Unanswered problem #1 (Scripture interpretation)

[warpspeedpetey]

No, I certainly do not think that the Bible describes those miraculous events accurately.

No, I wasn’t joking. You refused at every point to defend your “prerequisites” As though you are entitled to set the rules for a debate by fiat. It is clear that you don’t really want to debate, because you set impossible to achieve prerequisites and then refuse to debate them. I am happy to have the debate, just not according to your fiat. Let me demonstrate why.

To meet prerequisite #2

** 2) how he wished to substantiate that those prophecies were uttered as the Bible quotes them **

How could this one be met by anything less than a voice recording? An impossible standard.

3) how did he wish to substabtiate that the descriptions of the alleged fulfillment of the prophecies are accurate.

How could this one be fulfilled by anything less than a video camera?

Impossible standards, because the one thing you really don’t want to talk about is the math. You can’t deny that so you seek to deny everything else.

Now, going back to your claims: the gospels were written at least 40 years after the alleged events transpired.

Why does that matter? how does that effect the veracity opf what is written?

None of the authors are known.

We seem to have a pretty good idea.

Texual analysis showed that each of the canonic gospels is the work of several people.

Is there any proof of this? Or is it simply the opinions of people comparing texts?

It was the Catholic Church that selected which books shall be included in the Bible, and which ones were left out as apocripha. The selection process was conducted by taking votes.

Whats the problem with this?

There is no external corroboration of the events described the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of books, not one book. Each book in the collection is external to all the other books in the collection. They seem to collaborate eachother.

This is no different than a detective putting all the evidence proving a murder in a box and then the defense attorney saying, “is there any evidence for the murder other than the evidence in the box?” As though by virtue of being in a box, one can dismiss the validity of the evidence.

 

[inkaneer]

What Spock wants is basically what one might call [for lack of a better word] absolute proof. It’s the proof based on volumes of substantiated evidence. Unfortunately such a standard of proof is rarely obtainable outside of a scientific laboratory where the volumes of evidence needed can be substantiated through experiments that are reproduceable. This is the “gold standard” of proof. However, such proof is not required in other endeavors forthe simple reason that it is not obtainable. For instance, in criminal trials the standard of proof necessary to convict someone is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a far, far lower standard than the absolute proof of the scientific laboratory. In civil law the proof required is even less than that required in criminal cases. When we turn to archeology or other areas such as the Bible where reproduceable evidence is not available because it is impossible to obtain the standard of proof can not be the absolute standard that Spock desires. We can only do what is possible to be done with the evidence on hand.

So we have to ask the question that based on the evidence on hand does the Bible purport to provide an accurate description of the history that of the times. If so then we can accept it as historically accurate. Now should some evidence be obtained in the future that is at odds with the Bible then we need to question both the Bible and the new evidence to either reject one or the other or to reconcile the two together. The so called Ossuary of James the brother of Jesus comes to mind here. As we know that “evidence” contradicted the idea that Jesus was Mary’s only child. But as we all know the ossuary was proved to be a fake and criminal proceedings were instituted agains the purpetrators of the fraud.

To demand absolute proof of a matter when the matter does not lend itself to such a standard is foolhardy at best and totally illogical.

 

[PJM]

=Spock;7675148]I did not insinuate that Jesus was a “mere” legend. He might have lived as a person or might have been distilled from several people. But even if there was only one person with that name, the stories which describe his alleged god-like properties are unsubstantiated. Again, just because there are some details in the Bible which are historically accurate it does not follow that the rest is also historically accurate. Surely you see this?

Also you know (I hope) that the text in Josephus is widely regarded as a later addendum. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, and they never mention those incredible (literally incredible) miracles.

No, I certainly do not think that the Bible describes those miraculous events accurately. Of course the game is up. I do not have the expertise to prove that the Bible is historically incorrect. And it is not my job. If you wish to substantiate that the miraculous events described in the Bible can be taken historically, you need far more external corroboration than a dubious text from Josephus.

A long time ago I participated in a discussion where the other party claimed that he can prove mathematically (!) that the Bible is of divine origin, and he wanted to refer to the alleged predictions and their fulfillments. So I asked him a few questions: 1) which prophecies did he wish to include, 2) how he wished to substantiate that those prophecies were uttered as the Bible quotes them, 3) how did he wish to substabtiate that the descriptions of the alleged fulfillment of the prophecies are accurate. He refused to accept these prerequisites. As a matter of fact he demanded the opposite: namely that I accept the existence of all the allegedly fulfilled prophecies - without even telling me what they were. And he was not even joking.

Now, going back to your claims: the gospels were written at least 40 years after the alleged events transpired. None of the authors are known. Texual analysis showed that each of the canonic gospels is the work of several people. It was the Catholic Church that selected which books shall be included in the Bible, and which ones were left out as apocripha. The selection process was conducted by taking votes. There is no external corroboration of the events described the Bible. No archeological evidence can substanitate events, only places.

My friend here is how to get the proff you desire?

Google: Eucharistic Mircales… If we are honest with ourselves; mircales hapen every day. Why do the sun and moon change places daily? How can a human being be part physical [our bodies] and part Spiriual Mind, Intellect, freewill an souls are all Spiritual Things; were do they come from an how does every human person come by them?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To demand absolute proof of a matter when the matter does not lend itself to such a standard is foolhardy at best and totally illogical.

That’s what I keep trying to point out. It is literally illogical because the empirical standard of evidence is self refuting. I should have a thread up about it in a while.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I did not insinuate that Jesus was a “mere” legend. He might have lived as a person or might have been distilled from several people. But even if there was only one person with that name, the stories which describe his alleged god-like properties are unsubstantiated. Again, just because there are some details in the Bible which are historically accurate it does not follow that the rest is also historically accurate. Surely you see this?

So, which parts of the Bible are unreliable? No, wait…let’s make this a little easier. Which parts of the New Testament are unreliable?

Also you know (I hope) that the text in Josephus is widely regarded as a later addendum. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, and they never mention those incredible (literally incredible) miracles.

“Widely regarded”? And why would historians of the mighty Roman Empire concern themselves with religious squabbling among the citizens of one of its backwater territories?

The New Testament cannot be trusted because there is no mention of Jesus in Roman histories? Hmmm…is this an argument from silence?

No, I certainly do not think that the Bible describes those miraculous events accurately. Of course the game is up. I do not have the expertise to prove that the Bible is historically incorrect. And it is not my job. If you wish to substantiate that the miraculous events described in the Bible can be taken historically, you need far more external corroboration than a dubious text from Josephus.

Well, I could claim home court advantage; IOW, this is a Catholic forum, so if you want to DISPROVE the Bible, the burden of proof if on you. But I won’t.

We can get into all that if you want, but this thread has “#1” in its title…I suspect that you have a second or third problem you want to get to sooner rather than later. Your call.

Now, going back to your claims: the gospels were written at least 40 years after the alleged events transpired. None of the authors are known. Texual analysis showed that each of the canonic gospels is the work of several people. It was the Catholic Church that selected which books shall be included in the Bible, and which ones were left out as apocripha. The selection process was conducted by taking votes. There is no external corroboration of the events described the Bible. No archeological evidence can substanitate events, only places.

Wow. That’s a pretty big pitcher of Kool-Aid you have in front of you there, Spock, and it’s obviously not your first, is it?

Are we done with your question about the Catholic Annotated Bible at this point?

 

[Abba]

None of those have been substantiated.

How have they not been ‘substantiated’?

And at least one, the first one you mentioned: “Lourdes” is a “recurring” phenomenon, subject to statistical analysis. No analysis shows anything “miraculous”.

How is Lourdes subject to statistical analysis? What happened at Lourdes and Fatima and Guadalupe happened when it happened. Those events are not like scientific** theories** that are awaiting data to be proven or dis-proven. Those events occurred just like when Comet Halley orbits the sun every 75-76 years. Last time Comet Halley orbited the sun was February 9, 1986. Our Blessed Mother Mary appeared to Saint Bernadette On February 11, 1958 for the first time. These are events that occurred they are not scientific theories. No one is waiting for data to learn if indeed Halley went by in '86.

What do you mean that no analysis shows anything miraculous? Have you been to Nevers? Please go and go to Lourdes while you are at it. What about the Shroud of Turin and all the miracles that have occurred and continue to occurred to the present day at Lourdes? The scientists have concluded that there is no scientific explanation for the preservation of the incorruptible nor for the miraculous cures at Lourdes.

Saint Padre Pio

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/incorruptible-1.jpg

April 2008

There is a video here of films of some incorruptibles. ucatholic.com/videos/the-incorruptible-saints/

Take a look at this website and then tell me what you think: lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=417&id_rubrique=417

Hey Spock, tell me what you think about this movie. I really like it.
youtube.com/watch?v=hJxGpSMWPRI

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the point that I was making is that you seem to be treating the miracles and divine supernatural phenomenon recorded in the Bible as though these supernatural phenomenon no longer occur and are exclusive biblical claims. Which, of course, is not the case.

Peace,

Abba

P.s. regarding that argument about how you see the Bible just like any other book, well…that’s like being in the middle of a plague and considering a male doctor just like any other male…a man is a man is a man. Not quite… The Bible is NOT like any other book rather you like it or I like it or not. If I do not value or acknowledge something for what it is, how can I claim to have seriously consider it? There is a fallacy in there some where, I do not know the fancy Latin name for it, but, I detect a fallacy.

 

[guanophore]

Still, I have a few remarks and questions. I will accept the ongoing research, albeit with a grain of salt (2000 years passed by and the “research” is still not concluded?).

A testimony to the fact that the Revelation by God of Himself to mankind is ultimately unfathomable to us. We can spend a life, or a millenia learning, and will never plumb all the depths of God.

Nevertheless, even in this case there could be an ongoing edition with a large disclaimer, along these lines: “As of this moment, the inerrant, but not necessarily final Catholic position concerning the literacy of the Bible is: …”. And then it could be followed by the list of verses which are to interpreted literally.

This is one of the most absurd statements I have ever read.

The Faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. It did not cease to be whole just because some of it was written down.

Also, there is no equation between properly interpreting the Scripture, and “the literacy of the Bible”, whatever that is.

In the article it said that Romans 5:12 affirms the veracity of the story in Genesis. So is it an official stance of the Catholic Church that there was a "talking snake" there?

Yes. Of course. Don’t you always listen when there is a snake talking?

Also the article affirms that the Cathecism is the text to go by. Well, I looked at the Cathecism, and was unimpressed. It says that God’s existence can be known without resorting to faith, by referring to fully rational arguments.

What was it about that point that did not “impress” you?

The Catechism serves to instruct the faithful in the doctrines of the faith. From what perspective were you reading it? Were you trying to understand what Catholics believe, or were you wanting to be “impressed”?

Then I went to a list of dogmas (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm) and found:

1. God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)
2. The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

Two nice, and empty assertions.

I am sorry that these faith statements leave you empty. Were you expecting your emptiness to be filled by reading them?

Can be known "**how**"?

I think if you read it again, you will see that the answer is right there.

The meat of the argument is missing. Do they refer to Aquinas’ debunked “proofs” of God? Or something else entirely? There are no details in the Cathecism either. Why not?

They are found in Scripture. We believe that Scripture is an expression of the Divine.

And another question: Where can we find an official list of the dogmas? I found a few lists on-line, but are they “official”? I wonder, are the dogmas also part of an “ongoing research”? That would be really strange.

I think the Catechism is the surest norm of the doctrines of the faith available outside of the Scripture.

The Faith is a lifestyle and a world view, called in the NT The Way. It is impossible to reduce a way of life and world view to a “list”.