by themselves to show that the “brother passage” provides significant evidence for the existence of Jesus.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman:</b>He has no evidence to establish even the possibility of a myth, there is no reason whatsoever to assure this. Jesus myther argument from silence not withstanding,</span></span></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">This really just amounts to gainsaying the evidence, (refusing to accept it).</span></span></b></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></b></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b><span style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">then he has one of his famous diagrams, here's the thing with the diagrams they look cool, I appreciate the attempt to clarify through cool looking diagrams I can never read them. when I blow it up they too blurry if I don't the writing is too small. This one is no acceptation.</span></span></b></span><br /><div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
As to the finalpoint he makes om probability, the strength of the passage on Jess is as good as any passage by Jo.We have to accept the same truest level to that that would not anythings writings otherwise you are just biased.dogmatically rejecting the evidence because you don't like the conclusions.<br /><br />There is no counter evidence all he has in they way of evidence is purely speculative.Since most historians accept the historical core passage with Jesus and base historicity on that we conclude that it backs it. Let's say there is a core passage about Jesus in the BP that is Tweaked to say "so called Christ" why else would they name a guy called Jesus brother of James? Only if Jesus was known for something but there is no other Jesus who is known for that era, lots of guys named Jesus but no one else known for anything,</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">We don't have to take this passage by itself. Together with the Talmud and the two Apostolic fathers, it's good evidence.</span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">My position is the only one backed by actual textual evidence, The agreement between TF and BP in Jerome;s versiomn and it's Syriac agreement indicates that's the original passage Josephus wrote.Bradley has no such evidence.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-labels" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-wLWe7USYsWABOuVgF-czqoM61lCV90Q1Xn7xDeq4K3SiiHLVjgwbAFv7YusP8ex8uuEZGK2Y_f9b_v4Vz4M1u3MK1K67WZKU4zMdnk80NbHN9LqjJS_n8TVU1KvAZMBiIafluUBNSFCE/s1600/label.jpg") no-repeat rgb(231, 252, 255); border: 1px solid rgb(200, 242, 247); margin: 10px 15px 50px 0px; padding: 5px 5px 5px 35px;">
</div>
<div class="postmetadata" style="color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-stretch: normal; height: 25px; margin: 0px; padding: 13px 40px 0px 10px; text-align: right;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-2">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments" id="comments" style="background-color: #f2f2f2; clear: both; color: #1ed0f0; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 10px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 5px;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comments" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><h4 style="margin: 10px 0px;">
14 comments:</h4>
<dl id="comments-block"><div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-4868441217234086535"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-4868441217234086535" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Joe Hinman </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-4868441217234086535" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/25/2016 07:52:00 AM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-118147625" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=4868441217234086535" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">come on guys let's have commemts</dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-1640598036952188691"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-1640598036952188691" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Jason Pratt </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-1640598036952188691" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/25/2016 11:20:00 AM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-912754023" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=1640598036952188691" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">I was working on type-editing your text, when I ran across a persistent mistake you need to correct, Joe: Bradley is talking about Josephus' book (or set of books) known as the <i>Antiquities</i>(and more specifically one book of it, if I recall correctly), and several times you mistake him for talking about all works in antiquity. When Bradley says there are only two references to Jesus in Josephus' <i>Antiquities</i>, he is not saying there are only two references in all texts of antiquity.<br /><br />I'll get back to type-editing it eventually, but you should fix those parts of your reply first.<br /><br />JRP</dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-5120480903183416352"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-5120480903183416352" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Joe Hinman </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-5120480903183416352" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/25/2016 10:53:00 PM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-118147625" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=5120480903183416352" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">well I considered him meaning but the context didn't seem t support that meaning, or maybe it seemed so obvious it though he could;t mean that,</dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-43400671732652005"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-43400671732652005" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/01387665301048762546" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Don McIntosh </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-43400671732652005" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/26/2016 06:44:00 AM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-1015219587" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=43400671732652005" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><i>Not likely that a Christian had this great sounding stuff lauding Jesus in the TF then turn around and sasy "the so called. Christ." No one would change it to support their guy then degrade him in that way</i><br /><br />That's a good point, and calls attention to a depiction of early Christians often suggested by atheists: On one hand the early believers were a bunch of superstitious dolts who blindly believed in miracles. On the other they were crafty enough to create narratives describing themselves as "slow of heart to believe" and "of little faith," in order to deceive their readers into thinking the miracles may have actually happened, i.e., independently of their own initial skepticism, when in fact they did not. Naïve and brilliant.<br /><br />Reminds me of some of the truthers who maintain that George W. is and always has been a complete idiot, but is also capable of successfully masterminding the 9-11 attacks while scapegoating a bunch of innocent "so-called" terrorists. LOL.</dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-6933933931283075805"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-6933933931283075805" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">BK </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-6933933931283075805" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/26/2016 12:08:00 PM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-514602379" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=6933933931283075805" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">Snicker, Don, that is too insightful. Please be careful. We want atheists to comment on the blog, and if you keep showing insight like this you will lose them. </dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-3132593826380711697"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-3132593826380711697" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Jason Pratt </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-3132593826380711697" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/26/2016 01:18:00 PM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-912754023" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=3132593826380711697" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">For that matter, some of the "great stuff" lauding Christ in the TF itself isn't so great! -- "those who accept truth like hedonists", would have sounded just as squiffy back then as it does now. ("Like crazy people at an orgy? What?!?") The non-interpolated theoretical remainder of the TF is pretty cautiously ambivalent, or even a touch disdainful, while still painting a recognizable portrait.<br /><br />JRP</dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-2773010682779618598"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-2773010682779618598" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Joe Hinman </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-2773010682779618598" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/27/2016 06:10:00 AM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-118147625" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=2773010682779618598" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">"We want atheists to comment on the blog, and if you keep showing insight like this you will lose them. "<br /><br /><br />counter snicker we want them to commemt so we caan say insightful things to them. I just stay off line a d talk to the wall if I dom't wantanyone to know what i think.</dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-203192057368356219"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-203192057368356219" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Joe Hinman </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-203192057368356219" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/28/2016 06:57:00 AM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-118147625" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=203192057368356219" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">On the issue of the Jerome reading"so called Christ" they assume he stuck it in after Euseius change the passage and that Jerome read the Eusebius counterfeiter,but one of them pointed out that Origin said Jo did not believe Jesus was messiah, if Origion is talking about Jo's view on Jesus he had to know Jo talked about Jesus<br /><br /><br />Even thou h he does't quiote the TF full on he obviouslky testifies to a pre Euseibian version.</dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-4370229864120992883"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-4370229864120992883" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Joe Hinman </a>said...<div class="comment-timestamp" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11px; font-stretch: normal; margin: 12px 0px 0px;">
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-historical-jesus.html#comment-4370229864120992883" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">7/28/2016 06:59:00 AM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-118147625" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=6363362&postID=4370229864120992883" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none !important;" title="Delete Comment"><span class="delete-comment-icon" style="background: url("/img/icon_delete13.gif") left center no-repeat; padding: 7px;"> </span></a></span></div>
</dt>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments-boxR" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-box" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGv5FpaxDtvtz4V-fHjTPl2lHttEf8HJqV_EEqfxUFeHSEBDGcEOphiomheK1ndRCQ3OgCSKOjp0dHaIOOQ36gIACKeAuLgEUY1QxQYLZM_CPu6c0jeNoQtI0xHCJIfrVON5CaXc1Kvwm3/s1600/comment-bottom.jpg") center bottom no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 5px 10px 12px 15px; width: 611px;">
<dd class="comment-body" style="border-top: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">/2016 12:08:00 PM Delete<br />Blogger Jason Pratt said...<br />For that matter, some of the "great stuff" lauding Christ in the TF itself isn't so great! -- "those who accept truth like hedonists", would have sounded just as squiffy back then as it does now. ("Like crazy people at an orgy? What?!?") The non-interpolated theoretical remainder of the TF is pretty cautiously ambivalent, or even a touch disdainful, while still painting a recognizable portrait.<br /><br /><br /><b>yes I am one of the people who thinks that the passage is not tweaked but is just being sarcastoic. that would back my reading.</b></dd></div>
</div>
<div class="comments-titlebox" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidJlzpH3FHXWvNbA9slBeQ82Icv0C0h2ty3KesBr-nrpKNpVEX8fLtlyLgU-1PelMwmdz5lzz_T3UyC0gBGwvBdpWi-c6exM9SvnHdMiEVPvGSo1RiwhKLpp4LBRaz9zyeLw8V3HWwgT__/s1600/comment-repeat.jpg") center top repeat-y; color: #666666; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 636px;">
<div class="comments-title" style="background: url("https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQjwOBgMxFEvKKrsWlaPyW9ebwM2wKg1De_AnTJtDfh7rCxmQs5SeUXRkvqq2yh-B5QwNDIh2rJizYH1d-0g-N4ncygzgSdK-wHq_xezsWyFcQ33W9MAV1ZjSC9C0_HfRtSAHjV3YXm8hE/s1600/comment-top.jpg") center top no-repeat; margin: 0px; padding: 12px 0px 10px 20px; width: 616px;">
<dt class="comment-author" id="comment-7624052021887460774"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comment-7624052021887460774" style="color: #0291d0;"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0291d0; text-decoration: none;">Joe Hinman </a>said...</dt>
</div>
</div>
</dl>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-43394848068972976272016-08-01T07:39:00.003-07:002016-08-01T07:39:49.495-07:00Bowen-Hinman Debate: Polycarp<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: blue; color: white;"><b>Hinman</b></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #3b3636;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">I have been enjoying this. It's fun I hope the fun holds out to the end,</span></span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #3b3636;"><b style="background-color: white; color: red;"><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #3b3636;"><b style="background-color: white; color: red;"><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #3b3636;"><b style="background-color: white; color: red;">Bowen</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: #3b3636;">T</span><span style="background-color: white;">he article “#103: Polycarp’s Martyrdom” asserts the following as if it were an historical fact:</span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong>Polycarp was an old man, at least 86…, and probably the last surviving person to have known </strong><strong>an apostle, having been a disciple of St. John.</strong></span><span style="background-color: white;">However, it is NOT a fact that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle (i.e. it is not a fact that Polycarp had “known an apostle” named John, that he had face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle). The problem with this article, and many other similar articles, is that (despite the official-sounding name of the website “Christian History Institute”) this is simply<em> religious propaganda</em> masquerading as <em>objective history</em>.</span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></blockquote>
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> Brad you offer no valid why we should not accept it, the one and only point you make is the probably argument on age that does not out weigh eye witness testimony. We have that, Irenaeus heard Polycarp tell him about his friendship with John (either elder or Apostle does not matter which--ok ear witness). BTW Polycarp himself lived to be 86 and that is testified to by his decedent Polycrates, and other sources including Irenaeus,</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: red;"><b>Bowen</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Scholars who study the issue have significant doubts about whether Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. </span><span style="background-color: white;">Just as in the second and third centuries, Christians are still hard at work lying to, and deceiving, uncritical thinkers and true believers about the history of Christianity. </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>you been hitting the sauce?</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: red;">Bowen</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: orange;">Facts don’t matter; truth doesn’t matter; scholarship and objectivity don’t matter: just say whatever it is that will strengthen the faith of Christian believers, and that will suffice to justify any lies or deceptions or misinformation that one wishes to promote.</span><span style="background-color: orange;">Some websites avoid engaging in outright deception by using <em>hedging phrases</em>. A good example of this is on the <em>Christianity Today</em> History website, which is one of the top sites that came up in my Google search on “Polycarp”:</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b><span style="color: blue;"><b>painting with a broad brush there man, not cool.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: red;">Bowen</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/martyrs/polycarp.html">http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/martyrs/polycarp.html</a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">This article supports the claim that Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, and that Polycarp “was personally discipled by the apostle John”, but it does so with the use of the hedge “Tradition has it that…”:</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>So? There is no valid reason to think he wasn't Bishop of someplace. He was not just some anonymous guy who got killed. He was taken to be killed in Smyrna from a near by local where he had fled to hide from persecution. and passed through areas and wrote to the local churches.,, He was important enough to do that to. He was important enough to write to commiseration as he was being led away, there is no indication that saying he was a bishop got them anything, why brim Christianity today into it? Straw man.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: red;">Bowen</b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong>He [Polycarp] lived during the most formative era of the church, at the end of the age of the original apostles, when the church was making the critical transition to the second generation of believers. <em>Tradition has it that</em> he was personally discipled by the apostle John and that he was appointed as bishop of Smyrna (in modern Izmir in Turkey) by some of the original apostles. </strong>(<em>emphasis</em> added)</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;">The use of this <em>hedging phrase</em> gives the author an escape hatch: “I was just describing the content of a tradition, not asserting that the tradition was true.” But, an obviously important question is begged: <b> IS THIS TRADITION TRUE OR FALSE?</b> The author of the article never indicates whether these claims are true or false. The author never indicates whether these claims are probable or improbable. The author never discusses any <em>evidence</em> for or against these claims.</span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> Apparently Brad has never read any history especially church history,</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(1) the term "tradition" is important in theology and t;'s not a dirty word. It'a good thing we know we are in a tradition,Western philosophy is a radioisotope, it doesn't ,meamn you are lying it;'s like a conversation'</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(2) should I believe that Brad has never been to college and is illiterate so he's never heard of scholarly caution? That is what they are doing when the speak conditionally about Poloycarp. No we can't prove he knew John of course if that was an obvious fact we wouldn't have a debate. Irenaeus testimony is backed up by Polycrates and otyers,</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b>So, it appears that the writer of this “historical” article on Polycarp at the <em>Christianity Today</em> History website <em>does not give a damn</em> about whether these claims are true of false. </span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> that's </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">ridiculous saying that just because he uses Scholarly causation.</span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">In the first debate I said Bowen wont use straw man argument but I guess I was wrong, that's what this is. Why is he using Christianity today? That's not scholarly source, does the guy writing that even a history degree?</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"> What kind of historian does not give a damn about the truth of such obviously significant claims? I know who does not give a damn about the truth of obviously significant historical claims: a <em>worthless pseudo-historian</em> who cares more about promoting Christian propaganda and pleasing the sheeple in the pews than about what actually happened in the past, that’s who!</span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Hinman </b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Again, he's talking about a popular infotainment source. He's not talking about a historian why expect a non historian to be a historian? why is he not attacking my argument? Argument why is he wasting my time on this stuff?</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">It is possible that the author of that article on Polycarp did care about truth and objectivity to a degree, and did express some doubts about these claims in an earlier version of this article (e.g. “but this tradition is probably false, because….” ) but then the editors at </span><em style="background-color: white;">Christianity Today</em><span style="background-color: white;"> objected and demanded that expressions of such doubts be removed from the article before it was published. But if that were the case, the author is still to blame for caving in to pressure to conform his/her scholarly opinions to the goals of some Christian propagandists. It would be better for the article on Polycarp not to be published, than to sacrifice one’s intellectual integrity and objectivity to make the article more pleasing to Christian propagandists in order that the article would be published.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Holy straw man Batman he's beating the daylights out of tacit non Joe Hihman argument,</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">he's making up this fiction about the author. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Joe Hinman, of course, is not to blame for the stupidity, ignorance, bias, and dishonesty of numerous Christian psuedo-historians or of modern Christian propagandists, any more than I am to blame for the stupidity, ignorance, bias, and dishonesty of Atheist pseudo-historians or modern Atheist propagandists. Hinman and I are only to blame for our own stupidity, ignorance, bias and dishonesty, not for that of others who happen to share a similar point of view about God or Jesus. I’m simply pointing out that there is <em>a whole lot of bullshit about Polycarp</em> on the internet, and that some of this bullshit is presented as if it was scholarly historical writing, when it is simply religious propaganda: BUYER BEWARE.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> good ,I thought you were </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">drunk. I do share your disgust for the bad scholarship I see in the evangelical church but there's a lot of good scholarship you are ignoring, I had a prof at Perkins, big name in feminist theology. studied NT but I beat her in argument on Polycarp because she knew almost nothing about patristics,</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"> <b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Question 2: What is the Logic of Hinman’s Argument from Polycarp?</strong></span><span style="background-color: white;">As with Hinman’s argument from Papias, <em>my initial guess</em> at the logic of his argument focuses on the idea of a chain of face-to-face relationships:</span><strong style="background-color: white;">(1) Polycarp had personal, face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle.</strong><strong style="background-color: white;">(2) John the Apostle had personal, face-to-face conversations with Jesus of Nazareth.</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">THUS:</strong><strong style="background-color: white;">(3) Polycarp had personal, face-to-face conversations with someone who had personal, face-to-face conversations with Jesus of Nazareth.</strong><strong style="background-color: white;">(4) If Polycarp had personal, face-to-face conversations with someone who had personal, face-to-face conversations with Jesus of Nazareth, then Jesus of Nazareth was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person.</strong><strong style="background-color: white;">THEREFORE:</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">(5) Jesus of Nazareth was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person.</strong><span style="background-color: white;">Premise (1) is highly questionable, as I will argue for most of the rest of this post.</span><span style="background-color: white;">But, as with my attempt to summarize Hinman’s argument about Papias, there is a premise in the above argument that <em>clearly begs the question</em>: premise (2). In order to determine that (2) is true, one must first determine that Jesus of Nazareth really existed, i.e. that Jesus of Nazareth was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person. </span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Hinman </b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">First, this is another from of strawman, I did not make that argument it does more or less capture what I'm saying but I did not construct it as such ,Saying p2 is begging the question is totally a straw argument move. I didn't wrote it. But moreover, it's backwards, the fact that Poloycarp knew John is evidence that Jesus existed, had Jesus not existed there would have been no apostle John for him to know., yes according to Poloycarp and Papias John quoted Jesus so he wasn't quoting a myth, he was quoting a man he knew.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Thus, to assert that premise (2) is true involves ASSUMIING that the conclusion (5) is true, which begs the question at issue.</span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue; line-height: 24px;"><b style="font-size: 16px;">Hinman</b></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">who wrote the argument? would it be in the form of p2 if wrote it? no. so it's Bull shit, Brad. not professional Brad.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Because premise (2) so clearly begs the question, and because Hinman did not clearly and explicitly lay out this argument, I hesitate to attribute this <em>obviously bad argument</em> to Hinman. </span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>very unprofessional Brad. Surely he can handle an argument not in the form of a deductive piece of model logic. It doesn't take a genus to figure the link from Polycarp to John to Jesus</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Here is another thing, I'm a historian, I argue like a historian,Historians don't do that </span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">1 if p then q</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">2 p</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">3 therefore q</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">we don't do that, get used to it.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Perhaps he had some other line of reasoning in mind, some other bit of logic that connects the basic factual premise (1) to the conclusion (5) about Jesus. The problem, therefore, with Hinman’s argument from Polycarp, is that <em>his argument is incomplete</em>. There is a logical gap between his factual premise (1) and the implied conclusion (5).</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">1<b style="color: blue;"> </b>if Polycarp Knew John then John was a real guy</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">2 Polycarp knew John</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">3 John was a real guy</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">1 John John knew Jesus then Jesus was a real guy</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">2 john knew Jesus</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">3 Jesus was a real guy</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">happy now?</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">I can provide a generic “warrant” premise to fill this logical gap, but Hinman needs to provide some line of reason or argument in support of the generic “warrant” premise:</span><strong style="background-color: white;">(1) Polycarp had personal, face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle.</strong><strong style="background-color: white;">(W) IF Polycarp had personal, face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle, THEN <em>it is probable that</em> Jesus of Nazareth was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person.</strong><strong style="background-color: white;">THEREFORE:</strong></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></strong></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">you need to come to grips with the fact that you have no evidence, I have evidence and you don't. My evidence is that Polcarp sid he knew John, he told his student Irenaeus and his student wrote about it. You have no reason to assume that is not true. Doubt it all you wish you have no counter. You allude to scholars but you don't quote them. I can tell you who some of them are, I point you to the evidence but should I? is that why you are upset?</span></span></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">Liberals are ideologically resistant to the truth tree of Orthodox eccleology for several reasons. Those reasons are mostly ideological so I don't count them.</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;">(5A) <em>It is probable that</em> Jesus of Nazareth was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person.</strong></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">remaining objections on the factual premise (1), but I also have serious doubts about the warrant premise (W). Hinman has not provided any reason or argument to believe that (W) is true or correct, and the most obvious way to support (W) begs the question. It is not clear to me that there is any good reason to accept (W). Apart from a convincing reason to accept (W), Hinman’s argument fails <em>even if</em> the basic factual premise (1) was proven to be true.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">that is decidedly silly. First hand eye witness evidence polycarp's own words why is that not evidence? because you don't want it to be so? </span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Question 3: Was Polycarp a Student of John the Apostle?</strong></span><span style="background-color: white;">Hinman quotes from Eusebius, who quotes from the contents of a letter from Irenaeus to Florinas:</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;"><strong>For, while I [Irenaeus] was yet a boy, I saw thee [Florinus] in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court,4799 and endeavouring to gain his approbation. For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growt</strong><strong>h of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming </strong></span><strong style="background-color: white;">in—his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how <em>he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance.</em> Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, <em>Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all</em> in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God’s mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God’s grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. (AnteNicene Fathers, Volume 1, <a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.ii.html" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title="">Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus</a>, <em>emphasis</em> added)</strong></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></strong></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Note that Ir</span><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">enaeus does not here speak of “John the Apostle</span><span style="background-color: white;">”. However, he does imply that Polycarp knew a person named “John” who had “seen the Lord”. But many Christians claimed to have “seen the Lord” long after Jesus had been crucified. So, this “John” could have been just a Christian believer who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus (perhaps in a vision, like Paul “the Apostle”).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> O no they did not, Notice he doesn't document even one case of a Chroistian claiming to see Jesus in the flesh long after the time. iI they did they probably meant it as a vision like Paul. He has no examples of anyone claiming to have actually seen Jesus when he was in the flesh. It is clear that Polycarp did not say it in this sense, Irenaeus is clearly saying Elder John heard Jesus in the flash saying he saying he quoted.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;">Notice I've already answered he's just repeating him self. If the John he knew was elder John elder John knew Jesus. I covered this last time.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">The additional comments about Polycarp learning about the miracles and sayings of Jesus from “those who had seen the Lord” does, however, indicate that Irenaeus is talking about <em>literally seeing</em> a <em>flesh-and-blood Jesus</em> prior to the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus. In that case, “John” could be the “John the Apostle”, but it is also possible that this “John” was some other follower of Jesus, outside of the inner circle of “the twelve” disciples of Jesus (perhaps the “beloved disciple” mentioned in the Fourth gospel).</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Hinman</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">we discussed that pretty well last time.I proved it's all tiresomely possible and the evidence claims it, the source he claimed as his own attributed the Gospel of John no less to Elder John so he clearly would have been a witness to Jesus. I documented Papias talking about saying of Jesus not in the bible he learned from Elder John</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Since “John the Apostle” was a central figure in the early church, let’s grant the assumption that IF the above words are an accurate representation of the words of Irenaeus, then <em>it is probable</em> that Irenaeus <em>intended to assert</em> that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle, and that this was intended to mean or imply that Polycarp had personal, face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;"><b>Hinman</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">that is not counter evidence,</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Granting this assumption, however, does not mean that <em>it is probable that</em> Polycarp did in fact have face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle, because Irenaeus might well have been mistaken (or possibly dishonest) about this matter.</span><span style="background-color: white;">Instead of turning to Christianity Today’s propaganda on Polycarp, let’s turn to a more scholarly and objective source: <em>The Anchor Bible Dictionary </em>(hereafter: ABD)<em>, </em>one of the best Bible reference works in the English language.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">In his argument based on Papias, Hinman quoted from an ABD article by William Schoedel, a scholar who specializes in the study of early Christianity. In the article quoted by Hinman, Schoedel asserted that Eusebius was probably correct about the meaning of the preface of the book by Papias, namely that Papias was NOT an “eyewitness of the holy apostles”, and thus that Papias did not have face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle.</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>I said I didn't agree with him on that</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Hinman does not quote from Schoedel’s article relating to Polycarp, but if he had, he would have seen that Schoedel also supports my skeptical view about the claim that Polycarp had face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle:</span></blockquote>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: blue;">Hinman </span></b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">since I don't agree with him about the other I don't care about this either, If my favorite scholar Benette Hillman Streeter didn't believe Poloycarp knew Apostle John then that others agree with him is not going matter to me. There are other scholars who think he did. <b><i>No evidence you give shows it was not possible, only less probable and even I disagree with,</i></b></span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Speaking of that firebrand for honesty stuff Brad shows us, why is he fudging on this? His source Baukham believes Ploycarp and Papias knew elder john and Elder John was a eyewitnesses to Jesus and wrote the gospel of John I documented this last time several times. Shall I go on a ti-raid about the dishonesty of atheists?</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong>In spite of all this [evidence like the letter from Irenaeus to Florinus], a link between Polycarp and John [the Apostle] is not assured. Irenaeus was young when he heard Polycarp and may well have taken references to John the elder (Eus. <em>Hist. Eccl.</em> 3.39.3-7) as references to John the apostle.</strong></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;"><b style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman";">Hinman </b><b>Which would't matter anyway because according to Bowen's own source, Baukham, Elder John Knew Jesus and wrote Gospel of John</b></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><br /></strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong> Polycarp himself certainly makes no appeal to having known any of the disciples of the Lord, and he does not claim to have been appointed by one of them over the Church in Smyrna. </strong></span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span> </strong>argument from silence. It's not as though we have all of his writings.His people were aware of his authority he had no need to make that kind of appeal.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><br /></strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong>He does not even lay claim to the title of bishop….Yet even Ignatius makes no use of the idea of apostolic succession in this connection. When he writes against Docetism on Polycarp’s behalf (Ign. <em>Smyrn</em>. 1-9), he never appeals to the special authority of John [the Apostle]. </strong></span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman</b><b style="color: blue; font-style: italic;"> </b>Sorry Brad quite the opposite. if they had a strongly developed sense of apostolic ascendance at that stage (it was just forming up at hat time wasn't fully fledged) then it would be suspicious to claim to have studied with they guy who knew the apostles. when it can't get you so much then there's no reason to doubt it. Obviously it would still matter a lot but not as much.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><em><br /></em></strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><em>A link between Polycarp and John, then, seems about as unlikely as a link between Papias and John.</em> </strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><br /></strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span> </strong>Obvious question begging and i proved last time the odds are high,</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong><br /></strong></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><strong>In any event, Irenaeus evidently remembered very little of what Polycarp may have said concerning his mentor John. For it is significant that he presents the story of the encounter between the apostle and Cerinthus–a high point of his account of the bishop of Smyrna [i.e. Polycarp]–as derived from others. </strong>(ABD, “Polycarp (Epistle Of)” by William Schoedel, <em>emphasis</em> added)</span></blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> that's an absurd conclusion Just because Polycarp didn't tell him that is not proof thiat P did not know John. what w bizarre idea. all that proves is that Polycarp did not tell Irenaeus that anecdote.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Schoedel is a serious scholar who cares about the truth and who does not sugar-coat his findings to please Christian propagandists or the sheeple in the pews. Schoedel is very much aware of the passages attributed to Irenaeus about Polycarp’s alleged relationship with the apostles, and with the apostle John in particular, but his considered and well-informed judgement is that it is UNLIKELY that Polycarp had personal, face-to-face contact with John the Apostle.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>I have not been saying disparaging things about atheists I never said he's not serious. I like a lot of things he says I don't have to agree with him on everything. I had a professor qt Perkins who thought Polycarp never knew John she was a big name liberal scholar proved to her her arguments were fallacious.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">If you read the letters of Ignatius, you will see that he was obsessed with the importance of the role and authority of bishops in Christian churches. Ignatius repeats over and over how Christians must respect and obey and follow the bishop of their local church. But when Ignatius writes to the church in Smyrna, he says nothing about their bishop (allegedly Polycarp) having been appointed by Apostles, or having personally known and conversed with various Apostles, or having been a student of John the Apostle. Any one of those points would have helped Ignatius to convince the Christians at Smyrna to respect, obey, and follow Polycarp, but there is no mention of any direct relationship between Polycarp and any of the Apostles. Similarly, Ignatius makes no mention of any such relationship with any of the Apostles in his letter addressed to Polycarp (which was also intended to be read by Christians who belonged to the Church in Smyrna).</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> Yes it is true that Ignat, was obsessed with the Bishop.That is quite well known. That was the beginnings of Orthodoxy. Argument from silence, Against that we don't have all his writings.Just because he doesn't say Polycorp knew John and he was a Bishop dodsn't mean he wasn't. Ignat himself was a student of John with Polycarp and Papias. all this proves is that he was not challenged on that point and didn't need to talk about it. I am not sure if he mentions Polycarp at all.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;">some evidence that he did know John is his Johannine langue, he seems to have known the Gosepl of John and to have written like John but at a time when GosJon was not well known or used much. the canon wasn't closed.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">There is only one document that exists that is believed to have been written by Polycarp: <em>The Letter of Polycarp to Philippians</em>.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> Brad these are things of which I've been aware since the very early days of my faith in fact even when I was an atheist. That he only wrote that one letter really contradicts your argument from silence because the less he wrote the less likely he would be to mention the a stuff we want to hear.It just could be that he wasn't being challenged on it so he didn't need to talk about it. He wrote on his way to be killed so he did't have much time and he had to focus on the things that needed saying.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;">Irenaeus is the linchpin he's the one who documents all three as John students: P.carp, Papius and Ignat, he says it in </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Against Hersey which is independent of Eusebius,</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"> In that letter, Polycarp makes no mention of having had been appointed bishop of Smyrna by some of the Apostles, there is no mention of his having personally known and conversed with various apostles, and he does not mention having been a disciple of John the Apostle. Any one of these points would have helped Polycarp to persuade the believers in Philippi to take his moral guidance and his theological teachings seriously.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>no mention of his father or what he thought about hot dogs or his ideas on taxes or his favorite vegetable...he must not have had a father cause he did't write about him,</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Although mentioning that Polycarp had been appointed by Apostles, had personally known and conversed with some of the Apostles, or had been a student who had face-to-face conversations with John the Apostle, would have clearly provided support and authority to Polycarp and his words, neither Ignatius nor Polycarp mention any such relationship between Polycarp and the Apostles.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">This casts doubt on Irenaeus’ claims that Polycarp was a student of John the Apostle, and that Polycarp had face-to-face conversations with various other Apostles, and “how <em>he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance.” I</em>n the one letter we have from Polycarp, where speaking about such relationships and conversations with John the Apostle and other Apostles would have clearly helped him to persuade his audience to take his guidance and teachings seriously, Polycarp says nothing about any such relationships and conversations.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> But since he wasn't being challenged on it he didn't need to go<br />
<b style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen </span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Question 4: Was John the Apostle a Teacher of Polycarp?</strong></span><span style="background-color: white;">This is basically the same question as the previous question: “Was Polycarp the student of John the Apostle?” The difference is that Question 4 is focused primarily on<em> John the Apostle</em> rather than on <em>Polycarp</em>. William Schoedel is an expert on Early Christianity, especially on Papias, Ignatius, and Polycarp. But other scholars have expertise on John the Apostle, so we can flip the question around and see what scholars who focus on John the Apostle have to say about the alleged relationship between Polycarp and John the Apostle.</span><span style="background-color: white;">The <em>Encyclopædia Britannica</em> has an article called “<a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-John-the-Apostle" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title="">Saint John the Apostle</a>“. The article was written by Henry Chadwick, who was “Regius Professor Emeritus of Divinity, University of Cambridge; Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge, 1987–93. Author of <em>The Early Church</em> and others.” Here is <a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Chadwick_(theologian)" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title="">what Wikipedia has to say</a> about this scholar:</span><span style="background-color: white;"><b>Henry Chadwick</b>, … <strong>(23 June 1920 – 17 June 2008) was a British academic and Church of England priest. A former Dean of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford – and as such, head of Christ Church, Oxford – he also served as Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge, becoming <em>the first person in four centuries to have headed a college at both universities.</em></strong></span><span style="background-color: white;"><strong><em>A leading historian of the early church</em>, Chadwick was appointed Regius Professor at both the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.</strong> (<em>emphasis</em> added)</span><span style="background-color: white;">Here is an<em> important conclusion</em> that Henry Chadwick asserts in his article about John the Apostle:</span><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>John’s subsequent history is obscure and <em>passes into the uncertain mists of legend. </em></strong>(<em>emphasis</em> added)</span><span style="background-color: white;">According to Chadwick, at a certain point in time, historical data on the life and activities of John the Apostle become “obscure” and any further events in the life of John the Apostle beyond that point in time pass “into the uncertain mists of legend.” In other words, up to a certain point in time, there is sufficient historical data to use as the basis for probable claims about the activities of John the Apostle, and after that point in time, there is NOT sufficient historical data to use as the basis for probable claims about the activities of John the Apostle.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; font-weight: bold;">Hinman</span><span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="color: red;"><b>Modern scholarship has not been generous to the Apostle John, There are a lot of reasons for this. Brad wants to just ignore the whole Baukham-EJ thing as though e didn't make this incredible mistake but he did. He had not disputed the elder John.</b></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">"</span><b style="color: #666666; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 14px;"><i>Richard Bauckham</i></b><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14px;"> has examined this issue and provided a careful translation of the passage from Eusebius that quotes from the preface of Papias’ book</span><span style="background-color: white;">"</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<b style="background-color: #e1ebf2; color: #666666; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen: (last time)</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; color: #666666; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">Based on Bauckham’s translation and interpretation of this passage, Papias implies that there are several layers between him and Jesus (click on the image below for a clearer view of the chart):</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; color: #666666; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">Chain of Tradition</span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "times new roman"; font-weight: bold;">Hinman </span>he's practically holding a pep rally for Baukham but then Baukham says <b>Elder John Knew Jesus.!!!!</b></span></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">I show </span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;">
1<span style="line-height: 1.4em;">) EJ was still going sense it speaks of him in present tense</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;">(2) That means the </span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px;">earlier</span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;"> date would be more </span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px;">likely.</span><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;"> </span></div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="line-height: 1.4em;">(3) Polycarp died in 156 at age 80. Papi AD78</span></div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;">
(4) Say EJ was 20 in AD 30 assuming he's Older than Apostle John because he';s the elder John Yes I know not necessarily what it means,</div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;">
(5) he would be 90 in 100.</div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;">
(6) Papias could have met EJ in AD 90 when he was 10 an EJ would have been 80, so he could have made the famous quote around the turn of the centenary. Of course EJ could have been 10 when he saw Jesus;</div>
<div style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.4em;">
The quote is dated to the time of the book because it was in the book but it could have been used from an earlier time without being updated.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">now he does more apostle bashing</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: red;"><b>Bowen</b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">But what IS that point in time, when, according to Chadwick, the life and activities of John the Apostle pass “into the uncertain mists of legend”? The word “subsequent” in the above sentence, refers to an event described in the previous paragraph of the article:</span><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>John’s authoritative position in the church after the Resurrection is shown by his visit with Peter to Samaria to lay hands on the new converts there. It is to Peter, James (not the brother of John but “the brother of Jesus”), and John [the Apostle] that Paul successfully submitted his Gospel for recognition. What position John held in<em>the controversy concerning the admission of the Gentiles to the church</em> is not known; the evidence is insufficient for a theory that the Johannine school was anti-Pauline—i.e., opposed to granting Gentiles membership in the church. </strong>(<em>emphasis</em> added)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">This event when a decision was made by the leadership of the Church in Jerusalem to grant Gentiles membership in the church is known as the “Apostolic Council” or the “Jerusalem Council” (see Acts 15:4-29). This event is usually dated to 49 CE. Thus, <em>Chadwick’s Historical Principle</em> (hereafter: CHP) about the history of John the Apostle can be re-stated as follows:</span><strong style="background-color: white;">(CHP) Claims about any activities of the Apostle John that allegedly occurred <em>after 49 CE</em> cannot be determined to be probable based on the availavble historical evidence.</strong></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span> </strong><span style="background-color: white;">all assumes Apostle John not Elder John he totally ignores the possibility of Elder John as a witness to Jesus. in he will not mention it for the whole debate.</span><br />
<strong style="background-color: white;"><br /></strong><strong style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></strong></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">But, according to Hinman, Polycarp was born about 69 CE. So, if Polycarp was a student of John the Apostle, that means that the alleged face-to-face conversations between Polycarp and John the Apostle would have occurred in the 80s or 90s, when Polycarp was a teenager or a young man and John the Apostle was a very old man. This alleged activity of John the Apostle is well beyond the year 49 CE, and thus this alleged activity of John the Apostle has, according to Chadwick, passed “into the uncertain mists of legend”. In other words, the claim that John the Apostle engaged in teaching Polycarp is a claim that <em>cannot be determined to be probable</em> based on the available historical evidence.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">Hinman </span><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">the date works. John (either one) lived into the time of Trajan according to all early authorities. So that makes his death date most likely around 101 or 102. Poly was born in 69 he could have met John at age 10-15 80-81 he might have had 15 years to learn from him. While less liley anyone in that era lived that long it did happem, Poly himself lived to be 86 and Papias lived into his 70s or 80s.</span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: red;"><b>Bowen</b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Chadwick is not the only scholar who accepts (CHP). John Meier is a leading Jesus scholar, and he has carefully investigated the history of Jesus’ disciples. In Volume III of Meier’s multi-volume work about the historical Jesus (<em>A Marginal Jew</em>), Meier discusses the various people and groups with which the historical Jesus allegedly interacted. One chapter is on “The Disciples”; another chapter is on “The Existence and Nature of the Twelve”, and another chapter is on “The Individual Members of the Twelve” (John the Apostle was one of the members of the Twelve).</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Here is the skeptical conclusion that Meier reaches about our knowledge of the Apostle John:</span><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>In fact, all we can say of John the son of Zebedee after Easter is that he remained in Jerusalem in the company of the Twelve in the early days of the church (Acts 1:13), was active with Peter in Jerusalem as well as in Samaria (Acts 3:1,3-4,11; 4:13,19; 8:14,17) and that, along with James (the brother of Jesus) and Peter he was considered a leader (“pillar”) of the Jerusalem community as late as the “Jerusalem Council” held ca. A.D. 49 (Gal. 2:9). <em>After that, we must admit total ignorance of John’s life and fate. </em></strong> (<em>A Marginal Jew, </em>Vol. III, p.219-220, <em>emphasis</em> added)</span><span style="background-color: white;">Henry Chadwick and John Meier both agree with (CHP). Both are highly-respected N.T. scholars and historians, and both have carefully studied the historical data concerning the life and activities of John the Apostle.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>same time line when he went to Patmos. or good evidence for Elder John<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Because Hinman’s claim (A), and his claim (B), and premise (1) of his argument imply claims about alleged activities of John the Apostle which occured (if they did occur) <em>long after 49 CE</em>, Chadwick and Meier would clearly reject these claims by Hinman as <em>not capable of being shown to be probable</em> based on the available historical evidence that we have about John the Apostle.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>so what? they have no basis for their opinion other than argument from silence, we don't hear anything out of him and that fits what the Legend says about going to Patomos.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">notice how Brad keeps repeating himself all the time? He never answers my major points.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">There is another problem that puts the final nail in the coffin of claims (A), (B), and premise (1). In all likelihood, John the Apostle would have died before Polycarp became old enough to become a disciple of John the Apostle.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: red;"><b>Bowen</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Hinman suggests that Polycarp was born about 69 CE. We don’t know when John the Apostle was born, but John was probably in his twenties when he was a disciple of Jesus, so if John was in his mid-twenties when Jesus was crucified (around 30 CE), then when Polycarp turned 16, the year would be 85 CE, and John the Apostle would have been about 80 years old. A scenario in which Polycarp became a student of John the Aposlte in the 80s is not impossible, but it is <em>very unlikely</em>, given that people usually did not live very long back in the first century.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b>The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion puts John younger than 20 when he knew Jesus. let's say 15. He would be 65 in 80. Polycapr could have been 10. That is not too young, In world with no adolescence kids got married in their teens and went to work as children. put their meeting at 85 he would have been 15 and John 70.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: red;"><b>Bowen</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">The skeptical historian Richard Carrier writes about this issue in his book <em>On the Historicity of Jesus </em>(hereafter: HOJ):</span><strong style="background-color: white;">Even in the best of times, no more than one in three people made it to 55 or above. Yet if anyone started in the apostolate at, for example, age 15 in the year 30, they would be 55 in the year 70. And it is far more likely the first apostles were in their 20s or 30s, not teenagers, which would make them around 65 or 75 in the year 70. Teenagers would have incredible difficulty earning the respect or deference of those in their 20s or 30s, much less of elder folk, and therefore would be ineffective as evangelists. So it is very unlikely the first apostles were of teen age. Indeed, such a thing would be so remarkable it could not have failed to have been remarked upon in the sources we have. Yet only one in five <em>teenagers</em> would reach age 65, and barely one in twenty would make it to age 75–and that’s <em>without</em> wars, famines, and persecutions reducing their survival rate. Factor those in, and we can expect none of the original ‘twelve’…will have made it much beyond the year 75 (to which age the chances of a 25-year old surviving are one in eight in <em>normal</em> conditions). Combine these prior expectations with the lack of any reliable evidence of anyone so surviving, and the silence of the evidence against it…, and we must conclude that in all probability all the original leaders were by then dead. (HOJ, p.151-152)</strong></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">NOTE: Carrier’s statistical remarks above are based on “the data provided in T.G. Parkin, <em>Demography and Roman Society</em>…Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992…You can see some calculations for survival odds at <a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="http://www.richardcarrier.info/lifetbl.html" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title="">http://www.richardcarrierinfo/lifetbl.html</a>…” (footnote #207).</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> he's assumimg John was in his 20 most people don't assume that<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">If “only one in five teenagers would reach age 65”, then even if John the Apostle was only 15 years old when Jesus was crucified (about 30 CE), then John would have beeen about 65 years old in the year 80 CE and Polycarp would be only about 11 years old that year. Although this is a possible scenario (Polycarp becoming a disciple of John the Apostle in the 80s) the probability of this scenario is significantly less than .2 (less than one chance in five), because (a) John the Apostle was probably in his twenties or thirties when Jesus was crucified (not a teenager), and (b) this survival rate does not factor in wars, famines, and persecutions, which did happen in the first century. At best the probability of John the Apostle teaching Polycarp in the 80s or 90s is .1 or one chance in ten, based on survival rates.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Given that we have insufficient reliable historical evidence to support a claim that John the Apostle lived beyond the year 50 CE, let alone that he survived beyond the year 80 CE, and given that the rate of survival makes it IMPROBABLE that someone who was a teenager or in his twenties in the year 30 CE would have survived beyond the year 80 CE, we must conclude that <em>in all probability</em> John the Apostle died before he had an opportunity to become a teacher of Polycarp.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b> I think it';s absurdly ridiculous to call it weak when he has no evidence against it, it's eye witness based, it checks with the facts of ages as we can confirm them. It may be a bit against the odds but not so great as though no one ever did it<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Q5: How Reliable is Irenaeus Concerning John the Apostle?</strong></span><span style="background-color: white;">In the above discussion, we saw that three scholars with expertise on this issue (William Schoedel, Henry Chadwick, and John Meier) clearly do NOT view Irenaeus’s assertion that John the Apostle was the teacher of Polycarp as constituting significant evidence for that claim. Thus, these well-informed scholars do NOT view Irenaeus as a reliable source of information about John the Apostle.</span><span style="background-color: white;">According to Irenaeus, the following are true claims about John the Apostle:</span><br />
<ol style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>John the Apostle was the “beloved disciple”. </strong>(<a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title=""><em>Against Heresies, </em>Book III, Chapter 1, Section 1</a>)</span></li>
</ol>
<ol style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>John the Apostle wrote the <em>Gospel of John</em>. </strong>(<a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title=""><em>Against Heresies, </em>Book III, Chapter 1, Section 1</a>)</span></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>John the Apostle wrote the <em>1st Epistle of John</em>. </strong>(<a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xvii.html" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title=""><em>Against Heresies</em>, Book III, Chapter 16, Section 5</a>)</span></li>
</ol>
<ol style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>John the Apostle wrote the <em>2nd Epistle of John</em>. </strong>(<a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.ii.xvii.html" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title=""><em>Against Heresies</em>, Book I, Chapter 16, Section 3</a>)</span></li>
</ol>
<ol style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li style="list-style-type: decimal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><strong>John the Apostle wrote <em>Revelation</em>. </strong>(<a class="ext-link" data-wpel-target="_blank" href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxi.html" rel="external nofollow" style="color: #993333; text-decoration: none;" title=""><em>Against Heresies</em>, Book IV, Chapter 20, Section 11</a>)</span></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">Each one of these claims is probably false, so it is <em>very probable</em> that at least three of these claims are false. Thus, it is <em>very probable</em> that Irenaeus asserted <em>at least three false claims</em> about John the Apostle. But if Irenaeus asserted at least three false claims about John the Apostle, then Irenaeus is an unreliable source of information about John the Apostle.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman: </span></b>Of course all of those assume he is talking about the Apostle John.He doesn't say Apostle john, In The passage where he quotes John quoting Jesus about the grape clusters he says:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: #f7be81; font-family: "andale mono" , "times"; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 26.1333px; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #444444;">"who saw John </span><b><span style="color: #444444;">the</span><span style="color: red;"><i> <u>disciple</u></i></span></b><span style="color: #444444;"> of the Lord, recalled hearing from him how concerning these times he used to teach that the Lord would say:"</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;">there it says disciple and he's just assuming it's apostle.</span><span style="background-color: white;">So is that Apostle John or Elder John? How many times is he really talking disciple? How many times does he actually sway Apostle? The theory is the two Johns were conflated. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">all thos times above where Brad says he is talking about Apostle John he doesn't say Apostle he says disciple (I just quoted it) and that can be the elder.</span> <span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Brad never makes attempt to answer the Elder john Argument. when you don;t mention an argument you lose it.</span></div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-13831016837883384482016-07-27T02:21:00.000-07:002016-07-27T02:21:07.996-07:00Bowen-Hinman Debate Argument 2:Papias<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://s15.photobucket.com/user/Metacrock/media/author_bauckham_zpstjbww5oh.png.html" target="_blank"><img alt=" photo author_bauckham_zpstjbww5oh.png" border="0" src="https://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/author_bauckham_zpstjbww5oh.png" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I am going to be unconventional and start with a point from down in the body of the text: the issue of who were the elders in Papias' famous statement about Aristion and Elder John (EJ). Get to know it because that quote is at the enter of this debate.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">"The Elders" could be Apostles. My position is that Papias does refer to two different Johns, that he knew them both and both knew Jesus.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now we might as well deal with the issue of the statement and the problem with it because it will be crucial. There is more than one way to understand it. Skeptics want to make the elders into a separate group and to make those who related the words of the elders into yet a fourth group. I am not necessarily sold on this; I am not set in concrete either way, but I can see the possibility that the Elders are not a second group. Look again:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b style="background-color: white; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><i>I shall not hesitate to set down for you along with my interpretations all things which I learned from the elders </i></b></blockquote>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 19.6px;">[V</span><span style="color: blue;"><span style="line-height: 19.6px;">ery possible that he means the Apostles here, why? Because why say he learned from the elders if they are a second group in a four tier process? Why not say he learned from Apostles through elders and the indeterminate group who related their words ?</span></span><span style="line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="color: blue;"> He could very well call Apostles elders here. Look at quote</span>:]</span></span></span></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">with care and recorded with care, being well assured of their truth. For unlike most men, I took pleasure not in those that have much to say but in those that preach the truth, not in those that record strange precepts but in those who record such precepts as were given to the faith by the Lord and are derived from truth itself. Besides if ever any man came</span><b style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><i><span style="background-color: white; color: orange;"> </span><span style="background-color: orange;">who had been a follower of the elders</span></i></b><span style="background-color: orange; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">, </span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="line-height: 19.6px;">[</b><span style="color: blue;"><span style="line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I</span>t makes no sense here to say they had followed the elders when the elders are just the group of messengers relaying the Apostles' words. They were all followers of the apostles.]</span></span></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">I would inquire about the sayings </span><b style="background-color: orange; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 19.6px;">of the elders; what Andrew said, or Peter or Philip or Thomas, or James, or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's </b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: orange;"><b>disciples</b>;</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 19.6px;">[He's just said two very important things (1) he calls a a string of Apostles elders (2) he calls them all the Lord's disciples. <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">S</span>o calling EJ "disciple" probably does imply that<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">, like the Apostles, </span>he saw the Lord. Now we come to the non Apostles in the statement. The real distinction here is not between Apostle and disciples but between living and dead.]</span></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<br /></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">and what Aristion says, and John the Elder,</span><b style="background-color: orange; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 19.6px;"> <i>who are</i> </b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">disciples of the Lord. For I did not consider that I got so much from the content of books as from the utterances of living and abiding voices..."</span></blockquote>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.6px;">Bradley uses a translation based upon Lightfoot and worked up by Harmer and others to back a different reading. I use a new translation by Miear discussed below.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.6px;">Btw, that quote is really most valuable because it is telling us about the tail end of the oral tradition and the coming of the written word. The important thing here is the tense "who are" (yellowy highlight). In the Greek, the things he says about the Apostles are past tense, "what so and so said", and then what these Aristion and EJ </span><span style="line-height: 19.6px;">say who are </span></span><span style="line-height: 19.6px;">disciples. They are still going<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">. </span>Matthew is dead, Philip and <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">A</span>ndrew<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">, </span>they are all dead, but Aristion and EJ are still going<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now here's why that's important: while it is true that he speaks of what he learned from the Apostles, he<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">'</span>s not saying the only thing he knows about the Apostles is what this group of people from the elders told him. He is talking about why he likes oral tradition, and then emphasizing that he keeps up with what EJ and Aristion are doing.<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span>This is during the time when the old guard was challenged<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">;</span> the elder of the Johanine epistles (EJ?) was being challenged so that elder was saying I am connected to the truth tree and <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I</span>'m in touch.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="postbody" style="clear: both; float: left; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 631.813px;">
<h3 style="border: none; line-height: 18.75px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 2px 0px 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: red; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Bowen:</span></h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The first sentence of Joe Hinman’s argument from the external evidence of Papias makes a very dubious claim:</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Papias was the student of the Apostle John.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> This claim was explicitly rejected by Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity:</span></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, indicates that he was</span> by no means a hearer or eyewitness of the holy apostles, but shows by the language he uses that he received the matters of the faith from those who had known them… (Church History 3.39 quoted in: The Apostolic Fathers, edited & revised by Michael Holmes, p.563)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">Hinman: </span>(1) No modern scholar actually credits Eusebius with any real factual knowledge on the matter. We all know he was motivated by his hatred of </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;">chiliasm in</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 1.4em;"> eschatology and Papias was a </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;">chiliast<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">.</span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span>(2) Eusebius clearly accepted that EJ was follower of Jesus.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="border: none; line-height: 18.75px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 2px 0px 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: red; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Bowen:</span></h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Hinman quotes from the Anchor Bible Dictionary article by William Schoedel on “Papias (PERSON)”. In that article Schoedel agrees with the view of Eusebius that Papias was NOT an “eyewitness of the holy apostles”:</span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b>: But I don't agree with him on that point<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></div>
<h3 style="border: none; line-height: 18.75px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 2px 0px 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: red; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Bowen:</span></h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). …</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22.4px;">Hinman: </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">All that proves is that he knew two guys named John as opposed to just one. He does not say that he did not know the Apostle; if we take the term elder to include Apostles then he did claim to know the elders."</span></span><b style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><i><span style="background-color: white;">I shall not hesitate to set down for you along with my interpretations all things</span><span style="background-color: orange;"> which I learned from the elders" </span></i></b></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></div>
<h3 style="border: none; line-height: 18.75px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 2px 0px 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: red; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Bowen:</span></h3>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> Eusebius’ analysis of the preface is probably correct…</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold; line-height: 22.4px;">Hinman: </span><span style="color: blue; line-height: 22.4px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">(1)</span><span style="color: blue; line-height: 22.4px;"> </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">It's based upon doctrinal bias rather than facts (he also says Papias was stupid but he had no basis for that either). That was all based upon Papias' end times views which Eusebius did not like.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white;">(2) Other than the author of John's epistles signing as "the elder", there is no example of record of an Elder John in church history.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white;">(3) EJ knew Jesus. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white;">(4) Most of my Christian life I've supported the idea of EJ and I still do. But there's reason and room for two Johns in the world of the early church and they both knew Jesus.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="border: none; line-height: 18.75px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 2px 0px 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: red; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Bowen:</span></h3>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Schoedel is not the only scholar who accepts the view of Eusebius. A N.T. scholar who has looked carefully into this issue has also concluded that Papias did not have direct contact with John the apostle.<b><i> Richard Bauckham</i></b> has examined this issue and provided a careful translation of the passage from Eusebius that quotes from the preface of Papias’ book:</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman</span></b>: Bauckham is one of my favorite scholars, I read his book (<b>Jesus and the </b><br />
<b>Eyewitnesses)</b> a long time ago I own a copy. Don't have access to it now but I used Google books. The problem for Bradley's view is that while Bauckham does think that there were two Johns it's far from saying that Papias did not have direct access to an eye witness to Jesus. His book is called<b><i> Jesus and the Eyewitnesses </i></b>and he believes that EJ is one of the eyewitnesses. Not only that but <i style="background-color: orange; font-weight: bold;">Baukham believes that Elder John wrote the Gospel of John.</i><span style="background-color: white;">[p<b>p 420-425</b>]</span><br />
<br />
That should settle the issue about whether or not he thinks Papias knew a direct witness to Jesus' life.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">--Now Bowen quotes</span></b> the quote...<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything <b><i>I learned carefully in the past from the elders</i></b> and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders – <b>[that is]</b> what <b>[according to the elders] </b>Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples <b>[said]</b>, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, <b><span style="color: blue;">were saying</span></b>. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice. (“Papias and the Gospels” by Richard Bauckham, October 6, 2012. Phrases in brackets were provided by Bauckham as part of his translation of the passage.</span>)<b><span style="color: red;">end quote--</span></b></span><br />
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Hinman</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">He chose this translation because it accentuates the elder John idea, but also fudges in a couple of<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span>areas. Lightfoot was a great scholar but he was not the only one to work this translation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">We can see from the rendering the points I made are there they are just de-epmhasized. For example:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(1) He could be understood to say he learned from the Apostles himself, Apostles are elders: </span><b style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;"><i>I learned carefully in the past from the elders</i></b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> </span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(2) the passage where he says the apostles are elders is there and you can see he;s fudged it by trying to slant it to seem as though Apostates are not elders: </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"><i><b>I made enquiries about the words of the elders – [that is] what [according to the elders] Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples [said]</b></i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">Note the brackets. that means it's not really there's </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">that</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> is the </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">translators</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">misunderstanding</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> of it. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">t</span><span style="background-color: white;">he <b>Maier trans.</b> doesn't u</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">se the brackets. because the literal rendering is this what the elders saythenlistikngelders namesApostles.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: red;"><b><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></b></span><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b>Bauckham provides this footnote about the translation of this passage:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">My translation. Compared with my translation in Jesus, 15-16, based largely on Lightfoot, Harmer and Holmes, this is a more careful translation that embodies in a number of ways what I consider to be my better understanding of the passage in the light of further study.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="color: blue; line-height: 1.4em;">Hinman: </b>He has to bracket certain things and those things are all ideological or doctrinal differences with himself and those who disagree about elder John. That is irrelevant for our purposes because Baucikham believes EJ wrote the Gospel of John. That means he was an eye witness. He was the beloved Disciple</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">the <b>Maier translation</b> </span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 1.4em;">"...disciples of the Lord </span><b style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 1.4em;"><i>were still</i></b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 1.4em;"> saying." the actual Greek does favor a continuing action in present time.[<b>Paul L. Maier, </b></span><b><i style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 1.4em;">Eusebius The Church Hisotry, </i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 1.4em;">Grand rapids, Mi:Kregel, 1999. 126]</span></b><br />
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">Buckham's book is called </span><b style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;"><i>Jesus and the eye witnesses</i></b><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">, the point of the book is that eye </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">witnesses</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> testimony makes up most of the Gospel of John, one of the eye witnesses Buckham talks </span></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.4em;">about is elder john! </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.4em;"><br /></span></span>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Based on Bauckham’s translation and interpretation of this passage, Papias implies that there are several layers between him and Jesus (click on the image below for a clearer view of the chart):<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Chain of Tradition<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><b style="color: blue; line-height: 1.4em;">Hinman: </b><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">no he does not. It's modern interpreters trying to make him say it,some to support EJ sand some for other reasons, 19th century liberalism wanted to stick in a bunch of levels of transition to support their archaic view that the Gospels were products of second centenary.</span><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />there is nothing in the quote itself that implies levels of transmission. It's totally up for grabs as to weather the elders include the Apostles or form a different group that relays their words, If that is the case its not a done deal that EJ was one of this group.</span></div>
<h3 style="border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-source: initial; border-image-width: initial; border: none; line-height: 18.75px; margin: 0px 0px 0.3em; padding: 2px 0px 0px;">
<span style="color: red; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">Bowen:</span></h3>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">That there were at least this many layers between Jesus and Papias makes perfect sense, given that Papias was probably writing between 110 and 130 CE. If we suppose that there was an average of twenty-five years for each succeeding generation of Christian- tradition keepers, this puts Papias as receiving the Christian oral traditions about Jesus and the apostles shortly before 110 CE (click on the image below for a clearer view of the chart):</span></blockquote>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">25-Year Generational Cycle</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman: </span></b>there is no reason to understand the tiers of transmission as generations. Papia says nothing to indicate that. Moreover the math checks out but we have to be clear about our assumptions. On pge 14 Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Baukham dates the quote at maybe late first century or no latter than 110. Since he takes John for Elder John he thinks the statement that John lived to the reign of Trajan puts the statement at least no latter than 110.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
(1<span style="line-height: 1.4em;">) EJ was still going sense it speaks of him in present tense</span></div>
<span style="line-height: 1.4em;">(2) That means the </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">earlier</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> dater would be more </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">likely.</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> </span><br />
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="line-height: 1.4em;">(3) Polycarp died in 156 at age 80. PapiAD78</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
(4) Say EJ was 20 in AD 30 assuming he's Older than Apostle John because he';s the elder John Yes I know not necessarily what it means,</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
(5) he would be 90 in 100.</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
(6) Papias could have met EJ in AD 90 when he was 10 an EJ would have been 80, so he could have made the famous quote around the turn of the centenary. Of course EJ could have been 10 when he saw Jesus;</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
The quote is dated to the time of the book because it was in the book but it could have been used from an earlier time without being updated.</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />btw if you think a 120 year old could not understand or remember who he meets. when i was 10 or so I met Henrey Wade of Row Vs Wade. Of course I didn't know because it had not happened yet. But Wade was friend of the family. I am from Dallas. He was DA at the time. My brother and I went on a field trip to his office we asked him "do you know AD Hinman? he';s our Dad" he says Yes I sure do! Wade was Church of Christ by the way. Years latter read about Row Vs Wade I said "O,my God that;s Henry Wade!" Ironic that I'm pro choice, anyway, I remember him I remember what he said, I would have remembered even if he wasn't famous.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Given that “John the elder” is presumably a member of the group called “the elders”, this implies that “John the elder” received his information about Jesus from the apostles, just like the other people referred to as “the elders”, and NOT directly from Jesus.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman: (1)</b>We can't assume that just because elder John is called"the elder" that he's a member of the same group to which Papias refers, Nor can we assume that the defining characteristic of that group is that they did not see Jesus assumptions not in evidence. we can't assume there was a organized structured group of torch passers who did not see Jesus.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(2) Baukham thought he wrote the Gospel of John that defiantly makes him an eye witness in Buakham;s world.</span></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(3) Baukham argues that the term Elder refers to one unquiet individual. he opposed the idea of a class of torch bearer called the elders. He points to the use in the Talmud where it applies to only major Rabbis of their era such as Helliel and Gamaliel. (420-425).</span></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(3) what I don't see there is statement by Buckram saying ye didn't believe Papias knew Apostle John, He could have known both, Buckham is just on about EJ is a real guy, Now he does say the Son of Zebedee was out of the picture by the time of our quote.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In addition to probably being a member of the group called “the elders”, who received oral traditions “from” the apostles, the person “John the elder” is presumably situated a couple of generations prior to Papias, </span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(1) there is no need to create a special group of Apostle quoters called the elders when Papias uses the term "elder" in referee to apostles he just says if anyone came knowing what was said he does not say there was a special job for quoiting apostles. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(2) even if we had some Elite group of torch passers why is EJ in that group? Because he saw Jesus,because he knows. he has the authority,</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(3) but look there is no justification for making him younger than the Apostloes, no indication there levels of witness geared to ages. Because he;s not an apostle doesnm't make him younger than the Apostles. Although he probably was around the age of John, the theory says the two Johns became confused with each other. My guess is EJ was the last redactor of the Gospel that came to be associated with the name John because they confused which John was connected to it.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="color: red; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Bowen</b></span></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">and based on the reasonable estimate of a 25-year cycle for passing oral traditions on to the next generation of Christian-tradition keepers, this puts “John the elder” and other elders (such as Aristion) chronologically about halfway between Jesus and Papias in the chain of Christian-tradition keepers.</span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
\</div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>That is a huge fallacy to assume that oral tradition worked that way It probably worked like it did in Jewish pedagogy. They didn't wait until a certain age then pass it on They are passing it on all the time A student meets with teacher to recite the lessons Probably they recited it in communal setting like meal time.My grandmother born in 1887 told made that it used to be that teaching was all memorizing. When she was a girl they memorized all their lessions.</div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">
<span style="line-height: 1.4em;">If there was a special torch passer strata of christian rank it would mean for EJ to be in it he would have to have been a witness to Jesus teachings. In other words to be an elder he had to have the juice. He could only have that by </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">having</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> seen Jesus. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">
<span style="line-height: 1.4em;">Even if we assume there;s an intermediate level between apostles and sub apostolic </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">fathers</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> (that;'s what Ppapis is </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">technically</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">) that still </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">doesn</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">'t mean there's another whole group between the elders and the SAF's. here's the phrase from the quote:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">
<span style="line-height: 1.4em;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #e1ebf2;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;"> Besides if ever any man came</span><b style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><i><span style="background-color: white; color: orange;"> </span><span style="background-color: orange;">who had been a follower of the elders</span></i></b><span style="background-color: orange; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">,</span> <span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">I would inquire about the sayings </span><b style="background-color: orange; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 19.6px;">of the elders; what Andrew said, or Peter or Philip or Thomas, or James, or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's </b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: orange;"><b>disciples</b>;</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 19.6px;">At that point the Lightfoot quote imposes brackets to make it not say this.That;'s how they direct our attention away from the fact that it's the Apostles he's calling elders. The "if any man..." is bringing words of the apostles not of this intermediary group called"elders" unless of course he also brings word from Elders who are witnesses but not apostles like Elder John or Aristion.</span></span></span></div>
<br />
Here are the brackets <span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I made enquiries about the words of the elders –<b> [that is] </b>what <b>[according to the elders]</b> Andrew or Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples <b>[said]</b>, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, </span><b style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="color: blue;">were saying</span></b><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice. ( </span><br />
<br />
Reading this quote in a straightforward way does not take all these brackets.where mine says:<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">sayings </span><b style="background-color: orange; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 19.6px;">of the elders; what Andrew </b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">(they are elders in other words) his quote puts in</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><b style="line-height: normal;">[that is] </b><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: normal;">what </span><b style="line-height: normal;">[according to the elders]</b><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; line-height: normal;"> Andrew or Peter </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;"><br /></span>here with brackets he;s created another row of people between us and the Apostles. That is not necessary in the Greek and sine it plays into the ideological rendition of theory it seems to be a ploy, Lightfoot was very conservative and believing so It was probably others who took his translation and added the brackets.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, we have at least two good reasons for doubting the claim that “John the elder” (and Aristion) had personal, face-to-face conversations with Jesus.</span></blockquote>
the only thing i see that apples to EJ is the assumption that they only passed on oral tradition every 25 years if I understand that correctly its ludicrous. why would he even bother to say followers of the elders if they weren't witnesses to Jesus? No one speak ls of belief in the Bible as belief in the translations of the Bible." the English translation says it I believe it, that settles it."<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Thus, we have good reason to suspect that (assuming that “John the elder” and Aristion are being called “disciples of the Lord”) the expression “disciples of the Lord” does not imply that they had personal, face-to-face conversations with Jesus.</span></blockquote>
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>Yes it does.<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue; font-size: x-large;">*</b> what's the point of passing on special knowledge if they don;t have the authority to hold it? The closer they great to Jesus the\higher up on the truth tree, so they are not going to make a fuss over the third wave, if these guys saw Jesus that's makes them elder, elder is a big term. They are not elders because the memorized the words,everyone is supposed to do that, they are elders because they saw Jesus.<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue; font-size: x-large;">*</b>Historians still make a big deal out of that.It still means a lot to historians just to be on the tree.In addition to that its clear he;s using the term elder of apostles too. Moreover, that;s what disciple means, The disciples were the people who actually followed Jesus.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><b>*</b></span>Moreover if the confusion theory is true, that the two Johns were confused with each other ,then EJ would have to be a disciple in the literal sense. that makes a lot more sense than to think someone who never saw Jesus garnered such support that he could be confused with an apostle.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><b>*</b></span>It's also a fallacy to assume that being a couple of steps away from first hand knowledge of Jesus means that Papias is not evidence of Jesus' historicity. He is that's obvious. if you read a magazine article where a witness to something is interviewed you don't think this is fourth hand," Not if the reporter and publication acre credible. But its the same number of steps.<br />
<br />
Jesus =; Apostoels = Elders = men who came from elders = Papais<br />
<br />
event = witness =report = editor = paper<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>validity of oral tradition</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "arial narrow"; line-height: 22.4px;"><b>Fewer changes if tradition is controlled</b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">"No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: red; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"><b><i>unless the tradition has been rigidly formulated and has been learned with careful safeguard against the intrusion of error"</i></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> (Stephen Neil, </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;"><i>The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961,</i></b><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> London: University of Oxford Press, 1964, p.250) </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<span style="background-color: white;"><b><span style="color: #a00000; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">Tradition was controlled.</span></span></b></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">Neil adds in a fn: </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;"><i>"This is exactly the way in which the tradition was handed on among the Jews.</i></b><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> IT is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian scholar </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;">H. Risenfeld</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> in an essay entitled "The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings" (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form cuticle method. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">See also </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;">M. Dibelius</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">... Neil goes on to say that there is some "flexibility" in the transmission, but nothing that would change the basic facts or the thrust of the teaching otherwise, "But there is a vast difference between recognition of this kind of flexibility, of this kind of creative working of the community on existing traditions, and the idea that the community simply invented and read back into the life of Jesus things that he had never done, and words that he had never said. When carried to its extreme this method suggests that the community had far greater creative power than the Jesus of Nazareth, faith in whom had called the community into being." </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(Ibid.)</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as was/is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models. </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;">B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans*</b><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;"> (eds.), </span><b style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;"><i>Authenticating the Activities of Jesus</i></b><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998): </span><br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">"...[T]he early form criticism tied the theory of oral transmission to the conjecture that Gospel traditions were mediated like folk traditions, being freely altered and even created ad hoc by various and sundry wandering charismatic jackleg preachers. This view, however, was rooted more in the eighteenth century romanticism of J. G. Herder than in an understanding of the handling of religious tradition in first-century Judaism. As O. Cullmann, B. Gerhardsson, H. Riesenfeld and R. Riesner have demonstrated, [22] the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'. [23] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit distinct part of these apostolic traditions.* </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">"Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.(53-55)(</span></span><b><span style="color: #0057cd; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">corresponding</span></span><a href="http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/fncommunity.html" style="color: #0057cd; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px; text-decoration: none;"> fn for Chilton and evans</a></b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">") </span></span></blockquote>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">Also, there wasn't an necessarily a long period of solely oral transmission as has been assumed: </span><br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 22.4px;">
"Under the influence of R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius the classical form criticism raised many doubts about the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, but it was shaped by a number of literary and historical assumptions which themselves are increasingly seen to have a doubtful historical basis. It assumed, first of all, that the Gospel traditions were transmitted for decades exclusively in oral form and began to be fixed in writing only when the early Christian anticipation of a soon end of the world faded. This theory foundered with the discovery in 1947 of the library of the Qumran sect, a group contemporaneous with the ministry of Jesus and the early church which combined intense expectation of the End with prolific writing. Qumran shows that such expectations did not inhibit writing but actually were a spur to it. Also, the widespread literacy in first-century Palestinian Judaism [18], together with the different language backgrounds of Jesus' followers--some Greek, some Aramaic, some bilingual--would have facilitated the rapid written formulations and transmission of at least some of Jesus' teaching.[19]" (p. 53-54)</blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Presumably (in the view of Papias), the apostles had personal, face-to-face conversations with Jesus, and Papias is claiming to have had personal, face-to-face conversations with people “who had been in attendance on the elders” or (based on the translation Hinman provides) with people each of whom “had been a follower of the elders”.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">But it is unclear whether “a follower of the elders” had face-to-face conversations with the elders, and it is unclear whether the elders had face-to-face conversations with the apostles. For a decade of my life, I considered myself to be a “follower” of Jesus, and a “disciple” of Jesus, but I never had a face-to-face conversation with Jesus, at least not with a physical, flesh-and-blood historical Jesus. These expressions do not, in and of themselves, logically imply the occurance of personal, face-to-face conversations.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b> Bradley you didn't get to meet Jesus first hand? no wonder you deconverted. we all do that, that explains why I never saw you at the Meetings,(yes, it's a joke ;-) It seems obvious to me that since he calls Apostles elders elder is a pretty heavy term.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b><br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">We have only a few brief quotes from Papias, and he does not provide a definition or clarification of what he means by “a follower of X” or “a disciple of X”, so we cannot be sure that these expressions imply that personal, face-to-face conversations occurred between, for example “a follower of the elders” and one or more of “the elders”. Nor can we be sure that “John the elder” had personal, face-to-face conversations with the apostles or with Jesus.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">If the average generational cycle was 20 years instead of 25 years, then there would be room for an additional generation of “elders” between the apostles and the followers of the elders (click on the image below for a clearer view of the chart):</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">20-Year Generational Cycle</span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 26.1333px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Actually we have quote a few fragments and there are several that indicate EJ knew Jesus.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 26.1333px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">*quote from Papias</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 26.1333px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> "Just as the Elders, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, recalled hearing from him how concerning these times he used to teach that the Lord would say:"</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 26.1333px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">[at that points he gives quotation composedly from Jesus not kin NT--[1]Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: #f7be81; line-height: 26.1333px; text-align: justify;"></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 26.1333px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">5.33.3-4 [checked reconstructed Greek of SC 153 p213-217]</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">That makes it seem that elders were a special group who kept the words of the Apostles, because of the use of elder in this text--even if that were true it would be enough to establish historicity--but we already established that elder can be used in many ways, He uses it of the Apostates and non apostles. But disciple he uses of those who heard the actual voice of their master. That is how Papias uses disciple in this sentence more importantly this context is shimming that Elder John specifically heard a Jesus speak and repeats his words.</span><br />
<b style="background-color: #f7be81; color: #444444; font-family: "andale mono", times; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 26.1333px; text-align: justify;"><br /></b><b style="background-color: #f7be81; color: #444444; font-family: "andale mono", times; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 26.1333px; text-align: justify;"><br /></b><b><span style="color: blue;">*</span>quote from Jerome</b><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "andale mono" , "times"; font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;">ishop Irenaeus writes that John the Apostle survived all the way to the time of Trajan: after whom his notable disciples were Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch.</span><br />
<br style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px; text-align: justify;" />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "andale mono" , "times"; font-size: 14pt; text-align: justify;"><b><i>-[Chronicon of Jerome 220th Olympiad/100AD</i>. [checked via Pearse’s translation]</b></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>Jerome again: letter to Theadora<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "verdana" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">"T</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">he growth of this </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">heresy</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> is described for us by </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">Irenæus</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">, </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; font-size: 16px;">bishop</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> of the </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09472a.htm" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">church of Lyons</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">, a man of the </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">apostolic</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> times, who was a </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">disciple</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> of </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">Papias</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> the hearer of the </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05645a.htm" style="background-color: white; color: darkblue; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none;">evangelist</a><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">John</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">."</span></span><br />
[Jerome, letter 75 to theadora" <i>New Advent </i><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001075.htm%5D">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001075.htm]</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Based on Bauckman’s general interpretation of this passage from the preface of the book by Papias, and given the unclarity of whether “followers” or “disciples” implies personal, face-to-face conversations, it is likely that there are either three generations (Apostles–>Elders–>Followers of Elders) or four generations (Apostles–>1st Generation Elders–>2nd Generation Elders–>Followers of Elders) in the chain of Christian-tradition keepers between the Jesus and Papias.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">=================================</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">NOTE: This post is still in work. I will continue to add to it, and possibly revise the above, over the weekend.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">===================================</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">- See more at: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/01/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-2/#disqus_thread" style="border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(102, 102, 102); color: #5d8fbd; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularout ... qus_thread</a></span><span style="line-height: 19.14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock</span></span></span><span style="line-height: 19.14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Buy My book: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408714/" style="background-color: transparent; border: none; color: #5d8fbd; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Trace of God: Warrant for belief</span></a></span></span></blockquote>
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b> Bauckham does not agree with that he does not accept class or level of transmitters between Apostles and Papias except EJ who is on par with the Apostles since he wrote the gospel of John. That would be as tough he were Mark or Luke.<br />
<br />
[1] Just in case someone wants to know what Jesus said that's not in the NT<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "andale mono" , "times"; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 26.1333px; text-align: justify;">“</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "andale mono" , "times"; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 26.1333px; text-align: justify;">Days will come in which the vines shall grow, when each one will have ten-thousand branches and every single branch ten-thousand twigs and on every single twig ten-thousand leaves and on every single leaf ten-thousand clusters, and on every single cluster ten-thousand grapes and each grape that is pressed will give twenty-five measures of wine. And when one of the saints plucks a cluster, another cluster shall call, ‘I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me.’ In the same way an ear of wheat will grow ten-thousand kernels of grain, and every single ear of wheat will have ten-thousand kernels and every single kernel will give five pounds of the finest pure flour, and the rest of the ripe fruits and the seeds and the grass will be like these in a following proportion. And all the creatures who desire these foods will receive them from the earth, becoming peaceable and united to one another, submissive to men and entirely obedient.”</span><br />
<br />
search me!</div>
</div>
<br />
<span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;">Bradley's summation</span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><span class="corners-bottom" style="background-position: 0px 100%; background-repeat: no-repeat; clear: both; color: #536482; display: block; height: 5px; line-height: 1px; margin: 0px -10px; padding: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">There are a few more points in Hinman’s post on Papias that I want to specifically address.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">POINT 1:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;">Does that [i.e. the view that Papias only had contact with John the Elder and not John the Apostle] weaken the case for the connection to Jesus? I don’t think so because Aristion and elder John knew Jesus, they are called disciples. He probably knew both [i.e both “Johns”] but if he only knew they [sic] latter two they were disciples.</b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">No, because three reasons</span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(1) even if true the testimony it handed down through an oral tradition that knew how to preserve the Iliad word for word for a thousands years; more in the Hebrew context it preserved the ideas that became the Talmud.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">(2) I've given examples of Papias use of disciple and also Others after him they always mean one who heard the actual words</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(3) we know specifically from fragments of Papas that he held that Elder John was a hearer of Jesus', your own source Baukham thinks he wrote the Gospel of John.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The word “disciples” does NOT imply personal, face-to-face conversations with the teacher in question. Hinman has not provided an argument showing that the word “disciples” has this meaning, nor that Papias uses the word with this meaning. Given that we have only a few fragments of second-hand quotes of Papias, I doubt that there is sufficient evidence available to construct a plausible argument for this claim.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Hinman:</b></span> let's remember when Bradeley wrote that my post (the one you are reading) wasn't up yet so he didn't know the points I just made, which disprove what he just said,</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">POINT 2:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;">There are indications from Eusebius that Papias had extended contact with the Elder John and with other disciples. Eusebius writes “in his writings he trasmits other narratives of the words of the Lord which came form [sic] the afore mentioned Aristion and others which came from John the Elder” moreover he goes on, “the elder used to say this also: … ” And here Eusebius is quoting Papias. This phrase “the elder used to say…” indicates a personal acquaintance in more than one meeting.</b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>Baukham, Bowen's own source, tells us that Euebius did not like papias and had doctrinal biases </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">that led him to spin the evidence against EJ being a true hearer of Jesus.</span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Eusebius was a good historians in some ways. He does not deserve the reputation of atheist rhetoric gives him, the "pious fraud" thing, but his job was spin doctor for Constantine. What spin doctors do is put a spin on evidence, that is what he did.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">The phrase “the elder used to say…” does NOT imply “personal acquaintance” nor does it imply that the speaker had ANY meetings with “the elder”. This should be fairly obvious, but if not, one can simply refer to a quote from Irenaeus, which was provided by Hinman in his post on Papias:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 24px;">Hinman: </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Yes I'm afraid it does it would require total blindness to ignore that. The one passage he gives the statement by Jesus not in the New Testament, attributes to Elder John who told Papias that statement. How did he know it?: BECAUSE THEY KNEW HOW TO MEMORIZE. THAT'S WHAT ORAL CULTURES DO!</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b>Just as the Elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord, recalled hearing from him how concerning these times <i>he used to teach that</i> the Lord would say: … </b>(part of a quotation by Hinman from <i>Against Heresies</i> 5.33.3-4, <i>emphasis</i> added)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">By Hinman’s logic the phrase “he used to teach that…” implies that Irenaeus had personal, face-to-face conversations with John “the disciple of the Lord” (i.e. John the Apostle). But clearly, Irenaeus did NOT have any such conversations,</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><span style="color: blue;">Hinman,</span></b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"> all of that is disproved by Baukhm. Elder John wrote the Gospel of John so Papias had access to the guy who wrote John. No? then you ready to impeach Baukham?</span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">don't forget Baukham argues specifically that elder was used in way antithetical to the use Bradley makes of it, it as not suited to a faceless group of transmitters but reserved for one big heavy dude. (</span></span><i style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Jesus and the Eye Witnsses</i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> 420-425)</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Moreover we have seen that he uses the term elder of Apostles as well as non apostles. While it is reserved for major heavyweights it's not indicative of either Apostle or non apostle except by context.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">POINT 3:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;">Moreover, he changes tenses when he speaks of Aristion and Elder John, the [sic] he speaks in present tense, as though he’s still in contact with them.</b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Use of the present tense could indicate that Aristion and John the Elder were still alive <i>at the time that Papias was inquiring</i> the followers of Aristion and John the Elder about their knowledge of the sayings of the Apostles. The translation by Bauckham says Papias was asking about what Aristion and John the Elder “were saying”, which is compatible with the idea of refering to a time in the past when Papias was inquiring about the words of Aristion and John the Elder who were (at that time in the past) still alive. That time in the past might be several years or even a decade prior to the time Papias got around to writing his book.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">Hinman: </span>No! He does not say that he says the opposite you are drawing that inference from his choice of translation; he used one with the brackets because it slanted the issue in favor of an Elder John, It also glossed over the present tense casting it in the light of a past present, "they were saying." The Greek is present, :they are saying," Baukham dates the quote to late first early second before 110. Bradley tried to stretch the date to as late as 130 but Baulkham clearly does not accept that, <b>420-25.</b></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">ἅτε λέγουσιν)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"><b>Maier translation</b> </span></span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small; line-height: 1.4em;">"...disciples of the Lord </span><b style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 1.4em;"><i>were still</i></b><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small; line-height: 1.4em;"> saying." the actual Greek does favor a continuing action in present time.[<b>Paul L. Maier, </b></span><b style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><i style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 1.4em;">Eusebius The Church Hisotry, </i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 1.4em;">Grand rapids, Mi:Kregel, 1999. 126]</span></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><b style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 1.4em;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: red;">POINT 4:</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><b>…and he [i.e. Papias] moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. … </b>(part of a quote from Eusebius provided by Hinman)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;">Note that this does not appear to be a quotation of Papias by Eusebius, but rather an interpretation of Papias by Eusebius. Since we are not given the exact words of Papias, we are being asked to rely on Eusebius to correctly interpret the words of Papias. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman: </span></b>no two other sources:</span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(1) several fragments of Papias not dependent upon Eusebius</span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">(2) Irenaeus who studied with Polycarp and knew Papias, He asserts that he knew Papiasdid now Elder John talked with him and quoted him often, see it all on my pages omn my apologetic site <i>the Religious A Pori.</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><i><a href="http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2015/10/papias.html">http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2015/10/papias.html</a></i></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><i><br /></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Irenaeus<i>. Against Heresy</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #9fc5e8; color: #444444; font-family: "andale mono" , "times"; font-size: 18.6667px; line-height: 26.1333px; text-align: justify;">These things Papias, the <b>hearer of John</b>, who was a companion of Polycarp, a man of ancient time, testifies in writing in the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed by him.<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
He tells us he was hearer of John and he studied with Polkycarp so yo guessed it, the next one will just be an extension of this one,</div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Youtube interview of NT Write on Papias</div>
<div style="padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqrPQUiNrUQ">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqrPQUiNrUQ</a></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-75197984981850518542016-07-25T23:03:00.002-07:002016-07-25T23:03:47.736-07:00My debate with Bowen: Jesus in Talmud<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
This is not finished needs proofing but i have computer problem so I'm,postimng early;<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Worthy opponent, fellow people, let's start!<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "lucida grande" , "trebuchet ms" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">Here is how I would summarize Joe Hinman’s first argument:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "lucida grande" , "trebuchet ms" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">1. There are MANY references to Jesus in the Talmud that were censored but that were preserved in some texts.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "lucida grande" , "trebuchet ms" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">2. There are A <b>FEW references to Jesus in the Talmud that were not censored.</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "lucida grande" , "trebuchet ms" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">3. ALL of the references to Jesus in the Talmud speak of Jesus in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical figure.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "lucida grande" , "trebuchet ms" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">4. IF (1), (2), and (3) are true, THEN the external evidence from the Talmud is sufficient to make it reasonable to believe that Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood historical figure.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "lucida grande" , "trebuchet ms" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">THEREFORE:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: "lucida grande" , "trebuchet ms" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">5. The external evidence from the Talmud is sufficient to make it reasonable to believe that Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood historical figure.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b> I don't Object to that understanding of the argument.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In order to show that premise (1) is true, I would expect Hinman to produce at least <b>five or six quotations from the Talmud </b>that have references to Jesus that can be shown to have been censored. In order to show that premise (2) is true, I would expect Hinman to produce at least three or four quotations from the Talmud that have references to Jesus that were not censored.</blockquote>
<b><span style="color: blue;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: blue;">Hinman:</span></b> I have several responses to that.<br />
<br />
<br />
(1)There is a Cambridge scholar Instone-Brewer who shows the censoring of a passage. More on that below<br />
<br />
(2) we know some passages are censored because they are not in the Talmud or their form in it is different they are copies that were written before the censoring which was 1500s.<br />
<br />
(3) We know they were censored because they mentioned Jesus and feared this would anger Christians, and it did actually.<br />
<br />
<br />
(4) the rabbis admit to the censoring and they admit Jesus is in the Talmud, at least some do. it's not secret and both back then and now Rabbis admit Jesus was discussion in the Talmud. I quoted several rabbis saying this on the long page I linked to for the Talmud argument.<br />
<br />
(5) Celsus proves it: he says he went to Jews and asked for the dirt on Jesus they gave him what they thought was historical truth about Jesus,and the things he said are exactly what is said in the Talmud.Even the part about his mother named Mary being a hairdresser. What he wrote he wrote in second century but the Jews did not put it in the Talmud into fourth century (Shafer, Op cit., 20). Thus we know it;s oral tradition and probability is they had it well before Celsus asked for it.<br />
<br />
Bowen mentions I should use 10 references. There are many more. I will focus on four but there are well over 10 (I would not usually use Wiki but It's a good list)<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#Specific_references">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#Specific_references</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0.5em;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="mw-headline" id="Specific_references">Specific references</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="display: inline-block; line-height: 1em; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color: #555555; margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_in_the_Talmud&action=edit&section=10" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Edit section: Specific references">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color: #555555; margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span>Sanhedrin 43a<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-68" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-68" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[68]</a></sup> relates the trial and execution of a sorcerer named Jesus ("<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu" style="background-image: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Yeshu">Yeshu</a>" in Hebrew) and his five disciples.</span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The sorcerer is stoned and hanged on the Eve of Passover.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-69" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-69" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[69]</a></sup>Sanhedrin 107<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-70" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-70" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[70]</a></sup> tells of a Jesus ("Yeshu") "offended his teacher by paying too much attention to the inn-keeper's wife. Jesus wished to be forgiven, but [his rabbi] was too slow to forgive him, and Jesus in despair went away and put up a brick [idol] and worshipped it."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-71" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-71" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[71]</a></sup>In Gittin 56b, 57a<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-72" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-72" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[72]</a></sup> a story is mentioned in which <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkelos" style="background-image: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Onkelos">Onkelos</a> summons up the spirit of a Yeshu who sought to harm Israel. He describes his punishment in the afterlife as boiling in excrement.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-JesusTal_73-0" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-JesusTal-73" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[73]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-74" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-74" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[74]</a></sup>Some scholars claim that the Hebrew name Yeshu is not a short form of the name <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)" style="background-image: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Yeshua (name)">Yeshua</a>, but rather an acrostic for the Hebrew phrase "may his name and memory be blotted out" created by taking the first letter of the Hebrew words.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-75" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-75" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[75]</a></sup>In addition, at the 1240 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation_of_Paris" style="background-image: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Disputation of Paris">Disputation of Paris</a>, Donin presented the allegation that the Talmud was blasphemous towards <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)" style="background-image: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Mary (mother of Jesus)">Mary, the mother of Jesus</a>, ("Miriam" in Hebrew) and this criticism has been repeated by many Christian sources.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-76" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-76" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[76]</a></sup> The texts cited by critics include Sanhedrin 67a,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-77" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-77" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[77]</a></sup> Sanhedrin 106a,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-78" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-78" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[78]</a></sup> and Shabbath 104b.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-79" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-79" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[79]</a></sup> However, the references to Mary are not specific, and some assert that they do not refer to Jesus' mother, or perhaps refer to <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalen" style="background-image: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Mary Magdalen">Mary Magdalen</a>.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-80" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-80" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;">[80]</a></sup><span class="mw-headline" id="Summary">Summary</span><span class="mw-editsection" style="display: inline-block; line-height: 1em; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color: #555555; margin-right: 0.25em;">[</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_in_the_Talmud&action=edit&section=11" style="background: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;" title="Edit section: Summary">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="color: #555555; margin-left: 0.25em;">]</span></span>Scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that some conclude refer to Jesus:</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Peter_Sch.C3.A4fer_81-0" style="line-height: 1; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud#cite_note-Peter_Sch.C3.A4fer-81" style="background-image: none; color: #0b0080; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: small;">[81</span><span style="font-size: 11.2px;">]</span></a></sup></span></span><br />
<ul style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a-b)</li>
</ul>
<ul style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Healing in the name of Jesus (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)</li>
</ul>
<ul style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">As a Torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)</li>
</ul>
<ul style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">As a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)</li>
</ul>
<ul style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">As a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)</li>
</ul>
<ul style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Jesus' punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)</li>
</ul>
<ul style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Jesus' execution (b Sanh 43a-b)</li>
</ul>
<ul style="color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)</li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em;"><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small;">not full list </span><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small;">(</span><span style="font-size: 1.2em; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small;">see my major four below in addition to these</span></span><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: small;">)</span></span></blockquote>
</h3>
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(3) I would expect Hinman to show that in each one of those references, Jesus was spoken of in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical figure. If, however, there were dozens of references to Jesus in the Talmud, I would not expect Hinman to walk through each and every such reference, but I would expect that he would discuss a significant sample of those references (perhaps a dozen passages) that included a number of passages from various areas of the Talmud, and that included both censored passages and non-censored passages.</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">Hinman:</span><br />
no I don;t think so. I've made known the examples I'm willing to defend, they are there they can't be denied and the Rabbis admit to them. Celsus backed it up. I did give examples and I can give more on my pages. three pages <a href="http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Talmud_JC.html">on this link</a> where I deal with many examples.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Looking over the evidence that Hinman presents about the alleged references to Jesus in the Talmud, it seems to me that his evidence is too skimpy to adequately support his factual premises (1), (2), and (3). I also think that premise</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">Hinman:</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="color: blue; font-weight: bold;">Debate's just starting I never said that page was all my evidence. But the four major examples are really enough to prove my point. I haven't demonstrated them yet. A further example of several passages and a major "stand -in" for Jesus will also be listed.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="Normal" style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100; font-family: "times new roman"; margin: 0em 10pt 5pt; text-indent: 20pt;">
In the opinion of many modern rabbinical scholars, "Balaam" was often used by the Sages as an alias or code word for Jesus of Nazareth. For example, consider this statement about Balaam from the prestigious <i>Jewish Encyclopedia</i>:</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: #ffffea; color: #710402; font-family: "times new roman"; margin: 0em 23.7969px; padding: 3px;">
Henceforth he became the type of false prophets seducing men to lewdness and obscene idolatrous practices (Rev. ii. 14; II Peter ii. 15; Jude 11; Abot. v. 19). The name 'Nicolaitanes,' given to the Christian heretics 'holding the doctrine of Balaam' (Rev. ii. 6, 15), is probably derived from the Grecized form of Balaam, [Hebr. char.] = [Greek char.], and hence also <b>the pseudonym given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Git. 57a</b>.<br />
<span style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100;">[</span><span style="background-color: #d9fefe; color: #441100; text-align: right;"> The Jewish Encyclopedia </span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html#n1" style="background-color: #d9fefe; color: #990000; text-align: right;">(1)</a> in <span style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100;">Carol A. Valentine.. "Censoring the Talmud 2: Jesus Membrum in Talud,' <i>Come and Hear</i>, onm line URL:</span></blockquote>
<div class="Normal" style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100; font-family: "times new roman"; margin: 0em 10pt 5pt; text-indent: 20pt;">
<div style="color: black; text-indent: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html">http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html</a> accessed 6/20/16]</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
here is the Jesus page encyclopedia Judaica. cited above<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10113.html">https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10113.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(4) is false or dubious, at least as it stands. The principle stated in premise (4) will, I believe, need to be modified to be made plausible, and if it is modified to make it plausible, there may be some additional claims or premises required to make this argument work. I suspect that repairing premise (4) will reveal a gap in Hinman’s first argument, and that he will have more work to do to fill in that gap. We shall see.</blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">Actually he reconstructed my argument to produce p4 and the other p's from which it derives.I think that is not a good practice to remake the argument then attack your remake.</span><b style="color: blue;"> </b> I would call it a straw man argument except I think Bowen is above straw men, and I don't disagree in principle with the remake. I do disagree with the argument here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></b><b style="color: red;">Bowen: [</b>snip the description of Talmud<b style="color: red;">]</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Hinman needs to<span style="background-color: white;"> provide about a dozen quotations from the Talmud that refer to Jesus, at least five or six passages that can be shown to have been censored, and at least three or four passages </span></b>that were not censored, and a total of about twelve passages (if there are that many) that are ALL shown to speak of Jesus in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical person.</blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman:<span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;"> </span></b><span style="background-color: white;">I don't think so. (1) where is he getting this number? There's no rule book of historiography that says you have to have 12 examples. </span><br />
<br />
(2) I have more than 12 but four major examples are \quite enough.He wants 12 examples and he wants then to be long and for me to do a close reading I', going to be witting a dissertation.<br />
<br />
(3) why should i provide examples of one's not censored? If I document that a given passage was censored and what the original version was that should be enough.<br />
<br />
(<b>4) the underlying assumption in his argument is that earlier is better, that is a fallacy. That is the first thing i learned about textual criticism.</b><br />
<br />
where does he get the number a dozen? why ? Arbitrary.<br />
<br />
Bradley keeps implying that it is always so long between the doing and the writing that this may be an argument he;s planing to make.,If so I <b>can p</b>rove the Jews had an oral culture they knew how to preserve oral tradition.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<span style="background-color: #ffd966;">Ideally, all of the quoted passages would be from the Mishna, which is the oldest part of the Talmud that was written down early in the early third century. But if there are not that many references to Jesus from the Mishna, then as many as possible should be from the Mishna</span>, and the remainder of the quoted passages would be from the commentaries on the Mishna that make up the Gemara.<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><b style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">there's the fallacy. a lot of people think older is always better. The fact is that;s latter MS can have earlier readings. That is born out by Danker's <i>Diatesseron</i> which is written late second century gut has pre Mark redaction Reading.</b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So how many passages does Joe Hinman quote from the Talmud? How many of those passages are from the Mishna? There are zero quotes from the Talmud on Hinman’s initial (overview) web page. If you click the link for his details about references to Jesus in the Talmud, you will go to a lengthy blog post that contains numerous quotations, but only a few quotations in that post are from the Talmud. More specifically, only FOUR passages are quoted from the Talmud by Hinman. Hinman fails to provide the dozen or more quotations that are needed to do an adequate job of supporting the factual premises of his argument.</blockquote>
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b>We had no agreement about putting the major evidence on the first post. I didn't want that first page to be as long as a phone book so I chose to make it a kind of portal to the real evidence.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Furthermore, TWO of the quotations from the Talmud consist of a single brief sentence that is (apparently) found in two different sections of the Bablylonian Talmud. Hinman provides a block quote from Encyclopaedia Hebraica that contains the one-sentence quotation from the Talmud. Here is the relevant portion of that block quote:</blockquote>
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman:</b> He had no counter evidence for that so he;s going to make my presentation suspect by demanding multiplying of examples.<br />
<br />
<b>I have four major passages.</b> how long must a passage be before a historian says this proves something? I contend there is no set length; Josephus saying "the brother of Jesus called the Christ" just as significant as a five page statement, Is it the case that there are a lot of one sentence passages or is it that a sentence is all that's quoted? my four passages are longer than a sentence anyone who follows the links can see that. I will deal with the fallacy of Mishna below.<br />
my four passages: <b><span style="background-color: blue; color: white;">HERE ARE THE FOUR PASSAGES:</span></b><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: blue;"><b style="background-color: #9fc5e8;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">(1)<i>Abodah Zarah</i>,</span><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_16.html" style="font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 19.6px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #004a6f;"><span style="color: white;">folio 16b</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;">-</span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_17.html" style="font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 19.6px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><span style="color: white;">17a</span></a></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; line-height: 19.6px;"> Rabbi busted for quoting Jesus</span></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">a paragraph long with quote supposedly by Jesus</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;">Constantin Brunner,<em> "</em>appendix on Criticism<em>.."Info online resource</em></span><br style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;" /><a href="http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"> accessed 6/15/16</span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of Minuth they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. Said the governor to him, 'How can a sage man like you occupy himself with those idle things?' He replied, 'I acknowledge the Judge as right.' The governor thought that he referred to him — though he really referred to his Father in Heaven — and said, 'Because thou hast acknowledged me as right, I pardon; thou art acquitted.' When he came home, his disciples called on him to console him, but he would accept no consolation. Said R. Akiba to him, 'Master, wilt thou permit me to say one thing of what thou hast taught me?' He replied, 'Say it.' 'Master,' said he, 'perhaps some of the teaching of the Minim had been transmitted to thee and thou didst approve of it and because of that thou wast arrested?' He exclaimed: 'Akiba thou hast reminded me.' I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one of the disciples of<strong><span style="color: red;"> Jesus the Nazarene</span></strong> Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name, who said to me: It is written in your Torah, <i>Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the house of the Lord thy God.</i> May such money be applied to the erection of a retiring place for the High Priest? To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught by <strong>Jesus the Nazarene</strong>, <i><span style="color: red;"><strong>For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return.</strong></span></i> They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth. Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostacy; for thereby I transgressed the scriptural words, <strong><span style="color: red;"><i>Remove thy way far from her</i>— which refers to minuth — </span><i><span style="color: red;">and come not nigh to the door of her house</span>,</i></strong> — which refers to the ruling power.—<i>Abodah Zarah</i>,</span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_16.html" style="color: #0057cd; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #004a6f;">folio 16b</span></strong></a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">-</span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_17.html" style="color: #0057cd; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #004a6f;">17a</span></strong></a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"> <strong><span style="color: blue;"> [7]</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: blue;">[8]</span></strong></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">[7] Constantin Brunner,<em> "</em>appendix on Criticism<em>.."Info online resource</em></span><br style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;" /><a href="http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm" style="color: #0057cd; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px; text-decoration: none;">http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"> accessed 6/15/16</span><br style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;" /><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"></span><br style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;" /><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">[8] Peter Shafer, <i>Jesus's in the Talmud</i>: Princeton Township:Princeton University Press, 2007,</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"></span></span></span><br />
<div class="post_link_correction" id="post_message_624775">
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">And here is Constantin Brunner's comment on this passage from </span><a href="http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm" target="_blank"><strong><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #004a6f;">his essay against the Christ myth theory</span></strong></a><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">:</span></div>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">The passage in </span><i style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">A<b>vodah zavah</b></i><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><b> 16a </b>deserves special attention: it is the most remarkable reference to Jeshua in the talmudic tractates, ascribing to him as it does a certain spiritual significance. It speaks of him as one who taught; things learned from him had come down, through his disciple Jacob of the village of Zechania, to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, who adopted this tradition. In fact, Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus was one of the most distinguished Tannaim, the brother-in-law of the Patriarch Gamaliel II.; he was also called Eliezer the Great. And so this Rabbi Eliezer,</span><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;"> <b><i>who lived in the first Christian century</i>, speaks of <i>an opinion of Christ</i> which had come down to him <i>from a disciple of Christ</i> (and some identified this Jacob with</b> </span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"> Christ's brother). <b>This seems to me to be an important fact, particularly as it touches Christ's historical reality</b>, and I find it astonishing that the critics have thus far paid no attention to it. Moreover, it is more than probable that important, really important sayings of Christ (not under his own name, of course) are contained in Talmud and Midrash. There are plenty of sayings and parables of great clarity, beauty and dignity which could have come from his mouth</span><strong style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue;">.[</span></strong></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; font-family: "times new roman";">Constantin Brunner,info, Website, accessed 6/20/16 URL: see above] </span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">For those having difficulty understanding all this, a famous rabbi was called to account for repeating an opinion of Jesus of Nazareth that a whore's donation to the temple should be used for the priests' toilets, from filth to filth.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">that establishes it as early possibly first century. It also establishes historicity because it ties to James, supporter Gospels AMD Josephus brother passage.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><strong style="line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">(2)I</span><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">nstone-Brewer and <em>b. Sanh.</em> 43a</span></strong></span></span></span> <span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">the Instone-Brewer passage. Not from the Mishna but in this case there are markers that denote it as early as Mishna time and perhaps originating in the Mishna tradition .Peter Kirby explains: "</span></span></strong><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">who has undertaken to analyze the talmudic traditions generally for their date of origin with an eye to seeing which may predate A.D. 70, the introductory formula is: normally used for traditions originating with Tannaim – ie rabbis of Mishnaic times before 200 CE – though the presence of such a formula is not an infallible marker of an early origin. However in this case, it is likely that these formulae are accurate because this helps to explain why the rabbis regarded this Jesus tradition as if it had comparable authority to Mishnah. Further, he notes, an independent attestation in Justin Martyr brings the most likely date before 150:</span><strong style="color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">"(on my evidence page)</strong></blockquote>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0egAzJ7bw">On his video Instone-</a>Brewer shows the censored text and the original uncensored and demonstrate they name Jesus by name list charges says he will be hanged before Passover. hanged is crucified. He shows they changed it to stoning rather than Crucifixion to change the facts of The Romans executing him.[Tyndale house, "Expert's Evidence for Jesus Crucifiction,"<i> You Tube</i>, URL<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0egAzJ7bw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0egAzJ7bw</a> accessed 6/20/16]<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong style="background-color: #9fc5e8; font-family: "times new roman", times, freeserif, serif; line-height: 19.6px;">(3)Shab 104b Mary the Hairdresser,, </strong></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino";"> "Supposed by Tosah, to be the Mother of Jesus; cf.<b> Shab. 104b</b> in the earlier uncensored editions. Her description Megaddela (hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused with the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus." This is just a snkipit to show what it's about.</span>This is the one Celsus said the Jews provided him and said it was real dirt on Jesus.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">(4)Jewish tractate of Talmud: Jesus Genealogy (Lightfoot). </b><br />
<br />
<br />
That is Mishna and documented by the great schlar Lighfoot<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino";">(John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55) </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino";">'Azzai said: "I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, "Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress." there's more that;'s just an indication ofwhat it'sabout."</span><br />
<br />
There is a lot more material we could go into<br />
<br />
a couple of real good sources to look at:<br />
<br />
a list and analysis of all the censored passages<br />
<b>'Jesus of Nazareth: a magician and false prophet who deceived God's people?'</b> by Graham Stanton; in<b><span style="color: red;"> </span></b><em><b><span style="color: red;">Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ</span></b>: essays on the historical Jesus and New Testament Christology</em>, ed. by Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans, 1994): pp.164-180. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, Eng: Paternoster Pr, 1994). A detailed discussion of the charges against Jesus in other literature.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=IxIv_zqQx9kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Talmud+inauthor:Sch%C3%A4fer&hl=en&ei=0ZSVTYy6CZmU4gaelOCZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0099cc;"><strong><em>Jesus in the Talmud</em></strong> </span></a>(Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Pess, 2007) by Peter Schäfer<br />
- an up-to-date discussion of the historicity of all the censored passages<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>Other passages: <b>Balaam</b><br />
<br />
Henceforth he became the type of false prophets seducing men to lewdness and obscene idolatrous practices (Rev. ii. 14; II Peter ii. 15; Jude 11; Abot. v. 19). The name 'Nicolaitanes,' given to the Christian heretics 'holding the doctrine of Balaam' (Rev. ii. 6, 15), is probably derived from the Grecized form of Balaam, [Hebr. char.] = [Greek char.], and hence also <strong>the pseudonym given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Git. 57a<span style="color: blue;">.[7]</span></strong><br />
<h2 class="top" style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 19.2px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: italic; margin: 7pt 10pt;">
</h2>
<div class="Normal" style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100; margin: 0em 10pt 5pt; text-indent: 20pt;">
In Tractate Sanhedrin 106a and 106b, the Sages discuss Balaam and his mother. We get another clue about Balaam's identity with the hint that Balaam's mother "played the harlot with carpenters."</div>
<br />
<span style="background-color: #ddffff; display: inline; float: none;"><span style="color: #441100;"> </span><b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b><span style="color: #441100;">The scholars who suggest that Balaam refers to Jesus were not a "small group." They include:</span></span><br />
<ul style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100;">
<li>the Soncino editor Rabbi Dr. Epstein of Jews' College, London</li>
<li>Rabbi Dr. Freedman and Jacob Shachter, the renowned Talmud scholars who translated Tractate Sanhedrin for Dr. Epstein and the Soncino Press</li>
<li>the writers and editors of <i>The Jewish Encyclopedia</i></li>
<li>the Rev. Dr. Robert Travers Herford, author of <i>Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash</i>, a renowned Jewish studies scholar of his day<strong><span style="color: blue;">.[9]</span></strong></li>
</ul>
<span style="background-color: #ddffff; display: inline; float: none;"><b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b><span style="color: #441100;">"The Soncino translation of the Talmud and the scholarship behind it were endorsed by two Chief Rabbis of the British Empire and the Dayan of the London Beth Din. Ironically, ADL rejects the Soncino Balaam scholarship, at the same time in the same position paper it recommends the Soncino Talmud." </span></span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html#n18" style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #990000;">(18<span style="color: blue;">)</span></a><span style="color: blue;">[10<strong>] (8,9,10 = </strong></span><span style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100; text-indent: 26.66px;">Censoring The Talmud: Jesus Membrum in The Talmud," </span><em style="color: #441100; text-indent: 26.66px;">Come and Hear: An Educational Forum for The Examination of Religious</em><span style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100; text-indent: 26.66px;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100; text-indent: 26.66px;">truth and Religious Tolerance.</span><br />
<a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html" style="text-indent: 26.66px;">http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_2.html</a>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="color: blue;"><strong><br /></strong></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #ddffff; font-family: "times new roman"; text-indent: 26.6667px;"><b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b><span style="color: #441100;">In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman promotes scholar Rev. Dr. Herford's view that the "harlot" is a reference to Mary, mother of Jesus. (Ibid)</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From the stories about Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, it is evident that he was regarded as a rabbinical student who strayed into evil ways: “May we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself like Jesus the Nazarene” (Ber. 17b; Sanh. 103a; cf. Dik. Sof. ad loc.).<br />
I’m generously counting this as TWO quotations, since it appears to be a sentence found in TWO different parts of the Babylonian Talmud.</blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">not to disparage the work of my worthy opponent but it seems that his argument works out to a red herring in a sense, He can present all the passages he likes but, I am making the argument if he finds a million passage he shows don't meet the burden that doesn't mean the ones I pick don't either. So we have to look at my four passages and they are the one's upon which decision ought to be made. Not that they are the best but they the one's I have the one's of which I know the most. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Since the<span style="background-color: #f1c232;"><span style="background-color: #ffd966;"> Bablyonian Talmud was produced in the 5th century, these two passages were produced hundreds of years after the death of Jesus</span><span style="background-color: white;">.</span></span> So, there is an OBVIOUS issue of historical relevance here, and an OBVIOUS issue of independence. First, how do we know that these passages reflect the views of rabbis from the first or second century (as opposed to the third, fourth, or fifth century), in order for the passage to be of historical relevance?</blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">Now there's that fallacy again. I call it the early is better fallacy--this was one of the fisrt things I learned about Textual criticism. Case in point is the Pre Mark Passin Narratiove (PMPN). Jurgen Dancker found it in the Diatesseron. That work is late second century but it commotions readings from pre Mark redaction. See Helmutt Koster, <i>Ancient Christian Gospels c.1992. </i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i><br /></i></span><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;"><span style="color: blue;">Such is the case with the Instone-Brewer </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><em style="font-weight: bold;">b. Sanh.</em><b> 43a Yeshua hanged eve Passover </b>where a limguistic marker \tags it as early. We also see it with the folio (Rabbi busted for quoting Jesus).</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
*we might also take also take note of the fact that he has produced no scholars saying my passages are inadequate that is all based upon his assumptions and questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Second, even if it could be shown somehow that these two passages accurately reflect the views of rabbis back in the 2nd century or even near the end of the first century, since the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 CE, how can we know that this view of those rabbis was not indirectly based on Christian beliefs and traditions that were in turn based on the Gospel of Mark (or one of the other 1st century writings contained in the NT)?</blockquote>
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman</b><b style="color: blue;"> </b><span style="color: blue;">I assume he means the Eliazer (rabbi busted) passage. That absolutely is good evidence for historical Jesus. in it Jesus is quoted as a n actual teacher or rabbi with authority although who misused his authority, He is also linked in the passage to James head of the church (see <b>Brunner above</b>),That means they are regarding a historical figure. They also quote him and in such a way that he is seen as cleaver and powerful. That does not help their cause so it is probably a real historical trace of the actual man</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">Bowen is also missing the boat on the idea of Rabbis quoting NT, because the fact that they did react against the Gospels is clear. The stories they spun about Jesus are obviously polemics that are bounced off of the Gospels. rather than born of a virgin he's born of a whore. Rather than working miracles he works black magic. none of this means their works are not evidence of historicity.</span><span style="color: blue;"> </span><span style="color: blue;">T</span>hey are still accepting Jesus as a man in history They have no inkling of him being mythical.<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There is no argument provided by Hinman on these obvious issues, so these two passages cannot be taken seriously as historically relevant and independent information that supports the claim that there was a flesh-and-blood historical Jesus.</blockquote>
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman </b><span style="color: blue;">Just answered it</span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
Thus, if we set aside this initial dubious set of two meager one-sentence passages from the Babylonian Talmud, we are left with ONLY TWO substantial quotations from the Talmud in Hinman’s lengthy blog post.<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">again they are not one sentence passages, they are passages of which I only quoted one sentence,</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b style="color: red;">Bowen: [</b>i just zapped his statement by mistake,but he said again we need a dozen passages<b style="color: red;">]</b></span><br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">Again, where did he get a dozen passages? that's his dogmatic assertion it's arbitrary no law or rule of historiography says this. But moreover, I gave a dozen and more, see the first link at the top. </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;">H</span>e cant answer passages i've given. the four, he can't answer the four! Look it's unreasonable to say I have to quote the passage. I've documented their existence he has no counter evidence<span style="color: blue;">,</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Before I proceed to examine the two substantial quotations from the Talmud that Hinman provides, let’s consider the views of some well-informed N.T. scholars about references to Jesus in the Talmud.<br />
First, here is what Bart Ehrman has to say about the external evidence from the Talmud:<br />
In order to complete my tally of early references to Jesus, I need to say a few words about the Jewish Talmud. This is not because it is relevant but because when talking about historical references to Jesus, many people assume it is relevant. (Did Jesus Exist? p.66)</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For a long time scholars treated the Talmud as if it presented historically accurate information about Jewish life, law and custom from a much earlier period, all the way back to the first century. Few critical scholars take that view today. In both its iterations, it is a product of its own time, even though it is based on earlier oral reports.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: orange;"><b>Jesus is never mentioned in the oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah</b>, but appears only in the later commentaries of the Gemara. … (Did Jesus Exist?, p.67)</span></blockquote>
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">that is Nonsense on 4 counts </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b><br /></b></span><span style="color: blue;"><b>(1)</b> the situation is just the opposite. historians have ignored the Talmid as though it has no value now they beginning to see it as a great sore. That;s what is happening all over scholarship. Documemted by Robert S</span>hafer in <i>Jesus in the Talmud </i>Princetom U.l Press 2007) and agreed with by the review in <i>first things,(</i>Benjamine Bailent<i> "</i>Talmudic Jesus,<i>" first things, June 2007</i><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><i><a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/06/001-talmudic-jesus">http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/06/001-talmudic-jesus</a></i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;"> (2) Famous Historian of the Talmud speaks of Jesus in the Mishna and revels that the Mishna was purged when it was written so JESUS PASSAGES WERE TAKEN OUT (2nd century)</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (A.D. 135-200) purged the Mishnah, part of the Talmud, of many references to Christianity and those who adhered to it. But not everything was edited out.</span><br style="font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;" /><br style="font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;" /><span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">In his classic work, <i>The History of the Talmud, </i>Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson wrote: "There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching...the Messianists...(were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the (first) two centuries."</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">(Neil Altman </span><span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><i>Kansas City Star</i> </span><span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Posted on Sat, Jun. 07, 2003 to KansasCity.com</span> )<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">(</span><span style="color: blue;">3) The reason scholars say there are no passages of Jesus in the Mishna is only because they refuse to count the stand-ins (such as "such-a-one, or Pandira,) as Jesus.. They have Plausible deniability; in calling him "such a one," as opposed to Jesus they can say there are no passages about Jesus Many scholars see Jesus stand-ins in the mishna. Above I gave a list from <i>Encyclopedia Judaica</i> listing several major Rabbis who agree Balaam is Jesus.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><b>(4) Jesus is in the Mishna there are passages.</b><br />
<br />
a.The Morey book is called <i>Jesus in the Mishna and Talmud</i><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;"> b</span><span style="color: blue;"> </span></b>Mishna passage <span style="background-color: white;">MISHNAH.[</span><b>104b</b><span style="background-color: white;">]</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"> If one writes on his flesh, he is culpable; He who scratches a mark on his flesh. He who scratches a mark on his flesh, [etc.] It was taught, R. Eliezar said to the sages: </span><b style="background-color: white;">But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches [in the form of charms] upon his flesh?</b><span style="background-color: white;"> He was a fool, answered they, proof cannot be adduced from fools. [Was he then the son of Stada: </span><b style="background-color: white;">surely he was the son of Pandira?</b><span style="background-color: white;"> - Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, </span><b style="background-color: white;">the paramour was Pandira</b><span style="background-color: white;">. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - his mother was Stada. </span><b style="background-color: white;">But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? </b><span style="background-color: white;">- It is as we said in Pumbeditha: </span><b style="background-color: white;">This is one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from'- <i>satath da</i>) her husband.]</b><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><span style="background-color: orange;">(<b><span style="color: red;">Shabbath 104b)</span></b></span></blockquote>
these phrases such as Pandira and Satada these are terms used to cover the name Jesus in the censored version, When we see the we names we know they probably are about Jesus.("stand-ins").<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">c. Passage with stand in Such a one. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">"They asked Rabbi Eliazer as regards such a one in the world hat is to come. He said "you have only asked me about such a one...what of a bastard as touching inheritance? What of himj as touching the Levite Duties?" Dr. Klausner speaks f this ealry Tannaictic [assave (Mishna) as saying it does refer to Jesus. He also says the passage previously quoted about Mary the Hairdresser is also early.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">[</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.2px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.2px;">Josh McDowell, Bill Wilson</span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 8.9557px; line-height: 19.2px;">,</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 19.2px;"><i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims, Eugene Pregam Harvest Hill Puiblioshing 1964, 66]</span></i></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">d, Many passages using code names for Jesus are in the Mishna: Ben Stada and Panthera</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
\<b style="background-color: white;">"And thus they did to Ben Stada in Lydda, and they hung him on the even of Passover." Ben Stada was Ben Pandira.</b><span style="background-color: white;"> R. Hisda said: The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But as not the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. </span><b style="background-color: white;">But his mother was Miriam</b><span style="background-color: white;">, a dresser of woman's hair? - As they say in Pumpbaditha, </span><b style="background-color: white;">This woman has turned away (<i>satath da</i>) from her husband, (i.e. committed adultery).</b><span style="background-color: white;">] (<b>Morey, p. 6</b>)</span></blockquote>
<br />
e Schaffer in <i>Jesus in The Talmud</i> disagrees and argues for Jesus in sources from first and second century.(,pp6-7) He does admit that the major passages are Babylonian but he argues that early and late are not issue. Shaffer,<i> Jesus in Talmud</i>: "I agree that much of the Jesus material is relatively late...the most explicit passages appear i the Babylonian Talmud...it is only here that our real inquiry begins..."(8).<br />
<span style="background-color: lime;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: lime;">f. <i>Encyclopedia Judaica </i>(op, cit) says some do come at least from second century (Bowen says 2nd century is acceptab</span>le se</span>e above: "even if it could be shown somehow that these two passages accurately reflect the views of rabbis back in the 2nd century or even near the end of the first century,") Caution. that article's author does not accept stand-iomjs as Jesus.<br />
<br />
<br />
g, a random list of bits of information from first century supplied by the Talmud passages, this doesn't mean the Talmud is historically accurate but it does mean it provides connections to first century Judaism even if not from the Mishna<br />
<br />
*Jesus' age given accurately and connected with Jesus stand in<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #ffffea; color: #710402; font-family: "times new roman";">A certain </span><i style="color: #710402; font-family: "times new roman";">min</i><span style="background-color: #ffffea; color: #710402; font-family: "times new roman";"> said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? — He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, </span><i style="color: #710402; font-family: "times new roman";">Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,</i><span style="background-color: #ffffea; color: #710402; font-family: "times new roman";"> [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.' (11) <b>[come and hear]</b></span></blockquote>
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>R Eliaser lived in first century (busted for quoting Jesus)<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>Lots of evidence for Insone-Brewer quote including a tag marker indicating time of the Mishna<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>Panthiera and Stada passages are in Mishna<br />
<br />
* G<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">enealogy might Correlate with Luke, even if not at least indicates they thought of him as real</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">(from the genealogy passage)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #b6d7a8;">* Hairdreser passage from second century but that/'s the time of it;'s writing.probably goes back before that</span><br />
<br />
*Mothyernamedev Mary<br />
<br />
*associated with Mary Magdalene (although confused her with his mother)<br />
<br />
*Pantheria is authentic name for Joseph's father according to many church fathers, that implies a Jewish take on his genealogy because Christian more readily identified him with his place of residence Prof Goldstine:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of <i>Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews</i>, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...<br />
"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the <i>Talmud</i>permitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. Goldstein presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (Maurice Godlstoine in McDowell & Wilson, <span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.869px; line-height: 19.2px;">Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims,Eugene Or. Harvert House.1977 ,</span>64) [same Godlstine?vdofferent passage]</blockquote>
<h1 class="gb-volume-title" dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 19.2px; margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: small; font-weight: normal;">*Passageom Rabbi Elizser (busted rabbi) refers to jesus' brotyer James(first centiry knowledge) even if Borwen ays he fgot it grom Jo or from Gospels it's still first century</span></h1>
<br />
*also p 20 Shafer says Celsus writes in 2nd century but the Talmudic passage from which his information comes is fourth century so obviously the Jews were keeping oral traditionalism before they wrote it down. How could Celsus get the information before they wrote it unless unless the7 possessed it first in oral form? So it's older than the wrtkng of it.<br />
<br />
*Shafer also backs Panthera as name of Jesus Grandfather based uponmany passages indouiding mishna (20)<br />
<br />
j. list of poimts used by Klausner to argue for sch a one as Jesus (op cit 67)<br />
*Such a one's mother being named Mary<br />
<br />
*Jesus genealogy passage says her father was Heli which some think is nickname or Eli that accord's with Luke's genealogy.<br />
* Named Yeshu of Nazarath<br />
*Performed Miracles (billed as "black magic")teacher and Expounded Scroipture<br />
*said he's not come to take away from the law but to fulfill it.<br />
* Hanged (crucified) on the Eve of passover<br />
*Disciples healed the sick in his name.<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue;">*</span> made himself alive by the name of God.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">*</span></strong> was a son of a woman. (cf. Galatians 4:4)</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">*</span></strong> claimed to be God, the son of God, the son of man.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue;">*</span> ascended and claimed that he would return again.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">*</span></strong> was near to the kingdom and near to kingship.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><strong><span style="color: blue;">*</span></strong> name has healing power.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: #444444; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">*teaching impressed omne rabbi</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
These Talmudic references to Jesus were written hundreds of years after he would have lived and so are of very little use for us in our quest. By the time they were set down, Christianity was a major force in the Roman Empire, and every single Christian telling stories about Jesus naturally assumed that he had really existed as a historical person. If we want evidence to support the claim that he did in fact once exist, we therefore have to turn to other sources. (Did Jesus Exist?, p.68)<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman:</b><span style="color: blue;"> </span><span style="color: blue;">Crosson says he does find the fact that Christians believe Jesus was real is a good enough reason to believe he was I quoted that on the argument V. That's especially the case not one single example in 1900 years of anyone arguing otherwise but that Jesus was a man in history. the claim understanding of that goes all the way back to the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived.</span><br />
<br />
I don't have to prove that Jesus did exist.IO have to prove only there's a good reason to assume he did. The mythers are chaining the Sataus quo so they must overturn presumption.Belief in Jesus historicity has presumption. It is the accepted verdict of history.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
Ehrman firmly believes that Jesus did exist as a flesh-and-blood historical person, and he argues strenously for this conclusion in his book <i>Did Jesus Exist?</i>. So,<span style="background-color: orange;"> Ehrman </span>is not rejecting the Talmudic evidence on the basis of prejudice against the conclusion that Jesus existed. He is rejecting this evidence because his believes it is too late and of dubious independence.<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">I don't find that impressive. He's a good scholar but he is not an expert on the Talmud.I just refereed to some major scholars who were Rabbis and who accepted that Balaam was Jesus. here they are again:</span><br />
<br />
<ul style="background-color: #ddffff; color: #441100;">
<li>the Soncino editor Rabbi Dr. Epstein of Jews' College, London</li>
<li>Rabbi Dr. Freedman and Jacob Shachter, the renowned Talmud scholars who translated Tractate Sanhedrin for Dr. Epstein and the Soncino Press</li>
<li>the writers and editors of <i>The Jewish Encyclopedia</i></li>
<li>the Rev. Dr. Robert Travers Herford, author of <i>Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash</i>, a renowned Jewish studies scholar of his day<strong><span style="color: blue;">.[9]</span></strong></li>
</ul>
I quoted several rabbis saying Jesus is in the Talmud. The people come and hear site include Rabbis.<br />
Shafer disagrees with Ehrman. I quoted McDowell and Wilson quoting Rabbinical souirces saying the Jesus stand is are in the early writings.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
Another N.T. scholar who has studied this issue closely is Robert Van Voorst, who wrote a widely-used book on the external historical evidence about Jesus. Van Voorst also has significant doubts concerning the evidence about Jesus from the Talmud:<br />
All this raises the issue of how the rabbis gained this information about Jesus. Did they have independent chains of tradition on Jesus, passed from rabbinic master to rabbinic disciples, reaching back into the first century? <span style="background-color: #f9cb9c;">The evidence points to a negative answer. While we cannot be sure, given the paucity and difficulty of the evidence, the third-century rabbis seem to have had no traditions about Jesus that originated in the first century. </span><br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman:</b><br />
(1) again amature mistake to think earlier is always more accurate and latter is always less so. That;s they first I learned about Textual criticism.<br />
(2) Shaffer argues specifically that in the case of this topic earlier and latter is not the issue, he says: he puts greater emphasis on weather it's Jerusalem or Babylonian Talmud than earlier or latter, and he says Babylonian is better because they were freer to criticize Christianity.(7-10).<br />
"I agree that much of the Jesus material is relatively late...the most explicit passages appear i the Babylonian Talmud...it is only here that our real inquiry begins..."(8). Like me in this debate he is not concerned with historical accuracy,(I am only arguing for Jesus existence that can be understood from the fact that they talked about him and only as a man kin history),<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Besides the rabbis typical disinterest in history and confused knowledge of the first century, what the rabbis say about Jesus appears to be the product of at least the second century. (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.120)<br />
All the general information that the rabbis have on Jesus could have been derived from Christian preaching. …</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><br />
<span style="color: blue;">that does not mean they made it up in the second century, it means it was written in the second century, The fact that the Jews told Celsus in about 175 means not that they made i \t up in 174 it means they probably had been circulating us ideas for some time. No reason to think it doesn't come from first century. Talmud is not history the rabbis were not concerned with history but with law. that doesn't mean there aren't historical influences all over it. Eherman has no special knowledge of the Jews who wrote the Talmud he's just going by climate of opinion.</span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The more specific information given by the rabbis that diverges from the New Testament shows no sign of being from the first century. They proceed instead from creative imagination, which ran free in rabbinic storytelling. (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.121)</blockquote>
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><br />
what would be a sign of being from the fist century? Does he even know enough about the Talmud and Jewish studies to know if they rest of the Mishna looks first century? Two major markers I would look for would be type of language and events of the day or lack of events. I don't know how Eherman is fixed for Hebrew studies but I<i> </i>know the Rabbis were not interested in history so they weren't into current events. Christianity would not have become a major issue to them until around 64 when the fight was about to start over Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple was soon to follow. Those little matters would have been just a bit distracted, kept them from dealing with the Jesus issue right away.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Perhaps the most telling indication that the rabbis had no independent, early traditions about Jesus is their failure to place him in the right century. A chain of tradition from the first century would have set this error straight. The better explanation of all the rabbinic information on Jesus is that it originated in the second and third centuries. (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.121-122)<br />
Like Ehrman, Van Voorst firmly believes that Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood historical figure, and he argues against the mythicist position (see Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.6-16), so Van Voorst does not reject the evidence about Jesus from the Talmud out of prejudice against the historicity of Jesus. He has serious doubts about the Talmudic evidence because in his scholarly judgement this evidence is too late and of dubious independence to be of historical significance.</blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">Originating in second centenary is not a problem but two answers: (1) He's ignoring the passages that are there, the ben satda amd Pantheria passages because they have deniability since they don't say "Jesus." (2) They weren't writing until the end of the second century anyway. Before that it was oral. There no say to tell what the oral tradition included before it was written down. They are just assuming that because the Mishna doesn't have overt Jesus passages that it has none. </span>He does not know what they knew or when they knew it, it's not reasonable to assume they knew nothing prior to writing it down. as for subject markers I already dealt with that. they wrote oral tradition so it stands to reason it as part of that so thus noised about before the second century was that old,We have living memories of the apostles up to mid century, it is entirely possible that they had living memories from just the generation after Jesus.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Finally, John Meier, one of the leading Jesus scholars of the 21st century, has carefully reviewed the various alleged Talmudic references to Jesus and found them to be of dubious historical significance:<br />
In my opinion, apart from the texts of Josephus we have already seen, this vast literature [i.e. ancient Jewish literature from around the time when Jesus allegedly existed] contains no independent reference to or information about Jesus of Nazareth. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.93)</blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">he's just repeating the same idea with Meier.</span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
…scholars of rabbinic literature do not agree among themselves on whether even a single text from the Mishna, Tosefta, or Talmud really refers to Jesus of Nazareth. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.95)<br />
In my opinion, Maier’s arguments are especially convincing for the Mishna and other early rabbinic material: no text cited from that period really refers to Jesus. … Jesus of Nazareth is simply absent from the Mishna and other early rabbinic traditions. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.95)<br />
The Talmud does not record even one talmudic teacher who lived at the time of Jesus or in the first half century of the Christian era as mentioning Jesus by name. As for the rabbis of the 2nd century A.D., they were reacting to the Christ proclaimed by Christianity, not the historical Jesus. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.95-96)</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">This whole debate thing started because he was saying what an assshole </span>Maier<span style="color: blue;"> how bad his arguments are. Ehrman is a find scholar with big name </span>Maier might be even better, and might have a better rep or at at least comparable. Neither of them, however, are Hebrew scholars or Talmudists.<br />
Those i quote are major Rabbis and a couple of good accompisyed Christian scholars.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I tend to the view of Morris Goldstein, who finds no certain reference to Jesus in this passage [a passage from the Mishna cited by Joseph Klausner], and indeed in the Mishna and the tannaitic midrashim in general. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.97)</blockquote>
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">I Documented Morris Goldstimne agreement with Klausner that the panthera [assages are Jesus stand ins that is documented by McDowell.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span>So Goldstine mistrusts one passage that's not the whole ball game.<br />
<br />
<b style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">Indications of first century knowledge in Talmud:</b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>*</b></span>R Eliaser lived in first century (busted for quoting Jesus)<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>Lots of evidence for Insone-Brewer quote including a tag marker indicating time of the Mishna<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: blue;">*</span></b>Panthiera and Stada passages are in Mishna (Goldstine says Panther was Jesus' grandfather)<br />
<br />
* Genealogy might Correlate with Luke, even if not at least indicates they thought of him as real<br />
(from the genealogy passage)<br />
* Hairdresser passage from second century but that/'s the time of it;'s writing.probably goes back before that<br />
<br />
*associated with Mary Magdalene (although confused her with his mother)<br />
<br />
*Pantheria is authentic name for Joseph's father according to many church fathers, that implies a Jewish take on his genealogy because Christian more readily identified him with his place of residence Prof Goldstine:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
<div style="background-color: white;">
It is noteworthy that Origin himself is credited with the tradition that Panther was the appellation of James (Jacob), the father of Jospeh, the father of Jesus... So, too, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus, Epiphanius the Monk, and the author of <i>Andronicus of Constantinople's Dialogue Against the Jews</i>, name Panther as an ancestor of Jesus...</div>
<span style="background-color: white;">"Jesus being called by his grandfather's name would also have agreed with a statement in the </span><i style="background-color: white;">Talmud</i><span style="background-color: white;">permitting this practice. Whereas Christian tradition identified Jesus by his home town, Jewish tradition, having a greater concern for genealogical identification, seems to have preferred this method of identifying Jesus. </span><span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">Goldstein</span><span style="background-color: white;"> presents more evidence to argue the case convincingly." (Morris Godlstoine in McDowell & Wilson, </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.869px; line-height: 19.2px;">Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims,Eugene Or. Harvert House.1977 ,</span><span style="background-color: white;">64) [same Godlstine?vdofferent passage]</span></blockquote>
<h1 class="gb-volume-title" dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11.869px; line-height: 19.2px; margin: 0px;">
*Passageom Rabbi Elizser (busted rabbi) refers to jesus' brotyer James(first centiry knowledge) even if Borwen ays he fgot it grom Jo or from Gospels it's still first century</h1>
<br />
*also p 20 Shafer says Celsus writes in 2nd century but the Talmudic passage from which his information comes is fourth century so obviously the Jews were keeping oral traditionalism before they wrote it down. How could Celsus get the information before they wrote it unless unless the7 possessed it first in oral form? So it's older than the wrtkng of it.<br />
<br />
*Shafer also backs Panthera as name of Jesus Grandfather (20)<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
…in the earliest rabbinic sources, there is no clear or even probable reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Furthermore, I favor the view that, when we do finally find such references in later rabbinic literature, they are most probably reactions to Christian claims, oral or written. Hence, apart from Josephus, Jewish literature of the early Christian period offers no independent source for inquiry into the historical Jesus. (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p.98)<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">He';s not counting the references with Plausible deniability</span><br />
<b style="color: blue;"><br /></b><b style="color: blue;"><br /></b><br />
<span style="background-color: orange;"><b>Two new arguments supporting the Talmud argument (Tie breakers?)</b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #9fc5e8;">I. New Information argumemt</span><br />
<br />
(1) We have good reasoms to accept stand=ins like Pamthera as Jesus Marked by so may coincidences it;s dead giveaway (see list above--especially the one about not come to destroy the law but fulfill it, obviously him they are quoting Jesus to mark who it is).)<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">(3) Skeptic will say they just based upon the Gospels.</span><br />
<b style="color: blue;"><br /></b><span style="color: blue;">(4) same figure shows some aspects that imply new information</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">(5) it is highly likely Jesus, if he existed, would exhibit these characteristics</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">a. charged with sorcery, if he was thought to heal he might be accussed of magkic</span><br />
<b style="color: blue;"><br /></b><span style="color: blue;"> b. Mother said to be hairdresser. That's like calling her a whore but Gsospels say Jesus was classed among sinners.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">c. quoted the Elizaer story (busted) in a way that makes him seem cleaver it doesn't help the Jews so it's not polemical.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">d, Panthera/Panderia and other varients all function tye same as im c, they are new informatiom but offer nothing to the cause ofdefamngJesus.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">(6) doesn't prove it but there is a likelihood these are historical fragments.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><span style="color: blue;">(7) therefore belief in Jesus' as historical figure is warranted.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><b style="color: blue;"><br />Argument II</b><br />
<b style="color: blue;"><br /></b><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">Shafer says Celsus writes in 2nd century the </span>Talmudic<span style="color: black;"> passage he parallels is fourth century so obviously the Jews were keeping oral tradition before the passage was written.. It's not likely that they just made it up right before Celsus asked for information on Jesus. So good reason to think it as circulating for some time.</span><br /></span><b style="color: blue;">even if this entire argument is not enough for warrant, taken together the preponderance of the five will warrant</b><br />
<b style="color: blue;"><br /></b><b><span style="color: red;">Bowen:</span></b><br />
So, one of the leading Jesus scholars of the 21st century is on my side concerning this issue about alleged references to Jesus in the Talmud. Joe Hinman has a serious uphill battle to fight here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b style="color: blue;">Hinman: </b><span style="color: blue;">Naw I'm halfway there I;'m already figuring up ways to spend the book royalties. I think I'll buy comic books.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
========================<br />
This post is still in work. I plan to add more material here to respond to the TWO substantial quotes from the Talmud that Hinman provided in his essay on evidence for the existence of Jesus from the Talmud.<br />
========================<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/06/21/debate-the-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-1/#disqus_thread</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-52780589252103015412016-07-25T04:36:00.002-07:002016-07-25T04:36:44.908-07:00Intro to Bowen-Hinman Debate: Historicity of Jesus<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
I, Joe Hinman, defending proposition, <b>Resolved: That the external (not in Bible) evidence is strong enough to warrant belief in Jesus' historicity</b>.<br />
<br />
I do not have to prove factually that Jesus actually did exist, only that belief in his historicity is warranted. This question has nothing to do with miracles. A man could exist and be thought to have worked miracles even if he did not. So miracles in no way limited Jesus' actual existence. I was an atheist, and when I was I thought the Jesus myth thing was groundless. This is not a Christian vs Atheist issue. It's really a struggle over how to understand historical facts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I have five arguments. I will summarize them briefly and link to longer pages with material for documentation. The arguments are:<br />
<br />
I. The Talmud<br />
<br />
II. Papias<br />
<br />
III. Polycarp<br />
<br />
IV. Josephus (mainly the brother passage)<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
V. The web of historicity<br />
(in second post)<br />
<br />
I am going to ask the reader to read a couple of very long pages and also just supply information you may want to see in addition. This page is just sort of a portal. If you want to just read the summary I've distilled the major points. Or if you want more evidence see the major link over the name for the long pages.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2016/06/talmud-connection-to-jesus-part-1.html">I. Talmud</a>:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>The Talmud is the written record of Hebrew oral tradition. It gets back realistically to mid first century and began to be written down around 200 or so AD. We know Jesus was in the Talmud and that is a fact admitted by Rabbis. Some references use his name (Yeshua) some use code words such as "such a one" or "Panthera". The reason codes are used, is that the commentators censored the works and removed overt reverences to Jesus (although they missed some) to prevent Christians from inflicting persecution. We have many of the out takes in various libraries such as Cambridge. These readings continued to be produced privately not officially.<i> Encyclopidia Hebreica:</i><br />
<span style="color: black; display: inline; float: none; text-align: justify;">"Beginning with the Basle edition of the Talmud (1578–80), those passages in which Jesus was mentioned, as well as other statements alluding to Christianity, were deleted from most editions of the Babylonian Talmud by the Christian censors or even by internal Jewish censorship. These deletions were later collected in special compilations and in manuscripts."<span style="color: blue;"><b> [1]<span style="background-color: white;"> </span></b><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="background-color: white;"><b>Instone-Brewer and <i>b. Sanh.</i> 43a </b><span style="color: black;">A scholar at Tyndale House, Cambridge, argues that one of the Talmudic outtakes from Munich actually records the charge sheets against Jesus for his execution.<b><span style="color: blue;"> [2]</span></b> See the link over "Talmud" for more details.</span></span> </span></span></span><br />
<br />
There are anomalies about these works. The codes given to Jesus allow complete confusion and thus plausible deniability as to who is meant. Other anomalies include the information that Jesus was the son of an adulteress. Also that he was charged with witchcraft and other things not in the Gospels. These are polemics and can be ignored. The point is he is always taken as a historical figure. It is claimed they have information about his genealogy. Perhaps this is also polemical but he is never treated as a myth. Celsus claimed that he got his information on Jesus from the Jews and what he says coincides with some these figures in the Talmud who are supposed to be Jesus stand-ins. <b><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2015/10/papias.html">II. Papias:</a></b><br />
<br />
Papias was the student of the Apostle John. There is a famous quotation by him, which creates confusions to which John he really knew. For our purposes, however, that issue can be mooted: he said both Johns were disciples of Jesus, whether the Apostle or "the elder". Please read the material. Mythyers will raise the issue that this is fifth hand and we don't have the writings of anyone who actually knew Jesus. That is a false standard: real historians don't demand writing from people who actually knew the subject before accepting their existence if it can be established in some way. Besides it's not fifth but second. Jesus is first, Apostle John is second. Although the saying is generated to Irenaeus the student of Polycarp and Papias. Irenaeus quotes Papias saying he knew elder John and/or Apostle John but Irenaeus also says Papias and Polycarp and Ignatius (another major Apostolic father) all studied together with John. Ireneaeus does report Polycarp speaking to Papias recalling to mind when they studied with John together. Below is the most famous passage of Papias, where he names the elder John separately from John Apostle.<br />
<br />
The Passage:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: white;"><span style="font-family: "palatino";"><span style="color: black;">I shall not hesitate to set down for you along with my interpretations all things which I learned from the elders with care and recorded with care, being well assured of their truth. For unlike most men, I took pleasure not in those that have much to say but in those that preach the truth, not in those that record strange precepts but in those who record such precepts as were given to the faith by the Lord and are derived from truth itself. Besides if ever any man came who had been a follower of the elders, I would inquire about the sayings of the elders; what Andrew said, or Peter or Philip or Thomas, or James, or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples; and what Aristion says, and John the Elder, who are disciples of the Lord. For I did not consider that I got so much from the content of books as from the utterances of living and abiding voices<b><span style="color: blue;">...[4]</span></b></span></span></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>III. </b><a href="http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/polycarp.html"><b>Polycarp:</b></a><br />
<br />
Knew the Apostle John and studied with him. He speaks of where the apostle sat when they studied together. We have those sayings reported by Irenaeus who heard Polycarp's discourse. They are in the fragmentary lost writings, Eusebian fragment <i>Letter to Florianus</i>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court,3 and endeavoring to gain his approbation.<br />
<br />
For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse -- his going out, too, and his coming in -- his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; <span style="color: blue;"><i><b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eyewitnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures.</span></b></i></span> These things, through God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>.[5]</b></span></span></blockquote>
<b>Problems:</b> He begins that discourse saying "when I was a boy." He's saying that to Florianus. He would have been a teenager. The fragment is part of "the lost writings" that come to us from Eusebius. Mythers will make a big deal out of the alleged Pious fraud quote. Eusebius never said the pious fraud quote. That was actually Gibbon the atheist historian who made up the pious fraud quote. Eusebius was actually a good historian and was careful about his sources.<br />
<br />
<br />
The passage was known in Eusebius' form: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/lightfoot.htm"><span style="color: #0033ff;">J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp.308-348)</span></a>, Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines, ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Volume II (EABA-HERMOCRATES). This excerpt pp.324-5. Here Lightfoot disproves the notion that Eusebius made up the Testimonium Flavianum.<br />
<blockquote>
This treatment may be regarded as too great a sacrifice to edification. It may discredit his conception of history; but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. Nor again can the special charges against his honour as a narrator be sustained. <b><i><span style="background-color: orange; color: black;">There is no ground whatever for the surmise that Eusebius forged or interpolated the passage from Josephus relating to our Lord quoted in H. E. i 11, though Heinichen (iii. p. 623 sq., Melet. ii.) is disposed to entertain the charge. Inasmuch as this passage is contained in all our extant MSS, and there is sufficient evidence that other interpolations (though not this) were introduced into the text of Josephus long before his time (see Orig. c. Cels. i. 47, Delarue’s note), no suspicion can justly</span></i></b> attach to Eusebius himself. Another interpolation in the Jewish historian, which he quotes elsewhere (ii. 23), was certainly known to Origen (l. c.). Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa’s death (H. E. ii. 10) was already in some texts of Josephus (Ant. xix. 8, 2).</blockquote>
Lightfoot one of the great historians of 19th century,<br />
<br />
<b>Pious Fraud Quotation Itself A Fraud</b><br />
<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm"><span style="color: #0033ff;">Roger Pearse</span></a>, an experienced and mature scholar demonstrates that this rumor about Eusebius goes back to a quotation by Gibbon, and Eusebius never said anything like it:<br />
"Some very odd statements are in circulation about Eusebius Pamphilus the Historian. Recently someone quoted one of them at me, as a put-down. I had the opportunity to check the statements fairly easily, and the results are interesting, if discouraging for those looking for data on the internet. Since then I have come across other variants, and added these also.<br />
<br />
Note that the Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.<br />
<br />
*'I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion'<br />
<br />
*'It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.'"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm"><span style="color: #0033ff;">Roger Peirce goes on in a long page to disect and disprove this whole thesis,</span></a> and to show that it was the 18th century historian Gibbon who said this about Eusebius, and not Eusebius himself.<br />
<b><span style="color: black;"> </span><br /><a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm">IV. Josephus (Brother passage)</a> <span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></b><br />
I will make only scant mention of the Testimonium in this debate; if I did we would never get to the end of it. The brother passage does not have the kind of doubt, or attack, or charges of forgery the TF does. The only Myther answers I've heard on it suck.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>James Passage:</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it<b> <span style="color: blue;">the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ</span></b>, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.</blockquote>
The leading Josephus scholars, Prof. Louis Feldman (Yeshiva University) and Steve Mason (York University), state:<br />
<br />
"That indeed, Josephus did say something about Jesus is indicated, above all, by the passage - the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged - about James, who is termed (A XX, 200) the brother of "the aforementioned Christ"<b><span style="color: blue;">[7] Mason says:</span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
Josephus refers to James by referencing Jesus as though he's mentioned Jesus or the reader should know who he is. Jewish scholar Paul Winters states: "if . . . Josephus referred to James as being 'the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,' without much ado, we have to assume that in an earlier passage he had already told his readers about Jesus himself."<span style="color: blue;"><b>[8]</b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"></span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings.<b><span style="color: blue;"> [9]</span></b></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>sources</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">[1]<i>Encyclopaedia Hebraica</i><span style="color: black; display: inline; float: none; text-align: justify;">] in </span><i>, </i> "Jesus" <i>Jewish Virtual Library, </i></span><br />
<table align="center"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2012, <i>On line Resoirce URL</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><i><a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10113.html"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue;">https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10113.html</span></span></a></i><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">accessed 6/14/16</span><br />they draw upon: cf. R.N.N. Rabbinowicz, <i style="font-family: "times new roman"; text-align: justify;">Ma'amar al Hadpasat ha-Talmud</i><span style="color: black; display: inline; float: none; text-align: justify;"> (1952), 28n.26. </span><br /><br />[2]"The Munich Talmud on Sanhedrin and Jesus' Trial" <i>Rodsh Pina roject</i> on line<br /><a href="https://roshpinaproject.com/2011/04/12/the-munich-talmud-on-the-sanhedrin-and-jesus-trial/"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"><span style="color: blue;">https://roshpinaproject.com/2011/04/12/the-munich-talmud-on-the-sanhedrin-and-jesus-trial/</span></span></a><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">access 6/16/16</span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><br />[3]<span style="color: white;"><span style="font-family: "palatino";"><span style="color: black;"><b><i>Documents of the Christian Church</i></b>, edited by </span></span></span><span style="color: white;"><span style="font-family: "palatino";"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="font-family: "palatino";"><span style="color: black;"><b>Henry Bettonson,</b></span></span></span> Oxford:Oxford University press 1963, 27</span></span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><br /><br />[4] Origin quoting Celsus, <i>On the True Doctrine, </i>translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987, 59</span>[5] Polycorp, "Letter to Florinus," <i>Christian Classics Ethereal Library</i>, on line URL:<br />
<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.ii.html">http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.ii.html</a> accessed 6/17/16<br />
<center style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span><table align="center"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top"><span style="background-color: #f3f3f3;"></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<br />
[6] Chris Price, "Did Josephus Refer to Jesus?," Bede's Library, ed. Dr. James Hannam, blog<br />
<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm">http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm</a> accessed 6/17/16<br />
<br />
My own Josephus pages on the brother passage are inadequate. I've linked to a work by a member of the Christian CADRE. Not a scholar but the article is edited by Dr. Hannam Historian from Cambridge.<br />
<br />
<br />
[7] Feldman, Louis H, Introduction In Feldman, Louis H. & Hata, Gohey "Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity", page 56)<br />
[8] Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 174 ff<br />
<br />
[9] Paul Winter,<i> "</i>Josephus on Jesus and James<i>," </i>in <i>History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ</i>, ed. Emil Schurer, Edinburgh, 1973, 432<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-29605235561338627022016-07-22T14:39:00.000-07:002016-07-22T14:39:09.422-07:00o ok I'm not stoppimng<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
posting may be sparse or a bit,. this is the comment section at Secular outpost discussing mjy debate on historical Jesus with Brad Bowen<br />
<br />
<br />
check out the last two guys<br />
<br />
<ul class="post-list" id="post-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="post" id="post-2797992684" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="post" id="post-2798044853" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 60px; padding: 0px;"><div class="post-content" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a><ul class="comment-share__buttons" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;">
<li class="twitter" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:twitter" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -50px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="facebook" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:facebook" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -14px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><input class="share__button" data-action="copy-link" name="Link" readonly="" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -32px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; cursor: pointer; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; width: 172px !important;" title="Click to copy post link" value="http://disq.us/p/1a9vt85" /></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="realtime" data-role="realtime-notification:2798044853" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a class="btn btn-small reveal" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-radius: 3px; border: none; box-shadow: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; cursor: pointer; display: inline; font-family: inherit; font-size: 10px; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 14px; position: relative; right: 0px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; transition: right 0.2s ease-in-out; vertical-align: middle;"><span class="indicator" style="background: rgb(46, 159, 255); border-radius: 5px; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 9px !important; left: 5px !important; position: absolute !important; top: 2px !important; transition: width 0.6s ease-in-out; width: 5px !important;"></span>Show 1 new reply</a></li>
</menu></footer></div>
<div data-role="blacklist-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="reply-form-container" data-role="reply-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="post" id="post-2797173436" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div role="alert" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="post-content" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<ul class="post-menu dropdown" data-role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 3px; visibility: hidden;">
<li class="collapse" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="collapse" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; top: -6px; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Collapse"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></a></li>
<li class="" role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-image: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 2px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 12px 0px 5px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><b class="caret" style="border-left: 4px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid transparent; border-top: 4px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; content: "↓"; display: inline-block; height: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 4px; opacity: 0.3; text-indent: -99999px; vertical-align: top; width: 0px;"></b></a></li>
</ul>
<div class="indicator" style="border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 48px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 5px;">
</div>
<div class="avatar hovercard" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 12px;">
<a class="user" data-action="profile" data-username="disqus_qeyoCzlAiV" href="https://disqus.com/by/disqus_qeyoCzlAiV/" style="background: rgb(219, 223, 228); border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #288ce4; display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><img alt="Avatar" data-role="user-avatar" data-user="82937592" src="http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/users/8293/7592/avatar92.jpg?1438960915" style="border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; height: 48px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 48px;" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-username="disqus_qeyoCzlAiV" href="https://disqus.com/by/disqus_qeyoCzlAiV/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(153, 51, 51) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;">Raging Bee</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 9.75px; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797173436" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Friday, July 22, 2016 7:21 AM">9 hours ago</a></span></header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 550px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; padding: 0px;">
If this reference to "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" is all the "proof" we have, then we have nothing. All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ." That says absolutely nothing about what Jesus said or did, let alone his alleged divinity. Josephus' paltry references to Jesus aren't worth this many words of response.</div>
</div>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"><a class="vote-up count-0" data-action="upvote" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Vote up"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></a> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" data-tid="535" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a><ul class="comment-share__buttons" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;">
<li class="twitter" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:twitter" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -50px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="facebook" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:facebook" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -14px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><input class="share__button" data-action="copy-link" name="Link" readonly="" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -32px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; cursor: pointer; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; width: 172px !important;" title="Click to copy post link" value="http://disq.us/p/1a9d4u4" /></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="realtime" data-role="realtime-notification:2797173436" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></li>
</menu></footer></div>
<div data-role="blacklist-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="reply-form-container" data-role="reply-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="post" id="post-2798125375" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 60px; padding: 0px;"><div role="alert" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="post-content authored-by-session-user" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<ul class="post-menu dropdown" data-role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 3px; visibility: hidden;">
<li class="collapse" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="collapse" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; top: -6px; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Collapse"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></a></li>
<li class="" role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-image: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 2px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 12px 0px 5px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><b class="caret" style="border-left: 4px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid transparent; border-top: 4px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; content: "↓"; display: inline-block; height: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 4px; opacity: 0.3; text-indent: -99999px; vertical-align: top; width: 0px;"></b></a></li>
</ul>
<div class="indicator" style="border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 36px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 5px;">
</div>
<div class="avatar hovercard" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 12px;">
<a class="user" data-action="profile" data-username="joehinman" href="https://disqus.com/by/joehinman/" style="background: rgb(219, 223, 228); border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #288ce4; display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><img alt="Avatar" data-role="user-avatar" data-user="101148366" src="http://a.disquscdn.com/1468285792/images/noavatar92.png" style="border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; height: 36px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 36px;" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-username="joehinman" href="https://disqus.com/by/joehinman/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(153, 51, 51) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;">Joe Hinman</a></span> <span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="parent-link" data-role="parent-link" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797173436" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon-forward" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="in reply to"></i> Raging Bee</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 9.75px; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2798125375" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Friday, July 22, 2016 4:31 PM">2 minutes ago</a></span></header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 502px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
that's ludicrous.He's obviously not talking about some unknown person he;'s stalking that other Jesus of Nazareth who claimed who claimed to be messiah and whose brother James was head of Jerusalem church,</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; padding: 0px;">
maybe that guy was the son of God. maybe it was another son of <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />god</div>
</div>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"><a class="vote-up count-0" data-action="upvote" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Vote up"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></a> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="edit" data-role="edit-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 9px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="edit" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Edit</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a><ul class="comment-share__buttons" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;">
<li class="twitter" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:twitter" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -50px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="facebook" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:facebook" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -14px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><input class="share__button" data-action="copy-link" name="Link" readonly="" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -32px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; cursor: pointer; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; width: 172px !important;" title="Click to copy post link" value="http://disq.us/p/1a9xjcv" /></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="realtime" data-role="realtime-notification:2798125375" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></li>
</menu></footer></div>
<div data-role="blacklist-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="reply-form-container" data-role="reply-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</li>
<li class="post" id="post-2797736856" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 60px; padding: 0px;"><div role="alert" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="post-content" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<ul class="post-menu dropdown" data-role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 3px; visibility: hidden;">
<li class="collapse" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="collapse" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; top: -6px; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Collapse"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></a></li>
<li class="" role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-image: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 2px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 12px 0px 5px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><b class="caret" style="border-left: 4px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid transparent; border-top: 4px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; content: "↓"; display: inline-block; height: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 4px; opacity: 0.3; text-indent: -99999px; vertical-align: top; width: 0px;"></b></a></li>
</ul>
<div class="indicator" style="border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 36px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 5px;">
</div>
<div class="avatar hovercard" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 12px;">
<a class="user" data-action="profile" data-username="BradleyBowen" href="https://disqus.com/by/BradleyBowen/" style="background: rgb(219, 223, 228); border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #288ce4; display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><img alt="Avatar" data-role="user-avatar" data-user="51954848" src="http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/users/5195/4848/avatar92.jpg?1457629594" style="border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; height: 36px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 36px;" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-username="BradleyBowen" href="https://disqus.com/by/BradleyBowen/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(153, 51, 51) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;">Bradley Bowen</a></span> <span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="parent-link" data-role="parent-link" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797173436" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon-forward" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="in reply to"></i> Raging Bee</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 9.75px; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797736856" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Friday, July 22, 2016 12:54 PM">4 hours ago</a></span></header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: 374px; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 502px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
Raging Bee said:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ." That says absolutely nothing about what Jesus said or did, let alone his alleged divinity. Josephus' paltry references to Jesus aren't worth this many words of response.<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />==================<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Response:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
Sorry about the length of the post; it is difficult to tackle this subject in short order and yet to be concise in my writing. When I discuss this issue in my books on Christianity, I will make an effort to be more concise.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
The whole issue of this debate is about the existence of an historical Jesus. I realize that there are bigger philosophical and theological questions about Jesus, but whether he actually existed is a very basic and important issue. If Jesus did NOT exist, then there is no point in discussing whether he was divine, or whether he was the savior of mankind, or whether he rose from the dead.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
Furthermore, for me the question of the existence of Jesus is an important piece of the question "What is the probability that Jesus rose from the dead?" and that question is relevant to answering the theological question "Was Jesus the divine Son of God?". I doubt that anyone can prove that Jesus existed, or prove that Jesus did not exist. But I believe that one can provide a rational argument to show that there is a significant probability that Jesus did NOT exist, say .1 or .2.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
If it can be shown that the probability that Jesus existed is no greater than .8, for example, then that places an upper limit on the probability that Jesus rose from the dead. If one can then show that the probability that Jesus rose from the dead GIVEN that Jesus existed is no greater than .5, then the combination of these two conclusions implies that the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is no greater than .8 x .5 = .4.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
That would be a significant thing to prove in the philosophy of religion. If the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is no greater than .4 , then that would put a significant dent in the Christian case for the divinity of Jesus.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; padding: 0px;">
So, the question of the existence of an historical Jesus is part of the question "What is the probability that Jesus rose from the dead?" and this latter question is clearly relevant to the main theological question at issue: "Was Jesus the divine Son of God?"</div>
</div>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</span></div>
</div>
<a class="see-more" data-action="see-more" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-top-style: solid; border-width: 2px 0px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; cursor: pointer; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; text-align: center; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 901;" title="see more">see more</a></div>
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"><a class="vote-up count-0" data-action="upvote" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Vote up"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></a> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a><ul class="comment-share__buttons" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;">
<li class="twitter" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:twitter" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -50px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="facebook" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:facebook" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -14px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><input class="share__button" data-action="copy-link" name="Link" readonly="" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -32px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; cursor: pointer; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; width: 172px !important;" title="Click to copy post link" value="http://disq.us/p/1a9p7ko" /></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="realtime" data-role="realtime-notification:2797736856" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></li>
</menu></footer></div>
<div data-role="blacklist-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="reply-form-container" data-role="reply-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="post" id="post-2797868160" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 48px; padding: 0px;"><div role="alert" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="post-content" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<ul class="post-menu dropdown" data-role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 3px; visibility: hidden;">
<li class="collapse" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="collapse" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; top: -6px; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Collapse"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></a></li>
<li class="" role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-image: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 2px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 12px 0px 5px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><b class="caret" style="border-left: 4px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid transparent; border-top: 4px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; content: "↓"; display: inline-block; height: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 4px; opacity: 0.3; text-indent: -99999px; vertical-align: top; width: 0px;"></b></a></li>
</ul>
<div class="indicator" style="border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 36px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 5px;">
</div>
<div class="avatar hovercard" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 12px;">
<a class="user" data-action="profile" data-username="disqus_qeyoCzlAiV" href="https://disqus.com/by/disqus_qeyoCzlAiV/" style="background: rgb(219, 223, 228); border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #288ce4; display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><img alt="Avatar" data-role="user-avatar" data-user="82937592" src="http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/users/8293/7592/avatar92.jpg?1438960915" style="border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; height: 36px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 36px;" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-username="disqus_qeyoCzlAiV" href="https://disqus.com/by/disqus_qeyoCzlAiV/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(153, 51, 51) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;">Raging Bee</a></span> <span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="parent-link" data-role="parent-link" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797736856" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon-forward" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="in reply to"></i> Bradley Bowen</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 9.75px; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797868160" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Friday, July 22, 2016 2:05 PM">2 hours ago</a></span></header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 454px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
First, your probability calculation about Jesus having risen from the dead is bogus. Your figure about Jesus having been a real person isn't much better founded. And even if we can prove Jesus existed, that doesn't increase even one iota the probability that he rose from the dead. (Billions of people exist -- what's the probability that any of them rose from the dead?)</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; padding: 0px;">
And second, if you even admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature, then you're allowing for supernatural factors, so rational calculation simply means nothing. With superstition, all things are possible, at least in a theologian's mind.</div>
</div>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"><a class="vote-up count-0" data-action="upvote" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Vote up"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></a> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a><ul class="comment-share__buttons" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;">
<li class="twitter" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:twitter" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -50px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="facebook" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:facebook" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -14px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><input class="share__button" data-action="copy-link" name="Link" readonly="" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -32px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; cursor: pointer; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; width: 172px !important;" title="Click to copy post link" value="http://disq.us/p/1a9s0w0" /></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="realtime" data-role="realtime-notification:2797868160" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></li>
</menu></footer></div>
<div data-role="blacklist-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="reply-form-container" data-role="reply-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="post" id="post-2798012516" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 48px; padding: 0px;"><div role="alert" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="post-content" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<ul class="post-menu dropdown" data-role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 3px; visibility: hidden;">
<li class="collapse" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="collapse" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; top: -6px; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Collapse"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></a></li>
<li class="" role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-image: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 2px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 12px 0px 5px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><b class="caret" style="border-left: 4px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid transparent; border-top: 4px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; content: "↓"; display: inline-block; height: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 4px; opacity: 0.3; text-indent: -99999px; vertical-align: top; width: 0px;"></b></a></li>
</ul>
<div class="indicator" style="border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 36px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 5px;">
</div>
<div class="avatar hovercard" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 12px;">
<a class="user" data-action="profile" data-username="BradleyBowen" href="https://disqus.com/by/BradleyBowen/" style="background: rgb(219, 223, 228); border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #288ce4; display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><img alt="Avatar" data-role="user-avatar" data-user="51954848" src="http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/users/5195/4848/avatar92.jpg?1457629594" style="border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; height: 36px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 36px;" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-username="BradleyBowen" href="https://disqus.com/by/BradleyBowen/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(153, 51, 51) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;">Bradley Bowen</a></span> <span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="parent-link" data-role="parent-link" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797868160" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon-forward" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="in reply to"></i> Raging Bee</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 9.75px; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2798012516" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Friday, July 22, 2016 3:21 PM">an hour ago</a></span></header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: 374px; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 406px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
Raging Bee said:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
And second, if you even admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature, then you're allowing for supernatural factors, so rational calculation simply means nothing. <br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />==============<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" />Response:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
To fail to "admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature" is to beg the main question at issue and to adopt a philosophical/theological position in an unthinking and dogmatic manner. I wish to base my views on facts and evidence, not on dogmatic presuppositions.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
I don't agree that "allowing for supernatural factors" excludes the use of evidence and probability.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
For example, in my view the hypothesis that "God exists" provides evidence (if true) that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead. In other words, if God exists, then that makes the resurrection improbable. My reasoning goes like this:</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
Jesus was a false prophet. God, if God exists, is a perfectly morally good person. Thus, God, if God exists, would be very unlikely to raise a false prophet from the dead (because that would involve God in a great deception), and God would also be very unlikely to permit another supernatural being (e.g. Satan) to raise a false prophet from the dead. Therefore, if God exists, then it is very unlikely that Jesus rose from the dead.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; padding: 0px;">
This is reasoning based on probable inferences from assumptions that are "allowing for supernatural factors", but it is reasoning that leads to a skeptical conclusion about the alleged resurrection of Jesus.</div>
</div>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</span></div>
</div>
<a class="see-more" data-action="see-more" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-top-style: solid; border-width: 2px 0px 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; cursor: pointer; display: block; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 0px; text-align: center; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 901;" title="see more">see more</a></div>
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"><a class="vote-up count-0" data-action="upvote" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Vote up"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></a> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a><ul class="comment-share__buttons" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;">
<li class="twitter" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:twitter" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -50px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="facebook" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:facebook" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -14px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><input class="share__button" data-action="copy-link" name="Link" readonly="" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -32px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; cursor: pointer; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; width: 172px !important;" title="Click to copy post link" value="http://disq.us/p/1a9v49w" /></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="realtime" data-role="realtime-notification:2798012516" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></li>
</menu></footer></div>
<div data-role="blacklist-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="reply-form-container" data-role="reply-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="post" id="post-2797315877" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 60px; padding: 0px;"><div role="alert" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="post-content" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<ul class="post-menu dropdown" data-role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 3px; visibility: hidden;">
<li class="collapse" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="collapse" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; top: -6px; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Collapse"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></a></li>
<li class="" role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-image: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 2px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 12px 0px 5px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><b class="caret" style="border-left: 4px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid transparent; border-top: 4px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; content: "↓"; display: inline-block; height: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 4px; opacity: 0.3; text-indent: -99999px; vertical-align: top; width: 0px;"></b></a></li>
</ul>
<div class="indicator" style="border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 36px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 5px;">
</div>
<div class="avatar hovercard" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 12px;">
<a class="user" data-action="profile" data-username="ericsotnak" href="https://disqus.com/by/ericsotnak/" style="background: rgb(219, 223, 228); border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #288ce4; display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><img alt="Avatar" data-role="user-avatar" data-user="52049945" src="http://a.disquscdn.com/1468285792/images/noavatar92.png" style="border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; height: 36px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 36px;" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-username="ericsotnak" href="https://disqus.com/by/ericsotnak/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(153, 51, 51) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;">Eric Sotnak</a></span> <span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="parent-link" data-role="parent-link" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797173436" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon-forward" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="in reply to"></i> Raging Bee</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 9.75px; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797315877" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Friday, July 22, 2016 9:01 AM">8 hours ago</a></span></header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 502px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="box-sizing: border-box;">All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ."</b></div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; padding: 0px;">
Isn't that just conceding the conclusion Hinman is arguing for in this debate?</div>
</div>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"><a class="vote-up count-0" data-action="upvote" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Vote up"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></a> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" data-tid="570" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a><ul class="comment-share__buttons" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;">
<li class="twitter" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:twitter" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -50px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="facebook" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:facebook" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -14px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><input class="share__button" data-action="copy-link" name="Link" readonly="" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -32px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; cursor: pointer; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; width: 172px !important;" title="Click to copy post link" value="http://disq.us/p/1a9g6qt" /></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="realtime" data-role="realtime-notification:2797315877" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></li>
</menu></footer></div>
<div data-role="blacklist-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="reply-form-container" data-role="reply-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="post" id="post-2798126695" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 48px; padding: 0px;"><div role="alert" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="post-content authored-by-session-user" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<ul class="post-menu dropdown" data-role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 3px; visibility: visible !important;">
<li class="collapse" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="collapse" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; top: -6px; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Collapse"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;">−</span></a></li>
<li class="" role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-image: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 2px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 12px 0px 5px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><b class="caret" style="border-left: 4px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid transparent; border-top: 4px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; content: "↓"; display: inline-block; height: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 4px; opacity: 0.3; text-indent: -99999px; vertical-align: top; width: 0px;"></b></a></li>
</ul>
<div class="indicator" style="border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 36px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 5px;">
</div>
<div class="avatar hovercard" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 12px;">
<a class="user" data-action="profile" data-username="joehinman" href="https://disqus.com/by/joehinman/" style="background: rgb(219, 223, 228); border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #288ce4; display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><img alt="Avatar" data-role="user-avatar" data-user="101148366" src="http://a.disquscdn.com/1468285792/images/noavatar92.png" style="border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; height: 36px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 36px;" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-username="joehinman" href="https://disqus.com/by/joehinman/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(153, 51, 51) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;">Joe Hinman</a></span> <span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="parent-link" data-role="parent-link" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797315877" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon-forward" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="in reply to"></i> Eric Sotnak</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 9.75px; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2798126695" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Friday, July 22, 2016 4:32 PM">2 minutes ago</a></span></header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 454px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; padding: 0px;">
ahahahaqhhahhhaha someone finally got it!</div>
</div>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"><a class="vote-up count-0" data-action="upvote" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Vote up"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></a> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="edit" data-role="edit-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 9px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="edit" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Edit</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a><ul class="comment-share__buttons" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; visibility: hidden; white-space: nowrap;">
<li class="twitter" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:twitter" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -50px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="facebook" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><button class="share__button" data-action="share:facebook" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -14px; border: none; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px 0px 0px 18px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 18px;"></button></li>
<li class="link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: none; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px 0px 0px 8px; position: absolute; right: 30px; top: -2px; transition: right 0.4s ease-in-out;"><input class="share__button" data-action="copy-link" name="Link" readonly="" style="background-image: url("//a.disquscdn.com/next/embed/assets/img/sprite.1ad514f964fa98fce83e41ef35ddf1f8.png"); background-position: 0px -32px; border-style: none; border-width: initial; cursor: pointer; font-size: 13px; height: 18px; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 2px; padding-left: 20px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; width: 172px !important;" title="Click to copy post link" value="http://disq.us/p/1a9xkdj" /></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li class="realtime" data-role="realtime-notification:2798126695" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></li>
</menu></footer></div>
<div data-role="blacklist-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="reply-form-container" data-role="reply-form" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="children" data-role="children" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</li>
<li class="post" id="post-2797390548" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 48px; padding: 0px;"><div role="alert" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</div>
<div class="post-content" data-role="post-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 24px; position: relative; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out;">
<ul class="post-menu dropdown" data-role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: 0px; top: 3px; visibility: hidden;">
<li class="collapse" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="collapse" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; font-size: 20px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; opacity: 0.6; padding: 10px 0px 10px 10px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; top: -6px; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Collapse"><span style="box-sizing: border-box;"></span></a></li>
<li class="" role="menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px; padding: 0px;"><a class="dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="background-attachment: initial !important; background-clip: initial !important; background-image: initial !important; background-origin: initial !important; background-position: 0px 0px !important; background-repeat: initial !important; background-size: initial !important; border-color: rgb(231, 233, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 2px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(101, 108, 122) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 12px 0px 5px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><b class="caret" style="border-left: 4px solid transparent; border-right: 4px solid transparent; border-top: 4px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); box-sizing: border-box; content: "↓"; display: inline-block; height: 0px; margin-left: 2px; margin-top: 4px; opacity: 0.3; text-indent: -99999px; vertical-align: top; width: 0px;"></b></a></li>
</ul>
<div class="indicator" style="border-radius: 3px; box-sizing: border-box; height: 36px; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; width: 5px;">
</div>
<div class="avatar hovercard" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-right: 12px;">
<a class="user" data-action="profile" data-username="Ryan_M1" href="https://disqus.com/by/Ryan_M1/" style="background: rgb(219, 223, 228); border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #288ce4; display: block; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><img alt="Avatar" data-role="user-avatar" data-user="29310370" src="http://a.disquscdn.com/1468285792/images/noavatar92.png" style="border-radius: 3px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; font-family: inherit; height: 36px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 36px;" /></a></div>
<div class="post-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden;">
<header class="comment__header" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 3px; padding-right: 46px;"><span class="post-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span class="author publisher-anchor-color" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #656c7a; font-weight: 700;"><a data-action="profile" data-role="username" data-username="Ryan_M1" href="https://disqus.com/by/Ryan_M1/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(153, 51, 51) !important; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;">Ryan M</a></span> <span style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a class="parent-link" data-role="parent-link" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797315877" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon-forward" style="box-sizing: border-box;" title="in reply to"></i> Eric Sotnak</a></span> </span><span class="post-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block;"><span aria-hidden="true" class="bullet time-ago-bullet" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; font-size: 9.75px; line-height: 1.4; padding: 0px;">•</span> <a class="time-ago" data-role="relative-time" href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/21/debate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4/#comment-2797390548" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Friday, July 22, 2016 9:45 AM">7 hours ago</a></span></header><div class="post-body-inner" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message-container" data-role="message-container" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 454px; zoom: 1;">
<div class="publisher-anchor-color" data-role="message-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<div class="post-message " data-role="message" dir="auto" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 21px;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; padding: 0px;">
Yep.</div>
</div>
<span class="post-media" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><ul data-role="post-media-list" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"></ul>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<footer class="comment__footer" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: both; color: #7f919e; margin: 4px 0px 0px;"><menu class="comment-footer__menu" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<li class="voting" data-role="voting" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s;"><a class="vote-up count-0" data-action="upvote" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; display: inline-block; font-family: inherit; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; margin: 0px 0px 0px -3px; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;" title="Vote up"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow-2" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></a> <span class="vote-down count-0" data-action="downvote" role="button" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(231, 233, 238); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; height: 11px; line-height: 0.85; min-height: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 6px; position: relative;" title="Vote down"><span class="control" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; opacity: 0.7; transition: opacity 0.2s linear;"><i aria-hidden="true" class="icon icon-arrow" style="box-sizing: border-box;"></i></span></span></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="reply" data-role="reply-link" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><a data-action="reply" href="http://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=1cde8c7fb2db946b524cf77dca48c7d5&f=thesecularoutpost&t_i=13494%20http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F%3Fp%3D13494&t_u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Fsecularoutpost%2F2016%2F07%2F21%2Fdebate-external-evidence-for-jesus-part-4%2F&t_e=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&t_d=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%E2%80%93%20Part%204&t_t=Debate%3A%20External%20Evidence%20for%20Jesus%20%26%238211%3B%20Part%204&s_o=default&l=#" style="border-radius: 4px; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #7f919e; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 2px 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.1s linear;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reply</span></a></li>
<li aria-hidden="true" class="bullet" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cccccc; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 11.25px; line-height: 1.5; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 7px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">•</li>
<li class="comment__share" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><a class="toggle" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; transition: color 0.1s linear; z-index: 100;"><span class="text" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Share ›</span></a></li>
</menu></footer></div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-5976813722233395022016-07-22T01:24:00.002-07:002016-07-22T01:24:30.345-07:00Sorry guys, going on break<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I am proud what I accomplished with AW/ I think there will always be a need for it. I do want to use a bunch of the material in a book. Right now, however, there are Moore important issues. The election for one. please continue to read my stuff om Metacrock's .bog and CADRE comments.</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-28784489614842963982016-07-19T23:40:00.001-07:002016-07-19T23:40:31.777-07:00Are all Cosmologists Atheists? Answering Sean Carroll (1)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
<br /></h3>
<div class="post-header" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7504126713800402587" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 578.667px;">
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<br /><a href="http://photobucket.com/" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting" border="0" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/starbkgnd.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br />In the previous post I commented on Sean Carroll, astro-physicist and atheist soldier who wave the banner of scientism. He writes an article:<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists</a> <span style="color: blue;"><strong>[1]</strong><span style="color: black;">Actually,</span><strong> </strong><span style="color: black;">he offers no data on the views of cosmologists. I offered reasons in the previous post as to why I think the title here is hyperballe. Good data shows that the majority of scientists believe in God <strong><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></strong> While it may not be true of cosmologists I have no reason to believe it is not. But this is not the real issue. he real issue is that Carroll's arguments are merely ideological/ all he's doing is imposing a naturalistic ideology upon epistemology and then insisting that he has the mystique of science to back it up. In other word it's just propaganda.</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-size: xx-small;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Let's start with his conclusion:</span><br /><span style="font-size: xx-small;"></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
The question we have addressed is, ”Thinking as good scientists and observing the world in which we live, is it more reasonable to conclude that a materialist or theist picture is most likely to ultimately provide a comprehensive description of the universe?” Although I don’t imagine I have changed many people’s minds, I do hope that my reasoning has been clear. We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality.</blockquote>
That seems ok so far but here's where he wants to wind up:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description. In the various ways in which God might have been judged to be a helpful hypothesis — such as explaining the initial conditions for the universe, or the particular set of fields and couplings discovered by particle physics — there are alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a completely formal, materialist description. I am therefore led to conclude that adding God would just make things more complicated, and this hypothesis should be rejected by scientific standards. It’s a venerable conclusion, brought up to date by modern cosmology; but the dialogue between people who feel differently will undoubtedly last a good while longer.</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"></span><br />The problem is "what we know" means what we know by the methods that I choose, those methods are chosen because they yield the results I want; other forms of knowledge I do not have to regard. He argues for a self contained paradigm and true to Thomas Kun's theory he absorbs anomalies into the paradigm so as not to admit that they are contradictions and he defends the paradigm like a political regime. My overall argument is that his rejection of theism is ideological not scientific.<br /><br />In his abstract to the article he makes his purpose clear, that purpose I to rule out belief in God by moving it of the map as an issue. The way to do that is to assert science's role as the only form of knowlege:<br /><blockquote>
<strong>Abstract</strong><br />Science and religion both make claims about the fundamental workings of the universe. Although these claims are not a priori incompatible (we could imagine being brought to religious belief through scientific investigation), I will argue that in practice they diverge. If we believe that the methods of science can be used to discriminate between fundamental pictures of reality,<strong><em>we are led to a strictly materialist conception</em></strong> of the universe. While the details of modern cosmology are not a necessary part of this argument, they provide interesting clues as to how an ultimate picture may be constructed. [emphasis mine]<span style="color: blue;"><strong> [3]</strong></span></blockquote>
Why would we be led to be led to a meticulously materialist view just because we believe that the methods of science can be used to <strong><em>discriminate</em> </strong>between fundamental views? It sounds like he is saying that science can determine the truth between differing views. He actually says ifwe believe that it can He's aware that it can't. He knows all he's really doing is just advocating an ideological view point that blinds itself to other possibilities.<br /><strong></strong><br />As further evidence of his commitment as a solider of atheism he opposes any sort of peaceful coexistence between science and religion:<br /><strong></strong><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
One increasingly hears rumors of a reconciliation between science and religion. In major news magazines as well as at academic conferences, the claim is made that that belief in the success of science in describing the workings of the world is no longer thought to be in conflict with faith in God. I would like to argue against this trend, in favor of a more old-fashioned point of view that is still more characteristic of most scientists, who tend to disbelieve in any religious component to the workings of the universe<strong><span style="color: blue;">.[4]</span></strong></blockquote>
<br /><br />He disavows any claim to statistical accuracy in the title saying, "The title ''Why cosmologists are atheists'' was chosen ...simply to bring attention to the fact that I am presenting a common and venerable point of view, not advancing a new and insightful line of reasoning." <strong><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></strong> That's a new one, I can make false claims about support because I don't mean them and somehow the fact that I'm advocating traditional views guarantees it's veracity. Talk about propaganda! This "common and venerable view" is outmoded and has been left behind by many in scientific circles. Stpehen J, Guild with his non overlapping magisteria found peace with religion by recognizing that religion and science have different purposes<span style="color: blue;"><strong>.[6] </strong><span style="color: black;">The National Science Teachers Association echos the same concept that science and religion cover differing domains of knowledge. “Explanations involving non-naturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid scientific curriculum.” </span></span><span style="color: blue;"><strong>[7]</strong></span><br /><br />"Essentially I will be defending a position that has come down to us from the Enlightenment, and which has been sharpened along the way by various advances in scientific understanding. In particular, " No scientific understanding has ruled out God. He's appealing to tradition and the emotional investment he's made in enlightenment thinking. "Since very early on, religion has provided a certain way of making sense of the world -- a reason why things are the way they are." I suspect that what he means by that is that religion offered an explanation of the workings of the physical world, such as the river floods because God is mad at us. I have a hard time thinking that Carroll really has a conception of what religion is about. part of what I base that upon is the the things he thinks beat it out:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
In modern times, scientific explorations have provided their own pictures of how the world works, ones which rarely confirm the pre-existing religious pictures. Roughly speaking, science has worked to apparently undermine religious belief by calling into question the crucial explanatory aspects of that belief; it follows that other aspects (moral, spiritual, cultural) lose the warrants for their validity. I will argue that this disagreement is not a priori necessary, but nevertheless does arise as a consequence of the scientific method,</blockquote>
<br />Of course before one can say "X has overcome Y" she/he must know what Y is about. Since science doesn't talk about existential or phenomenological matters one cam only conclude that he must think religion is about explaining where the sun came from and why it rains. This especially so since view he is juxtaposing is cosmology. So he must think that understanding the nature of reality is jus a matter of understanding the cosmic layout, planets and stars.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
The essence of materialism is to model the world as a formal system, which is both unambiguous and complete as a description of reality. A materialist model may be said to consist of four elements. First, we model the world as some formal (mathematical) structure. (General relativity describes the world as a curved manifold with a Lorentzian metric, while quantum mechanics describes the world as a state in some Hilbert space.</blockquote>
Complete as a description of reality? That assumes of course that your methods are up to the task of probing all of reality. He speaks of a complete description and yet look at all that he leaves out/, First I refer the reader to <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">my recent essay</a> "can science prove the basis of modern physics?"<span style="color: blue;"><strong> [8] </strong></span><span style="color: black;">How can he claim a complete description when it can't tell us what the basic building blocks are made out of? Materialism has to rule out miracles. It will rule them out as a matter of course. That is an ideological imperative. Then in a move of pure circular reasoning it will appeal to it's own authority in declaring miracles to be scientifically disproved. All that really means is that they conflict with the ideological scheme of things. Miracles are a part of my reality. They are paert of other people's observations and have been documented scientifically<strong><span style="color: blue;">.[9]</span></strong> <strong><span style="color: blue;">[10]</span></strong>Any description of the universe that rules them out without genuinely disproving them is incomplete. Then of course there are issues of phenomenological and existential import.</span><br /><br /><div class="western" style="line-height: 14.85px; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0.2in;">
<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/are-all-cosmologists-atheists-answering_19.html" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">see part2</a></div>
<br /><br />sources<br /><br />[1] <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">Sean M. Carroll</a>, "<a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists</a>;" On line resource, Prepared for <em>God and Physical Cosmology: Russian-Anglo American Conference on Cosmology and Theology</em>, Notre Dame, January/February 2003. Published in <i>Faith and Philosophy</i> <strong>22</strong>, 622 (2005). See also the <a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/nd-paper.pdf" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">pdf version</a>. URL:<a href="http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/</a> accessed Feb 12, 2016.<br /><br />Carroll is at the California Institute of Technology.<br /><br />[2] Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “How Religious Are America's College and University Pr<span style="font-size: x-small;">ofe</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">ssors.” SSRC, (published feb. 2007), PDF URL, accessed 9/4/15 The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the<a href="http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf</a> Association for the Sociology of Religion. </span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">They present a bar graph that show about 35% professor's ar elite research universities believe in God with no doubt. About 27% believe but sometimes have doubts. About 38% are atheists. That actually means that 60% are not atheists. True that's not cosmologists but there is good reason to think the majority of cosmologists are not atheists. The most atheistic groups in the study were psychologists (61%), biologists (about 61%), and mechanical engineers (50%), not physicists (among whose ranks cosmologists number). <span style="color: black;"> “</span><span style="color: black;">Contrary to popular Opinion, atheists and agnostics do not comprise a majority of professors..."</span></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: black;"></span></span><br /><div class="sdendnote">
</div>
<br />[3] Carroll, op. cit.<br /><br />[4] Ibid. "Introduction."<br /><br />[5] Ibid. all further quotes by Carroll are from this article.<br /><br />[6] <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book"> Stephen Jay <span class="reference-text"><cite class="citation book">Gould</cite></span>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocks_of_Ages" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" title="Rocks of Ages">Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life</a>. New York: Ballantine Books. ,2002,</cite></span><br /><br />[7] <span style="background: rgb(102, 255, 255);"><span style="background-color: white;">Statement on Teaching Evolution, National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors on March 15, 1995</span></span>. no page given, in Three Statememts in Support of Teaching Evolution From Science and Science Education Organizations, A National Science Teachers Association Position Statement (see fn 4) online URL <span style="color: blue;"><u><a href="http://www.nap.edu/read/5787/chapter/11#127" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: blue;">http://www.nap.edu/read/5787/chapter/11#127</span></a></u></span> (accesed 1/26/2016)<br /><br />[8] Joe Hinman, Can Science prove the basis of modern Physics?" <em>Metacrock's blog,</em>Feb. 1, 2016, <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">URL:http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html</a> accessed 2/14/16.<br />[9] Bernard Francis et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (10.1093/jhmas/jrs041) 2012 pdf downloaded SMU page 1-28 all the page numbers given are from pdf<br /><br /><div class="MsoEndnoteText">
Bernard Francis is former professor Emeritus of medicine, Unversite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.</div>
<br />[10] Jacalyn Duffin, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Miracles-Doctors-Saints-Healing/dp/019533650X" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #0058cd;">Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing:</span></a> Medical Miracles in the Modern World. Oxford University Press; 1 edition (November 21, 2008<br /><br />from Bio on Amazon.com<br /> Jacalyn Duffin, M.D. (Toronto 1974), FRCP(C) (1979), Ph.D. (Sorbonne 1985), is Professor in the Hannah Chair of the History of Medicine at Queen's University in Kingston where she has taught in medicine, philosophy, history, and law for more than twenty years. A practicing hematologist, a historian, a mother and grandmother, she has served as President of both the American Association for the History of Medicine and the Canadian Society for the History of Medicine. She holds a number of awards and honours for research, writing, service, and teaching. She is the author of five books, editor of two anthologies, and has published many research articles. Her most recent book is an analysis of the medical aspects of canonization, Medical Miracles; Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World, Oxford University Press, 2009. It was awarded the Hannah Medal of the Royal Society of Canada...<br /><br />See also <a href="http://www.doxa.ws/other/miracles5.html" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #0058cd;">Doxa</span></a>. miracles pages<br /><br /><br /><br /><hr />
<br /><hr />
<br /> </div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-6919847053629986532016-07-17T22:07:00.000-07:002016-07-18T02:25:55.906-07:00Naturalism is not an argument against God<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
</h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-649315548276070118" itemprop="description articleBody" style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, utopia, "palatino linotype", palatino, serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 578.667px;">
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
</h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8079067007778694647" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 578.4px;">
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://s15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/blog%20pix/?action=view&current=eagle-nebula.jpg" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket" border="0" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/blog%20pix/eagle-nebula.jpg" style="border: none; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 100%; position: relative;" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="content" style="font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;"><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">Jeff Lowder of the secular outpost writes </span><span style="line-height: 29.12px;">against</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> a highly conservative Christian </span><span style="line-height: 29.12px;">apologist</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> named Anna Marie Perez.<b><span style="color: blue;">[1] </span></b>He is especially </span><span style="line-height: 29.12px;">incensed</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> by her </span><span style="line-height: 29.12px;">comment</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="content" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Atheism is a religion. Atheists act like Dracula confronting a cross when faced with the fact that their beliefs rely solely on faith. They hate the word faith, even though it’s all they’ve got. They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God. When they are called out for having faith, they’ll say something like, “An absence of belief isn’t faith,” yet their claim of an absence of a belief is a lie.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Lowder quips, "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that baldness is a hair color." Very droll. Of course he doesn't believe atheist is a religion. I find this a lot, the answer is logical and simple. it's not a religion it's a religion substitute. What are they doming with it? They are replacing God in their lives with a concept called "atheism" that concept sways that here is no God and other concepts that help make that one work for them. Therefore it's a religion substitute. In some way it can resemble religion but it's not one.</span></div>
<div class="content" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Then he turns to her use of the term "faith."</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> <span style="line-height: 1.4em;">If she’s defining the word “faith” the same way as the Biblical book of Hebrews does (“confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see”), then she’s wrong to assume that “atheists,” without qualification, hope that no God or gods exist and that there is no afterlife. Yes, there are some atheists who hope for those things, but there are other atheists who hope for the opposite, and many more atheists who are indifferent. But if she’s defining the word “faith” to mean “belief without evidence” or even “belief against the (weight of the total) evidence,” then she’s mistaken.</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">I would like to deal with that issue at greater length but I don;t have time,I will point out however that faith does not mean accepting things without evidence, Faith is a </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">complex</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> concept it can't defined by one verse from the Bible. Look it up in </span><i style="line-height: 1.4em;">Westminster Dictionary of Christian</i><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> Theology.</span><b style="line-height: 1.4em;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></b><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> Nor will it do to use an ordinary dictionary, There is really no excuse for not using the </span><i style="line-height: 1.4em;">Westminster</i><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> (as often a these people argue with Christians). That would be like teaching a philosophy class and never using Flew's Philosophical Dictionary.</span><b style="line-height: 1.4em;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></b></span></div>
<div class="content" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<b><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: blue; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="content" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Let’s start with some definitions:</span></div>
<div class="content" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span>
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">naturalism (N) =df. The physical exists and, if the mental exists, the physical explains why the mental exists.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">supernaturalism (S) =df. The mental exists and, if the physical exists, the mental explains why the physical exists.</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 1.4em;">Actually I think his definition of SNism is really Idealism. SNism would say something like "there is a higher level consciousnesses of God to which God will raise the individual by the power of his </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Holiness.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="content" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span>
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Naturalism (N) and supernaturalism (S) are mutually exclusive: they cannot both be true. But they are not jointly exhaustive: they can both be false. To account for the possibility that both N and S are false, we can introduce a third, ‘catch-all’ option:<br />otherism (O) =df. Both N and S are false.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">That is not necessarily true if one does not define SN in the way he talks about. The basic problem from my perspective of belief is that God is not a being it's not like there;s a stable of SN beginnings running about and god is one of them. God is the basis of reality, being itself, the ground of being. Thus one might understand physical reality as the result of </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">natural</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> processes started in motion by the ground of being. Of course it's probably true that people use the tern naturalism to specifically </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">exclude</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">religious</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> answers </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">and</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> thus they would apply it to gainsay any </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">belief</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">in</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> God. Ideas like those of Tillich or process </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">theology</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> of Hartshonre of Whithead may be compatible with naturalism at least </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">technically</span><span style="color: blue; line-height: 1.4em;"><b>[4]</b></span></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">I</span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">f N is true, then atheism is true by definition because N denies the existence of all supernatural beings, including God. So one way to defend atheism is to defend N. And one way to defend N is to present evidence which is more probable on the assumption that N is true than on the assumption that theism (T) is true. </span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">I'm having trouble seeing exactly what that proves. Its not demonstrating the truth of naturism, it's only showing the propositioning are more probable if we assume naturalism. is more probable if we assume naturalism s true, it's not like these are true because naturalism is more probable. Why should we assume naturalism? Surely not because the propositions are probable since we have to assume naturalism to make them seem more so, why should we do it?</span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;"><br /></span></span></span>
</span><br />
<div class="content" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "lucida grande" , "trebuchet ms" , "verdana" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;">I</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">f we assumes these propagandists are more probable if naturalism is true, therefore. if they are probable naturalism is true. Is that not affirming the consequent or something? If it rains the streets are wet, the streets are wet therefore it rains. But we used to have street washers so there could be counter causes. Still I don't think Dr. Lowder would make such a mistake so I must not understand it. Still I'm going to argue with certain ones of them. I can't do all of them.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;">I am going to use SN operationally the way Jeff does so as to not harp on the same soap box again. I just ask that the reader be aware there is another view point. He presents the proportions to show their probable nature. I will not be able to deal with them all. I will group all those that I think can be answered with one liner. I'll present that list in the comment section</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Here is his first one:</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1. The Existence of the Universe</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">The universe–which may be defined as the sum total of all matter, energy, space, and time–exists. This fact is entailed by N: if N is true, then by definition the physical universe exists. But, although logically consistent with T, this fact is not entailed by T. If T is true, <b>God could create the universe, but God could also choose not to create the universe. </b>Thus, contrary to the claims of both the Leibnizian and kalam versions of the cosmological argument, the existence of the physical universe is more probable on N than on T.[1]</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">In formal terms, the argument may be formulated as follows. If we let B be our background information; E be the existence of the universe; then the explanatory argument is as follows:</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(1) E is known to be true, i.e., Pr(E) is close to 1.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(2) T is not intrinsically much more probable than N, i.e., Pr(|T|) is not much more probable than Pr(|N|).</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(3) Pr(E | N & B) =1 > Pr(E | T & B).</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(4) Other evidence held equal, T is probably false, i.e., Pr(T | B & E) < 1/2.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">There are a couple of problems I see here. Mind you I may not understand it.I'm just doing my best in my little mine sweeper against his battle ship. First, "</span><b style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">God could create the universe, but God could also choose not to create the universe. </b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 22.4px;">Thus, contrary to the claims of both the Leibnizian and kalam versions of the cosmological argument, the existence of the physical universe is more probable on N than on T.</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">" I think that would only be true if the universe is deterministic and had to be. We don't know that ,Moreover, we don't know why there is a universe. No reason to think the universe had to be. Davies says it didn't. <b style="color: blue;">[5]</b> Cosmological arguments are optional. They are not mandatory so if it's a choice between God or the cosmological argument we can throw the argument away. But that's not necessary because the universe is not necessary.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">2. The “Anti-Creation Ex Nihilo Argument”</span></b></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></b>
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="line-height: 22.4px;"><b><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">This argument may be summarized as follows:</span></b></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(1) Everything that had a beginning comes from pre-existing material.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">(2) The universe had a beginning.</span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">(3) Therefore, the universe came from pre-existing material.</span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">Now I think it is far from certain that (2) is true. Let’s make a distinction between:</span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">(2a) The expansion/inflation of the universe had a beginning.</span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">and:</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">(2b) The universe itself had a beginning, viz., the universe began to exist.</span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">It appears that (2a) is accepted by the vast majority of cosmologists. So let’s assume not only that (2a) is true, but that we know (2a) is true with certainty. It doesn’t follow that (2b) is true. In fact, as far as I can tell, (2b) does not enjoy the same widespread consensus among cosmologists as (2a) does. So there is reasonable doubt about (2b). But (2), like its theistic counterpart in the kalam cosmological argument, requires that (2b) is true. Because there is reasonable doubt about (2b), there is also reasonable doubt about (2).</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">But what if both (1) and (2b) are true? In that case, it would follow that (3) is true. But (3) entails the universe was not created ex nihilo, viz., created from (absolute) nothing. The falsity of creation ex nihilo is entailed by N (and physical reality’s existence is factually necessary and uncreated), but extremely unlikely (if not impossible) on T (and physical reality was either created ex nihilo or created ex deo [out of the being of God]).</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(1) if by "Material" we mean matter, p1 is fallacious. We don't know the cause of the universe. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">(2) fallacy of composition; just because all the individual bits are produced by matter that doesn't mean the whole is. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">We could also think about this argument in non Christian ways, I'ts Christian doctrine that says creation is <i>ex nihilo</i> that does not mean that doctrine is necessary for all belief in God. Then it's just as matter of what we mean by natter, Is energy natter? We don't really know what matter is made of.<b><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></b> we don't know what the singularity was made of it may be that a naturalistic origination yield naturalism.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Don't forget to check out the comments where I answer a bunch of hsi 25 I'll do more next time.</span></b></span> <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Sources</span></b></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">[1]Jeff Lowder, "25 Lines of evidence Against st theism,"<i> Secular Outpost, (June 26,2016) online blog URL </i><span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">-</span><span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"> See more at:<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/06/26/pererz1-25-evidences-against-theism/#sthash.PsSPRwSt.dpuf" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/06/26/pererz1-25-evidences-against-theism/#sthash.PsSPRwSt.dpuf</a></span></span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></i></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">[2] "Faith" <i>The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theolog</i>y,Philadelphia: Westkmnster [ress Alan Richardson and John Bowden ed. 1983</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">[3 ] Anthony Flew, <i>A Dictionary of Philosophy,</i></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">St. Martin's Griffin; Revised edition, 1984</span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">[4], "Process, Theology," <i>The Westminster Dictionary of Christian... </i>op cit<i> </i></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">467-468</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">God is diboplar. What is real of God and not merely potential is in process.God is changing alomng with creation, That put's gpd cpomsequnt pol owthin the naturalistic peocess.</span> <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">[5]<b style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><i>First Things: Physics and the Mind of God:</i> The Templeton Prize Address (1999)</b></span> <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">[6] Joseph Hinman, "Can Science Really Prove The Basis of Modern Physics." Metacrock's Blog</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br /></span>
</span><br />
<h2 class="date-header" style="color: #888888; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.5em 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;">
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;">MONDAY, FEBRUARY 01, 2016 </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">HTTP://METACROCK.BLOGSPOT.COM/2016/02/CAN-SCIENCE-REALLY-PROVE-BASIS-OF.HTML</a> ACCESS 6/27/16</span></span></h2>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">---</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-36426588655147280262016-07-14T23:09:00.001-07:002016-07-14T23:10:29.914-07:00the Atheist Movement<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
Atheist Movment and It's Orgnaization</h3>
<div class="post-header" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; color: #999999; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-202821642975420822" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 558.4px;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://s15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/blog%20pix2/?action=view&current=obama-brownshirts.jpg" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket" border="0" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/blog%20pix2/obama-brownshirts.jpg" style="border: none; box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 100%; position: relative;" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It's so amusing! I tell atheists "you are in a movement." They react like I've said "you are child molesters." O we are not either no no no not a movement O ononononn! never!<br />
<br />
they steadfast everyone every single time recite that party line, it's just the absence of a belief. It doesn't dawn on them:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 19.305px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">(1) you are angry because I say it's a movement. </span></span><br />
<br />
the anger is palpable. Why should it make them angry that I say they have a movement? I say I have a movement. I've been in movements all my life. i was in the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement (2 different wars--two different movements) and many others. I don't care. it doesn't make me angry to say I am in a movement. i don't even are if they say Christianity is a movement. I as in a movement and it had an ideology (communism) I was a commie!<br />
<br />
I know what movements look like. I know what ideology looks like. I have trianed all my life to spo this. I've been in movements, been a communist, (the paradigm of all movements and father of all ideologies) and I'm a historian of ideas. I was also an atheist. I nkow a movment when I see one. I also know that' it's not normal for people to become angry when you say they are in a movement. Why would they ? Atheists ract as though I've said theya re drugs adicts or soemthing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 19.305px;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">(2) they all give the same answer</span></span><br />
<br />
they all answer in exactly the same way. they never very there's no individuality. Its' always "the absence of any god or gods." There's never any individualist variation as though they have all read the same thing and all been told to say this phrase. I know they have probalby been told to say the phrase, but somehow in the way they process the information when they convence themselves to follow this movement they just learn it by wrote like the phrase really matters.<br />
<br />
I am still looking fo all this individuality they claim to have. I can't find it. I see them saying the same things and marching in lock step. last week I had a hesitation where atheists would not admit that appeal to popularity was wrong. some of them even warned to say it wasn't wrong unless was in favor of Christianity. One of them argued form populaity saying that I could not right becuase I'm a member of a tiny minority (the minority being people with my exact outlook thus confessing the idea of group membership with the opinion one holds).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Isn't a dead give away, think about it. They actually believe that if you hold single idea differently from the group you are in a different group. Then on what basis can they claim that atheist are all different and that they have individualist opinions? As if that isn't frighting enough, they would not bring themselves to dennounce argument from popularity, but then actualy tried to say that I had argued that! They tried to attribute their comrade's statement to me! Now is that for confused?<br />
<br />
I've demonstrate that its' a movement and only an idiot could fail to see it. I've shown that they have a concerted effort for <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_agenda.htm" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">court cases involving 30 major law suits</a> (which would cost millions, who is paying for it)? They have a vast <a href="http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/so-atheismis-not-organized-moveement-hu.html" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">propaganda machine</a>. They work on the <a href="http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2010/11/atheist-assualt-on-higher-learning.html" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">destruction of Christian academic</a> credibility at the expense of academic learning. They have a vast propaganda organziation in the form of several publications, think tanks and a scam pretending to be a convocations of schoalrs who are actually just Jesus mythers with no real academic standing.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #e69138;"><br /></span><span style="color: #e69138;"><a href="http://www.ffrf.org/faq/about-the-foundation/" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;"><b><i><span style="font-family: "arial";">Freedom From Religion Foundation:</span></i></b></a></span><br />
<ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;">
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Won the first federal lawsuit challenging direct funding by the government of a faith-based agency</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Overturned a state Good Friday holiday</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Won a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Removed Ten Commandments monuments from public lands</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Ended bible instruction in public schools after 51 year practice</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Halted prayer at public institutions</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Stopped direct subsidy to religious schools</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Ended commencement prayers at a Top Ten University after 122 years of practice</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Ended distribution of Gideon bibles in public schools.</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Brought nearly 30 First Amendment lawsuits since 1977, and keeps several Establishment law challenges in the courts at all times.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: xx-small;"><<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/legal/" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://www.ffrf.org/legal></a> </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: xx-small;">(18 Feb. 2007).</span><b><span style="font-family: "arial";"></span></b></span></div>
<div align="center">
<span style="color: #e69138;"><b><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: small;">Approach Used to Spread Agenda</span></b></span></div>
<ul style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0.5em 0px; padding: 0px 2.5em;">
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Files lawsuits!</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Publishes <i>Freethought Today</i></span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Sponsors annual high school and college atheist based essay competitions with cash awards</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Conducts, annual national conventions, honoring the "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award to public figures for their criticism of religion</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Publishes useful atheist books</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Provides speakers for events and debates</span></span></li>
<li style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;"><span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div style="color: #f9cb9c;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #f9cb9c;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial";">OTHER SUCCESSES</span></b></div>
<div align="left" style="background-color: #f9cb9c; color: #f9cb9c;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial";">- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#graduation" style="color: blue; text-decoration: none;">University Graduation Invocations Ended at Top Ten University</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#prayers" style="color: #f9cb9c; text-decoration: none;">Prayers Stopped at Public Institutions</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#nativity" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Public Sponsorship of Nativity Pageant Halted </a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#crosses" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Crosses Downed from Public Land</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#preacher" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Abuse by Preacher Exposed</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#knights" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">City Sponsorship of Knights of Columbus Signs Ended</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#probe" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Ethics Probe Called for Preaching Governor</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#guard" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Proselytizing Crossing Guard Fired</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#postoffice" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Post Office/Catholic Entanglement Ended</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#chaplaincy" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">De Facto Sports Chaplaincy Stopped</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#bsa" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">School Boy Scout Subsidy Stopped</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#bible" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Bible Proclamation Rescinded</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#rockies" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Illegal Public Help Halted for "Our Lady of the Rockies"</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#zoo" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Creationism Removed from City Zoo</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#discount" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Discount for Catholics Ended</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#redrocks" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Red Rocks Easter Service Subsidy Ended</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#nativitymoved" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Nativity Scene Moved Off Government Land</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#monuments" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Ten Commandments Monuments Moved from Public Property</a><br />- <a href="http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_successes.htm#playground" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Religion Removed at Playground</a></span></b></div>
<div style="color: #f9cb9c;">
<br /></div>
Who has time to work on this? All of these struggle take big money and big legal talent. These are not things pulled off by a diverse group who share nothing more than the lack of a belief. This is clearly a vast political organization it has to be.<br />
<br />
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="background-color: #e5e5e5; color: #999999; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<span class="post-author vcard" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 1em;">Posted by <span class="fn" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><a class="g-profile" data-gapiattached="true" data-gapiscan="true" data-onload="true" href="https://plus.google.com/116031743767990323943" rel="author" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title="author profile"><span itemprop="name">Joe Hinman</span> </a></span></span><span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;">at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2012/09/atheist-movment-and-its-orgnaization.html" rel="bookmark" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" itemprop="datePublished" style="border: none;" title="2012-09-24T04:31:00-07:00">4:31 AM</abbr></a> </span><span class="reaction-buttons" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-backlinks post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-icons" style="margin-right: 1em;"><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-1923365866" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6538255877506581515&postID=202821642975420822&from=pencil" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title="Edit Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="18" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif" style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.5em !important; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;" width="18" /> </a></span></span><br />
<div class="post-share-buttons goog-inline-block" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-2">
<span class="post-labels" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">Labels</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-34724299672665501252016-07-12T23:59:00.000-07:002016-07-12T23:59:54.531-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<img alt="Image hosted by Photobucket.com" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/blog%20pix/gin9810_antennae01.jpg" /><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Joe:</b>We don't have two competing scientific hypothesis,we have a scientific hypothesis that checks out and that's proximate cause. Then have a distal cause which a totally different concept and can;t be compared as a scientific hypothesis.<br />
<br />
- What we have is a scientific hypothesis and a religious hypothesis that makes assertions about reality, but has proven to be wrong over and over again. Every time that occurs, the religious hypothesis is eventually pruned down. It still makes claims about souls an the immaterial nature of mind, but those claims will be pruned away in due time. What's left after all that is the simple assertion of a God who has been stripped of any explanatory role in the workings of nature. A God that can't be observed or detected. A God for which we have no remaining reason to believe.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:Both sides have things they can;t make good omn ,'string theory is unprofitable. we have demonstrated miracles happen, religious repentance is the presence o 'god and many other things,of course I speak in temrs of prima facie evidence not absolute proof.still a hell of a lotbetter tahn anythiung you woilladmit.</b><br />
<br />
youdid not answer my three argumemnts om AW.</div>
<br />
they don't answer the same kinds of questions Christian theology dosed not ask why did the volcano blowup? we don't care.<br />
<br />
- The only reason they don't answer the same kind of questions is because science has shown the religious answer to be wrong over and over again. Religion has been forced to retreat into the gaps of scientific knowledge. But those gaps are closing.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:No that is shitty analysis the reason kinds because they deal deals with totally different kinds of issues sickness deals with empirical,l only because it;s te physical reoigion dealswoiti metaphysical thats mcuhi harder</b><br />
<br />
<br />
that is is fortress or rather it's a derivation of the fallacy, you are extending from the premise :we have a bigger pile of facts: to argue fro specific application.<br />
- When it comes to facts vs. unsubstantiated belief, I'll take facts. You can go on living in your for<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:yes you will take them from bull shit and lie about them.you have not answered my three issues,not anywhere close I kicked your ass i notice you ha e not been back.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:</b>at the very heart of the FOF that's what he;s saying our pile of facts is bigger<br />
<br />
- You completely fail to see the point of Coyne's statement. At the very heart if it is epistemology. Empirical evidence gives us warrant for belief.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:you don;t have it you have empirical evidence from science about things that have nothing to do with God, you have no empirical evidence abouit god, we do have empirical evidence that lends support to belief,we have it in spades you can't touch it. like the three you have not answered, you have no ability to answer, you can't deal with the facts,you have no real facts as they pertgain to religion,</b><br />
<br />
You are crying in your beer because naturalists have empirical facts on their side and you don't.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:is that why you haven't answered my three arguments? you don't even know what the M scale is much less can you answer it,.</b><br />
<br />
So you try to make that out to be a bad thing. Here's something for you to consider. If you had the facts on your side, you would be shouting it from the mountaintops.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:I am that is why I wrote my book genius, but unlike you I make careful well thought out statements not blundering in alleging I have big pile of facts, look you are arguing for the pile of facts, get it? you just said it, you are arguing the fortress of facts, this is one of my better job of baiting,</b><br />
<br />
yes we do those three examples [of the supernatural]<br />
(1) The universal nature of Mystical experience<br />
(2) Lourdes miracles<br />
(3) irritability of mind to braim<br />
- (1) is just emotional feelings that reveal no knowledge of any kind. They simply reinforce what people already believe.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:that's disproved by the research I point that out in the book (Trace of God by Joseph Hinman on /amazon)</b><br />
<br />
(2) is unsubstantiated hearsay. Your panel of experts are nothing but yes-men for the church.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:you are just refusing to accept the evidence becauise it disproves your ideology, youh have no argunent you are dogmatically rejecting it,</b><br />
<br />
(3) is what you believe, not what is true.<br />
<br />
That;'s the problem. you shouldn't use a standard \dictionary because the damage was done so long ago all the dictionaries go by the hi jack concept, The real issues are historical we need historical evidence<br />
<br />
- All your examples are natural events or unsubstantiated stories. What Coyne asked for is something observable, as I explained. What part of that don't you understand? We just want to see the evidence. We are not so gullible as to believe unverifiable stories. We need something real.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:my authority figure says os that;s not proof, that fallacy of appeal to authority, improper appeal to authority, Cyone has expertise in researching mystical experience,</b><br />
<br />
Yes according to the major researchers say we do not know. I didn;t say there is no answer I said we don;t know it, the answer is not reduce to brainfunction,<br />
<br />
- The vast majority of people in the cognitive sciences believe that mind and consciousness are purely physical. While you can come up with a few names of scientists who are not naturalists, you certainly can't claim they hold the consensus position.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:you have no proof of that quote your study,</b></div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-28763335868515767682016-07-11T20:27:00.000-07:002016-07-11T20:27:00.728-07:00follow up on exchange with I' Skeptical<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<li class="comment" id="bc_0_6B" kind="b" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0.25em 0px 8px;"><div class="comment-block" id="c1213365052927907691" style="margin-left: 48px; position: relative;">
<div class="comment-header" id="bc_0_6M" kind="m" style="margin: 0px 0px 8px;">
<cite class="user" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998" rel="nofollow" style="color: #cc29d5; text-decoration: none;">Joe Hinman</a></cite><span class="icon user" style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span class="datetime secondary-text" style="margin-left: 6px;"><a href="https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/07/god-of-gaps-reasoning.html?showComment=1467785072279#c1213365052927907691" rel="nofollow" style="color: #cc29d5; text-decoration: none;">July 5, 2016 at 11:04 PM</a></span></div>
<div class="comment-content" id="bc_0_6MC" style="margin-bottom: 8px; text-align: justify;">
im-skepticalJuly 5, 2016 at 7:30 AM<br />
<b>Joe:</b>you also seem to to think that the point of belief is to explain things scientifically This is a classic mistake atheists often make.It's not.Scientific explanations do not a priori comlpete with belief in God.<br />
<br />
<br />
- In my opinion, we believe things because belief is what motivates us to some kind of action. If we want our actions to be beneficial, it is helpful to have beliefs that correspond to reality.<br />
<br />
<b>that doesn't mean they have to explain science there's more kinds of knowledge than science</b><br />
<br />
As an epistemological tool, science is hands-down the best way we have of understanding the reality of our world.<br />
<br />
<b>Nope depends u[on the questions there are lots of things sscience can't tell us</b><br />
<br />
The better we understand reality, the greater are our chances of having true beliefs about our world. You can scream and stomp your feet, but religious belief has no basis in reality.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:that's bullshit, God is real and that means religion uas a basis in reality, you little sciedntisim has trucated realkjity and limited you to one aspect, that's less than stickiness really because you reject all science that doesn't confrm your ideology-any skincare that doesn't support your view you condmen, you do not base your views on science but vice versa</b><br />
<br />
<b>Joe:</b><br />
that's all based upon that same stupid idea that belief in god is about answering science. I think you are assuming that belief is about stopping evolution.Most Christians today believe in evolution<br />
<br />
- I'm not sure that's true. But it doesn't matter.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:it matters a great deal because it totally distorts the way you examine things</b><br />
<br />
Religion doesn't answer science at all. Science answers religion. Science tells us much more about our world than religion ever did.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:you are not listening, science and religion do not compete, they are in disagreement because they don;t answer the same issues, the thing science tells us are more because they are more immediate,that doesn't mean they are more important, they just more accessible. The things religion tells us that science cant are much more important </b><br />
<br />
Even that adoption of evolution by religious believers is not an issue of religion coming up with the right answers. It took science to do that.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:that's pretty ignorant, you really don;t know much about the history of science do you modern science was made by Christianity,Darwin was boardly supported by ministers</b></div>
<span class="comment-actions secondary-text" id="bc_0_6MN" kind="m"><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-1766714296" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=221547022510742794&postID=1213365052927907691" o="d" style="color: #cc29d5; padding-right: 5px; padding-top: 5px; text-decoration: none;" target="_self">Delete</a></span></span></div>
<div class="comment-replies" id="bc_0_6BR" style="margin-left: 36px; margin-top: 1em;">
</div>
<div class="comment-replybox-single" id="bc_0_6B_box" style="margin-left: 48px; margin-top: 5px;">
</div>
</li>
<li class="comment" id="bc_0_7B" kind="b" style="background-color: #fefdfa; border-bottom-width: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0.25em 0px 0px;"><div class="avatar-image-container" style="float: left; max-height: 36px; overflow: hidden; width: 36px;">
<img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-t808x50m0ck/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAMM/mxlGp8YZ3w8/s35-c/photo.jpg" style="max-width: 36px;" /></div>
<div class="comment-block" id="c1522000396103231825" style="margin-left: 48px; position: relative;">
<div class="comment-header" id="bc_0_7M" kind="m" style="margin: 0px 0px 8px;">
<cite class="user" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998" rel="nofollow" style="color: #cc29d5; text-decoration: none;">Joe Hinman</a></cite><span class="icon user" style="font-weight: bold;"></span><span class="datetime secondary-text" style="margin-left: 6px;"><a href="https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/07/god-of-gaps-reasoning.html?showComment=1467785097597#c1522000396103231825" rel="nofollow" style="color: #cc29d5; text-decoration: none;">July 5, 2016 at 11:04 PM</a></span></div>
<div class="comment-content" id="bc_0_7MC" style="margin-bottom: 8px; text-align: justify;">
part 2<br />
<br />
The only way religion can survive in the face of science is to change their beliefs,<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:why would that be when they don;'t deal with the same things. religion is being contradicted by science only in areas that have been long abandoned by most modern religious sthinkers</b><br />
<br />
and pretend that religion has had it right all along. It wasn't that long ago that ALL Christians were creationists.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:that's meankingess it was same space ago that atheists dhad no answer for how loife cae to be, so what><br />get it though your head try to get the concept, you are setting up a criteria that purposely screws to data to-make roguishness look stupid and science look like the victor in an imaginary contest that never happened,you are creating competition there is none, merely to make it look a certain way</b><br />
<br />
<br />
that is total bullshit It;s not even valid science It's clear, crap. science doesn't nearly explain everything not e en close. We are just getting started.<br />
<br />
- Your "just getting started" has been going on for thousands of years. And the best thing you've been able to do in that time is to adopt the scientific answer to various things whenever your own beliefs are shown to be ridiculously naive hokum.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:get oof the elite bullshit wagon that tries to say you own science, you are not more scientific sciece is no more your province than mine nor is science anti-relkigious it;'s a neutral tool. It's there to be used, if we don't use it you mock and ridicule because we are too stupid to be modern,if we do use it then we are admitting religion is no goods, you are just twisting the issue to create double binds because you have no real understanding of science at all.</b><br />
<br />
And finally, it would be nice if you post a link when you want me to reply to something specific. You have so many blogs, I can't keep track of them. Please put the link here.<br />
<br />
<b>Joe:I did it says "My7 answer"? iot;s roght after thsi or before iot.</b></div>
</div>
</li>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-75870437002121768512016-07-05T22:26:00.000-07:002016-07-05T22:26:00.552-07:00Dualing Fallacies: God of Gaps vs .Fortress of Facts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #fefdfa; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
<img alt="Photobucket" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/starbkgnd.jpg" /></h3>
<div class="post-header" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: georgia, utopia, "palatino linotype", palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2376923885124055282" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; position: relative; width: 578.667px;">
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia, utopia, "palatino linotype", palatino, serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
im Skeptocal, "God of The Gaps" <i>The Skeptic Zon,</i> (Juky 2, 2016) blog,vURL<a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/"> <span style="line-height: 18.2px;">http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/</span></a> </div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
Once again skeptical is shooting his mouth off about things he doesn't quite get right, here we have a classic example of what I call the atheist fortress of facts, I have a two parter on it in the classics, bit it';s basically just the idea that science is a big pile of fact, atheism has a bigger pile than Christianity so it's more scientific.To see why the idea is antithetical to science see my classic posts Answering the atheist fortress of facts, <b><a href="http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2012/04/debuncking-atheist-fortres-of-facts.html">part 1</a></b> and <b><a href="http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2012/05/debuncking-atheist-fortress-of-facts.html">part 2/</a></b></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
The <span style="line-height: 18.2px;">God of the Gaps" is a term that atheists often use to describe the nature of theistic belief in a world where science provides increasingly more natural explanations for things that were once explained by God. </span></blockquote>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #fefdfa; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><span style="color: #333333;">No it isn't. It's argument that turns upon a gap in knowledge.He makes it sound like any theistic knowledge is GOG, but in reality it is an argument that turns upon a gap in knowledge. But a barrier is not a gap. The classic example of a gap would be this argument: (1) we do not know what makes living beings live. (2) Science has no complete satisfying explanation for this, therefore, it must be God that creates life.</span><b><span style="color: blue;"> [1]</span></b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">Here's an example of an argument not based upon a gap.This is an argument I invented, it's on my old site Doxa. It's one of my 42 argument for God on they God argument list.old site Doxa:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">(1) there is not time or laws of physiocs at the singularity</span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">(2) there is no change or becoming in a timeless void.</span></span><span style="line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18.2px;">(3) the singularity emerges from a timeless void</span><span style="line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18.2px;">(4) no physics exists to explain and by all that we know nothing should have come to be (from 1,2).</span><span style="line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18.2px;">(5) therefore, we are warranted in thinking the assumption that the universe requires a mind as creator to change the rules</span><span style="line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
<span style="line-height: 18.2px;">There is a gap here but that is not what the argument turns upon ,it;s saying more than just we don't know how the universe produced big bang, it's saying there's a positive reason why it should not havehappened. That is not a gap. The atheists are assuming that belief is only an attempt to explain science. So they can't phantom the idea that there could be reasons for belief that have nothing to do with science, There are. Mystical experience is probably the major reason to believe and it has nothing to do with science.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa;">
<span style="line-height: 18.2px;">"Perhaps the most striking example," Skeptical goes on,"of natural explanations replacing theistic ones is the origin of animal species. This was once though to be the work of a divine intelligent creator, but now science has eliminated the need for any "goddidit" explanations." </span></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa;">
<span style="line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 18.2px;">That argument just assumes a belief motivated by fighting evolution, There is no reason why evolution and belief in God are competing. ,ai have no idea why atheists are so paranoid of appealing to God for an explanation, when that doesn't require denying any scientific facts at all. There are several gaps with barriers in them, I'll be getting to that in a bit. Now here is where he really appllies the fortress of facts:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="more"></a></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
As scientific knowledge expands into new areas, and more completely fills our understanding of the observable world, the holes or gaps in that knowledge continue to shrink, and along with that, the realm of supernatural explanations is rapidly vanishing too. Theists cling to those ever-shrinking areas where scientific knowledge is still lacking to hang on to their persistent "goddidit" explanations. Their God has been reduced to hiding in the dark shadows where empirical knowledge has yet to penetrate. This God can't reveal itself to human observation, because whenever science examines empirical evidence, the superior explanation for what is observed always turns out to be naturalistic.</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">Here we see the fortress of facts concept at work. He doesn't get that science is about hypothesis testing he thinks it's about piles up facts. </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">He thinks one with the most facts wins, Facts of religion are shrinking so religion is going down the tubes. Seldom does one see the misconception so l conically put. He's the poster boy for the fallacious fortress of facts. Lookimg at it from the other sides what they call god of the gaps is also the fortress of </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">facts</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<span style="color: #333333;">"This is a matter of considerable embarrassment to theists." No it's not. It ought to be embarrassing to him because it shows that he really doesn't understand science. Carl Popper said science is not about proving things it;s about disproving things this guy is talking about an actual pile of facts growing in the atheist column.</span><b><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
They are well aware that theistic explanations are losing ground to science, and they don't have any good response. They turn to explanations that emphasize the hidden aspect of God's works. Instead of claiming that God designed animal species and placed them on the earth as is, they now tout "theistic evolution", which claims that God is still running the show, but in a way that is completely unobservable. Instead of claiming that God cast fire and brimstone at a sinful city, they say God caused a volcanic eruption by fully natural means under his control. The problem with explanations like this is the simple fact that nature alone is sufficient to explain these things, and there is no evidence and no reason to add God into the mix. </blockquote>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
They are not losing ground because gthey don't compete fror anything.<span style="line-height: 18.2px;">This assumes that theologians give a damn about science, they don't. Some of the great theologians have been accepted in scientific circles are major thinkers.Alfred North Whithead who wrote Principia with Bertrand Russell, and Charles Hartshorne, Both of them developed process theology, But they are not under the inclusion that its science, no one is and one cares. Another theologian who was a scientists for real was Tielhard De Chardin, he was a Paleontologist and was on the expedition to find Peking man.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
Still, they are unwilling to relinquish their deeply-held belief that God is behind it all. To the theist, everything in the observable world is evidence of God. That's nice, but if we're talking about what theory provides the best explanation for the things we observe in our world, then invariably, the naturalistic explanation is superior. Nature is simpler than nature plus God. And nature without guidance answers more questions satisfactorily than nature with God's intelligent guidance. Theists need to face up to the fact that the evidence does not point to any kind of supernatural influence in our world.</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
Of course that;s because it;s true and many of us have seen things that demonstrate the truth, /the problem is the atheist can't handle truth so they redefine the issue so they don't have to deal with it., One such means of doing that is the redefining of Supernatural so that it doesn't match the true idea, Thus they keep demanding something Christianity never calmed to give in the fist place.So I'll get into that in a minute too. There's still more of this business about the fortress of facts to deal with first,</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
"Theists have asked if there could be any observable evidence that would convince the naturalist that there must be some kind of supernatural influence at work. The question has been answered many times. For example, Jerry Coyne said this:"</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
There are so many phenomena that would raise the specter of God or other supernatural forces: faith healers could restore lost vision, the cancers of only good people could go into remission, the dead could return to life, we could find meaningful DNA sequences that could have been placed in our genome only by an intelligent agent, angels could appear in the sky. The fact that no such things have ever been scientifically documented gives us added confidence that we are right to stick with natural explanations for nature. And it explains why so many scientists, who have learned to disregard God as an explanation, have also discarded him as a possibility. -<a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/what-would-convince-you-that-god-exists/" style="color: #cc29d5; text-decoration: none;">Coyne</a> </blockquote>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
We have given evidence on all of that, there are faith healing that are documented scientifically. But that's not supernatural that;s part of the counterfeit notion they using as a red herring, There is an epistemological problem here that must be dealt with. If we assert that anything that happens has to be naturalistic then nothing could ever count against naturalism. Just that it happens can't be the evidence. They might try to ground it in rules s no rules. That;s just an extension of the happening issue if we say that happening means it's obeying preset natural laws. There's also a contradiction in the sense that modern science no longer sees "a natural law" as real law. It seems to be a law-like regularity but they don;t see it as prescription but description, That is also inconsistent and opens up a can of worms since there;s no violating the law even though it';s not a law. What does it describe? it describes law-like regulatory.</div>
<div style="font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<span style="background-color: #fefdfa;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">The difference between theism and science is not one of observable rules vs no rules. The only difference is that theism recognizes a distal cause while naturalism wants to pretend there are only proximate causes. Nothing theistic says things happen without rules, There is no way to prove one way or the other that things happen because of some higher cause. There are only warrants for belief. No proof either way. It's a total misconception to set up the distinction between naturalism = rules and supernatural = no rules. Supernatural is not anti-natural. It's not opposed to laws of </span></span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><span style="color: #333333;">nature. He keeps conflating the idea of the gap with the problems of no rules, First one</span> and then the other is the motivation for supernatural. All the while it just never dawns on h<span style="color: #333333;">im to ask the believer what supernatural is rather than insisting they can ipose what we believe upon us.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fefdfa;">T</span><span style="background-color: white;">hat leaves us with the only remaining possibility that might make sense. There must be some kind of supernatural influence going on. And why should we think this is the case? Because we have evidence. We have an observable phenomenon that, as best we can tell after eliminating natural explanations, is supernatural. Will scientists try to find a natural explanation for it? You bet they will. But if all such efforts fail, then the only recourse is to explain it as supernatural. </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2px;"><b>The fact is that everything in our experience so far has been amenable to a naturalistic explanation. </b> </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa;">
Of course ruling out the supernatural from ever having happened depends entirely upon how you define supernatural, He wants to make rules and what happened the distinguishing features and that;s begging the question. He is saying that we know its natural because it happens and we know that nothing else happens. But if happening is really the issue then nothing else could happen but that it would be called natural, He's just begging the question. He wants to rule out a prirori anything that standse agakisnt his ideology.</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa;">
<br /></div>
<span style="background-color: white;">"Everything <i>does</i> behave according to the regularities of nature, and there has never been a single verifiable exception to this. That's precisely why naturalists believe that naturalism is true." So it's obvious what I say is true, anything that happens has to be naturalistic because happening is what makes it naturalistic. Thus nothing could ever happen that's not naturalistic. What winds up happening is when people do describe the world working in ways that imply God and that disprove naturalism the naturalist just does the question begging move and the power of a thousand previous begged questions gives them the precipitant to overlook the process again.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #a2c4c9;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #a2c4c9;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #a2c4c9;"> </span><span style="background-color: white;">But theists insist that there are supernatural things, yet they can't show us any evidence of it. We just need to see evidence for what we believe. If a frustrated theist like Mikey tells us that our demand to see evidence is just god-of-the-gaps reasoning, he should be reminded that his God of the gaps is not based on any empirical evidence. It is a God that hides in the shadows, refusing to be seen. His accusation is nothing more than a child's retort: "<i>I know you are but what am I?</i>" The gap is between his ears.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
The naturalists have sewed the criteria, fraught with epistemological difficulties, they sweep the epistemology under the rug and use the difficulties to set up false criteria.That works to their advantage jn two ways They can (1) say "just show us the evidence" of course we can;t because they wean to evidence fro the wrong thing,m like the counterfeit supernatural. (2) It also means they reject the evidence we do have because they don;t accept the right thing. Example of that is the religious experience evidence which is some of the best evidence there is.They don't even have a comept of why it's evidence because they are in totally the wrong ball park.<br />
<br />
There are many aspects of spiritual reality we could document but I;ll do three, These are aspects of relaity thayt not materiao or n]can loigcialy be understood as SN in tyhe true snese,</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br />
(<b>1) the real version of the Christian SN</b><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">I have written an article about the false notion of SN and of course setting out the true notion, </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18.2px;">[3] </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">SN is not a realm beyond the psychical but the power of God to lift us up to a higher level of human awareness and spirituality. This plays out into basically mystical experience</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><b style="color: blue; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">.[4] </b><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">With the understanding of the proper idea of SN we can understand religious experience as the trace of God. Thus the transformation effects of become evidence of the true SN.</span><b style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa;">
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<b>(2) Lourdes's Miracles.</b></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">It's ironic that Coyne demanded faith healing because that is one of the best evidences, The Catholic church has drew up an excellent documentation machine for documenting miracles, They use major medical researchers from around EU and the use skeptics kin the committee they have strict rules, An article in an academic journal by a team of medical historians says that the healings at Lourdes check out as inexplicable by any natural means </span></span></span><b style="font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><span style="color: blue;">[6] </span>That is not proof of healing but it's a good warrant for belief</b><br />
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<b style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">3 </b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">Irreducible Nature of consciousness to Brain Function. </span></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
Consciousnesses in and of itself is not SN bujt it is not physical it;s the realityu ofa realkm of existence that does not conform to the expected standards of atheist ideology because it'snot physical or material,l<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
But while it may be true that certain psychological processes are <i>contingent</i> on some neurophysiological activity, we cannot necessarily say that psychological processes reduce to ‘nothing but’ that activity. Why not? – Because much of the time we are <u>not</u> dealing with cause and effect, as many neuroscientists seem to think, but rather two different and non-equivalent kinds of description. One describes <i>mechanism</i>, the other contains <i>meaning</i>. Understanding the physical mechanisms of a <i>clock</i>, for example, tells us nothing about the culturally constructed meaning of <i>time</i>. In a similar vein, understanding the physiological mechanisms underlying the human <i>blink</i>, tells us nothing about the meaning inherent in a human <i>wink</i> (Gergen, 2010). Human <i>meaning</i> often transcends its underlying mechanisms. But how does it do this?<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=11516215#_edn31" name="_ednref31" style="mso-endnote-id: edn31;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;">[7]</span></span></span></span></a></div>
</div>
<br />
The problem binding is a barrier that will not allow reduce ability Here we have a good example of something anesthetists have called god of the gaps but increaioty is not, There is an actual reason why mind is not reduce able to brain:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0.5in;">
The essential concept common to all of them is <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>oscillatory electrical activity in widely distributed neural populations can be rapidly and reversibly synchronized in the gamma band of frequencies (roughly 30-70 Hz) thereby providing a possible mechanism for binding.” (von der Malsburg 1995). A great deal of sophisticated experimental and theoretical work over the past 20 years demonstrates that mechanisms do exist in the nervous system and they work in relation to the normal perceptual synthesis. Indeed Searl’s doctrine of biological naturalism has now crystallized neurophysiologically in the form of a family of global workspace theories, all of which make the central claim that conscious experience occurs specifically and only with large scale patters of gamma band oscillatory activity linking widely separated areas of the brain. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=11516215#_edn45" name="_ednref45" style="mso-endnote-id: edn45;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;">[20]</span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
Here are some lin ks to othier things I; e written arguing against Skpetical's statement about everything is explained by science<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">
<b><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/03/philosophy-still-owns-science.html">philosophy still owns science</a></b></div>
<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">
<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/04/quantum-particles-do-not-prove-universe.html">Quantum particles do not prove something from from nothing</a></div>
<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">
<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html">can science really prove the basis of modern physics</a></div>
<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">
<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/modern-sciences-rejection-of-god-is.html">science rejection of God is ideological</a></div>
<div style="line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;">
<b><a href="http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/Supernature3.html">7 aspects of SN with empirical evidence</a></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
[1] <span style="line-height: 18.2px;">im Skeptocal, "God of The Gaps"</span><span style="line-height: 18.2px;"> </span><i style="line-height: 18.2px;">The Skeptic Zon,</i><span style="line-height: 18.2px;"> (Juky 2, 2016) blog,vURL</span><a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/" style="line-height: 18.2px;"> <span style="line-height: 18.2px;">http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/</span></a></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-421453868478052244" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px; position: relative; width: 586.667px;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
[2] <span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, New York:Routledge Classics, original English publication 1959 by Hutchison and co. by Routldege 1992. On line copy URL:<a href="http://www.cosmopolitanuniversity.ac/library/LogicofScientificDiscoveryPopper1959.pdf" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://www.cosmopolitanuniversity.ac/library/LogicofScientificDiscoveryPopper1959.pdf</a></span><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;"> </span><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">digital copy by Cosmo oedu visited 2/6/2012, p4</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
[3] Joseph Hinman, "True Christian concept of SN prt 1,"<u> The Religious </u><i><u>A Priori </u>blog </i></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-true-christian-concept-of-super.html">http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-true-christian-concept-of-super.html</a> accessed 6/4/16</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">[4] </span></span><span style="background: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">Emil Durkheim quoted in Benson Saler, “Supernatural as a Western Category,” </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Ethos</span></i><span style="background: rgb(255 , 255 , 255); color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">, Vol. 5, issue 1, first published online 28 Oct., 2009, 31-53 35. PDF URL:</span><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf" style="background-color: white; color: #4495ff; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: blue;"><u><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.152</span></u></span><span style="color: blue;"><u>5/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf</u></span></a><span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"> (accessed 1/25/2016)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">[5] Joseph Hinman, "Empirical Evidence of The Supernatural</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif;"><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/03/empiorical-evidence-of-supernatural.html">http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/03/empiorical-evidence-of-supernatural.html</a></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;"><b><a href="http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/06/empirical-evidence-of-supernatural-part.html">part 2 of "Empirical Evidence of SN"</a></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br />
[6] <span style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">Bernard Francis et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” <i>Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences,</i> Oxford: Oxford University Press. </span><br />
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="background-color: white; color: #444444; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.6px;">
Bernard Francis is former professor Emeritus of medicine, Unversite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.</div>
<br />
<br />
[7] <span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;">Brad Peters, Modern Psychologist, “the Mind Does not Reduce to the Brain.” On line resource, blog, 2/4/12</span><br />
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;">
URL: http://modernpsychologist.ca/the-mind-does-not-reduce-to-the-brain/<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>visited 5/3/12</div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText" style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;">
Brad Peters, M.Sc. Psychologist (Cand. Reg.) • Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada</div>
<br />
<br />
[8] <span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;">C.Von der Malsburg, “Binding In Models of Perception and Brain Function.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5, 520-526. also sited Crick 94; Dehaene and Naccache,</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small; line-height: normal;">2001; Edelmon and Tononi, 2000; Engle, Fries and Singer 2001; W.J. Freeman 2000, and others.</span><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #fefdfa; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2px;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 1.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<br />
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span>
<span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-15657356392163728142016-07-05T05:58:00.002-07:002016-07-05T05:58:31.522-07:00Debuncking the Atheist Fortres of Facts part 1<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting" style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
<br /></h3>
<div class="post-header" style="color: #999999; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2919200936589289367" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 558.4px;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px; font-style: italic;"> </span><a href="http://s15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/?action=view&current=107433-10244.jpg" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket" border="0" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/107433-10244.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px; font-style: italic;">This is part of a larger framework that includes the theories of Thomas Kuhn and argues that science is a social construct. That part of it will be saved for another time. This section, although long is answering an argument that I see atheist touting all the time. They always deny it but it's unmistakably there.</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> Section one documents that there such an attitude among atheists and gives some preliminary arguments. Section 2 shows the truly unscientific nature of the attitude.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Nowhere is the arrogance of humanity more apparent than in the many tendencies to treat God as a big man in the sky and try to subject him to scientific analysis. This is a move that most thinkers of the previous century would have laughed themselves silly over. One cannot second guess the nature of the divine by insisting that God operates under rules like a biological organism? Richard Dawkins is a major purveyor of this view but Victor Stinger is even more so. Stinger, in his <i>God the Failed Hypothesis</i><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[1]</span></span></span></a>is the genius who stated the "who created God" thing, one of the hallmarks of atheist ignorance. The method is super simple. Stinger does mess not with trying to probe the heavens or reaching beyond our tiny little sample of reality on this dust mote, he does it the "obvious way" by creating a straw man argument for God then knocking it down. The straw man is based upon a selective understanding guaranteed to denude belief of a factual basis and to load a pile of facts in the unbelieving camp so as to create the impression that atheism is a choice based upon the full brunt of scientific fact, and religious belief has nothing going for it but ignorance and superstition. This tactic I call the “fortress of facts.” The fortress of facts is something atheists deny vehemently but it’s obvious in almost every argument they make. Most scientifically inclined observers know that science is not merely the accumulation of a pile of facts. Science is not about proving facts or manufacturing a pile of facts so much as it is about testing hypothesis in a systematic fashion. Science is more about disproving than about proving. There are aspects of reality that beyond the ability of science to disprove. God is one of these. Yet, even though atheists will deny the words “fortress of facts” if we observe the way they argument this is undeniable consequence of their logic and their approach.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Science and the “God Hypothesis.”</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The whole idea of referring to God as an hypothesis in the first place is an attempt to classify the God concept under the rubric of scientific domain. If God is an hypothesis then he’s something science can dispute, because science is about testing hypothesis. Of course the notion weather or not God can be so classified is a theological question and must be answered theologians. Since atheist denuded theology of any valid content (through sheer mocking and ridicule) then there’s no one to respond who atheists wont mock and ridicule. Thus truth by stipulation is written into the atheist ideology. This overall move turns upon the fortress of facts idea because a hypothesis without fact can’t be maintained. Thus while denying up front that they think about science in this manner we can see the fortress of facts as the basic assumption in the over all atheist approach to belief. We see the fortress of facts at work in the writings of Singer:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><br /><br />says Victor Stenger in "God: The Failed Hypothesis." The book is subtitled, "How science shows that God does not exist." Chapter by chapter, the author shows that the existence of God would suggest certain realities in the world that would be verifiable by scientific inquiry. But the data don't support these would-be realities, thereby providing evidence that no God exists.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 5pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Stenger, retired professor of Philosophy at University of Colorado and of Physics and Astronomy at University of Hawaii, is successful in this line of reasoning because of his clearly stated definition that he is not just talking about any kind of god, but specifically the capital-g God of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[2]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">We can see the assumption of the fortress of facts in Skeptic Magazine article reviewing<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[3]</span></span></span></a> Stinger’s book: “conspicuous by his Absence.” "Stinger lays out the evidence from cosmology, particle physics and quantum mechanics showing that the universe appears exactly as it should if there is no creator." This is a factual approach. The facts show God doesn’t exist because if he did things would be different. To show this we use our tremendous fact finding potential in science.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">How does he reckon it should if there is no God? He constructs his own fundamentalist driven version of what God would be like. Of course he has no knowledge of that. It's really a disproof of the atheist big nightmare of the fundamentalist concept of God, in other words, a straw man argument not a real disproof of anything valid. Beyond that, which is a deal breaker--because how you set up the inquiry in the first place determines everything-- there are other criticisms. For example his take on the issue of prayer studies. This is also proof of the "fortress of facts" concept which I am always pointing out that atheist ideology teaches. No atheist has of yet accepted the notion when I point it but it's clear that they argue from it all the time. The idea science gives them a big pile of facts but we believers have no facts. The facts are going to tell us if we can believe in God or not, of course the facts are only facts if they are “scientific” (ie in this case that means if they work against belief in God).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">For instance, he tackles the question of the efficacy of prayer, in which the followers of these faiths fervently believe. If God exists, he argues, prayers could be shown to have been answered, using verifiable, replicable studies. And indeed, such studies have been conducted, with universally negative results. (Some studies, which supposedly yielded positive results, used flawed methodology and thus the conclusion is dismissible.) "If prayer were as important as it is taken to be by Jews, Christians and Muslims, its positive effects should be obvious and measurable," Stenger concludes. "They are not. It does not appear - based on the scientific evidence - that a God exists who answers prayers in any significant, observable way."<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[4]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Here again we have the same idea at work, science gives us a fortress of facts that religion can’t match, never mind the fact that we have selected which facts are important to observe and what assumptions about God set up the facts we want to select. For example consider the flip flop that has happened in regard to these prayer studies. Back in the</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">day when they were being done (late 80s, early 90s) they were big news the atheists were on defensive grasping at whatever straws they could to answer, since they had no counter studies and counter data. One of the major arguments they used to make on every message board, every blog, ever news group where this was debated was that you can’t control for outside prayer. The defenders of the studies, such as Dr. Byrd and Dr. Harris did their own straw-clutching to answer this argument about control. Since that time, however, thing have turned around. A study with the largest data base was done that showed very little or no difference in the two groups. The atheists have gone ape making the argument that “prayer is disproved.”</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The study detractors (now the theists) argue “you can’t control for outside prayer, the argument atheists used to make. The atheists say “O sure you can.” When I point out that they used to make this argument themselves many of them have said “no atheist ever argued that.” How quickly we forget. I remember. I have the article. Gary P Posner did argue it:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 5pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The most striking flaw in this study's methodology is one forthrightly acknowledged by Byrd. "It was assumed that some of the patients in both groups would be prayed for by people not associated with the study; this was not controlled for ... Therefore, 'pure' groups were not attained in this study." In other words, the focus of the study - prayer - was "not controlled for," except that three to seven intercessors were assigned to pray daily for each patient in the IP group, and none was assigned to the controls. Thus, although unlikely, it is nevertheless theoretically possible that the control group received as many prayers as did the IP group, if not more.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 5pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">If "intercessory prayer" was not controlled, except that each IP patient was assumed to have received somewhere between X+3 and X+7 prayers daily, as opposed to X+0 for the control patients, what are we to conclude? That God is conditioned in a Pavlovian manner to automatically respond to the side with the greater number of troops, even though the assigned intercessors had no emotional ties to their patients, and even though the IP patients were otherwise no more worthy of healing as a group than were the controls? Does God not know that the side with fewer troops is in just as much need of assistance? Where is the evidence of his omniscience and compassion?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 5pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">And what can be said about the evidence for God's omnipotence? It is true, assuming that Byrd's data are valid, that in the IP group, 5 percent fewer patients needed diuretics, 7 percent fewer needed antibiotics, 6 percent fewer needed respiratory intubation and/or ventilation, 6 percent fewer developed congestive heart failure, 5 percent fewer developed pneumonia, and 5 percent fewer suffered cardiopulmonary arrest. But no significant differences were found among the other twenty categories, including mortality, despite explicit prayers "for prevention of ... death." And, reports Byrd, "Even though for [the six seemingly significant] variables the P values were less than .05, <i>they could not be considered statistically significant</i>because of the large number of variables examined. I used two methods to overcome this statistical limitation ... [the] severity score, and multivariant [sic] analysis" (emphasis added).<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[5]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">So what happens if we say Posner was right? These studies don’t measure the truth of prayer because you can’t control for outside prayer? The study that shows no difference is meaningless. Of course the atheists will say but the theist still has no facts to back prayer. Of course they are just selecting the facts that support there view. There are facts that back prayer but they are ignored because they counter the ideological assumptions of naturalism. That will be dealt with in subsequent chapters.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The assumptions that Stenger has to make to make his straw man work is that God is exactly as he wants him to be. The reviewer at <b><i>Simply Einstein</i></b> (ibid) defends him against the charge of straw man.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The logical purist may object that one can't "prove a negative," that one can no more disprove God than disprove the existence of Santa Claus or an invisible unicorn in the backyard. But the fact that most people do believe in God while rejecting the latter two is part of the point. Given no real reason to believe in Santa Claus or invisible unicorns, people reject such beliefs. Yet they hold tenaciously not only to belief in their God, but specifically to the tenets that their religion teaches about him. It is really these tenets that Stinger is addressing. By showing that they are wrong, like the efficacy of prayer or the notion that God fine-tuned the universe specifically for the sake of existence of humanity, the author demonstrates that belief in God is equally unfounded.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[6]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Yet this is not much of a defense. The so called "tenets" are self selected to be one's he picks out that he thinks he can beat. No religious creed or Bible passage commands us to believe on the basis of the fine tuning argument. No scientific argument can disprove the notion that God has fine tuned the universe to bear life. The only thing science can prove about fine tuning is that we can't prove it. On the other hand far greater scientists than Stinger say his arguments against fine tuning are not so good.<a href="http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html#Stenger_and_Hitchens" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">The person answering mail for John Polkinghorne</a>’s website (formerly physicist at Cambridge second only to Hawking, who retired to be a Christian minister) says:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Stenger did some marginally useful scientific work but his claims are far too dogmatic. As for his suggestion that Anthropic Fine tuning is a non-problem because of his simplistic program MonkeyGod that purports to simulate universes and “show” that anthropic universes are commonplace, I know of no serious cosmologist who takes this seriously. Martin Rees’s “<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732/thestarcourse" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Just Six Numbers</a>” is a good guide to the real science.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn7" name="_ednref7" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[7]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b>Polkinghorne himself says</b>: “I have read several of the books expressing the current outburst of militant atheism, but not the two you mention. My impression is that they are polemical rather than presenting reasoned arguments of a truth-seeking kind, and that they largely depend upon attacking caricature distortions of religious belief.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn8" name="_ednref8" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[8]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Others find the straw man to be Stenger's usual method<i>:</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><b><i>Stinger</i></b>—a retired physicist who is leveraging his scientific background to try to discredit anything and everything that smacks of spirituality—doesn’t respect his intellectual opponents enough to get their positions right; in some instances he appears to deliberately misrepresent their views; and, most important, his own reasoning is characterized by unremitting carelessness. Moreover, there is a method to his carelessness—it enables him to systematically avoid addressing the tough arguments of his opponents. Hence we find him frequently setting up a straw man by misrepresenting the debate as a simple matter of science and reason versus superstition. Once having defined this as the issue, all he needs to do is assume the attitude of an outraged scientist and heap on the ridicule. But if he had done his homework and taken the trouble to really understand the science and logic supporting quantum spirituality, he would have discovered that it is harder to dismiss than he had imagined. Indeed, the more carefully—and yes, critically—one considers the issues, the more one finds quantum spirituality to<br />be eminently worthy of serious consideration, as a plausible and measured approach to the most long-standing and intractable questions at the basis of science.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn9" name="_ednref9" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[9]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Stenger doesn't deal with what I consider to be the major God arguments, the ground of being stuff of Tillich and Schleiermacher. Like most of the cult of atheism he's in thrall to his own version of science which is laced with metaphysics. Like most of them they think they are being scientific and philosophical when they denounce philosophy and theology and talk about how science is the only form of knowledge, and then they are bringing ontology in through the back door to put fiber into their world view. Stenger's straw man making is standard procedure for the new atheist. They are always spitting out some line with a dashing air of how theology is stupid so they don't have to read it. They know it's stupid even though they haven't read any. The whole point of showing they haven't read is usually because they are getting the ideas wrong but they never seem to care.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The fortress of facts concept is seen in the works of the high priest of New Atheism, Richard Dawkins.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been <i>logically</i> tenable before Darwin,</span><span class="backgnd" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn10" name="_ednref10" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[10]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Intellectually “fulfilled atheist” is code for “we have the facts.” What he’s clearly saying is that it was unsatisfying when we didn’t have the facts, God is still be rejected even though he has no real reason for it, but it’s not satisfying. The only thing that makes it satisfying is when we get a pile of facts. That’s because of the explanatory value. He makes it quite clear this is his motive reason for saying these things that he’s after is expletory power and what constitutes an explanation is a scientifically verifiable fact that can’t be disputed.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">An even clearer example:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><br /></span><span style="color: #ffaa22; font-size: 14.85px;">-</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven — and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn11" name="_ednref11" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[11]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">As juxtaposed to the next paragraph:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn12" name="_ednref12" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[12]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #ffaa22; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.85px;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The implication is we have the facts, that are why we understand the world. Further implication is that the world is only the surface level of physical workings. The first paragraph is clearly arguing from guilt by association. It’s asserting that if there are some brutal dangerous religious people they must be that way because of religion; therefore all religious people are potentially that way. If a Christian apologist for example were to talk about the Nazis and how their scientifically engaged members conducted inhumane experiments on Jews in concentrating camps, and tried to drawn conclusions about the dangerous nature of science based upon that association, the atheists would set up a howl. It would not take the atheist long to see the fallacy of guilt by association in that case. Never mind that, and let’s also skim over the fact that he’s using a straw man version of faith tailored to make it seem more stupid. While faith per se is not based upon facts there’s nothing in the nature of faith that causes one to ignore facts. He tried to incriminate the joy of discovery which is he hardly in a position to critique since he’s never experienced and can’t understand it. That sense of joy has nothing to do with ignoring facts. For me part of that joy came form the realization that my faith is backed by facts. The more important point is that he’s placing the tailored example of no facts along side the self selected example of fact finding to create the sense of the skeptic haing a huge pile of pile of fact that confirms his world view while in fac the believe purposely rejects having facts. That is a perfect example of the fortress of facts mentality.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">While it is anecdotal, evidence from the popular level shows, to some extent, the effects of this kid of thinking upon the rank and file of the atheist movement. There’s a popular website by one of the troops called “God is Imaginary.” It’s far from special, just run of the mill message board sloganeering and propaganda. It does express the fortress of facts mentality clearly.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">“God is imaginary: Proof no 11,</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">notice that there is no scientific evidence.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">"There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">• God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">• None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. (see this page)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">• God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">• The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. (see this page)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">• The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God. (see this page)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">• When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." (see this page)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">• Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">• And so on…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">1. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">2. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">3. If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary."<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn13" name="_ednref13" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[13]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The major thrust of that bit of flim flam is that “we” (our side) we have all the facts in a great big pile and they don’t have a single one. Most thinking atheists and most scientifically minded atheists put it in terms of “explanatory power.” Appeal to God doesn’t explain the world as well as does science. That’s a more sophisticated version of the fortress of facts. Dawkins has a variation on this argument.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Unfortunately, Dawkins pushes envelope too far. He tries to turn the simple desire to know into a moral virtue in order to make it seem that science is more moral than religion:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Humans have a great hunger for explanation. It may be one of the main reasons why humanity so universally has religion, since religions do aspire to provide explanations. We come to our individual consciousness in a mysterious universe and long to understand it. Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it's just bad science. Don't fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_edn14" name="_ednref14" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[14]</span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">He’s saying that religion is trespassing upon questions of science, yet he doesn’t even bother to point out that religion was there first. Just because people in the prehistoric and ancient worlds mixed religious and scientific explanations—not having developed science religion was all they had to fall back on—doesn’t</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">mean that’s the reason religion came to exist. As science has developed there is no reason why religious people can use it to understand questions that fall into he overlap between the two domains. The questions he’s discussing are overlap questions and modern thinking religious people have used to science to help answer them.</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">In making this point he asserts that science is the fact giving endeavor while religion is content to have faith and do without facts. Of course that’s not a good description of most modern thinking religious people.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Dawkins wants us to think in terms of the fortress of facts, nothing provides scientific facts like science does. Of course he’s not mentioning the fact that it’s only one kind of explanation. There are facets to the question about the origin of life than just the physical workings of evolution. There are questions people have asked for thousands of years that science is not prepared to answer. There are questions that science is not allowed to answer because they are out of its domain. These are questions about the meaning of the life, the reason why life is, and the ultimate “destiny” (for want of a better word) of humans. These are things science can’t tell us they are the reasons religion exits. So the kinds of facts that religion provides the uses for faith are in a different area than those provided by science.</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">The nature of the atheist view point is self selected to focus only upon the kinds of facts that science provides and it offers a biased, fallacious and inaccurate view of religious thinking. It also provides a distorted understanding of what science is. Science is not a pile of facts. Science is not even about fact making. Science is about hypothesis testing; it’s not about proving facts but testing for verification and falsifying premises. The overall “big picture” painted by science is a lot more dependent upon they a particular culture views life than it is the demonstration f a pile of facts.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Not only is this notion of science as a big pile of facts that guarantees an accurate understanding of reality a view that most scientists don’t take to the understanding of science, it’s specifically contradicted by the vast majority of historians and philosophers of science. While there is a great of contradiction between philosophers of science, the one thing they all agree on is that this fortress of facts idea is nonsense. First let’s turn to two major philosophers of science, Karl Popper and Thomas S. Kuhn. These two are destined to be linked since they had a major showdown to so speak over Kuhn’s theory, in the early to mid 60s. In that day Kuhn was thought to have won, his views went on to define philosophy of science for about three decades. I suspect that in this day popper is more popular and is probably now thought to have won. In reality, however, I think talk of who won is foolish because no only is the field still evolving but it’s diversifying and moving away form both, so neither of them won really. There is coming to be a plurality of models. Before going into that I’m going to examine Popper first, then Kuhn. What all of this evolving plurality agrees upon is that science is too complex and problematic to be regarded as anything like a fortress of facts!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><br clear="all" /></span><br /><hr align="left" style="font-size: 11.583px; height: 3px;" width="33%" />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[1]</span></span></span></a> Victor J. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis:How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref2" name="_edn2" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[2]</span></span></span></a> Jerry Petersen, Simply Einstein, Review “Victor J. Stinger, God the Failed Hypothesis.”</span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Online web page:</span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">URL<a href="http://simplycharly.com/einstein/victor_stenger_god_the_failed_hypothesis_review.html" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://simplycharly.com/einstein/victor_stenger_god_the_failed_hypothesis_review.html</a></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> </span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;">visited Jan 31, 2012.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn3">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[3]</span></span></span></a></span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[iii]</span></span></span><span style="font-size: 14.85px;"> David Ludden </span><span class="citationnews" style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-04-04.html" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">"Conspicuous by His Absence"</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic_%28U.S._magazine%29" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title="Skeptic (U.S. magazine)">Skeptic</a>. </span><span class="citationnews" style="font-size: 14.85px;">April 4, 2007</span><span class="printonly" style="font-size: 14.85px;">.<a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-04-04.html.%20Retrieved%202007-10-17" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-04-04.html. Retrieved 2007-10-17</a></span><span class="citationnews" style="font-size: 14.85px;">. visited </span><span class="citationnews" style="font-size: 14.85px;">Jan 31,2012</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn4">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref4" name="_edn4" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[4]</span></span></span></a> Petersen, ibid.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn5">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref5" name="_edn5" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[5]</span></span></span></a> Secular web</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">Gary P. Posner, “God in the ICU? A Criticique of San Franscisco Hospital Study of Intercessory prayer and Healing.” Originally published in Free Inquiry spring 1990, Secular Web URL<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gary_posner/godccu.html" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gary_posner/godccu.html</a></span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn6">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref6" name="_edn6" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[6]</span></span></span></a> Petersen,ibid</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn7">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref7" name="_edn7" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[7]</span></span></span></a> John Polikinghorne’s staff, formerly on Polikinghorne’s official website, now Star Course, “Polikinghorne Q and A, Stenger and Hitchens. On line reseruce: URL<a href="http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html#Stenger_and_Hitchens" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html#Stenger_and_Hitchens</a> visited Summer 2011.last visited Jan 2 2012.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn8">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref8" name="_edn8" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[8]</span></span></span></a> Polkinghorne,ibid</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn9">
<h2 style="color: white; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0in; position: relative;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref9" name="_edn9" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 18pt;">[9]</span></b></span></span></a> David Sharf, “Pseudo Science and Stenger’s Quantum gods: Mistaken, Misinformed, and Misleading.” NeuroQuantology, Vol 8, No 1 (2010), online copy URL:<a href="http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/272" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/272</a> visited Jan 2 2012 Sharf <i>received his Ph.D. in 1986 from</i><i>Johns</i><i> </i><i>Hopkins</i><i> </i><i>University</i><i>, in the philosophy of physics. The title of his dissertation was: Quantum Mechanics and the Program for the Unity of Science</i></h2>
</div>
<div id="edn10">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref10" name="_edn10" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[10]</span></span></span></a> Richard Dawkins, <i>The Blind Watchmaker</i>. <i>Why The Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.</i> New York: W.W. Norton & Company,inc. 2004, 6.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn11">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref11" name="_edn11" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[11]</span></span></span></a> Richard Dawkins, “Is Science a Religion,” <i>The</i> <i>Humanist: A Magazine of Critical inquiry and Social Concern</i>, Jan-feb 1997, on line copy URL:<a href="http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">visited Feb 2, 2012</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn12">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref12" name="_edn12" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[12]</span></span></span></a> ibid</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn13">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref13" name="_edn13" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[13]</span></span></span></a> “God is Imaginary” Example no 11 no scientific evidence URL:<a href="http://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">http://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;">visited 1/30/2012</span></div>
</div>
<div id="edn14">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4640001199295155281#_ednref14" name="_edn14" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">[14]</span></span></span></a> Dawkins, ibid.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="color: #999999; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-20155729449394424912016-07-04T02:47:00.004-07:002016-07-04T02:47:52.530-07:00second response to Bowen is up<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
On cadre blog I am debating Bradley Bowen of Secular poutpost blogvom historicity of Jesus, the external evidence, evikdence not ikn bible,<br />
My response to his repsonse to my argument 2 om Papias<br />
<br />
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-argument-2papias.html">http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/07/bowen-hinman-debate-argument-2papias.html</a></div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-18110766498812647032016-06-29T02:41:00.002-07:002016-06-29T02:41:56.086-07:00aterlialist Reduction of Religous Concepts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting" style="font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
<br /></h3>
<div class="post-header" style="color: #999999; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2535688672660430358" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 558.4px;">
two recent posts on CARM. These are not typical of all atheists but they are typical of a certain segment who I think just can't stop liberalizing metaphors and can't understand concepts.<br /><br />Originally Posted by <strong>Dr Pepper</strong> <a href="http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2965347#post2965347" rel="nofollow" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="http://forums.carm.org/vbb/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" style="border: none; position: relative;" title="View Post" /></a><div class="message">
<blockquote>
The existence of God all boils down to a few simple questions. What is it? Where is it? When is it? and Why is it?</blockquote>
</div>
<span style="color: #3366ff; font-weight: bold;">Meta:</span>you guys keeping to reduce God to psychosocial dimensions. you are still trying to make God a thing in creation. God si not a thing in creation. It's senseless to reduce God the physical. Physical is a illusion. it's a product of mind. God is not physical, physical is a product of God's mind.<br /><br />there is "there" there. God is nowhere and everywhere.<br /><br /><span style="color: red; font-weight: bold;">DP:</span><br /><div class="bbcode_container">
<div class="bbcode_quote">
<div class="quote_container">
<blockquote>
What is it? God can't be composed of matter and or energy since this is the stuff the makes up the universe and God created it. So what kind of non material stuff exists that can make matter and energy from nothing? In this regard how does said stuff end up thinking and behaving in ways similar to animal life on our planet, specifically human beings. With over a million separate species why pick human beings to give special consideration?</blockquote>
<br /><br /><span style="color: #3366ff; font-weight: bold;">Meta:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
matter is not the basis of reality. mind is the basis. Matter is just another for of energy science tell us this. Mind is energy. So everything reduces to mind.<br /><br />DP<br /><div class="bbcode_container">
<div class="bbcode_quote">
<div class="quote_container">
<blockquote>
Where is it? We are unable to detect it using any kind of electromagnetic, gravitational or energy output with any known instrument mad by man. Some humans report a mental contact but an equal number do not. Those reporting mental contact can show no physical evidence to indicate from where the contact originates other from within the human brain.</blockquote>
<br /><br /><span style="color: #3366ff; font-weight: bold;">Meta:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
this sounds like a hot shot point but it's really quite childish. Do you realize that there is no "beyond" space/time in a physical sense? No one thinks there's a big room some place that space/time is spinning around in. there is essentially no phsyuical place "off the beach ball" so to speak. I had a book by a philosophy of scinece guy named John Powers who says there is guarantee that there's a physical realm beyond space/time. a Mathematical realm does not prove it's a physical realm.<br /><br />If God is all encompassing mind and the physical world is an idea in that mind then God is in all things and above all things and doesn't have to be anywhere.<br /><br /><br /><div class="bbcode_container">
<div class="bbcode_quote">
<div class="quote_container">
<blockquote>
When is it? The universe appears to have expanded from a single point some 13 billion years in the past and this expansion is accelerating even today. What existed before this expansion began we know not. Maybe nothing, maybe something we simply do not know. Where does God fit into this scenario? If God existed before the big bang how long did it wait to start the universe expanding from whatever it expanded from.</blockquote>
<br /><br /><br /><span style="color: #3366ff; font-weight: bold;">Meta:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
this is childish ignorance. everyone knows it's just common knowledge that beyond the event horizon of the big bang one moves (if one could move there) beyond time. So Go dis beyond time. you can't ask "when?" there is when beyond time. that's like saying "before time." it's wrong.<br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="bbcode_container">
<div class="bbcode_quote">
<div class="quote_container">
If everything must have a cause or beginning then when did God begin to exist or to create stuff? Just 13 billion years ago? Forever is a long time even for a God.<br /><br /><span style="color: #3366ff; font-weight: bold;">Meta:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
quote the law that says this? It's a ill conceived notion. God did not begin. why can't you get the concept in your head/ God had no beginning. just like the ICR you use to excuse your lack of a final cause. God is eternal. Of the bottom line is the notion applies to everything natural or everyting not necessary needs a cause. not everything you can name including God? God is obviously excluded. You don't include the cause in talk of effects.<br /><br />say it with me now <b><span style="font-size: 19.305px;"><span style="color: red;">"God has no beginning he is eternal, he has always been."</span></span></b><br /><br />DP<br /><div class="bbcode_container">
<div class="bbcode_quote">
<div class="quote_container">
<blockquote>
Why is it? Why does the universe need a God? If the universe actually began expanding for an unknown reason and this expansion produced the universe we see today with the properties that allows life to exist why do we need a God? Why couldn't matter and energy simply react as it does to produce what we see it doing?</blockquote>
<br /><br /><span style="color: #3366ff; font-weight: bold;">Meta:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
why is a meaningless question. you believe in brute facts. you don't ask why when you argue for the bogus notion of an impersonal origin for the universe. you don't need a when when you try to shove in a meaningless excuse of an origin to compete with God. why do you demand a why for God?<br /><br />all the whys resolve in Love. why create? to love. my die on the cross, for love. why be good, becuase its loving.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="postrow has_after_content">
<h2 class="title icon" style="color: white; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.5em 0px; position: relative;">
<img alt="Default" src="http://forums.carm.org/vbb/images/icons/icon1.png" title="Default" /> <a href="http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?101307-InfiniteHopes-10k-challenge%21&p=2962615&posted=1#post2962615" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">InfiniteHopes' 10k challenge!</a></h2>
<div class="content" style="position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<div id="post_message_2959658">
<blockquote class="postcontent restore ">
I'm no James Randy to offer 1mil. But I can spare 10k. But, I'm also a gamer (I injoy board/card games) I dont gamble per say, but I'm not opposed to it. So, I will bet my 10k agenst yours if you would care to wager on an outcome - but I do not think anyone will "take my bet"<br />So, forget betting - I'll just offer the 10k ($10,000) to anyone who can show some way to afferm that the "supernatural" "spirtual" "sprits" "ghosts" "devils" "demons" "angels" "God" "god" "Gods" "gods" "afterlife" "heven" or "hell" actualy exist by using any of the below:<br /><br />1: Emperical evedance.<br />2: A repeatable test.<br /><br />For the next catagory, I will offer $5,000.<br />You can get this money if you can offer up a logicaly sound decitive augment whos premices are KNOWN TO BE TRUE. And that does not fail any of the logical rules of persanary diolouge, no falacys alowed! Do this, and I'll paypal you the 5,000.<br /><br />--<br /></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbcode_container">
<div class="bbcode_quote">
<div class="quote_container">
I asked The amazing Randy if he had studied the Lourdes miracles? He said no he had not. So you have no evidence that they included. they are not seeking his money so why would they? So this childish challenge is not any kind of proof against Christian miracles. It is telling as a sign of the times that these materialists lump the "real deal" of God's grace in with "para normal" fraud.</div>
</div>
</div>
What does it mean that someone is willing to make a bogus comparison like this??<br /><br />This is actually the atheist fortress of facts at work. We have this big pile of facts and you can't disprove it you have no facts of your own. Of cousre I demontarted the disproof of the fortress of facts in my two part debuncking the athesit fortress of facts.<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="color: #999999; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<span class="post-author vcard" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 1em;">Posted by <span class="fn" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><a class="g-profile" data-gapiattached="true" data-gapiscan="true" data-onload="true" href="https://plus.google.com/116031743767990323943" rel="author" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title="author profile"><span itemprop="name">Joe Hinman</span> </a></span></span><span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;">at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2012/05/materlialist-reduction-of-religous.html" rel="bookmark" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" itemprop="datePublished" style="border: none;" title="2012-05-28T05:39:00-07:00">5:39 AM</abbr></a> </span><span class="reaction-buttons" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-backlinks post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-icons" style="margin-right: 1em;"><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-1923365866" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6538255877506581515&postID=2535688672660430358&from=pencil" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;" title="Edit Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="18" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif" style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.5em !important; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;" width="18" /> </a></span></span><div class="post-share-buttons goog-inline-block" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-2">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-3">
<span class="post-location" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments" id="comments" style="clear: both; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 10px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comments"></a><h4 style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
No comments:</h4>
<div id="Blog1_comments-block-wrapper">
<dl class="avatar-comment-indent" id="comments-block" style="margin-left: 45px; position: relative;"></dl>
</div>
<div class="comment-footer" style="margin: 0.5em 25px 1.5em;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6538255877506581515&postID=2535688672660430358" style="color: #dd7700; text-decoration: none;">Post a Comment</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-79696497816973644072016-06-27T22:38:00.001-07:002016-06-27T22:38:20.225-07:00Naturalism is not an argument against God<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
<br /></h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-649315548276070118" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 578.4px;">
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
</h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8079067007778694647" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 578.4px;">
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://s15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/blog%20pix/?action=view&current=eagle-nebula.jpg" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket" border="0" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/blog%20pix/eagle-nebula.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><br /><div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-size: 1.3em; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<br /></div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">Dr. Jeff Lowder of the secular outpost writes </span><span style="line-height: 29.12px;">against</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> a highly conservative Christian </span><span style="line-height: 29.12px;">apologist</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> named Anna Marie Perez.<b><span style="color: blue;">[1] </span></b>He is especially </span><span style="line-height: 29.12px;">incensed</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> by her </span><span style="line-height: 29.12px;">comment</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="content" style="margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Atheism is a religion. Atheists act like Dracula confronting a cross when faced with the fact that their beliefs rely solely on faith. They hate the word faith, even though it’s all they’ve got. They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God. When they are called out for having faith, they’ll say something like, “An absence of belief isn’t faith,” yet their claim of an absence of a belief is a lie.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Lowder quips, "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that baldness is a hair color." Very droll. Of course he doesn't believe atheist is a religion. I find this a lot, the answer is logical and simple. it's not a religion it's a religion substitute. What are they doming with it? They are replacing God in their lives with a concept called "atheism" that concept sways that here is no God and other concepts that help make that one work for them. Therefore it's a religion substitute. In some way it can resemble religion but it's not one.</span></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Then he turns to her use of the term "faith."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"> <span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em;">If she’s defining the word “faith” the same way as the Biblical book of Hebrews does (“confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see”), then she’s wrong to assume that “atheists,” without qualification, hope that no God or gods exist and that there is no afterlife. Yes, there are some atheists who hope for those things, but there are other atheists who hope for the opposite, and many more atheists who are indifferent. But if she’s defining the word “faith” to mean “belief without evidence” or even “belief against the (weight of the total) evidence,” then she’s mistaken.</span></span></blockquote>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">I would like to deal with that issue at greater length but I don;t have time,I will point out however that faith does not mean accepting things without evidence, Faith is a </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">complex</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> concept it can't defined by one verse from the Bible. Look it up in </span><i style="line-height: 1.4em;">Westminster Dictionary of Christian</i><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> Theology.</span><b style="line-height: 1.4em;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></b><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> Nor will it do to use an ordinary dictionary, There is really no excuse for not using the </span><i style="line-height: 1.4em;">Westminster</i><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> (as often a these people argue with Christians). That would be like teaching a philosophy class and never using Flew's Philosophical Dictionary.</span><b style="line-height: 1.4em;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></b></span></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<b><span style="color: blue; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">"Let’s start with some definitions:</span></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">naturalism (N) =df. The physical exists and, if the mental exists, the physical explains why the mental exists.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">supernaturalism (S) =df. The mental exists and, if the physical exists, the mental explains why the physical exists.</span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 1.4em;">Actually I think his definition of SNism is really Idealism. SNism would say something like "there is a higher level consciousnesses of God to which God will raise the individual by the power of his </span><span style="background-color: transparent; line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Holiness.</span></span></div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Naturalism (N) and supernaturalism (S) are mutually exclusive: they cannot both be true. But they are not jointly exhaustive: they can both be false. To account for the possibility that both N and S are false, we can introduce a third, ‘catch-all’ option:<br />otherism (O) =df. Both N and S are false.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="line-height: 1.4em;">That is not necessarily true if one does not define SN in the way he talks about. The basic problem from my perspective of belief is that God is not a being it's not like there;s a stable of SN beginnings running about and god is one of them. God is the basis of reality, being itself, the ground of being. Thus one might understand physical reality as the result of </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">natural</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> processes started in motion by the ground of being. Of course it's probably true that people use the tern naturalism to specifically </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">exclude</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">religious</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> answers </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">and</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> thus they would apply it to gainsay any </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">belief</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">in</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> God. Ideas like those of Tillich or process </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">theology</span><span style="line-height: 1.4em;"> of Hartshonre of Whithead may be compatible with naturalism at least </span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">technically</span><span style="color: blue; line-height: 1.4em;"><b>[4]</b></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;">I</span><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">f N is true, then atheism is true by definition because N denies the existence of all supernatural beings, including God. So one way to defend atheism is to defend N. And one way to defend N is to present evidence which is more probable on the assumption that N is true than on the assumption that theism (T) is true. </span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;">I'm having trouble seeing exactly what that proves. Its not demonstrating the truth of naturism, it's only showing the propositioning are more probable if we assume naturalism. is more probable if we assume naturalism s true, it's not like these are true because naturalism is more probable. Why should we assume naturalism? Surely not because the propositions are probable since we have to assume naturalism to make them seem more so, why should we do it?</span></span></span><br /><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.4px;"><br /></span></span></span><br /><div class="content" style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; min-height: 3em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; word-wrap: break-word;">
<span style="font-family: "lucida grande", "trebuchet ms", verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">I</span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">f we assumes these propagandists are more probable if naturalism is true, therefore. if they are probable naturalism is true. Is that not affirming the consequent or something? If it rains the streets are wet, the streets are wet therefore it rains. But we used to have street washers so there could be counter causes. Still I don't think Dr. Lowder would make such a mistake so I must not understand it. Still I'm going to argue with certain ones of them. I can't do all of them.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
I am going to use SN operationally the way Jeff does so as to not harp on the same soap box again. I just ask that the reader be aware there is another view point. He presents the proportions to show their probable nature. I will not be able to deal with them all. I will group all those that I think can be answered with one liner. I'll present that list in the comment section<br /><br /><br />Here is his first one:<br /><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1. The Existence of the Universe</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><b><br /></b></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">The universe–which may be defined as the sum total of all matter, energy, space, and time–exists. This fact is entailed by N: if N is true, then by definition the physical universe exists. But, although logically consistent with T, this fact is not entailed by T. If T is true, <b>God could create the universe, but God could also choose not to create the universe. </b>Thus, contrary to the claims of both the Leibnizian and kalam versions of the cosmological argument, the existence of the physical universe is more probable on N than on T.[1]</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">In formal terms, the argument may be formulated as follows. If we let B be our background information; E be the existence of the universe; then the explanatory argument is as follows:</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(1) E is known to be true, i.e., Pr(E) is close to 1.</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(2) T is not intrinsically much more probable than N, i.e., Pr(|T|) is not much more probable than Pr(|N|).</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(3) Pr(E | N & B) =1 > Pr(E | T & B).</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">(4) Other evidence held equal, T is probably false, i.e., Pr(T | B & E) < 1/2.</span></blockquote>
<br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">There are a couple of problems I see here. Mind you I may not understand it.I'm just doing my best in my little mine sweeper against his battle ship. First, "</span><b style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">God could create the universe, but God could also choose not to create the universe. </b><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; font-family: times, "times new roman", serif; line-height: 22.4px;">Thus, contrary to the claims of both the Leibnizian and kalam versions of the cosmological argument, the existence of the physical universe is more probable on N than on T.</span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">" I think that would only be true if the universe is deterministic and had to be. We don't know that ,Moreover, we don't know why there is a universe. No reason to think the universe had to be. Davies says it didn't. <b style="color: blue;">[5]</b> Cosmological arguments are optional. They are not mandatory so if it's a choice between God or the cosmological argument we can throw the argument away. But that's not necessary because the universe is not necessary.</span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><br /><span style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><b><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">2. The “Anti-Creation Ex Nihilo Argument”</span></b></span><br /><b><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></b><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;"><b><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">This argument may be summarized as follows:</span></b></span></blockquote>
<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">(1) Everything that had a beginning comes from pre-existing material.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;">(2) The universe had a beginning.</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;">(3) Therefore, the universe came from pre-existing material.</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;">Now I think it is far from certain that (2) is true. Let’s make a distinction between:</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;">(2a) The expansion/inflation of the universe had a beginning.</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;">and:</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;">(2b) The universe itself had a beginning, viz., the universe began to exist.</span><span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;">It appears that (2a) is accepted by the vast majority of cosmologists. So let’s assume not only that (2a) is true, but that we know (2a) is true with certainty. It doesn’t follow that (2b) is true. In fact, as far as I can tell, (2b) does not enjoy the same widespread consensus among cosmologists as (2a) does. So there is reasonable doubt about (2b). But (2), like its theistic counterpart in the kalam cosmological argument, requires that (2b) is true. Because there is reasonable doubt about (2b), there is also reasonable doubt about (2).</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #e1ebf2; line-height: 22.4px;"><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">But what if both (1) and (2b) are true? In that case, it would follow that (3) is true. But (3) entails the universe was not created ex nihilo, viz., created from (absolute) nothing. The falsity of creation ex nihilo is entailed by N (and physical reality’s existence is factually necessary and uncreated), but extremely unlikely (if not impossible) on T (and physical reality was either created ex nihilo or created ex deo [out of the being of God]).</span></span></blockquote>
<br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">(1) if by "Material" we mean matter, p1 is fallacious. We don't know the cause of the universe. </span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">(2) fallacy of composition; just because all the individual bits are produced by matter that doesn't mean the whole is. </span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">We could also think about this argument in non Christian ways, I'ts Christian doctrine that says creation is <i>ex nihilo</i> that does not mean that doctrine is necessary for all belief in God. Then it's just as matter of what we mean by natter, Is energy natter? We don't really know what matter is made of.<b><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></b> we don't know what the singularity was made of it may be that a naturalistic origination yield naturalism.</span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><b><span style="color: blue;">Don't forget to check out the comments where I answer a bunch of hsi 25 I'll do more next time.</span></b></span> <span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">Sources</span></b><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">[1]Jeff Lowder, "25 Lines of evidence Against st theism,"<i> Secular Outpost, (June 26,2016) online blog URL </i><span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">-</span><span style="font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"> See more at:<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/06/26/pererz1-25-evidences-against-theism/#sthash.PsSPRwSt.dpuf" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/06/26/pererz1-25-evidences-against-theism/#sthash.PsSPRwSt.dpuf</a></span></span><br /><div>
<br /><i><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">[2] "Faith" <i>The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theolog</i>y,Philadelphia: Westkmnster [ress Alan Richardson and John Bowden ed. 1983</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">[3 ] Anthony Flew, <i>A Dictionary of Philosophy,</i></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">St. Martin's Griffin; Revised edition, 1984</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">[4], "Process, Theology," <i>The Westminster Dictionary of Christian... </i>op cit<i> </i></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">467-468</span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">God is diboplar. What is real of God and not merely potential is in process.God is changing alomng with creation, That put's gpd cpomsequnt pol owthin the naturalistic peocess.</span> <span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">[5]<b style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><i>First Things: Physics and the Mind of God:</i> The Templeton Prize Address (1999)</b></span> <span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;">[6] Joseph Hinman, "Can Science Really Prove The Basis of Modern Physics." Metacrock's Blog</span><br /><span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"></span><br /><h2 class="date-header" style="color: #888888; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.5em 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif;">MONDAY, FEBRUARY 01, 2016 </span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif;"><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">HTTP://METACROCK.BLOGSPOT.COM/2016/02/CAN-SCIENCE-REALLY-PROVE-BASIS-OF.HTML</a> ACCESS 6/27/16</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: times, "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-19489777208592658732016-06-22T17:23:00.003-07:002016-06-22T17:23:40.920-07:00my 5th and final argument in the ]debate with Bowen<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<b>A. Historical methods</b><br />
<br />
(1) the document not the people is the point<br />
<br />
<br />
One chief observational sorely lacking in the discussion with mythers is the premise of starting from the sources we have rather than criticizing that which we don't have. Historians don't base their occlusions upon the documents we lack but upon those we possess. What do the documents we have tell us. Don't worry about what they don't tell us. Chitneis p39 discussing internal and external evidence.<b><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></b> the question we don;t have anyone who knew Jesus personally writing about him (supposedly) is bunk. Start from what what the documents we do have tell us about him. Chitnis empasizes internal and external aspects of the document.External is getting back to the original document itself. Author, audience, why written. Internal is inconsistency or consistency within the document. History is abouit documents.<br />
<br />
(2) SN content does not negate historic aspects<br />
<br />
Historians do not discount source merely for SN competent. They don't believe the SN but they don't just deny everything the source says, Example, a battle in Persia where the account was chiseled into a cliff side. It spoke of gods and demons fighting along side men. But historians accept that there was a battle. From something the Historian I worked for as a teaching assistant told me.<br />
<br />
(3) what people believed tells us things even if we don;t believe it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ntgateway.com/Jesus/crossan.htm" style="font-family: Palatino; text-decoration: none;"><b>John Dominic Crossan</b></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: palatino;">
It was, however, that hypothesis taken not as a settled conclusion, but as a simple question that was behind the first pages of BofC when I mentioned Josephus and Tacitus. I do not think that either of them checked out Jewish or Roman archival materials about Jesus. I think they were expressing the general public knowledge that "everyone" had about this weird group called Christians and their weird founder called Christ. The existence, not just of Christian materials, but of those other non-Christian sources, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with an historical individual. Furthermore, in all the many ways that opponents criticized earliest Christianity, nobody ever suggested that it was all made up. That in general, is quite enough for me....My very general arguments are: (1) that existence is given in Christian, pagan, and Jewish sources; (2) it is never negated by even the most hostile critics of early Christianity (Jesus is a bastard and a fool but never a myth or a fiction!); (3) there are no historical parallels that I know of from that time and period that help me understand such a total creation. ,,,<b><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></b></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(5) everyone is biased</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(6) can't examine the historicity of a single persona part from the framework</blockquote>
<div class="post-info" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px; margin: 5px 0px 15px;">
<span class="author vcard"><span class="fn"><a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/author/james-f-mcgrath" rel="author" style="color: #185e15; text-decoration: none;">James F. McGrath</a></span></span> </div>
<div class="entry-content" style="background-color: white;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 15px;">
A commenter on the blog made the assertion that scholars are somehow deferring to popular opinion when it comes to the existence of Jesus. The suggestion is so ludicrous that I thought I had best address it, and am sharing it here as well. <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/09/neil-carter-on-the-historicity-of-jesus.html#comment-1579705566" style="color: #185e15;">Here’s what I wrote</a>:</blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: whitesmoke; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin: 5px 15px 20px; padding: 15px 20px 0px;">
<div style="color: #3f4549; font-family: georgia, times, "times new roman", serif; font-size: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 15px;">
The notion of being “unbiased” is naive. We all have biases, and what is great about the way scholarship works is that it provides methods and a community of experts who can limit the impact that individual biases can have.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14px; padding: 0px 0px 15px;">
<span style="color: #3f4549;">I’ve never seen anyone use popular opinion as an argument in my field. Do you have a reference? What we have is an enormous body of scholarship, skeptically investigating the details asserted about Jesus in our earliest sources, in scholarly articles and monographs. The historicity of every single one has been challenged. The fact that the consensus remains that some details are probably historical is what you need to be looking at. The historicity of Jesus cannot be dealt with in the abstract, any more than evolution can be. It is a theoretical framework for making sense of a range of pieces of evidence in relation to one another. That is why mythicists and creationists tend to say both that “there is no evidence” and to think that showing that one particular piece of evidence is problematic means that the entire theoretical framework must be invalid. But that isn’t how scholarly investigation of the past works. The question must always be, what theoretical framework makes the best sense of </span><em style="color: #3f4549;">all</em><span style="color: #3f4549;"> the evidence, or as much of it as possible. And of course, those who have not dedicated their lives to the study of that evidence are unlikely to make sound judgments about such matters.</span><b><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></b></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>B. Big Web of Historicity</b><br />
<br />
There are links between individuals that ties our knowledge back to Jesus, such as the John-Polycarp-Inrenaeus connection. John taught Polycarp, Polyarp taught Irenaeus, and he wrote about John teaching Polycarp. There are many such lines of inks they from a huge because they are all interconnected.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(1) Peter and Paul, => church of Rome, => Clement <b><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Comparing their own time to Old testament examples (taking a que from Hebrews, Pauline circle, he speaks of Peter and Paul as"our generation." He speaks of their deaths as recent. Comparatively so he probably wrote in about AD 95. We know the letter was written in a time of persecution so it may not have been advisable for Clement spell out a relationship with the Apostles. Even if he did not mean to imply that he knew them he clearly thought of them as historical and knew them to be real people in the city of his dwelling of his own time and most probably to people he did know. That connects Jesus to the historical world o flesh and blood. Peter knew Jesus.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(2) Philip , 4 daughters, Papias <b><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Polycrates tells us Philip the Apostle went to Hierapolis, had four daughters who prophesied they also kept church history and functioned as historians. They taught Papaias a lot of church history. This is absolutely taken as fat by modern scholars that they have found his tomb. How is this guy an apostle without Jesus? Who made him one? <b><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(3) John => Polycarp, Papia,Ignatius => Irenaeus, Eusebius, fragments (see original argument)(<a href="http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/polycarp.html">Polycarp page Op cit)</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(4) PMPN => Other Gospels, =>Thomas, Peter (independent)<b><span style="color: blue;">[7]</span></b>*</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Pre Mark Passion Narrative is a term used to refer to a large swath o readings in various Manuscripts that pre date the Gospel of Mark. Not all foments or MS that contain the PMPN are dealing with the passions, that;s what the reading is called.Or we can just say Pre Mark Redaction . All four canonical gospels used it and Gospel of peter. others include Egerton 2 and Gospel of the Savior. The PMR and the PMPN is dated to mid first century Jesus is taken as historical as early as mid first centenary. That totally destroys Daugherty's time line. It fits into the web because we find about 34 lost Gospels everyone of them takes Jesus as historical.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(5) truth tree</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Historians place lot of credence in the fact that the testimony was past om and they kept it straight. We know they because the different links are all over the place and they are still saying the same things and in from the early days. Even if Polycarp did not know John someone did.the words of John about Jesus were passed on through the chain to form the web. A lot historians make this argumemt, Crosson makes it. (see a</blockquote>
<div class="post-info" style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: "helvetica neue", arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px; margin: 5px 0px 15px;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<b>*</b>some such links in Bible left our because it's internal evidence beyond scope of this debate.<br />
<br />
<b>C. Weakness of Jesus myth theory: It an't account for the web</b><br />
<br />
The consensus is in favor of historicity it explains the web of historicity as whole and provides for a theatrical framework. There is some bias we are all biased. It's not ideological it's theatrical and probabilistic.<br />
<br />
In keeping with the theoretical orientation in sub point A a good theory of historicity needs to account for all the data. Jesus myth can;'t.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(1) Early diverse trajectories of Jesus belief male less probable made up</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: palatino;">
<b>Luke Timothy Johnson, <i>The Real Jesus</i></b>, San Francisco: Harper, 1996,p.121</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: palatino;">
"...Non narrative New Testament writings datable with some degree of probability before the year 70 testify to traditions circulating within the Christian movement concerning Jesus that correspond to important points within the Gospel narratives. Such traditions do not, by themselves, demonstrate historicity. But they demonstrate that memories about Jesus were in fairly wide circulation. <b><i>This makes it less likely that the corresponding points within the Gospels were the invention of a single author</i></b>. If that were the case than such invention would have to be early enough and authoritative enough to have been distributed and unchallenged across the diverse communities with which Paul dealt. Such an hypothesis of course would work against the premise that Paul's form of Christianity had little to do with those shaping the memory of Jesus." "As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying reconstruction of Jesus ministry. Nevertheless certain fundamental points when taken together with confirming lines of convergence from outside testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability.Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by Crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. These assertions are not mathematically or metaphysically certain, for certainty is not within the reach of history. But they enjoy a very high level of probability."<b><span style="color: blue;">[8]</span></b></blockquote>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em style="border: 0px; color: #747775; font-family: tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 21.6px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </em><span style="border: 0px; font-family: "tahoma" , "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 21.6px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">certain fundamental points when taken together with confirming lines of convergence from outside testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability. Even the most </span><span style="border: 0px; font-family: "tahoma" , "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 21.6px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. These assertions are not mathematically or metaphysically certain, for certainty is not within the reach of history. But </span><span style="border: 0px; font-family: "tahoma" , "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 21.6px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">they enjoy a very high level of probability”</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: palatino;"><span style="color: blue;">[9]</span></b></blockquote>
</div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(2) Jesus myth theory ideologiocal</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
John Crosson</blockquote>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; font-family: palatino;">
If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption.<br />
<br />
I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.<b><span style="color: blue;">[10]</span></b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
D. Summary </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The mythers want us to believe that Jesus didn't exist but somehow everyone began to believe in this guy no ne ever heard of just because he;s talked about in Mark. In 18 years from AD 33 to 50 when the PMPN is written down they already believe in him so deeply they accept that he worked miracles. They compensate for that by extending him back in tine taking advantage of a misconceived passage in the DSS.Tyhey are rearranging huge chunks of history to accommodate their ideology. They try to explain away the web by attributing it to conspiracy of Eusebius But we have a lot of material apart from Eusebius, the links are so profuse and so all pervasive that they can't e explained by means of collusion without a major conspiracy. Historians just do not abide conspiracy theories of history,</blockquote>
Bottom lime:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The web cannot be explicated by the myth theory</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
<br />
[1] K.N. Chitnis, <i>Research Methodology in History</i>. New Delhi: Atlanitioc Publoishers and Distributors Ltd. 2006, 39<br />
<br />
[2] <b style="font-family: palatino;"><a href="http://www.ntgateway.com/Jesus/crossan.htm" style="text-decoration: none;">John Dominic Crossan</a> </b><span style="font-family: "palatino";">QUESTION 62</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/crossbr.htm." style="font-family: Palatino; text-decoration: none;"><b>The full review is at:</b></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "palatino";">http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/crossbr.htm.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "palatino";"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "palatino";">link no longer valid. accessed any years ago. Sometimes between 2004-2012</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "palatino";"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">[3] </span><span class="author vcard" style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px;">J<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/author/james-f-mcgrath" rel="author" style="color: #185e15; text-decoration: none;">ames F. McGrath</a>,</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "georgia" , "helvetica" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">the historical consensus about Jesus,"</span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, helvetica, tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">Exploring our Matri(</i><span class="date published time" style="background-color: white; background-position: left top; background-repeat: no-repeat; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px; padding: 2px 0px 2px 21px;" title="2014-09-09T13:40:54+00:00">September 9, 2014</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 24px;"> )</span><br />
<div class="entry-content" style="background-color: white;">
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 15px;">
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/09/the-historical-consensus-about-jesus.html%20%20access%206/21/16"> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/09/the-historical-consensus-about-jesus.html access 6/21/16</a></div>
</div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">He's quoting himself from an earlier post</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">[4]1 Clement, chapter 5, in Peter Kirby, <i>Early Christian Writings, online URL</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><i><a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html" style="background-color: white;">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html</a></i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></span><span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></span><span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">[5</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">] Joseph Hinman, "Papias and the Four Daughters of Philip," <i>Religious a priori</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><a href="http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/philip.html" style="background-color: white;">http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/philip.html</a></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">[6] Staff, interveiw with </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 30px;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Francesco D’Andria, How I Discovered The tomb Of the Apostle Philip,:" <i>ZENIT, The Woerld Sceen from Rome,</i> (May 2, 2012)</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f2f2f2; color: #666666; font-family: "trebuchet ms" , "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><i><a href="https://zenit.org/articles/how-i-discovered-the-tomb-of-the-apostle-philip/">https://zenit.org/articles/how-i-discovered-the-tomb-of-the-apostle-philip/</a></i></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
accessed 6'/21'/16</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
Archaeologist who discovered the tomb of Philip.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
"Of Philip, he said: “He was one of the twelve Apostles and died in Hierapolis, as did two of his daughters who grew old in virginity … Another daughter of his … was buried in Ephesus.” He is saying that poloyrates documents it as the apostle Philip who went to Hireapolis.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
“All scholars agree in considering that Polycrates’ information is absolutely reliable. The Letter, which dates back to about 190 after Christ, 100 years after Philip’s death, is a fundamental document for relations between the Latin and the Greek Church</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid" serif;"><span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">[7] Joseph Hinman,"Gospel Behind The Gospels." </span></span><i style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">Religious a priori on line resource URL:</i><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid" serif;"><span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;"><i><a href="http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospel-part-2.html">http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospel-part-2.html</a> accessed 6/21/16</i></span></span><br />
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<i><br /></i>[8] <span style="color: black; font-family: "tahoma" , "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 21.6px;"> </span><b style="color: black; font-family: tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 21.6px;">Luke Timothy Johnson, <i>The Real Jesus</i></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "tahoma" , "verdana" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 21.6px;">, San Francisco: Harper, 1996, 121</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
[9] Ibid</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
[10] Crosson, Op Cit</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: "droid serif"; font-size: 18px; line-height: 27px;">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-15084507142187838532016-06-22T03:06:00.001-07:002016-06-22T03:06:24.322-07:00I am debatimg<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
On CADRE blog I', debating Bad;y Bowen of the Secular outpost.please read and follow along.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/06/debate-bradly-bowen-vs-joseph-hinman.html">http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/06/debate-bradly-bowen-vs-joseph-hinman.html</a></div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-40928284703381914142016-06-19T22:48:00.002-07:002016-06-19T22:55:09.694-07:00In Honor of Ray Hinman's Birthday (June 20,19-56-Jan 24, 2014)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="blog-posts hfeed" style="background-color: #111111; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px;">
<div class="date-outer">
<div class="date-posts">
<div class="post-outer" style="background-color: white; border-radius: 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); margin: 0px -20px 20px; padding: 15px 20px;">
<div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting" style="min-height: 0px; position: relative;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
<br /></h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2983609179494179981" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 578.4px;">
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<img alt="Photobucket" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/joe2-1.jpg" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Our-Cities-Vanish-Ray-Hinman/dp/0982408706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240581323&sr=8-1" style="background-color: #111111; color: #33aaff; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="Photobucket" border="0" src="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e46/Spazmoticat/418xaFrDQL_SL500_AA240_.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a><br />
<br />
<b><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Our-Cities-Vanish-Ray-Hinman/dp/0982408706?ie=UTF8&qid=1240581323&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=8-1">buy the book</a></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;">
Also be aware I open debate <a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2016/06/debate-bradly-bowen-vs-joseph-hinman.html">on CARD blog</a> with Bradly Bowen of Secular Outpost in the topic of historicity of Jesus.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ray Hinman was my Twin Brother and he wasw a totally brilliant poet<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Ray Hinman Returns the strength of History and culture to language. Unashamed of thought,uninhibited by the current fashion of poetic anti-intellectualism,Hinman speaks from a foundation of tradition freshens his structures with the touch and nature. Definitely modern, he unites civilization across time, refuses to surrender to the triviality of high technology,though hints that our era stands out in defiance of human greatness. His rhythms flow with the love of language's music, like the Whitman whose ghost tours the city, he finds in the urban tableau the clues to what we search for in clustering into cities.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="post hentry uncustomized-post-template" itemprop="blogPost" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting" style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
The Ex-Missionary Learns Mexico</h3>
<div class="post-header" style="color: #999999; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
After the rain we came into the low<br />
country, the hills unrolled beneath us,<br />
pitted with aroieas, green aloe vera plants concealed basins where water stood;<br />
hidden from high ground like secret lakes.<br />
We climbed from our horses and looked into<br />
a pond, our faces shining against sky<br />
and cloud.<br />
<br />
There is nothing holy about hidden things;<br />
chance has it's own way of breaking monotony<br />
as one mile slinks<br />
into the dust of another, but in this place<br />
(out of mill ions allover the desert)<br />
what seemed so dry from the trail's rim lay entangled with fertil ity, floating<br />
in a bath of sky.<br />
<br />
For years I had learned the desert from train windows, it's beauty no more than swirl ing dust, but when our faces rippled over brown roots,<br />
dark as cinnabar, shooting into leafy green ... the vistas around us rose in vapour and begged<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
for a drink, in the distance a vulture called, and hundreds of zacadas; the hil Is rose<br />
above us like domes.<br />
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
Whitman's Ghost Takes a Tour of the City</h3>
<div class="post-header" style="color: #999999; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-1681150707637739119" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
The goddess sits in the axhandle park:<br />
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011348" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>she would give more grain, but corn won't grow</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011349" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>in our streets.</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011350" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>The trees can lift their arms skyward,</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011351" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>but their hands and hair sprout flames.</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011352" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>Indidolons time,</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011353" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>when the old shade goes loafing (though evening</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011354" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>can't come any closer). Could he manage disembodiment</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011355" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>before now, the fire of the flower would still</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011356" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>be there by chance.</div>
<div class="Poem">
</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011358" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>But you, knowing the richer reds</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011359" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>and deeper blues appear briefly at dusk</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011360" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>then withdraw into their own flame...</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011361" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>He goes out at evening, shirt long, baggy as a coat,</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011362" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>his white beard flows from the sack-like face,</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011363" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>the outstretched hat-brim;</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011364" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>he has made himself bewildered: Where are the poets</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011365" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>chanting to the multitude? The headlong, vulgar, robust</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011367" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>freedoms of the crowd? Is there only you?</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011368" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>Bleating out this quick-flaring image? You chant</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011369" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>the gawk-shuffle, art-patter, and wonder how the plant</div>
<div class="Poem">
</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011371" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>ever let you in. The inferno of the city blazes</div>
<div class="Poem">
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/whitmans-ghost-takes-tour-of-city.html" name="pgfId=1011372" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"></a>around us, we detail its hidden lights.</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="color: #999999; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<span class="post-author vcard" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="reaction-buttons" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-backlinks post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-icons" style="margin-right: 1em;"><span class="item-action"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=440167791943052145&postID=1681150707637739119" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;" title="Email Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="13" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif" style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.5em !important; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;" width="18" /> </a></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
Hobos Near Tacoma</h3>
<div class="post-header" style="color: #999999; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-6264844583271580369" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
Bridge above the gorge,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />lights of tightwadded Tacoma.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" /><br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />A Chaff blown state,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />sunlight yellow, wheat field yellow.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" /><br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />Everything gritty is also smooth:<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />riverbank, bedsoil, rescue mission grit.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />Like polished stone or sanded wood,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />the view from any part of town<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />takes in the polish of lyrical land.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" /><br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />The bridge spans the gorge,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />the trail leads to the bank like perdition.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" /><br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />Fifteen campfires pinpoint the bank,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />even the stars lack shelter in Tacoma.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" /></div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; position: relative;">
Our Cities Vanish</h3>
<div class="post-header" style="color: #999999; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-205526549115146322" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="1"><tbody>
<tr><td align="left" valign="top">Our cities will vanish<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="28" vspace="5" width="1" />the way they were built,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />in flurries of greed and seduction.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />Dallas for instance,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="23" vspace="5" width="1" />was founded by Appalachian<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="40" vspace="5" width="1" />Pariahs,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />lean men with gaunt faces<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="24" vspace="5" width="1" />and a burning in their eyes.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />Now another Dallas has sprung up<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />where they built,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />a Mecca for the mercenaries<br />
wrapped in steel glitter,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />wrapped in gold glitter, burning as brightly<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="24" vspace="5" width="1" />as their lust.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />Practicality is their monument<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="24" vspace="5" width="1" />to their fathers.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="24" vspace="5" width="1" />Practicality,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />the faith of Pariahs:<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />the gleam of a bauble pawed by cats.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />When pressed<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />they will admit truth is beautiful.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="24" vspace="5" width="1" />Nature<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />for instance,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="24" vspace="5" width="1" />is even more beautiful<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />when it's mysteries are revealed, and so<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />they still admire the moon,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="24" vspace="5" width="1" />praise it,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />for remaining such a worthy objective<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="8" vspace="5" width="1" />for their calculations<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="40" vspace="5" width="1" />of trajectory,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />they admire Einstein, who "thought up some good physics,"<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="16" vspace="5" width="1" />that will allow them to build other Dallases<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="16" vspace="5" width="1" />on distant planets.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="30" vspace="5" width="1" />eternity is PROfound.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="24" vspace="5" width="1" />And yet,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />the only eternity they believe in<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />is the eternal distance between classes,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="4" vspace="5" width="1" />between races,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="4" vspace="5" width="1" />between failure and success.<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="4" vspace="5" width="1" /><br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />Our cities will vanish<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" hspace="20" vspace="5" width="1" />the way they were built,<br />
<img src="http://negations.icaap.org/graphics/dot.gif" height="1" vspace="5" width="1" />and return even more mysteriously.</td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="color: #999999; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<span class="post-author vcard" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="reaction-buttons" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-backlinks post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-icons" style="margin-right: 1em;"><span class="item-action"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=440167791943052145&postID=205526549115146322" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;" title="Email Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="13" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif" style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.5em !important; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;" width="18" /> </a></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<img alt="Photobucket" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/Composite-final-708x878.jpg" /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Ray Hinman:</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Born in Dallas Texas, along with his twin brother Joe, June 20, 1956. Their Uncle was James D. Harman noted "Beat" poet of the 50s and leader on the West Coast in the "ban he bomb movement." "Uncle Jimmy" as we was called as an influence upon his nephew's style of poetry, along with Wallace Stevens, Yates and Keats.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Hinman grew up in Dallas, he drooped out of R.L. Turner High school his sophomore year in order to receive his GED that same year. He lived on his own for a time, traveled extensively across the United states by hitchhiking. On one trip he went up the West Coast to Vancouver and another trip he went up the East Coast to Montreal. He also spent extensive time camping and living off the land in the American Southwest.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">He attended The University of North Texas, studying anthropology. He was a major local organizing in the Central America Movement of the 80s. He worked as an editor for the Negations Institute and their Academic Journal </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Negations.</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Throughout the years he has published poems in many journals and other publications such as </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Interstate</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">, </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Well Spring</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">, the </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Ameba</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">, </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">The Word</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">, </span><i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Fickle Muses</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">and other such publications. He's read his poetry in public in Austin and Dallas.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-on-ray-hinman.html" style="color: #6699cc; font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px; text-decoration: none;">(more on Ray Hinman)</a><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<b style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Born:</b><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;"> Dallas, Texas, 1956, with his twin brother Joe.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<b style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Education:</b><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;"> University of Texas At Arlington, University of North Texas (Denton)</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<b style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Occupations:</b><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;"> Market Researcher; Paid campaign worker; poetry editor (Academic Journal Negations) and fellow of Negations Institute.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<b style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Life Experience:</b><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;"> Mr. Hinman has lived in Dallas, Arlington, and Austin Texas. He's traveled extensively around North America, Mexico, and Central America.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<b style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">1970's</b><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;"> In the early 70's, as a highschool sophemore Mr. Hinman worked as a volunteer in for the McGovern Campaign in the senator's 1972 Presidential bid. As a young man he hitchhiked from Dallas to Colorado. In a Second trip, up the West Coast to Van Couver. In a Third trip, hitchhiked up the East coast to Montreal. He also Attended University of Texas at Arlington.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<b style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">1980's</b><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;"> lived in Dallas and Austin. In this decade he travailed in Mexico. It was in this decade that he had his career as a Market Researcher in Dallas,Paid campaign worker in Austin, and attended University of North Texas in Denton. From about 86 to 90 a major portion of his life was occupied with volunteer political organizing over the issue of Central America. Mr. Hinman worked with the infamous CISPES group (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) of Dallas which is known to have been spied upon by an FBI informant, and Mr. Hinman may have been target of surveillance.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<b style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">1990's:</b><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;"> Mr. Hinman worked in the anti-Gulf War coalition in the early 90's. He settled in Dallas and began to work for the Negation Institute, first as the contributing Poetry editor for their journal Negations, then as researcher. In the late 90's he spent several years providing full time care for his parents until their deaths.In the 90's that he wrote some of his best work.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">After the death of his parents, Mr. Hinman withdrew from society and lived a reclusive existence devoted to study.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Ray died of a massive heart attack on Jan 24, 2014. He was57.</span><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<b style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Publications:</b><br />
<br style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;" />
<i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Interstate</i><br />
<i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">The Amoeba</i><br />
<i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Well Spring</i><br />
<i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Balcones</i><br />
<i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">Negations: an Inter disciplinary Journal of social Criticism</i><br />
<i style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">A Rule of Three</i><span style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 20.79px;">(chapbook). </span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8429433981051421747" itemprop="description articleBody" style="font-size: 14.85px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 528px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-footer" style="color: #999999; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<span class="post-author vcard" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="reaction-buttons" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-backlinks post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-icons" style="margin-right: 1em;"><span class="item-action"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=440167791943052145&postID=8429433981051421747" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;" title="Email Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="13" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif" style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.5em !important; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;" width="18" /> </a></span></span><br />
<div class="post-share-buttons goog-inline-block" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-2">
<span class="post-labels" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;"></span></div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-3">
<span class="post-location" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="comments" id="comments" style="clear: both; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 10px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comments" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;"></a><br />
<h4 style="font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
1 comment:</h4>
<div id="Blog1_comments-block-wrapper">
<dl class="avatar-comment-indent" id="comments-block" style="margin-left: 45px; position: relative;">
<dt class="comment-author " id="c786773114276020846" style="background-position: 0px 1.5em; border-top-style: none; font-weight: bold; margin-left: -45px; padding-left: 45px; padding-top: 0px;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="c786773114276020846" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;"></a><div class="avatar-image-container avatar-stock" style="float: left; height: 37px; left: -45px; margin: 0.2em 0px 0px; max-height: 36px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; width: 37px;">
<span dir="ltr"><a class="avatar-hovercard" href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404" id="av-0-08252374623355509404" rel="nofollow" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" height="16" style="border: 0px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); float: right; max-width: 36px; padding: 1px; position: relative;" title="Kristen" width="16" /></a></span></div>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404" rel="nofollow" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;">Kristen</a> said...</dt>
<dd class="comment-body" id="Blog1_cmt-786773114276020846" style="margin: 0.5em 25px 0.5em 0px;">"There is nothing holy about hidden things," the poem says, but it's as if this is only what the missionary tells himself, all the while experiencing the holiness in hidden things which he tries to deny.<br />
<br />
The hills at the end of the poem feel like the domes of a cathedral after this unexpected baptism of the soul.</dd><dd class="comment-footer" style="margin: 0.5em 25px 1.5em 0px;"><span class="comment-timestamp"><a href="http://citiesvanish.blogspot.com/2009/01/ex-missionary-learns-mexico.html?showComment=1400819131985#c786773114276020846" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;" title="comment permalink">May 22, 2014 at 9:25 PM </a><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-593890341" style="display: inline;"><a class="comment-delete" href="https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=440167791943052145&postID=786773114276020846" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;" title="Delete Comment"><img src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon_delete13.gif" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a></span></span></dd><dd class="comment-footer" style="margin: 0.5em 25px 1.5em 0px;"><span class="comment-timestamp">\</span></dd><dd class="comment-footer" style="margin: 0.5em 25px 1.5em 0px;"><span class="comment-timestamp"><br style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 18.9px;" /><b style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 18.9px;">Buy my brother's Poetry: Ray Hinman, <i>Our Cities Vanish</i></b><br style="background-color: #111111; color: red; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 18.9px;" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Our-Cities-Vanish-Ray-Hinman/dp/0982408706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240581323&sr=8-1" style="background-color: #111111; color: #33aaff; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 18.9px; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="Photobucket" border="0" src="http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e46/Spazmoticat/418xaFrDQL_SL500_AA240_.jpg" style="border: none; position: relative;" /></a><span style="background-color: #111111; color: red; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; line-height: 18.9px;"> </span><br style="background-color: #111111; color: red; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 18.9px;" /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Our-Cities-Vanish-Ray-Hinman/dp/0982408706?ie=UTF8&qid=1240581323&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=8-1"><b style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 18.9px;"><span style="color: #ff8832;">Click here to Buy this book</span></b><span style="color: red; font-family: "georgia" , "utopia" , "palatino linotype" , "palatino" , serif; line-height: 18.9px;"></span></a></span></dd><div>
<span class="comment-timestamp"><b style="background-color: #111111; color: red; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; line-height: 18.9px;"><br /></b></span></div>
<dd class="comment-footer" style="margin: 0.5em 25px 1.5em 0px;"><span class="comment-timestamp"><br /></span></dd></dl>
</div>
<div class="comment-footer" style="margin: 0.5em 25px 1.5em;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=440167791943052145&postID=8429433981051421747&isPopup=true" style="color: #6699cc; text-decoration: none;">Post a Comment</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer" style="color: #999999; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px;">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<span class="post-author vcard" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 1em;">Posted by <span class="fn" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"><a class="g-profile" data-gapiattached="true" data-gapiscan="true" data-onload="true" href="https://plus.google.com/116031743767990323943" rel="author" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" title="author profile"><span itemprop="name">Joe Hinman</span> </a></span></span><span class="post-timestamp" style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: 1em;">at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/06/in-honor-of-ray-hinmans-birthday-june.html" rel="bookmark" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" itemprop="datePublished" style="border: none;" title="2016-06-19T22:44:00-07:00">10:44 PM</abbr></a> </span><span class="reaction-buttons" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"><a class="comment-link" href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11516215&postID=2983609179494179981" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap;">No comments: </a></span><span class="post-backlinks post-comment-link" style="margin-right: 1em;"></span><span class="post-icons" style="margin-right: 1em;"><span class="item-action"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=11516215&postID=2983609179494179981" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" title="Email Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="13" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif" style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.5em !important; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;" width="18" /> </a></span><span class="item-control blog-admin pid-200979606" style="display: inline;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=2983609179494179981&from=pencil" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" title="Edit Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="18" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif" style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.5em !important; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;" width="18" /> </a></span></span><br />
<div class="post-share-buttons goog-inline-block" style="display: inline-block; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; position: relative; vertical-align: middle;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-2">
<span class="post-labels" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;">Labels: <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/search/label/19-56-Jan%2024" rel="tag" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">19-56-Jan 24</a>, <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/search/label/2014%29" rel="tag" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">2014)</a>, <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/search/label/In%20Honor%20of%20Ray%20Hinman%27s%20Birthday%20%28June%2029" rel="tag" style="color: #33aaff;">In Honor of Ray Hinman's Birthday (June 29</a></span></div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-3">
<span class="post-location" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="blog-pager" id="blog-pager" style="background-color: #111111; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 18.9px; margin: 1em 0px; overflow: hidden; text-align: center;">
<span id="blog-pager-older-link" style="float: right;"><a class="blog-pager-older-link" href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2016-06-19T22:44:00-07:00" id="Blog1_blog-pager-older-link" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" title="Older Posts">Older Posts</a></span><a class="home-link" href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;">Home</a></div>
<div class="clear" style="background-color: #111111; clear: both; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px;">
</div>
<div class="blog-feeds" style="background-color: #111111; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Utopia, "Palatino Linotype", Palatino, serif; font-size: 13.5px; line-height: 18.9px;">
<div class="feed-links">
Subscribe to: <a class="feed-link" href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default" style="color: #ff8832; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" type="application/atom+xml">Posts (Atom)</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-67337599248566290492016-06-14T22:30:00.003-07:002016-06-14T22:30:39.438-07:00The Counter Apologoist's Attack on the Moral Argument part 2 <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="post-header">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-4804907449836922230" itemprop="description articleBody">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<a href="http://s15.photobucket.com/user/Metacrock/media/abraham-isaac_zpsfwppuhmn.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img alt=" photo abraham-isaac_zpsfwppuhmn.jpg" border="0" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/abraham-isaac_zpsfwppuhmn.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>
The Counter Apologist continues his assault, from <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-counter-apologiost-attacks-moral.html"><span style="color: #0094ff;">last Monday</span></a>,<strong><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></strong> upon William Lane Craig's Moral argument<strong><span style="color: blue;">.[2]</span></strong> In this section he takes up the premise "objective more values exist." He doesn't dispute that issue He faults apologists for not being ale to produce real reasons for objective moral values. He says those can work as well for atheism because they don't have to come from God, but apologists can't prove them. Apologists will often observe that life is unlivable without such moral values but that is not proof they exist. <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">"Plus, such an appeal can do as much work for a moral system that is compatible with atheism." <strong><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></strong></span><br /><br /> In my mind this is no problem at all. First because I would make a different moral argument, and I will make it either in part 3 or 4.What I hope to accomplish here in defending an argument I don't intend to make is to show that belief in 'god is still stronger grounding for moral axioms than not believing in God. It doesn't have to prove God exists. I don't even argue for proof I only argue for warranted belief. It's not that atheists can't be moral but that belief in God is always stronger grounding. Last time I showed that his major argument is wrong, the idea that theistic moral arguments assume an untenable nondescript notion for some magical good that can't be discussed.<br /><br /> At this point he's going to show that the notion of objective moral values is incompatible with belief in God and so introduces the <span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Euthyphro</span> </span> dilemma. One of the atheists greatest hits this argument comes out of the writings of Plato. <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><em>“Is something good because god says it is, or does god say something is good because of some other quality it has?” </em>I dealt with the ensuing issue in a post a few months ago discussing an article by Jeff Lowder who was defending Wes Moriston's argument. <span style="color: blue;"><strong>[4] </strong></span><span style="color: black;">What came out of that was the same answer I'm going to give CA but I have to set it up first. At the first go round the atheist charges a dilemma, either God's will is arbitrary and capricious or God is subject to a higher authority. Of course there isn't one so most Christians take the first horn of the dilemma better a capricious God than a subordinate one. I wont follow that out because there is a better answer. It's the one I use and the Craig uses. Go's commands are based upon his own nature, which is love, So the authority to which God heeds is his own being. </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: "times";"></span><br /><span style="font-family: "times";">CA quotes Jeremy Koons who argues that this only pushes the problem back further bjut doesn[t answer it. That's because he's going to go through tiresome litany of questions like a child asking "why..,," "why..,," "why?" Why good? why love? why </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">?..."Essentially Koon’s asks 'are the properties like loving-kindness, impartiality, and generosity good because god possesses them in his nature, or does god possess them in his nature because they are good?...'" He's going to argue that in the end the apologist is forced to accept the first side of the dilemma.</span><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Consider a situation where two humans express love for each other. This expression of love has the same basic motivations behind it, and the same effects on both parties. According to Divine Command Theory if god exists, this can be called good. However if god does not exist, this exact same situation cannot be called good. I</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">n short, Modified Divine Command Theory says that the intentions and consequences</span> <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">of an action have absolutely no bearing on the goodness of that action.<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This conclusion is </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">extremely</span></i></span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> counter-intuitive, and violates our deeply held pre-theoretical moral intuitions. The very same intuitions that apologists need to appeal to in order to justify the idea that objective moral values really do exist.</span> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">This puts the apologist in a dilemma. If they want to hold that our intuitions can be good enough to justify belief in objective moral values, then they have to deal with the fact that they must also say those intuitions are wrong about what it is that makes love good.</span> <strong><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></strong></span></blockquote>
<br /> In my answer to Morriston it came down to his argumjent generocity is good only because God says its good. his answer is against modified command theory I agree with Craig that God['s character is moral is the immediate answer but Modified Command theory is not the answer. I don't argue that one. He turns the deeply held intuitions against the MDCT. The problem is I don't know if he's making a straw man argument or not. I not Craig argues the intent of the agent doesn't ;lay a role in goodness then Craig is confused. I doubt that he says it. In any case Jesus tells us God Looks on the heart() so the intent does matter. Jesus addresses the motives when he tells us the attitude makes the sin. () That goes back to the foundation from which I draw my overall answer about the good being based upon God's character. <span style="color: blue;"><strong>[6] </strong></span><span style="color: black;">The moral ought would be derived from duty and obligation. So the statement is true in term of Meta ethical theory. Does that mean it's also true in terms of personal guilt? If guilt is notaccewssed by a sgrict ule keepimg mentality then iot'snot arbitrary.</span><br /><br /> Now Koons is still intent upon getting the apologist to be stuck with an arbitrary good, as is CA. Thus he quotes Koon's questions, why love? What makes love good? Is it because God says it or because there's a higher standard. The problem is they've used that trick already. It's neither. God is not loosing because he's obeying a higher standard. He is loving because his love. Nor is he loving because it's an arbitrary whim. He is loving because he is love and thus it is his nature to be loving. That is not arbitrary it's not as standard higher than God. CA ascribes morality to brute fact. There is no reason why morality is real or why a particular action is moral they just are. He turns against th believer on the basis that the atheist doesn't need a reason The believer can't prove why God is loving, the big metaphysical magic thing has been discorded so the believer has no basis for the good and the atheist doesn't need one.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Apologists who defend a Modified Divine Command Theory can’t really object here, because their solution to the problem suffers from exactly the same issue. The concept that “god has a loving nature” is itself a brute fact!</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Notice how there is no explanation as to why god’s nature is loving instead of say hateful. Appeals to gods definition as the “greatest conceivable being” doesn’t help here because you can’t say god’s nature includes love because it is better than hate without already having a concept of moral value that is external to god’s nature. Neither can an apologist appeal to god’s nature as a necessary being. This is because even if Christians conceive of god as having a loving nature in every possible world, there’s no logical reason as to why we couldn’t say god has a hateful nature in every possible world instead.</span> </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span> <br /><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
On all of these things both CA and Koons are very mixed up. Not the least of their befuddlement is the notion that God's love is a brute fact. God's love is not a brute fact, there is a reason for it. That reason is hinted at by the great Catholic mystic and theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar. He speaks of the nature of being in terms of being for itself, consciousness. In that encounter the horizon of all unlimited opens unto him.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=7129880767639187042#_edn8" name="_ednref8" style="mso-endnote-id: edn8;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #0094ff;">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a> What he means by that is it is only through being <i>por soir</i>, for itself, in other words, consciousness, that we are able to comprehend the infinite and that only in contrast to the finite. Before we can do that, however, we have to become aware of ourselves so we can know we are finite. I think he’s making an implication that love is a link to being itself, and that through our encounter with love, the mother, we encounter the father, so to speak—by way of encountering love. We can see this in four truths that Balthasar finds rooted in this encounter:<span style="font-size: 100%;">(1) realizing that he Is other to the mother, the only way the child realizes he loves the mother; (2) love is good, therefore, being is good; (3) love is true, therefore, being is true; (4) love evokes joy therefore being is beautiful.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=7129880767639187042#_edn9" name="_ednref9" style="mso-endnote-id: edn9;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: 12pt;"><span style="color: #0094ff;">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Notice the link between being and love. He is one of the rare theologians to point out this curial link. </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: 100%;">The one, the true, the good, the Beautiful, these are what we call the transcendental attributes of being, because they surpass all the limits of essence, and are coextensive with Being. If there is an insurmountable distance between God and his creature, but if there is also an analogy between them which cannot be resolved in any form of identity, there must also exist an analogy between the transcendentals—between those of the creature and those in God<span style="color: blue;">.<strong>[7]</strong></span></span></blockquote>
<br /> In other words There is a close link between being itself and love. Because God is being itself God's nature is to love. The loving nature of God is rooted in his perfection and that in the fact that he is being itself. In this sense he is being for itself (as Sartre says <em>por soir</em>). There may be a brute fact in relation to God's being but it is to at the point of love. I call brute facts connected with God "deep structures" because none of them are total without reason or without meaning, The only one that may have no higher reason grounding it is God's existence or the fact of being itself. There could note a hi8gher purpose since that would, mean purpose higher than God's. Even though God as being itself is not the consequence of a higher purpose it is not unconnected to meaning since it is the basis of all meaning. It is at the very bottom of ontology where the only choices are something or nothing. That means noth8ing connected tov moral values is totally arbitrary if it is grounded in God.<br /><br /> The are further confused because their ethics are grounded in arbitrary brute facts. He's so proud of it thinking it's on a par with Christian ethics because the big magic whoha he imagines Christin ethics is based upon has been done away now both are on a level playing field of meaninglessness. Such is not the case to any degree. God's moral values are grounded in the deep structures of being itself while atheist values are arbitary and meaningless. When he says "<span style="font-family: "times";">you can’t say god’s nature includes love because it is better than hate without already having a concept of moral value that is external to god’s nature" yes you can. Rather you can ground it in God himself for what he is, being itself and love and hate come after that. I've published before on why God is love and not hate. that is logical and based the same point, it's not arbitrary it's a consequence of being<strong><span style="color: blue;">.[8]</span></strong></span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> [1] The Counter Apologiost, "<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">A much longer Counter to the Moral Argument." <em>The Counter Apologist Blog.</em> (May 13, 2016) URL:</span><br /><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2016/05/note-this-is-much-longer-version-of-my.html?showComment=1464336604963#c3125601153601767783"><strong><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="color: #0094ff;">https://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2016/05/note-this-is-much-longer-version-of-my.html?showComment=1464336604963#c3125601153601767783</span></span></strong></a></span><br /><span style="font-family: "times";">accessed 5/28/2016</span><br /><div style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br /><br /> [2] Craig's moral argument<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
(1) if God exists, there are objective moral values<br /><br /> (2) there are objective moral values<br /><br /> (3) therefore God exists.</blockquote>
<br /><br /><br /> [3] Counter Apologist, op cit.<br /><br /> [4] Joseph Hinman, "The Euthyphro Dilemma and the Arbitrariness Objection." <em>Metacrock's Blog</em>, Feb 29, 2016.<br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-euthyphro-dilemma-and-arbitrariness.html"><span style="color: #0094ff;">http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-euthyphro-dilemma-and-arbitrariness.html</span></a> accessed 6/4/16.<br /> The arguments with Morriston are somewhat different than CA's. zI urge the reader to read that peice.<br /><br /> [5] Counter Apologist op cit<br /><br /> [6] The foundation of my moral philosophy is Augustine's view that love is the background f the moral universe. CA claims that the statement is counter intuitive but is that because he's a consequentialist? <br /><br /> [7] Hans Urs Von Balthasar, “A Resume of my Thought,” in David L. Schindler, <i>Hans Urs Von Balthasar: His Life and Work</i>. San Francisco:Ignatious Press, 1991, 3. on like version p1-2 URL:<br /><div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=LLhBuwGFEugC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=Hans+Urs+Von+Balthasar+connection+between+Love+and+Being&source=bl&ots=E6-L_5GF4p&sig=A-MzjMjMmqjBqRmAaUOWGYiOUww&hl=en&ei=xrTSSdLiJdqJnAe4tNTgBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Hans%20Urs%20Von%20Balthasar%20connection%20between%20Love%20and%20Being&f=true"><span style="color: #0094ff;">http://books.google.com/books?id=LLhBuwGFEugC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=Hans+Urs+Von+Balthasar+connection+between+Love+and+Being&source=bl&ots=E6-L_5GF4p&sig=A-MzjMjMmqjBqRmAaUOWGYiOUww&hl=en&ei=xrTSSdLiJdqJnAe4tNTgBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Hans%20Urs%20Von%20Balthasar%20connection%20between%20Love%20and%20Being&f=true</span></a></span> </div>
<br /> [8] this blog, how we knkow God is good and not evil<br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-do-we-know-god-is-not-evil.html"><span style="color: #0094ff;">http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-do-we-know-god-is-not-evil.html</span></a><br /><br /><br /></div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<span class="post-author vcard"> Posted by <span class="fn" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"> <a class="g-profile" data-gapiattached="true" data-gapiscan="true" data-onload="true" href="https://plus.google.com/116031743767990323943" rel="author" title="author profile"><span style="color: #0094ff;"><span itemprop="name">Joe Hinman</span> </span></a> </span> </span> <span class="post-timestamp"> at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-counter-apologoists-attack-on-moral.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" itemprop="datePublished" title="2016-06-05T23:55:00-07:00"><span style="color: #0094ff;">11:55 PM</span></abbr></a> </span> <span class="reaction-buttons"></span> <span class="post-comment-link"></span> <span class="post-backlinks post-comment-link"></span> <span class="post-icons"><span class="item-action"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4804907449836922230" title="Email Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="13" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif" width="18" /><span style="color: #0094ff;"> </span></a> </span> <span class="item-control blog-admin pid-200979606"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4804907449836922230&from=pencil" title="Edit Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="18" src="https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif" width="18" /><span style="color: #0094ff;"> </span></a> </span> </span> <div class="post-share-buttons goog-inline-block">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-80048295462951341852016-06-13T03:56:00.000-07:002016-06-13T03:56:00.861-07:00The Counter Apologiost Attacks The Moral Argument <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="post-header">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-607557057713197086" itemprop="description articleBody">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://s15.photobucket.com/user/Metacrock/media/Texanic/sightseeing-rome-rome-tours-sightseeing-rome-things-to-do-rome-la-dolce-vita_zps534dbad5.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img alt=" photo sightseeing-rome-rome-tours-sightseeing-rome-things-to-do-rome-la-dolce-vita_zps534dbad5.jpg" border="0" src="http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a361/Metacrock/Texanic/sightseeing-rome-rome-tours-sightseeing-rome-things-to-do-rome-la-dolce-vita_zps534dbad5.jpg" /></a><br /><br /> The Fountain scene from <em>La Duce Vita</em><br /> one of my favorite films. I use it as symbol of<br /> moral relativism.<br /><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></h3>
<div class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name">
</div>
<div class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span>I know nothing about this guy, who calls himself "counter apologist:" (I'll call him CA) except that he is a philosophy student somewhere in the US.I don't know graduate or undergraduate, I will say this for him, he's a good student. He is arguing against the moral argument for the existence of <br /> God as it is ran by William Lane Craig, so it is a modified version of divine command theory. The basic argument says:<br /><br /> (1) if God exists, there are objective moral values<br /><br /> (2) there are objective moral values<br /><br /> (3) therefore God exists.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></b><br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
This is a lousy argument. I will say it up front. I never argue this it's just a bad expression of a moral argument that I have to wonder if he isn't making straw man hat is except it is a version WLC uses. I can't fault the guy but one does wonder why he doesn't take on Kant's moral argument? My contention is that this argument is invalid because it's committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because it is true that if God exists there will be objective moral values doesn't mean that the presence of objective moral values means that God exists. You would need another premise saying that god is the only source of grounding possible. That would be pretty thought to prove. I'm going to argue the possibility of a moral argument and present my own better version. But I'm to engage CA at the point where he opposes oral realism to theistic morality.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
But before we get into that there is another basic paradigm he brings into the discussion which I also want to challenge. In discussion Christian moral theology he labels the idea of God as proper grounding for moral axioms as "the grand metaphysics object" (GMO).He's doing the same thing with that phrase that Dennett is doing speaking of "wonder tissue," he's sarcastically mocking an ideal that he can't answer. That ideas is the notion that God grounds moral axioms. He can't conceive of how God could equal a moral axiom being true so therefore it's like a magic trick just an arbitrary notion like some big magic trick. He juxtaposes this to antsiest version of moral realism where moral conclusions are just factually arbitrarily and we are given to think so, but no supernatural is required to make it so.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
Before starting let me make clear my assumptions. I understand virtue ethics and deontology as two sides of the same coin. I also understand both as almost synonymous with Christian ethics. So he begins by playing what I call they wonder tissue card," that is asserting that the believer's notion of morality is some magical thinking thing that has no meaning. to witt:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "times";"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><strong>Moral Realism and Atheism: "</strong><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Why should we consider the 'grand metaphysical object' view of morality to be the only game in town when it comes to getting an objective morality?" </span>Objective could be used as a key, in that if the apologist was to use the word to mean “object-like” could be a way to insinuate that, but why would we care? We can have objective, independent reasons that apply equally to all moral agents, to adjudicate between right and wrong. In fact, it is this second kind of objectivity that’s referred to in debates about the moral argument...</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br /><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">It is Hard to understand how literally he takes "object." He seems to be trying to build a straw man argument by re defining virtue/obligation in terms that portray it as "wonder tissue." <strong><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></strong> That is to say some kind of magic thing that can't be explained and has a reality beyond the world. of the physical; as though there is some magical moral stuff up in heaven that makes things good. It's a straw man argument because that's what religious people mean by ":the good" At least it[s not what I mean. </span></span><br /><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times";">while there no doubt are those whose conception of the good is similar to the GMO idea there are obviously major thinkers (and also me) who don't have that idea so he's not challenging thke best examples, me.</span></span><br /><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times";"></span> </span><br /><div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">What’s important to note here is that there’s a difference between “objective” moral values and any notion of moral values “existing” as a grand metaphysical object. This is an important distinction to realize: moral objectivism is quite different from moral realism...</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">If moral values are simply the basis that moral agents use to determine between right and wrong actions, then we can have an objective moral value system that does not require a “value” to exist as some object. On this conception of morality, it would be equivalent to something like “money” or “chess”. One certainly would say that these things “exist” even if it is only a concept that is used by human beings, and we can derive objective facts about these kind of things.</span> </span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Of course we can. We religious people can have that as well. I don't believe that the good is some magical stuff like a physical object. The good is not a magic stuff or some physical thing. It's based upon God's character,. So "the good" is an abstraction based upon the nature of God's inclination to prefer the other; ie "Love." The good is as concept and an attitude that regulates behavior in relations with others. But since CA thinks it's a magic stuff then he's going to compare it as competing against his philosophy of "moral realism." I may have a tendency to make a straw mam argument out of his views. Bearing that in mind, I think moral realism is the view that is irrational and most similar to magical thinking. But there can be theistic moral realism. In a sense any Christian ethical thinker is a moral realist in that we think moral values have real meaning and actually count. That's really the issue. Moral thinkers consider that moral values have meaning and there are reasons to hold to them beyond the pragmatic. It don't just want to be good to avoid fights and problems we think it means it matters that we are good. We think the meaning of moral value and the nature of it's <em>gravitas</em> is grounded in God's command. God has authority because he created all that is and all that could ever be is contingent upon God's active will or forbearance. It's not an arbitrary whim that makes it good but it's the basis of love. God as all knowing source of all that is judges the level of veracity against the acts of virtue, not for meritorious consequences but so that we might know in what ways our conduct and attitudes have fallen short. All of that tempered with love's propensity for mercy.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Moral realism when not backed by the divine is much like presupositionalism, there's no real reason given and non e will ever be defended, he says: "</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I’m touching on a debate about what counts as 'moral realism'. Moral realism is a philosophical position that there are<strong><em> true moral facts</em></strong> that accurately describe reality. That’s a bit confusing if you’re not into philosophy, so let’s use an illustration." What makes something a true moral fact (as opposed to a false moral fact)? Nor will any be offered. Look at what passes for an answer in CA's argument. </span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Consider the following two statements:</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1.)</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I used to own a pit bul.</span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2.)</span><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is morally wrong to torture babies for fun.</span> </span></span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Moral realism holds that both statements, if true, are true in the same way. That is the statements actually describe some facts about reality. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Suffice it to say, if one is a moral realist, you will affirm premise two of the moral argument.</span></span></span></span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">What makes them facts? How do we know they are facts? That is as much like moral good being an object as theist morality ever comes. Now he uses moral realism to .put atheism in a position of parity, atheism has the equivalent of objective morals too because it has moral facts. He says: </span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">One of the things that isn’t brought up often enough in debates over the moral argument is that the majority of “moral realist” theories in contemporary philosophy are completely compatible with atheism."</span> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">There’s John Rawls’s Social Contract theory, various forms of consequentialism, Railton’s Reductive Naturalism, the Ideal Observer Theory, and a host of others. Each of these theories provides a basis for moral agents to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong in an objective way.</span> </span></span></blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Here he shifted his argument, Those are not examples of moral realism. In fact some of them are not even moral but are based upon abandoning the moral. John Rawls is opposed to consequentialism,. Consequentialism is based upon outcomes matching value system but without grounding the value systems in something they are arbitrary. Most ethicists today feel that Rawls disproved consequentialism. Rawls social contract is limited to the dictates of society can't arbitrate between competing values such as a fascist based social contract. Reductive naturalism is like giving up on morality. I don't think any of those are moral realism.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">There are entire families of “atheism compatible” moral realist theories that satisfy the criteria of there being objective moral values in the sense Dr. Craig describes with his Nazi example. The list provided above isn’t even close to exhaustive. This is why the moral argument is so unconvincing to anyone who has spent time studying moral philosophy. One of the first things that become clear is that there are a plethora of meta-ethical theories out there that can get us to this kind of “objective moral values”. An apologist might counter that the above kinds of conceptions of morality don’t actually count as moral realist views as they don’t get you a Grand Metaphysical Object kind of morality. Sometimes you’ll hear them refer to “robust moral realism” in order to indicate belief in the “Grand Metaphysical Object” style of moral values. My response there is to ask why it should matter if there is no Grand Metaphysical Object.</span></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />This is actually a bait and Switch, None of those theories are moral realism, comseqntualism does not assert that it's axioms are moral facts it asserts that they grounded in being consequences, and so withy all the others. Moral realism is not just any other moral system that's not divine command. That is essentially what he's asserting. Moral realism is a specific idea that moral axioms are moral facts but they still have to be grounded or it's just as arbitrary as the big magic who ha that he tries to say G</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times";">od is, the wonder tissue idea. He's selling secular naturalistic wonder tissue.Moral realists don't believe in grounding but they offer not basis for moral facts<strong><span style="color: blue;">.[3]</span></strong></span><br /><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">This is because even if one denies the Grand Metaphysical Object style of moral values, they can still get an objective moral value system that gives the atheist a basis for discerning between right and wrong, like in Dr. Craig’s Nazi example. All that we’re arguing over is a semantic issue on whether or not such systems count as “real” even if they’re not fundamental parts of reality, but rather if morality was a “real” as “the economy” or “baseball”. The point is that atheism, even if one is a naturalist or materialist, allows one to avoid collapse into nihilism or moral relativism.</span> </span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
What's going to make it be objective? Look at Rawls social contract. That says moral axioms are moral because society says they are moral. In WWII we had society that said gassing people and baking them in ovens was moral. What makes it not moral? society confined it. By definition social contract theory is relative to society. Consequentialism is relative to consequences. He is doing what an atheist friend of mine describes as pour ought sauce on it<strong><span style="color: blue;">.[4]</span></strong></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
Moral realism I either mysterious and arbitrary or it is based upon values that themselves reduce to non ethical values meaning it's as firmly grounded as values commanded by God because they relative and not universal. Moral realists are violating vthe4 is/;ought dichotomy, Grounding axioms would mean one has a reason to attach an ought, merely saying "one ought" doesn't establish the basis for ought, Saying X is a moral fact doesn't ell us why omen should do X or not do X.<br /><br /> Having eliminated the bait and switch to the secular wonder tissue it's no different then any other atheist who has to ground his values and axioms. God is always going to be the most certain and universal grounding because he is the source of moral values and the source of love upon which morality is based<span style="color: blue;"><strong>.[5] </strong></span><span style="color: black;">Morality is not magic, it's an object in the physical sense, it's the mandated consequences of God's Love. Fletcher got the idea from St. Augustine who said Love is the background of the moral universe. Without a universal mind making judgments and instilling moral laws and communicated and role modeling love atheists might maintain some moral motions and they can love. I am betting they wont have the strong grounding God supplies or the spiritual strength of love enemies. Let's just hope we have that. Without a universal mind to pass judgment on an ought where is the universality?</span><br /><br /><br /> see sources for more quotes.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>Sources</strong><br /><br /> [1] The Counter Apologiost, "<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">A much longer Counter to the Moral Argument." <em>The Counter Apologist Blog.</em> (May 13, 2016) URL:</span><br /><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2016/05/note-this-is-much-longer-version-of-my.html?showComment=1464336604963#c3125601153601767783"><strong><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="color: #0094ff;">https://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2016/05/note-this-is-much-longer-version-of-my.html?showComment=1464336604963#c3125601153601767783</span></span></strong></a></span><br /><span style="font-family: "times";">accessed 5/28/2016</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">[2] <span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Daniel Dennett, <em>Consciousness Explained. </em>New York<em>: </em><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">Back Bay Books; 1 edition (October 20, 1992)</span></span></span><br /><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">W</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">onder tissue a term Dennett uses to stand for the mysterious qualities of mind that can't be pinned down and that he doesn't believe exist.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">[3] <span style="font-family: "times new roman";">Shin Kim, </span><em>Internet Encyclopedia: A Peer Reviewed Academic Resource.</em></span><br /><span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/"><span style="color: #0094ff;">http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/</span></a> accessed <span style="font-family: "times";">5/28/2016</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is. The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as,“Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.” A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what <em>ought to be</em> the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.The traditional areas of disagreement between the realist camp and the antirealist camp are cognitivism, descriptivism, moral truth, moral knowledge, and moral objectivity. The long and recalcitrant history of the realism/antirealism debate records that the focal point of the debate has been shaped and reshaped over centuries, with a third way, namely, Quasi-realism, attracting more recent attention. Quasi-realism debunks the positions of both realism and antirealism.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> The point being realists have no clear grounding. <br /><br /> Kim, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. Korea.</span></span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span> </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
[4] Fred D'Agostino, Gerald Gaus, and John Thrasher, "Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract", <em>The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy </em> (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/"><span style="color: #0094ff;">http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/</span></a>>.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all stressed that the justification of the state depends on showing that everyone would, in some way, consent to it. By relying on consent, social contract theory seemed to suppose a voluntarist conception of political justice and obligation: what is just depends on what people choose to agree to—what they will. Only in Kant (1797) does it become clear that consent is not fundamental to a social contract view: we have a duty to agree to act according to the idea of the “original contract.” <strong><span style="color: red;">Rawls's </span></strong>revival of social contract theory in <em>A Theory of Justice</em> did not base obligations on consent, though the apparatus of an “original agreement” persisted as a way to help solve the problem of justification. As the question of public justification takes center stage (we might say as contractualist liberalism becomes justificatory liberalism), it becomes clear that posing the problem of justification in terms of a deliberative or a bargaining problem is a heuristic: the real issue is “the problem of justification”—what principles can be justified to all reasonable citizens or persons.</blockquote>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
That quote essentially says even though Rawls version is not based upon concert it's still based upn society,<br /><br /> [5] Joseph Fletcher, <em>Situation Ethics: The New Morality, </em>Westminster John Knox Press; 2nd edition (July 1, 1997) 57, 87<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> </div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer">
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1">
<span class="post-author vcard"> Posted by <span class="fn" itemprop="author" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"> <a class="g-profile" data-gapiattached="true" data-gapiscan="true" data-onload="true" href="https://plus.google.com/116031743767990323943" rel="author" title="author profile"><span style="color: #0094ff;"><span itemprop="name">Joe Hinman</span> </span></a> </span> </span> <span class="post-timestamp"> at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-counter-apologiost-attacks-moral.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" itemprop="datePublished" title="2016-05-29T21:07:00-07:00"><span style="color: #0094ff;">9:07 PM</span></abbr></a> </span> <span class="reaction-buttons"></span> <span class="post-comment-link"></span> <span class="post-backlinks post-comment-link"></span> <span class="post-icons"><span class="item-action"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=11516215&postID=607557057713197086" title="Email Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="13" src="https://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif" width="18" /><span style="color: #0094ff;"> </span></a> </span> <span class="item-control blog-admin pid-200979606"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=11516215&postID=607557057713197086&from=pencil" title="Edit Post"><img alt="" class="icon-action" height="18" src="https://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif" width="18" /><span style="color: #0094ff;"> </span></a> </span> </span><div class="post-share-buttons goog-inline-block">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-3">
<span class="post-location"></span> </div>
</div>
<div class="comments" id="comments">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="comments"></a> <h4>
7 comments:</h4>
</div>
</div>
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com0