Logician(s) Needed

[Randy_Carson]

I need the assistance of some knowledgeable logician(s) to develop a formal argument based upon the following tract originally produced by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers. I don’t know what this written form of argument is called, but I have in mind a series of premises followed by a conclusion. I will provide the defense of each premise separately, but I need to make sure that the logic is sound first. Thanks in advance.

Here is the Catholic Answers tract:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I need the assistance of some knowledgeable logician(s) to develop a formal argument based upon the following tract originally produced by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers. I don’t know what this written form of argument is called, but I have in mind a series of premises followed by a conclusion. I will provide the defense of each premise separately, but I need to make sure that the logic is sound first. Thanks in advance.

I think I know what youre aiming at but I dont think you have the necessary raw ingredients.

Here’s some of my clutching at straws.

…Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Premise - The contents of the bible is either the product of human creativity or human imagination - or both.
Premise - The contents of the bible can be discerned and tested (explanatory power) against what we know of human nature as against non-human nature.
Premise - Some content of the bible is inconsistent with (what we know of) human nature.

*…(The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.) *

Premise - If what we know of human nature is correct, this part of the bible is either a work of creative human fiction or a true description of non-human nature.

*…We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. *

Premise - If His followers were in fact acting and speaking truthfully, they seem then to be responding to something(s) which they believed was non-human in nature.

*…Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. *

Premise - That the explanatory power of contra-biblical explanations should be held to the same standard of reasonable credibility as that which they seek to refute, and that the “reasonable person” test of human nature, (as against non-human nature,) is a useful measure. In other words, skeptics ought not propose alternative theories which are even more incredible than that which they seek to replace.

…
Certainly if Christ had not risen, [or some event of equivalent magnitude] his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming [what they sincerely believed was] the reality and truth of the resurrection.

Premise - That the human nature response of the disciples was appropriate to their sincere belief that a supernatural event had taken place.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…
The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Premise - That the Resurrection, if believed on the basis of the above, (and other event in human history), is more probable/likely to involve supernatural power than ordinary, terrestrial, non-miraculous explanations.

*…Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name. *

Premise - That if He was transcendent of normal human nature, and able to speak with divine power and wisdom, this prophecy of His would/must come true and therafter remain true.

Premise - That if He willed the foundation of belief… hmmm.

…This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

Conclusion - That - on-balance - it is reasonable in human nature to assess the bible as being the product of events and behaviour which can be categorized as partly or wholly divine in origin.

…A Spiral Argument Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

Conclusion - The Resurrection happened as stated therefore the bible describes a supernatural event therefore a Higher Power (God) was involved therefore we can view the bible as…

…The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

Here is where the problem arises. The claim is that our proof surpasses gut feelings but right back at the beginning it stakes pretty much the whole argument on what we think we know about something nebulous - human nature.

It’s a strong line of persuasive reasoning but coercive logic demands necessary inference. And I dont see how any of the the various premisses which could be formed, might not be easily dismissed as the whim of someone elses human nature.

Sure, en masse, human nature, human behaviour, is a practically a statistical certainty. You can almost bet a million dollars on the probability that people dont martyr themselves for a known lie and zero personal gain. But that same human nature will also sometimes believe what they hope is true.

 

[Tomdstone]

I need the assistance of some knowledgeable logician(s) to develop a formal argument based upon the following tract originally produced by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers. I don’t know what this written form of argument is called, but I have in mind a series of premises followed by a conclusion. I will provide the defense of each premise separately, but I need to make sure that the logic is sound first. Thanks in advance.

Here is the Catholic Answers tract:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

In the case of mathematics and logic, given the premises, everyone will agree with the conclusions. This is not so in this case because the Eastern Orthodox do not agree with the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church has not erred.

 

[paziego]

The early Rastafarians were also persecuted for their beliefs regarding Hallie Selassie, and the modern movement maintains that he is not dead. It isn’t really a parallel case, as I am not sure if anyone was actually martyred, but they do hold similarly beliefs and have been harassed for them.

Also, how do we know about the early martyrs? Through secular historians or through the history of the church? And it isn’t clear whether the Romans persecuted the Christians as a sect specifically or whether they were martyred as part of a wider blanket punishment against the Jews, who were in constant rebellion. Maybe many weren’t given the choice to renounce.

 

[Rhubarb]

With all the information that you want to put in the argument, in a valid premise-conclusion form, is going to be huge and contain many sub-arguments. What is it you’re trying to do with this argument? The tract may be a better way to get the conclusion across, because if you start numbering premises then you’re providing targets for people to attack. A valid argument form doesn’t do much if a premise is not granted.

 

[paziego]

I need the assistance of some knowledgeable logician(s) to develop a formal argument based upon the following tract originally produced by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers. I don’t know what this written form of argument is called, but I have in mind a series of premises followed by a conclusion. I will provide the defense of each premise separately, but I need to make sure that the logic is sound first. Thanks in advance.

Here is the Catholic Answers tract:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

The argument is circular because it assumes the Bible is an infallible record of history - and remember, to have faith is to believe that the Jesus of history IS the Jesus of faith. Then, from that you argue that the infallible church exists and demonstrates the infallibility of the Bible. So the initial premise is the same as the conclusion.

 

[Tomdstone]

Then, from that you argue that the infallible church exists and demonstrates the infallibility of the Bible.

What is meant when someone says that the Bible is infallible?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The argument is circular because it assumes the Bible is an infallible record of history - and remember, to have faith is to believe that the Jesus of history IS the Jesus of faith. Then, from that you argue that the infallible church exists and demonstrates the infallibility of the Bible. So the initial premise is the same as the conclusion.

Actually, it doesn’t. Initially, it sets out to examine whether the NT is “merely” a reliable record of history.

After comparing the NT with non-biblical texts, archaeological discoveries, etc., a determination can be made as to whether the NT is or is not historically accurate.

 

[paziego]

Actually, it doesn’t. Initially, it sets out to examine whether the NT is “merely” a reliable record of history.

After comparing the NT with non-biblical texts, archaeological discoveries, etc., a determination can be made as to whether the NT is or is not historically accurate.

But we have nothing to compare it to. Especially when it comes to the words of and actions of Jesus. We can only verify certain things, such as who was Cesar at the time, whether Herod ruled at that time, or other such peripheral things. But for the most part the Bible is the only source - how, then, can we judge its accuracy?

We have no criteria to judge it as a record of history. In fact, if we approach it as any other ancient text, without considering it as a holy book, we have less reason to trust it than other historical texts of the period, given its supernatural elements. And we would just be accepting the supernatural in the Bible at face value. And we do so because we approach the Bible with a readiness to accept them, even if we do say we approach it with no preconceptions.

All this aside from the fact that being “as reliable as other historical works of the time” means “not especially reliable”. History is notoriously susceptible to subjective interpretations; there probably isn’t such a thing as fully objective history.

 

[paziego]

Just because there are no competing accounts does not mean that the Bible is true. And to assume that it is by default is practically the same as presupposing its reliability and inspiration.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But we have nothing to compare it to.

**The Historical Jesus - Jewish, Roman and Pagan References

Josephus (c. 93-94 AD)**

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.” (Antiquities XVIII, 63 from Josephus: The Essential Writings by Paul L. Maier, page 264-265; this text is from An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications by S. Pines [Jerusalem, 1971]; another translation of above found in Van Voorst, page 97; for a different version of the text infamously interpolated by later Christian editors, see discussion in Van Voorst, page 85ff; also full discussion in A Marginal Jew, volume 1 by John P. Meier, pages 56ff)

• this text, which definitely mentions Jesus and his crucifixion under Pilate by a well-known Jewish historian of the first century, is hotly disputed because of possible later ‘Christian interpolation’ but the above is the Arabic text found without these ‘Christian’ additions;
• this version leaves the question of Jesus’ messianic status neutral (“perhaps the Messiah”);
• this is another piece corroborating a ‘neutral reconstruction’ of the Testimonium (which is the preferred view among scholars);
• the neutral reconstruction, which isolates and removes the later pro-Christian interpolations, makes good sense of the pattern of ancient Christian witnesses to Josephus (e.g. Van Voorst, page 95-97).

“Upon Festus’ death, Caesar sent Albinus to Judea as procurator. But before he arrived, King Agrippa had appointed Ananus to the priesthood, who was the son of the elder Ananus [or Annas of the Gospels]. This elder Ananus, after he himself had been high priest, had five sons, all of whom achieved that office, which was unparalleled. The younger Ananus, however, was rash and followed the Sadducees, who are heartless when they sit in judgment. Ananus thought that with Festus dead and Albinus still on the way, he would have his opportunity. Convening the judges of the Sanhedrin, he brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law, and condemned them to be stoned to death.” (Antiquities XX, 197; from Josephus, Maier, page 275-276; another translation in Van Voorst, page 83)

• we have a passing but clear reference to Jesus here, and to Jesus’ brother named James (cf. Gal 1:19);
• the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words ‘the brother of Jesus called Christ’ are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found;
• the passage fits in well with its own context;
• a Christian ‘interpolator’ would have used laudatory language to describe James and especially Jesus, calling him ‘the Lord’ or similar language.

Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD)

“An anonymous accusatory pamphlet has been circulated containing the named of many people. I decided to dismiss any who denied that they are or ever have been Christians when they repeated after me a formula invoking the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your image [or statue], which I had ordered to be brought with the images of the gods into court for this reason, and when they reviled Christ [Christo male dicere]. I understand that no one who is really a Christian can be made to do these things. Other people, whose names were given to me by an informer, first said that they were Christians and then denied it. They said that they had stopped being Christian two or more years ago, and some more than twenty. They all venerated your image and the images of the gods as the others did,and reviled Christ. They also maintained that the sum total of this guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn on a determined day, and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as if to a god [carmenque Christo quasi deo decere secum invicem]. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, not to break any promise, and not to withhold a deposit when reclaimed.” (Letter 96:10; Van Voorst, page 25)

• Christ is mentioned three times in this letter to the emperor Trajan;
• the text of the two letters (Pliny’s Letter 96, and Trajan’s reply Letter 97) are well-attested and stable, and their authenticity is not seriously disputed;
• supposed ‘Christian interpolators’ would not have testified to Christian apostasy or speak disparagingly of Christianity calling it ‘madness’ (amentia), etc.
• Christ here is the divine leader of this religion, worshiped by Christians, so that cursing him is tantamount to rejecting Christianity (cf. 1 Cor 12:3).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tacitus (c. 116 AD)

“Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts [flagitia], whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate [Auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat]. Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular. Therefore, first those who admitted to it were arrested, then on their information a very large multitude was convicted, not so much for the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race [odium humani generis]. Derision was added to their end: they were covered with the skins of wild animals and torn to death by dogs; or they were crucified and when the day ended they were burned as torches. Nero provided his gardens for the spectacle and gave a show in his circus, mixing with the people in charioteer’s clothing, or standing on his racing chariot.” (Annals 15:44; Van Voorst, page 41-42)

• Christ is definitely mentioned here by a major Roman historian as being ‘the founder’ of Christianity and as ‘executed in the reign of Tiberius’ under Pontius Pilate;
• there are good reasons to conclude with the vast majority of scholars that the passage is fundamentally sound, despite some difficulties (e.g. compressed style);
• Christian forgers would not have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity;
• the only textual difficulty is the word Christians, Christianoi or Chrestianoi, with the latter being the ‘earliest reading’ although more difficult.

Seutonius (c. 120 AD)

“He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of this instigator Chrestus [Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit].”(Lives of the Caesars, book 5, Claudius 25:4; Van Voorst, page 30)

• Christ appears to be mentioned by this Roman historian under the name ‘Chrestus’;
• besides one textual variant that reads ‘Christ’ (instead of ‘Chresto’) the Latin text is sound;
• a Christian interpolator would more likely have spelled his name correctly, and would not have placed him in Rome in 49 AD or called him a ‘troublemaker’;
• the overwhelming majority of modern scholarship concludes this sentence is genuine, and that ‘Chrestus’ is indeed Christ.

Mara bar Serapion (c. after 73 AD)

“What advantage did the Athenians gain by murdering Socrates, for which they were repaid with famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because their country was completely covered in sand in just one hour? Or the Jews [by killing] their wise king, because their kingdom was taken away at that very time? God justly repaid the wisdom of these three men: the Athenians died of famine; the Samians were completely overwhelmed by the sea; and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, are scattered through every nation. Socrates is not dead, because of Plato; neither is Pythagoras, because of the statue of Juno; nor is the wise king, because of the new laws he laid down.” (Letter in Syriac to his son; Van Voorst, page 54)

• while Jesus is not named, and ‘wise king’ is not a common Christological title, Jesus is doubtless meant by ‘their wise king’;
• Mara a Jew writing to his son, speaks of this ‘wise’ Jew as a king, and ‘king [of the Jews]’ is prominently connected to Jesus at his trial (e.g. Mark 15:26);
• the link between the destruction of the Jewish nation and the death of the ‘wise king’ is parallel in Christianity to the destruction of Jerusalem as a punishment for Jewish rejection of Jesus (cf. Matt 23:37-39; 24:2; 27:25; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 19:42-44; 21:5-24; 23:28-31);
• the mention of ‘the new laws he laid down’ is probably a reference to the Christian religion, especially its moral code;
• Mara probably doesn’t mention Jesus directly because it was the Romans who desolated and dispersed the Jews – he does not want to offend his captors, the people who hold his loved ones.

 

[paziego]

No one is questioning the fact that the man Jesus existed. The question is whether the new testament is a reliable account of His words and actions, and whether this is enough to prove that there is an infallible church which can in turn prove the bible is inspired. We have even more records about the existence of Halie Selassie, but that doesn’t prove he is God on earth, or give us an account of his private words which can be certified.

And there were plenty of Jewish revolutionary political figures in the first century. A mention of the king of the Jews could refer to any number of people, and Jesus is not necessarily the obvious candidate in many cases. And this still doesn’t lead us to an infallible church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No one is questioning the fact that the man Jesus existed. The question is whether the new testament is a reliable account of His words and actions, and whether this is enough to prove that there is an infallible church which can in turn prove the bible is inspired. We have even more records about the existence of Halie Selassie, but that doesn’t prove he is God on earth, or give us an account of his private words which can be certified.

And there were plenty of Jewish revolutionary political figures in the first century. A mention of the king of the Jews could refer to any number of people, and Jesus is not necessarily the obvious candidate in many cases. And this still doesn’t lead us to an infallible church.

If the New Testament is shown to be reliable when compared side by side with non-biblical reportage, does this increase the credibility of the authors about things we cannot verify objectively?

 

[Lion_IRC]

The argument is circular because it assumes the Bible is an infallible record of history - and remember, to have faith is to believe that the Jesus of history IS the Jesus of faith. Then, from that you argue that the infallible church exists and demonstrates the infallibility of the Bible. So the initial premise is the same as the conclusion.

No, I don’t think it is truly circular.

Neither does it start with any assumption about historicity - it seeks to establish that historicity is the best explanation of the later events arising from that earlier (disputed) historical claim. And it seeks to do this by reference to what we ‘know’ about human nature.

The term ‘spiral argument’ is awkward but I get what they mean. Cumulative is probably a better way to describe it.

I agree with Rhubarb that it’s better to take incremental persuasive premisses collectively rather than trying to restate them with a formal syllogism.

And the more I think about it, I suspect the difficulty is not so much with the “human nature” element but the vagueness of the conclusion. As biblical theists, we understand what is meant by “inspired” and “Word of God” and “infallible/inerrant” but how can formal logic walk us, step-by-step, through a sequence that ends with the conclusion…"therefore the bible is the inspired Word of…"


The non-theist logician is going to need a more solid framework.
What is “God”?
Where is the metaphysical line drawn between human scribe and divine Author?
Was God inspired or the human scribe or the people acting out the events being written about?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here’s my attempt:

1. 
   *]The Bible is historically accurate.
   *]The Bible says that Jesus claimed to be God.
   *]The Bible says that Jesus promised to rise from the dead as proof of His divinity.
   *]Jesus rose from the dead.
   *]Therefore, Jesus is God.
   *]The Bible says that Jesus promised to build a Church.
   *]The Church cannot teach error in God’s name; it is prevented or protected from doing so.
   *]The Church teaches infallibly that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
   
   Criticisms are welcomed. :yup:

 

[Tomdstone]

Here’s my attempt:
*]The Bible says that Jesus claimed to be God.

The New Testament also says that

1. The Father is greater than Jesus.
2. That the Son does not know the day or the hour, but only the Father. If only the Father knows, then some (JW) say that the Holy Spirit also does not know.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The New Testament also says that

1. The Father is greater than Jesus.
2. That the Son does not know the day or the hour, but only the Father. If only the Father knows, then some (JW) say that the Holy Spirit also does not know.

Off-topic.

 

[Tomdstone]

Off-topic.

Why ask for criticism of your statement?

Here’s my attempt:
*]The Bible says that Jesus claimed to be God.

Criticisms are welcomed. :yup:

I gave a criticism, which you said was welcome, and now you say it is off topic?