The recurring question without an answer

[Gorgias]

And evidence is not some ancient text, translated and interpreted several times over. You continuously confuse evidence with mythology, and refuse to understand that mythology is NOT evidence.

Two thoughts:

• are all ancient texts “mythology”, in your worldview?
• if not, then what makes an ancient text a “mythology”?
• moreover, how do you reach the conclusion that the Bible is merely “mythology”?

Short of good explanations of these leaps of logic of yours, it seems that your assertions are non sequiturs…

The good, old circular argument.

Assertion: The church is the authority when it comes to theological issues.
Question: Why should anyone accept it?
A: Because the church was established directly by Christ.
Q: How do we know this?
A: The bible and the sacred tradition support it.
Q: These are both human concoctions. Why should we trust them?
A: As I said they were established directly by Christ…

Now you’re really rolling around in the mud. We’ve already been around this issue, haven’t we? And I’ve explained what the Church’s argument really is, and why it isn’t circular. And yet, ignoring what you’ve been explained, you go back to your tired old straw man. No, that isn’t the argument of the Church. Yes, if you want to damage your credibility, you’ll keep asserting that this is what you’ve been told.

In other words you are disqualified as a conversation partner

I’m crushed.

 

[macska]

Two thoughts:

• are all ancient texts “mythology”, in your worldview?
• if not, then what makes an ancient text a “mythology”?
• moreover, how do you reach the conclusion that the Bible is merely “mythology”?

Short of good explanations of these leaps of logic of yours, it seems that your assertions are non sequiturs…

Start with this one, if you have problems with the word “mythology”:

Mythology

Myths are a part of every culture in the world and are used to explain natural phenomena, where a people came from and how their civilization developed, and why things happen as they do. At their most...

www.worldhistory.org

 

[Gorgias]

Start with this one,

I’d rather start with your answers to my direct questions, if you don’t mind:

• are all ancient texts ‘mythology’?
• if not, then what distinguishes an ancient text as being ‘mythological’.

Take your time. I’ll be waiting.

 

[macska]

are all ancient texts ‘mythology’?

No. Many are just stories for entertainment, like the Iliad or Odyssey, or Gigamesh. They are not “ashamed” to present themselves as stories, or tales, and do not pretend to be historically correct descriptions of some events. And some are probably the descriptions of actual events. Before you can try to inquire about the difference between these categories, how do YOU distinguish where a certain text should be placed. And don’t try to turn the table. It is your “turn” to answer.

if not, then what distinguishes an ancient text as being ‘mythological’.

The ones which deal with mythological entities, gods, demons, angels and other imaginary beings - the kinds of beings that do not appear in nature. For example: Scylla and Charybdis, or giants, dragons etc…

Now, since I dutifully answered your question, here comes mine: “what is that ‘starting’ point in your mind, which can be used to substantiate the so called miracles, and for which there is ONLY some biblical evidence and NO historical evidence?” Resurrection, walking on water, turning the water to wine… etc. Of course every competent stage magician can perform such tricks.

The stories of the antiquity are totally useless except for their entertainment value. The Latin phrase: “Historia est magistra vitae” only means that it is a very good idea to learn from the past events, especially the past mistakes, but that does apply to fairy tales.

 

[EndTimes]

Occurences during Old Testament / Old Covenant / Mosaic laws… Era… are history…

Jesus in completing the laws - brought them to perfection…

Read: Matthew - Chapters 5 through 7 complete

 

[Gorgias]

The ones which deal with mythological entities, gods, demons, angels and other imaginary beings - the kinds of beings that do not appear in nature.

OK – so look at what you just did there. (It’s called “begging the question”.) You just asserted that the definition of mythology is a story dealing with mythological entities. (And then you blithely categorize anything spiritual as ‘mythological.’) You very literally just defined out of existence anything you don’t want to deal with. And that’s “intellectual honesty”?!?

“what is that ‘starting’ point in your mind, which can be used to substantiate the so called miracles, and for which there is ONLY some biblical evidence and NO historical evidence?”

Two thoughts:

• first, there is scant historical evidence for nearly all the historical claims of antiquity. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• biblical evidence is identical in form to other written evidence of antiquity. so, if you want to disparage biblical eyewitness evidence, you have to explain why it is less valuable than other eyewitness evidence from antiquity.

With that in mind, my answer is: a starting point is the eyewitness evidence recorded in Scripture. Just as you believe it is ‘mythological’, I believe it is the Word of God. It comes from the words of Jesus Himself, recorded in Scripture by the eyewitnesses to the events. The written account of an eyewitness is not an unreasonable starting point.

The stories of the antiquity are totally useless except for their entertainment value.

And, 2000 years from now, people might use that same claim to ‘prove’ that you and I never existed – except as ‘mythological’ characters. Hopefully, though, humans will have advanced beyond such silly anachronisms by then.

 

[macska]

You just asserted that the definition of mythology is a story dealing with mythological entities.

Yes. I could have said: “imaginary” entities. Better? Mythological == imaginary. “Spiritual” is not even defined.

first, there is scant historical evidence for nearly all the historical claims of antiquity.

And none of them matters. Not even the ones for which we have physical evidence, like the eruption of some volcanoes. Yes, there is physical evidence for the eruption of the Vesuvius. So what? Who cares?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Incorrect. Absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence. Time for you to learn the difference between “proof” and “evidence”. Really, high time!

With that in mind, my answer is: a starting point is the eyewitness evidence recorded in Scripture.

I asked if you have some extra-biblical evidence. You could have saved time by admitting, that there is none.

It comes from the words of Jesus Himself, recorded in Scripture by the eyewitnesses to the events. The written account of an eyewitness is not an unreasonable starting point.

And where is the evidence for that? In the Bible. And how do we know that the Bible is reliable? Because it is asserted by the church. And how do we know that the church is reliable? It is based upon the biblical records. And how do we know???.. the poor dog keeps chasing its bushy tail.

And, 2000 years from now, people might use that same claim to ‘prove’ that you and I never existed – except as ‘mythological’ characters.

Our existence is of no account.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. I could have said: “imaginary” entities. Better? Mythological == imaginary. “Spiritual” is not even defined

Again: your assertion of “imaginary” entities begs the question. But hey… nice try, especially since you think the Church’s own arguments are circular!

So what? Who cares?

Apparently, not you, who are the sole arbiter of what is ‘history’ and what is ‘imaginary’…

I asked if you have some extra-biblical evidence.

Are you sure about that? I don’t think so:

Now, since I dutifully answered your question, here comes mine: “what is that ‘starting’ point in your mind, which can be used to substantiate the so called miracles, and for which there is ONLY some biblical evidence and NO historical evidence?”

Nope. You didn’t. Nice try at revisionism, though.

And how do we know that the Bible is reliable? Because it is asserted by the church.

No. Because it contains eyewitness accounts, attested as such by its authors. Really… this is fundamental. Keep up.

Our existence is of no account.

So… if you assert that your existence is without value, then what does that say about the value of your arguments…?

 

[macska]

So… if you assert that your existence is without value, then what does that say about the value of your arguments…?

My arguments are not just “mine”. And they survive me.

 

[Gorgias]

My arguments are not just “ mine ”.

Here’s a clue-by-four: they’re not even yours. They’re of those people who have come before you. You just accepted them and think they’re true.

(And just so that you don’t accuse me of being unfair: neither are mine. But, mine come from Jesus. So… let’s talk about the relative value of the conflicting arguments…? )

 

[Barnesy]

macska:

My arguments are not just “ mine ”.

Here’s a clue-by-four: they’re not even yours. They’re of those people who have come before you. You just accepted them and think they’re true.

(And just so that you don’t accuse me of being unfair: neither are mine. But, mine come from Jesus. So… let’s talk about the relative value of the conflicting arguments…? )

Did jesus make up all the stuff he said himself?? Some one said that stuff he said had already been said before. Like treating people nicely and dont steal things. Which is great!! We should treat people nice like he said. But some one else must have already said that.

 

[Gorgias]

Some one said that stuff he said had already been said before.

Well… that’s convincing.

But some one else must have already said that.

The Golden Rule? Sure. But everything Jesus said? OK… I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: but please substantiate that claim.

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

Some one said that stuff he said had already been said before.

Well… that’s convincing.

But some one else must have already said that.

The Golden Rule? Sure. But everything Jesus said? OK… I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: but please substantiate that claim.

I dont know. You know more than me. I should read more what he said! But which arguments are jesus arguments that you use??

 

[Gorgias]

But which arguments are jesus arguments that you use??

The ones attributed to him in the Bible!

 

[macska]

Here’s a clue-by-four: they’re not even yours. They’re of those people who have come before you. You just accepted them and think they’re true.

(And just so that you don’t accuse me of being unfair: neither are mine. But, mine come from Jesus. So… let’s talk about the relative value of the conflicting arguments…? )

What evidence can you provide for the miracles attributed to Jesus?

The ones attributed to him in the Bible!

And the merry-go-round continues. Which parts of the Bible actually describes the events correctly in a historically precise manner? And how do we know it?

 

[macska]

Nope. You didn’t. Nice try at revisionism, though.

One is six, the other is half a dozen. What is the difference?

 

[Gorgias]

Which parts of the Bible actually describes the events correctly.

Well, now you’re talking apples and oranges, aren’t you? You can’t really make a direct comparison between the events recorded in the Old Testament and those in the Gospels, and expect your skepticism of the former to be relevant to the latter, do you?

At the very least, the timing of the compositions of these books and their authorship mitigate against simple dismissive criticism!

What evidence can you provide for the miracles attributed to Jesus?

Eyewitness, in writing. What kind of evidence do you want to propose is reasonable for an event that took place 2000 years ago?

 

[macska]

Well, now you’re talking apples and oranges, aren’t you? You can’t really make a direct comparison between the events recorded in the Old Testament and those in the Gospels, and expect your skepticism of the former to be relevant to the latter, do you?

According to the believers they are ALL God’s unchanging word. So yes, I can make a direct comparison.

Eyewitness, in writing.

Who were those eye-witnesses? Did they have actual last names? What was their genealogy? Where did they live? When did they write down their testimonials? What other texts have they penned? Who were their lectors?

What kind of evidence do you want to propose is reasonable for an event that took place 2000 years ago?

That is precisely your problem. In other words, you have nothing. But, as I said before… these claims are irrelevant.

 

[Gorgias]

According to the believers they are ALL God’s unchanging word. So yes, I can make a direct comparison.

OK – so, the Gospels were written by (or dictated by) eyewitnesses to the events. Their reliability comes from their provenance, and not later inclusion in the canon of the Bible.

Who were those eye-witnesses?

They are named in the Gospels which record their witness.

Did they have actual last names?

Seriously? Are you going to ask for their Social Security numbers, too?

When did they write down their testimonials?

Scholars date their Gospels variously. This is antiquity, after all. What’s important is that the dates corroborate their testimony.

What other texts have they penned?

Umm… you realize that authorship in the 1st century AD is a bit different than in the 21st century West, right? There were no Rowlings or Clancys back then, who made their living from authoring books for a mass audience. C’mon, now… quit being so anachronistic!

Who were their lectors?

“Scribes”, I think you mean. Mark was the scribe for St Peter and Luke was a companion of St Paul.

That is precisely your problem.

Actually… no. If there’s no reasonable expectation for physical evidence, then “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” To take it a step further: if there is no reasonable expectation of the ability to find physical evidence, then the demand for physical evidence is itself unreasonable.

 

[macska]

OK – so, the Gospels were written by (or dictated by) eyewitnesses to the events. Their reliability comes from their provenance, and not later inclusion in the canon of the Bible.

Any evidence? No? I thought so.

Scholars date their Gospels variously.

Keep remember this. Eye-witnesses are supposed to have been living in the same years as the events. The Rowlings and Clancys do not try to peddle their fictional stories as historically accurate descriptions of some events.

Since you refer to scholars, remember that the “names” in the Gospels do not refer to actual people. The analysis of the texts point to different authors within every gospel.

“Scribes”, I think you mean.

No, I mean those independent lectors, who made sure that the text correctly reflects the events.

Actually… no. If there’s no reasonable expectation for physical evidence, then “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

You really ought to learn the difference between “proof” and “evidence”. Absence of evidence is ALWAYS a very strong evidence of absence. So you know that there is only hearsay. That is a perfect place to stop.

What makes your “attitude” even more dishonest is that you dismiss ALL the other religions’ sacred texts as irrelevant.

Of course you are always welcome to “ask, and it will be fulfilled”, or “knock and the door will be opened”… just let us know in advance, where we should send the TV crews in anticipation of the next “miracle”.