John Chrysostom on Penal Substitution

It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22.) And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

Source:

• NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3, v. 13.

(HT: Pr. David T. King)

Is the “Ayah of the Sword” Really as Militant as it Sounds?

In a discussion regarding the a context of Sura At-Tawba, one of my Muslim colleagues linked me to an article[1] supposedly explaining verse 5, the famous “ayah of the sword,” as it is often called. I would like to review and critique the article to see whether the case that it makes holds any water. Quotes from the original article are in underline.

When the Islamic state was rapidly expanding in the seventh and eighth century, many people came under the direct governance of Muslims. These peoples belonged to different religions, races, ethnicities, etc. If the hypothesis that "Muslims are required to eradicate non-Muslims or "infidels" was correct, then a pattern of deliberate extermination, forced conversions, and/or expulsion would have been observed throughout the history of Islam, especially when Muslims were powerful and winning over their opponents.

That systematic pattern is simply absent. For example, let us take India. India (or considerable parts of it) was for several centuries under the Muslim Mughal Empire. Many of the subjects of the empire, up to and including very high-ranking state officials, were Hindu. (This does not mean that Hindus lived under no discrimination whatsoever. But this is another issue.) Till now, India is a predominantly Hindu country. The facts on the ground belie the hypothesis that Muslims have believed that non-Muslims should be killed, evicted, or forced to convert.

It’s pretty hard to deny that there was a lot of conflict between Hindus and Muslims ever since Islam first came into the Indian subcontinent. After all, that is the reason why today we have India on the one hand and Pakistan and Bangladesh on the other. As historian Will Durant has noted: “...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.”[2] Winfried Corduan notes: “The relationship between the Hindu population and the Muslim government was perpetually hostile.”[3] The reason why Hindus by and large have been able to preserve their heritage is because unlike most other subjugated peoples, the Hindus were very nationalistic and chose to fight back rather than allow themselves to be cowed into submission (no puns intended).

Case in point: Early on in the history of the Sikh religion, the tenth Guru Gobind Singh commanded all male members of the Khalsa order to carry the Kirpan (dagger or sword). To this day we still see Sikhs doing this, although back then they actually did use the Kirpan to fight rather than just carry them for ceremonial purposes. Why? Because the Sikhs used their swords to counteract Muslim aggression; many Sikhs at the time were being harassed and killed by their Muslim overlords, which forced them to fight back. The reason why Sikhism still exists today is because its followers chose to militarize rather than give in to Islamic intimidation.[4]

Another example: in contemporary Egypt, which was included in the Islamic state only ten years after the demise of the Prophet, about 6-10% of the people are Christians.

And it used to be a whole lot higher prior to the Islamic conquest in the seventh century. Don’t even get me started on the numerous human rights violations that go on in Egypt, because that could be an essay in and of itself.

Contrast this with Spain. For about eight centuries, Spain was a place of peaceful co-existence for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. (Again, I am not, at all, claiming that everyone enjoyed the same rights under the Arab/Muslim ruling.) However, in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella signed the Edict of Expulsion designed to rid Spain of its Jews. The Jews were given a stark choice: baptism or deportation. An estimated 50,000 fled to the Ottoman empire where they were warmly welcomed. And about 70,000 converted to Christianity and remained in the country only to be plagued by the Inquisition which accused them of insincerity. In 1499, the Spanish state gave its Muslims the same choice: convert or leave. The result of these policies was simple: Spain almost entirely got rid of millions of people who were not Christians. (Spain now of course has minority groups, including Muslims coming mainly from North Africa as immigrants.)

Islamic Spain, admittedly, did have a track record of being more tolerant than most other Muslim regimes (relatively speaking). However, this is the exception to the rule, and for the most part Jews have faced a lot of death and oppression at the hands of Muslims (remember the Banu Qurayza?). There is a theological reason for this: There is a hadith where Muhammad is reported as saying, “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him” (Sahih Muslim 41:6985).[5]

Also, Brown University professor Andrew G. Bostom recently published a 766 page volume entitled “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History,” which documents the numerous references to oppression and mistrust of Jews that are to be found all over Muslim tradition and history. This is also proved by the fact that the recent increase in Muslims in France has resulted in an increase in the number of attacks against French Jews and synagogues, along with an increasing number of French Jews leaving France to find safety in Israel, with a similar trend being reported in other European countries that have high rates of Muslim immigration as well.[6]

The list goes on. Investigating history clearly shows that most (saying “all” cannot sustain historical scrutiny) Muslims have never believed that they are under obligation to exterminate non-Muslims, or as non-Muslims refer to such people as "Infidels". Of course, it would not be scholastic to say non-Muslims, at many times, enjoyed "full citizenship" (though this term is an anachronism in the context discussed here) but compared to other locations, minorities were significantly better off under Muslim ruling, when Muslims were in fact capable of inflicting severe harm on non-Muslims, especially if we were to acknowledge the absurd notion of Muslims ambition to “kill the infidels...”

Which just makes you wonder why civil rights’ violations and martyrdoms of non-Muslims are a constant throughout all of Dar al-Islam. I can point to killings, kidnappings and other such atrocities being committed by Muslims from as far west as Morocco to as far east as Indonesia, as well as very other country in between those two. If Islam is such a peaceful and tolerant religion, why is it so hard to be a Jew or a Christian in any of the 50 plus Muslim majority countries that exist today? If this claim was true, these countries should be at the top when it comes to tolerance and freedom of religion.

I’m going to skip over the discussion of the word “infidel” because it’s a red herring; it really doesn’t matter to me what word one uses. In fact, I myself will avoid the use of the term and prefer the Qur’anic words “kafir” and “mushrik.”

In the modern era, some Muslim people participated in the genocide of non-Muslims, such as the Armenians by the Turks and the East Timorese by the Indonesians. However, these killings were undertaken by secular regimes for nationalistic reasons. I do not think anyone can claim, for instance, that Ataturk, the father of the secularized Turkey and the abolisher of the Islamic caliphate, oppressed the Armenians (and the Greeks), to rid Turkey of them, in the name of Islam.

Funny enough, one eyewitness report by a Turkish soldier states that the genocide was carried out under the fatwa of a leading Islamic sheikh at the time who stated that it was lawful to kill the Armenians.[7] This underscores the religious element behind the massacre. So, if the genocides against the Armenians and Greeks were carried out for nationalistic reasons, then why is it that the Muslims in Egypt, Mesopotamia and North Africa (which were also under the rule of the Ottoman empire) remained relatively unmolested? Is it a mere coincidence that the Turks targeted Christian Greeks and Armenians and yet spared the Muslims in the aforementioned lands? Highly implausible.

Also, the thesis that the attacks upon the East Timorese by the Indonesians were motivated by nationalistic reasons is contradicted by the fact that other Indonesians who are not Muslim (or are not recognized as such) frequently experience the exact same kind of treatment. A good example of this is a recent incident where three members of the Ahmadiyya sect (which claims to be Muslim yet is regarded as heretical and thus non-Muslim by most Sunnis) have been killed by a mob of 1,500 Sunni Muslims.[8]

(1) The Quran is not classified subject-wise. Verses on various topics appear in dispersed places in the Quran and no order can be ascertained from the sequence of its text. The first verses revealed in the Quran was in chapter (surah) 96.

(2) The structure of the Quran makes it necessary to approach it using the dialectic "both and" methodology of reasoning. This means that to investigate a certain issue, the verses pertaining to the issue should be gathered together. The verses are then analyzed comprehensively while paying attention to the historical context (in Islamic terminology called the "occasion of revelation") of each verse. The truth is considered to be found in all the relevant verses, because if the Quran is divine as the vast majority of Muslims believe, it should be free from real contradictions and inconsistencies. Apparent contradictions are not only reconciled and transcended but are thoroughly investigated because they actually reflect deep meanings and paradigms. (This is akin, for example, to the process of understanding the Chinese idiom, “a man is stronger than iron and weaker than a fly.” Although the wise saying is superficially self-contradictory, it reveals a deep fact about humans who, in some situations, are very strong. Yet, in other contexts, these same people are very weak.) If the reductionist approach to the Quran is valid, then all ideas, from violence to absolute pacifism, can be justified and rationalized using the Quran.

That is only if one does not take into account the doctrine of the abrogator and abrogated (al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh). Simply put, if a later verse says the total opposite of an earlier verse, the later one takes precedence and abrogates the earlier verse. This is taught in the following Qur’anic verses:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? (Sura 2:106)

When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not. (Sura 16:101)

For more information on this doctrine, see Abdullah Al Araby’s article “The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation.”[9] Most of the relevant information concerning which verses abrogate which can be found therein. Also, it is worth looking at a chronological ordering of the suras in order to know which ones come earlier and which ones come later.

For the Quran does not only contain verses about war, it is also replete with verses about forgiveness and countering evil with good.

(3) The same Quran that reads, "Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you" (2:194), also reads, "Goodness and evil are not the same. So repel evil with goodness, then the one who had enmity between you becomes a trusted and dear friend" (41:34).

The key to understanding these verses is to read it in light of Sura 48:29 (which is a very late sura and thus has precedence). In it, we read: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.” Related to this is a tradition where Muhammad is reported as saying, “Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.” (Sahih Muslim, 26:5389)[9]

So does Islam promote mercy and forgiveness? Only if you’re a Muslim, since believers are commanded to be compassionate towards one another (unless one apostatizes, since Muhammad also said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” in Sahih Al-Bukhari 9: 84:57). However, if you’re a Dhimmi, then an entirely different set of rules apply. For example, the punishment for murdering a Muslim is death, yet we have a hadith which reports that “no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)” (Sahih Al-Bukhari 9:83:50). There are so many more documents expressing the same sentiment, but to highlight the oppressive nature of Dhimmitude would again require an essay in and of itself.[10]

When it comes to dealing with a transgressor, the Quran is basically delineating four different strategies, the validity of which is contingent on the situational and contextual factors. The first is retaliation which is permissible on the condition that it does not exceed the limits. Verse (2:194) is clear on this, "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." Verse (16:126) gives the same meaning, "and if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted." Verse (3:134) gives the other three strategies, "and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and God loves the doers of good to others." The three methods given here are, (a) to restrain one's anger and not respond, (b) to pardon the wrongdoer, and (c) to do good to the transgressor. According to verse, method (c) is the most beloved by God. Here the Quran teaches the superiority, in the sight of God, of responding to evil with goodness. Now what should the Muslim do when wronged? It depends on the context, on the situational factors. Under some circumstances, the wrongdoer must be punished. Under others, one should refrain from retaliation, or go a step further to wholehearted forgiveness, or even repel the transgressor's evil with goodness. The above is important for explaining how to deal with the Quranic text.

(4) The Quranic principle for dealing with the 'other' non-Muslim is clear from verses (60:8-9), “God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of your religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice. God only forbids you respecting and loving those who made war upon you on account of your religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up others in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.” The Quran does not present Islam as a religion of unquestionable pacifism or relentless aggression. Those who do not transgress should be treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect.

And yet we have numerous examples throughout the ahadith and in Islamic history where those who do not transgress are not “treated humanely and benevolently with complete respect.” Again, I will not go into examples, as they would be too many to count.

Those who transgress should be fought, “And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors,” (2:190). In other words, Islam is a religion of peace, not in the sense that it is pacifist, but in the sense that Muslims can and should co-exist peacefully with others who respect them. Neither transgression is permitted nor forcing others to espouse Islam as the Quran says, “there is no compulsion in religion,” (2:256).

The problem is that since the Qur’an came in stages, there was a stage when only defensive fighting was allowed, but in the later period this policy was changed and offensive warfare became permitted. As one famous hadith puts it:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah” (Sahih Al-Bukhari 1:2:24).

Also, the verse which states “there is no compulsion in religion” is generally regarded by Muslim scholars to have been abrogated by later verses (such as those in sura 9). Again, see the aforementioned article by Al Araby.

(5) Based on the above, we can now investigate verse (9:5), "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." One of the main concerns of Chapter (Surah) 9 of the Quran (a Surah is a collection of verses) was to delineate the strategies for dealing with the polytheists of the Arabian Peninsula after the Muslims, under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad, peacefully captured Mecca (In January, 630, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his followeres were joined by tribe after tribe along their way to Mecca. They entered Mecca without bloodshed and the Meccans, seeing the tide had turned, joined them.) the city that since the beginning of Islam lead the oppression and persecution of the Muslim converts.

(6) Since the polytheists differed in their relationship with the new religion after its victory, there was a need to differentiate between the malevolent enemies of Islam bent on destroying the Muslims and who did not observe their treaties with the Muslims, those who hated Islam but were willing to honor their treaties with Muslims, those who rejected Islam but peacefully co-existed with the Muslim community, etc. The aforementioned verse (9:5) was concerned with the most vehement opponents of the Islamic faith not by virtue of their refusal to be Muslims but by continually breaching their treaties with the Muslims and fighting them. Given that, their treatment is not equal, the complete verse says, "So when the sacred months have passed away, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and keep them under observation, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely God is Forgiving, Merciful.” Meaning: so when the grace period (4 months) is past, and if the other party insists on fighting Islam, then a state of war is inevitable. The struggle may take the form of killing, or capture and imprisonment, or just keeping an eye on these enemies to fend off their evil if they decide to launch an offensive against Muslims. The punishment should be fair and just and, thus, must be proportional to the crimes actually committed. Not only this, but the pagans can repent and accept Islam, as evident from the last part of (9:5), or desist from attacking Muslims and ask for protection, as evident from the next verse (9:6), “If one amongst the pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.”

The problem with this explanation should be obvious: At this point in time, Muslims had already dominated Mecca, so the pagans were in no position whatsoever to launch any kind of offensive against the Muslims. Also the Tafsir by Ibn Kathir paints a different picture. He states that when the verse says “fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them,” this means “on the earth in general.” Unless we make the implausible hypothesis that every pagan around the world had declared war on Islam, this could not possibly mean defensive jihad only.

Further on, he writes: “[D]o not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.” That does not sound like defense to me. Mentioning verse 6 doesn’t really prove much since it only applies to Pagans who are willing to convert to Islam; for those who aren’t, the above-mentioned mandate still holds. As Muhammad again said: “Two deens shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs” (Malik’s Muwatta 45:5:17). Yes, very tolerant.

Sura 9:5 is called the “ayah of the sword” for a reason: It authorizes complete unmitigated warfare against Dar al-Harb. This is evidenced from reading the rest of the sura, particularly the following ayat:

Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers (verse 14).

It is He Who hath sent His Apostle with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it) (verse 32).

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed (verse 73).

But the Apostle, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper (verse 88),

O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him (verse 123).

Remember: We’re talking about just one sura. Similar statements can be found in other places as well, and their frequency increases the later in time one goes.

Understanding the verses' historical context is crucial, not to confine them to their context, but for a proper comprehension of their implications. Moreover, as shown previously, the verse must be interpreted along with all the other verses explicating how a Muslim should deal with others, Muslim or non-Muslim, including verse (8:61), “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in God; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

Sura 8 was revealed during the earlier defensive phase, which is right around the beginning of the Medinan period. Remember once again that the later passages take precedence. Ironically, that little piece of “historical context” proves the exact opposite of what is being claimed here.

The worst thing to do with the Quran is to approach it seeking confirmation for what one already believes in and turning a blind eye to any evidence that is inconsistent with his/her pre-conceived attitudes and biases. Anyone can find in the Quran whatever he/she wants to prove. Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible. The challenge, however, is to make a judgment only after a thorough and exhaustive investigation of all available Quranic evidence.

I agree. However, as I have just shown, the historical context behind Sura At-Tawba only worsens the impact of these verses, especially when one takes into account the various ahadith and commentaries that expand upon and clarify these passages.

End Notes

1. “Kill the Infidels, Surah 9:5.” Muslim Access. http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp.
2. Quoted by Nosostro, Rit in “Hindu-Muslim Conflict and the Partition of India.” Hyper History. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t3w30pakistanindia.htm.
3. Corduan, Winfried. Neighbouring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998. 261.
4. Ibid., 264-265. Interesting note: Of the ten gurus of Sikhism, two of them (Arjan and Tegh Bahadu) were killed by the Muslim emperors of their day, and the tenth guru, Gobind Singh, was assassinated by a Muslim henchman.
5. All Hadith quotations are taken from “The Hadith Database.” International Islamic University of Malaysia. http://www.iium.edu.my/deed/hadith.
6. Ye’or, Bat. Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005. 25-28.
7. Baas, Sayied Ahmed Moukhtar. “First-hand account by a Turkish army officer on the deportation of Armenians from Trebizond and Erzerum, December 26, 1916.” Armenian National Institute. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/br-12-26-16-text.html.
8. Maala, Abdul Musawir. Ahmadiyya Times. http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2011/02/indonesia-3-ahmadi-muslims-killed.html.
9. Al Araby, Abdullah. “The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation.” Islam Review. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml.
10. Bat Ye’or has written four well-researched scholarly books on this topic which are well worth obtaining and reading for more information on Dhimmitude. These are: The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996), Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001) and The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom (Deror Books, 2010).

The Spirituality of Tertullian

This is a short summary of the spirituality of Tertullian that I had to write based on a lecture on early Christian spirituality delivered by David Robinson from Westminster Chapel (the one in Toronto, not the one in London). I submitted this to Dr. Michael Haykin yesterday.

Tertullian is widely considered to be one of the earliest of the Latin church fathers. He comes from Carthage, North Africa. This region was originally settled by the Phoenicians (who came to be known as the Punics), and has been under Roman occupation since the second century B. C., towards the end of the Punic Wars, and was resettled during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Christian missionaries arrived in Carthage sometime around the second century from either Rome or Asia Minor (though more likely the latter, since Tertullian appears more Antiochene in his thinking), and it was witnessing the martyrdom of these early Christians that drove Tertullian to convert to Christianity.

This early church father has received a bad reputation from many scholars who are critical of his writings and the way he expresses himself. He is regarded as being sarcastic, anti-philosophical and misogynistic. The fact that he converted from orthodox Christianity to Montanism is also used as grounds to criticize him. However, once one is able to get past these criticisms, one can see a lot of merit in his character. He is very gospel-centered, is passionate about upholding the truth, is a deep thinker and a humble man (who considers himself to be “someone of no rank”). He is also a good rhetorician and can write in both Greek and Latin (although it is only his Latin writings that have survived). He is also highly influenced by Irenaeus of Lyons.

Tertullian’s writings can be classified into three main categories: Apologetics, refutation of heresy, and doctrinal/moral instruction. All of these writings were produced as a response to a specific movement or event that took place during his lifetime. For example, his most famous work was a five-volume refutation of the heretic Marcion. This work is considered to be a classic example of Tertullian’s writing, and demonstrates his wittiness and sharp rhetorical skills when addressing important issues. Tertullian refutes Marcion by taking the latter’s own canon and demonstrating that its contents support orthodox Christianity rather than Marcionite dualism.

In his writings, Tertullian displays the profundity of his thought. For example, he saw scripture as the Vox Domini (voice of God), was a very avid proponent of Old Testament typology (for example, if it had anything to do with wood, he connected it to the cross), and considered the Old Testament to be full of sacramenta (mysteries). His theology was quite word-centered; he believed that the Bible was at the centre of the life of the Church. He also argued that the Bible was the unique property of the Church, and only “holy persons” (whom he most likely would have equated to prophetic figures, not the bishops and presbyters). He is an important witness when it comes to the canon of scripture, since he quotes virtually all of the New Testament books except for the second and third epistles of John. He argued against Roman persecution, stating that it only caused more people (such as himself) to convert to Christianity. He demonstrated the superiority of Christianity over the pagan religious systems, demonstrating for example, the unique simplicity of baptism over and against the pomp of the pagan rituals. His treatises on moral instruction set the pace for many Christian writers to come after him. A prominent example is his writing on Patience, which was the first treatise of its kind in Christian literature, and was picked up in the writings of later church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo. Perhaps most significantly, he was also the first to use the term Trinitas to refer to the nature of the Godhead, describing God as being one substantia but three personae.

It is generally believed that Tertullian had converted from orthodox Christianity to “The New Prophecy”(today known as Montanism) around 206 or 207 A. D., although some have suggested that he merely had sympathies for the sect, and did not actually become a member of them. This sect, having been founded during the early 170s in Asia Minor by Montanus and the two “prophetesses” Prisca and Maxmilla, was very charismatic (putting much emphasis on prophecy and ecstatic utterances), disregarded ecclesiastical authorities, and put high value on martyrdom and asceticism (hence the description of Montanism as the “Church of the Martyrs”). Tertullian’s adherence to Montanist distinctives is seen most clearly in his ecclesiology; for him, the Church was God’s pure bride, and it did not have room in it for sinners. This is seen in his arguments against the admission of adulterers and fornicators back into the fellowship of the Church after they have committed grievous sin. This rigorist stance was common among many North African Christians, as seen not only in Tertullian, but also in later North African Christians such as Cyprian of Carthage and the Donatist movement. Also, for Tertullian, the Church wasdefined by the presence of the Holy Spirit, and criticized the mainstream Church for neglecting the gifts of the Spirit. He demonstrates this in his treatise against a Modalist from Rome by the name of Praxeas. In it, he accused the latter of “crucifying the father and putting to flight the paraclete.” Finally, he regarded the Church as “the people who anticipate the Kingdom,” which points to his inaugurated eschatology.

In summary, Tertullian can be said to be one of the most interesting characters of the Christian period. He is very witty in his writings, is very forceful in making his points and argues quite well, even when it turns out upon closer examination that his views are wrong. Through the influence of his writings, he set the pace for future Latin church fathers (especially North African ones) to come.

Weird Stuff People Say on Youtube

What you are about to read is a recording of a dialogue I recently had with a fellow on Youtube named "paisleyatlarge." This is just an example of how Youtube acts as an internet ignorance aggregator. His assertions obviously have no merit to them whatsoever, but I wanted to toy around with this fellow a bit to see what kind of utter nonsense he would spout. Here are his initial comments (with my initial rebuttals):

There was an apparition of jesus a few years ago, His face miraculously appeared on a wall of an old abandoned gas station down in Mexico. The devout came from far and near, prayed, sang, lit candles, incense, made dedications, promises, and had vigils. One evening a man went up to the magic image and rubbed it with his finger. Some of the white wash came off, and revealed that underneath was an old poster advertising a Willie Nelson concert.

An Interesting anecdote, but says nothing at all about the truth or falsity of the Christian faith.

Mormonism, xtianity, they are all man-made. xtianity was made up on command of Constantine by the council of Nicea, and did not exist before then. It was all made up including the story of jesus. You can study the historic evidence yourself, if you look up legitimate historians rather than xtian apologists.

Can you please explain to me the writings of such the ante-Nicene Fathers such as Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, etc. who all taught what Christians today believe long before Constantine came along?

His response to my initial comments (with my rebuttals):

The very popular gnostic ideas of "christos" goes back at least til 200bce but was not what people think of today as "christ" (un-bodied spirit). The closest ideas were possibly Ireneus, because he was the most irrascibly aggressive, his ideas gained ground. The teachings of Marcion, original fragments of "Mark" there was IS CHRESTOS, (IS later changed to IES or IESU, jesus, no "j" in alphbet then, and CHRESTOS (good, helpful, useful) rather than CHRISTOS (annointed).

What "original" fragments of Mark are you talking about. The oldest manuscripts of Mark that we have are widely available (they can be viewed online at csntm.org) and they read nothing like what you just claimed.

IS CHRESTOS wasn't born, was sort of a 'ghost' that appeared to save us from god (jehovah) who created all the material world, was less skilful, bad actally, than the new unknown god of love IS. Marcion also edited the letters of Apollonius into being the letters of 'paul', to create the first xtian scriptures (as well as fleshing out the myth of jesus with the life of Apollonius). For all his trouble, he was excommunicated by the Romans, but they kept his book, was all they had!

Although it is true that Apollonius lived around the same time as Paul and the NT writers, the main body of Apollonian belief didn't develop until centuries later, and did so as a response to the spread of Chrsitianity. So if any borrowing took place, it would actually have been the other way around. Not only that, but I defy you to provide me with any credible historical source that says Paul's letters were originally Apollonius'.

Eusebius changed Marcions scriptures to IES (jesus) to attract the popular joshua cults, to CHRISTOS to draw in remaining gnostic, therapeuts & essenes, the astrotheological aspects of Egypt, etc. for the pagans, to create the myth to unify the nation. That was way too little space for not nearly enough info, no room to reference, so only a VERY bare skeleton. I hate to do that. Really, you or anyone else can study this on your own, the catholic encyclpdia online's a good source. And with a humble heart I gratefully give you most profound thanks for being so kind and astute to not mention "The Antiquities of the Jew", by Josephus.

Are you relying on the primary sources or what some secondary source tells you? These patristic writers' sources are available online (ccel.org). I've read them myself, and the reality there is nothing like what you just claimed.

But I'm on a roll... the "pre-nicene fathers" are naturally very important for the church which tries desperately to draw a tenuous thread between them even back to 'polycarp' who was supposed to know 'peter', trying to produce history for their version of christ, who with all he was supposed to have said and done, acclaimed to have been so widely known, not a single contemporary historian of his area even mentions him by name. Nor paul. Pre-Nicene fathers believed a hodgpodge.

That's a lot of assertions, but nothing that I can find from any credible historical source. Got any citations to back those up?

The third wave of assertions and rebuttals:

Apollonius biography of his VERY LONG and fruitful life wasn't written until around 200 (I think) and is the longest biography written of an historical person of that period. Have you read it? Surely it is not totally historical or factual, a good book, but reeks of the fabulous, and Damis is the "gullible" foil for Pol's wisdom. His legends were known far and wide, to the point of apotheosis, his temple was in Tyana, and his legend, 'beliefs' developed after he died.

I don't question that there was a historical figure named Apollonius. However, I do find it rather telling that you have no problem with accepting a biography that was written a century after he died [Note: Apollonius died at approximately 100 A.D.], while at the same time rejecting the Gospels which took much less time (20-60 years) to be written.

But before his "beliefs" were developed, he had actually left direct letters behind, purchased by the wealthy businessman/bishop Marcion, who edited them (in reverse order) into being the letters of "paul". The earlest fragmensts of "mark" also reflect the teaching of Marcion, pointing to him as probable author (and that would be the 'gospel' spoken of in the letters of paul)

More assertions without evidence. Would you care to link us to any source that will provide the original text of Apollonius' letters so that I and anybody else who is interested could examine the texts for ourselves?

Anyone can see that Apollonius and "jesus" are two very completely different stories, two men both with very different beliefs. But you can see how the life of Pol and memory of his legend easily added flesh to the myth of jesus. Also, most the emperors didn't like pol nor his followers for the most part, so only a tiny part of pol's ca 100 years for jesus, perhaps leading to the idea "if all he said and did was written down, the world wouldn't be big enough to hold the books

I think that rather than proving that 'paul's' letters were originally Apollonius (a real historic person,but they were edited by Marcion) it might be best if SOMEONE would finally prove to us and the rest of the waiting world of history that there EVER was such a person, such an INFLUENTIAL and highly regarded person, as 'paul of tarsus', who magically managed to leave no more historic foot prints than did 'jesus'.

No historian worth his salt denies that there was a historical figure named Paul. Since we mentioned the apostolic fathers, several of them (such as Clement, a noted elder of the church of Rome who is mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3) knew the apostle in person. Unless you want to deny that Clement and the other apostolic fathers existed either, there is really no question that there was indeed a man named Saul of Tarsus.

When you deal with someone who starts denying that the apostle Paul was a real historical figure, you know that you are dealing with a complete loony. I shall relent from posting any more of the (evidently fruitless) youtube dialogue at this point.

Why I Believe - The Testimony

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.

(1 John 1:1-2)

I was recently posed with the question of how I know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now, for a pretty short question, I must admit that there are so many things that need to be said regarding this topic. More than I could fit within a two hour timeframe (which is the amount of time I took to write this little article), so I shall try as best as I can to answer this question that was given me. Lord willing, I shall try to "give an answer for the hope that is in me" (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). I know that my mind is limited, so may this be a good starting point for further study on this topic.

Now, I want to say that there are two aspects to my answer to this question. There is the objective aspect, and then there is the subjective aspect. I shall deal with the objective aspect first:

Look again at the passage which I quoted at the beginning of this passage. The apostle John talks about that which he has heard and seen. Many of the world's religions (especially Eastern religions) focus on the esoteric and otherworldly, with no objective grounds by which we can determine whether they are true or false. Christianity is very different from that. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ, the eternal Word by which all things were created, came down to earth, lived as a flesh-and-blood human being amongst us, died, rose again three days later and ascended into Heaven. The Bible that we have today was written down primarily to provide us with a witness to what happened during those thirty-odd years that our Lord walked upon this earth (true, it speaks of many other things as well, but ultimately Christ is the centre of divine revelation). I believe that the Bible is God's Word because God has used the written Word to bear witness to the living Word. As the author of Hebrews put it, "in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world" (Hebrews 1:2).

Whether the Bible is to be recognized as the Word of God depends on whether it truly gives us a reliable and sufficient witness to Jesus' life and work. After all, if this is God's Word, then we should expect it to provide us with a truthful account of the primary object of revelation. Did Jesus really die on the cross and return to life three days later? If not, then the Bible is little more than an interesting museum artifact that we can spit upon and poke fun at. But if He indeed rose from the grave, then He is vindicated in all that He has claimed for Himself as the "Son of Man" who is "seated at the right hand of Power" (Mark 14:62). Paul said as much when he wrote,

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

(1 Corinthians 15:12-19)

The idea, of course, is that this is not the case, for as he goes on to explain, "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:20-21). Earlier in the same chapter of the same epistle, he speaks of the resurrected Christ appearing to many witnesses, including himself (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). What this indicates is that the Resurrection is not just some abstract concept that mortal men devised. Most of the men who wrote these scriptures actually saw the risen Christ. Some of them (such as James and Paul) were skeptical about the Christian claims and yet came to faith in spite of their predisposition to disbelieve in the Gospel. This would make no sense if they did not truly encounter the risen Christ. It would be absurd: These men had everything to lose and nothing to gain unless they truly experienced what they claimed to have experienced. They were willing to suffer persecution and die for the sake of this testimony. If these men were just "following cleverly devised tales," as Peter put it in 2 Peter 1:16, then we have no way of making heads or tails out of how they acted. Simon Greenleaf, a prominent American lawyer writing in the nineteenth century, points out how weighty the testimony of the apostles really is. Writing as a lawyer who examines the truthfulness of their accounts based on the rules of legal evidence, he writes,

The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them.

Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency.

It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so cross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication.[1]

We can produce endless theories to explain away the events that occurred (and many skeptics have attempted to do just that over the past two centuries), but the fact is that none of these explanations hold water. Only the Christian worldview can account for the fact that the apostles were transformed from doubters and cowards into brave spirit-filled evangelists who would go out to distant lands and proclaim what they knew to be true, even to the point of death. To again quote Greenleaf:

All that Christianity asks of men... is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.[2]

When all is said and done, we may find that what is written in the Bible is vindicated as being true. B.F. Westcott, the great biblical scholar who started the great tradition of modern New Testament textual criticism, put it succinctly:

Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than he resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.[3]

In summary, I believe the Bible to be God's Word based on the truthfulness of its testimony. The men whom He used to pen it down had no reason whatsoever to invent their stories, and the many alternative explanations that those who disbelieve in the bible have put forward all fail to account for all the facts and explain why things happened as they did, leaving the Christian message as the only possible explanation.

And now I come to the subjective aspect of my reason:

We must understand that although the historical events recorded for us in the Bible are empirically verifiable, there are some aspects that you can't verify through analysis of facts. This is the case with the inspiration of scripture. I can tell you what the Bible tells about itself:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

(2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV)

But how do you "prove" this to be true? In one sense, you can't. It's not as though you can conduct some sort of scientific experiment that can detect whether the words of the Bible have God's Spirit in them. But this does not automatically mean that we take what the Bible says on "blind faith." As I asserted in the earlier part of this writing, there are many grounds by which we can know the objective reality of what scripture says. I think the point is captured best by the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer when he wrote this analogy on how faith works:

One must analyze the word faith and see that it can mean two completely opposite things.

Suppose we are climbing in the Alps and are very high on the bare rock and suddenly the fog shuts down. The guide turns to us and says that the ice is forming and that there is no hope; before morning we will all freeze to death here on the shoulder of the mountain. Simply to keep warm, the guide keeps us moving in the dense fog further out on the shoulder until none of us have any idea where we are. After an hour or so, someone says to the guide: "Suppose I dropped and hit a ledge ten feet down in the fog. What would happen then?" The guide would say that you might make it till the morning and thus live. So, with absolutely no knowledge or any reason to support his action, one of the group hangs and drops into the fog. This would be one kind of faith, a leap of faith.

Suppose, however, after we have worked out on the shoulder in the midst of the fog and the growing ice on the rock, we had stopped and we heard a voice which said: "You cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I am on another ridge. I have lived in these mountains, man and boy, for over sixty years and I know every foot of them. I assure you that ten feet below you there is a ledge. If you hang and drop, you can make it through the night and I will get you in the morning."

I would not hang and drop at once, but would ask questions to try to ascertain if the man knew what he was talking about and if he was not my enemy. In the Alps, for example, I would ask him his name. If the name he gave me was the name of a family from that part of the mountains, it would count a great deal to me. In the Swiss Alps there are certain family names that indicate mountain families of that area. For example, in the area of the Alps where I live, Avanthey would be such a name. In my desperate situation, even though time would be running out, I would ask him what to me would be the sufficient questions, and when I became convinced by his answers, then I would hang and drop.

This is faith, but obviously it has no relationship to the first instance. As a matter of fact, if one of these is called faith, the other should not be designated by the same word symbol. The historic Christian faith is not a leap of faith in the post-Kierkegaardian sense because "he is not silent," and I am invited to ask the sufficeient questions in regard to details but also in regard to the existence of the universe and its complexity and in regard to the existence of man. I am invited to ask the sufficient questions and then believe him and bow before him metaphysically in knowing that I exist because he made man, and bow before him morally as needing his provision for me in the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Christ.[4]

One final point that I must make: I am a Reformed Christian. Being Reformed, I do not believe that people come to have faith in Christ as Lord and in the Bible as the Word of God because of superior intellectual arguments, clever philosophical syllogisms or historical proofs (although God can and certainly does move through these things). Because of the depravity that exists within every human heart, the only thing that can truly convince the unbeliever to believe is the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, since "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3), and "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6).

So, to the unbeliever who reads this, whether you are an Atheist, a Muslim, a Jew or whatnot, I pray that the Holy Spirit may move your heart to consider these things carefully, and press upon you the truthfulness of God's Word.

End Notes

1. Greenleaf, Simon. The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by The Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1965. pp. 28-30.
2. Ibid, p. 46.
3. Westcott, B.F. The Gospel of the Resurrection. London: Macmillan, 1868. pp. 4-6.
4. Schaeffer, Francis August. He Is There and He Is Not Silent. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1972. pp. 99-100.

Fisher vs. Hackenslash (on the Reliability of the New Testament)

This is a transcript of a debate that I had in the Urban Philosophy chat channel a little less than a year ago against a Richard Dawkins fanatic by the name of "Hackenslash" (who stopped coming to Urban Philosophy after a falling out with Mitchell LeBlanc). This is the debate that really kick-started my misadventures as an amateur Christian apologist. I have blogged this before, but for easy reference, I am reposting the debate transcript here on my blog.

My comments are in green, Hack's comments are in yellow, everybody else's comments are unshaded.

Finally, if anybody wants a copy of the debate notes I used for this debate, post a comment with your email and I'll send it to you.

=====

A transcript of the debate between Fisher (Christian) and Hackenslash (Atheist).

July 8, 2009

Debate Transcript (urbanphilosophy.net)

Is The New Testament Reliable?

Affirmative: Fisher

Negative: Hackenslash

=====

Fisher

I would like to begin my presentation with a quote from Drs. Norman Geisler and William Nix:

The influence of the Bible and its teaching in the Western world is clear for all who study history. And the influential role of the West in the course of world events is equally clear. Civilization has been influenced more by the Judeo-Christian Scriptures than by any other book or series of books in the world.

(Source: Norman Geisler and William Nix. General Introduction to the Bible. p. 196)

The Bible undoubtedly has its place in history. It is especially significant as it is a book that billions around the world place their faith in. In particular, the New Testament tells the story of the man Jesus Christ: A man whose influence in history has been so great that 2.2 billion people around the world profess to believe that He is the son of God.

But is this story true? In the past two centuries, there has been an intensified debate over whether it is right for us to put our faith in the scriptures. The question has been posed over and over again, with new arguments and new evidence being brought to the table as our knowledge increases. I would like to present the evidence that supports the Christian position.

To show that these are well-documented and scholarly facts, I will include references to show where the information comes from, so that others may verify them for themselves, not to mention that I rely on well-trained and well-educated scholars and historians. I would contend that the facts as presented can only be explained by the Christian worldview.

First, I would like to go through the manuscript evidence. Some have suspected that the New Testament text is so far-removed from the events that they cannot be trusted as eyewitnesses. On the contrary, the manuscript attestation to the events of the Gospels is second to none. As biblical scholar K.A. Kitchen explains:

Among works of classical (Greek and Latin) literature, the writings of the New Testament–4 gospels, 21 letters, the history of Acts and visions of Revelation–have a manuscript attestation second to none, and superior to most. No one blinks an eyelid at depending for the Latin text of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars (Composed within 58-56 BC) upon manuscripts all of which are 900 years later than Caesar’s time, only nine or ten of the manuscripts being good textual copies. No-one doubts that we still read the real text of the works of Herodotus or Thucydides (450 BC), even though the oldest available full manuscripts (only eight or so) date from 1,300 years later!

For the New Testament, how different and how vastly superior is the manuscript evidence. Some 5,000 Greek MSS (whole or fragmentary) are known, not a mere eight or ten. The most notable MSS are the Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of c. 350 AD–only 250 years after the end of the New Testament period (100 AD), not 900 or 1,300 years! Older still are the Chester Beatty and Bodmer biblical papyri, including six new Testament MSS of the second and third centuries AD, only 150 years after the New Testament period.

Further back still, there is a Rylands fragment from a manuscript of John’s Gospel (18:31-33, 37f.) datable by its script to about 130 AD–little more than a generation after the New Testament period itself. As this fragment came from Egypt, it is evident that John’s gospel had been composed, recopied and begun to circulate well beyond Palestine before 130 AD. Hence, on this evidence alone, it must have been composed (at latest) by 90/100 AD, and more probably earlier.

(Source: Kenneth Anderson Kitchen. The Bible and Its World. p. 131.)

Also: The fidelity of the New Testament text rests on a multitude of manuscript evidence. Counting Greek copies alone, the New Testament is preserved in some 5,656 partial and complete manuscript portions that were copied by hand from the second through the fifteenth centuries. (Source: Norman Geisler. General Introduction to the Bible. p. 385.)

And if you add manuscripts that were translated in other languages (Latin, Coptic, Syriac and Armenian), then you would have between 25,000-30,000 manuscripts in total.

(Source: Daniel Wallace. The Case for the Real Jesus. p. 83.)

If you are going to cast doubt on the textual reliability of the New Testament, then you might as well be consistent and cast doubt on the reliability of every ancient writing prior to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century, since no other book is as well attested to in such a large number of manuscripts as the New Testament.

Next, I will head on to the subject of the New Testament canon, and I will only deal with this topic briefly, lest Dan Brown type conspiracies regarding the NT Canon start coming up. It is a common misconception that the Council of Nicea decided that the New Testament would have four gospels. On the contrary, the Nicene canons do not cover the topic of the canon at all. In fact, the fixed canon of four gospels has been recognized since the second century. Irenaeus, writing in 180 AD, attests to this when he writes:

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.

(Source: Irenaeus of Lyons. Adversus Haereses. Ch. XI.)

Renowned biblical scholar Bruce Metzger confirms this when he states:

When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn’t derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early church merely listened and sensed that these were authoritative accounts.

For someone now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, ‘Let’s get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.’ I would say, ‘Thank you for nothing! We knew that before the pronouncement was made.’ We know it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the canon. 0:54

(Source: Bruce Metzger. The Case for Christ. p. 68.)

Next, I will cover the extra-biblical corroboration for Jesus and His ministry. One must understand that due to the area that Jesus grew up in, it is not likely that that many would take not of Him. Yet, what we do have from non-Christian sources is in and of itself quote noteworthy.

For example, there is the testimony of Flavius Josephus, as found in book 18 of his “Antiquities of the Jews.” This passage has caused quite a lot of controversy over the decades, with some sceptics going so far as to declare the entire passage as a forgery, but I think this is going a bit too far. Anyway, here is the text from Josephus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [, if it were lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ,] and 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 [;for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

(Source: Flavius Josephus. Antiquities. Book 18, chapter 3.)

Now, the bracketed portions are probably later interpolations, as they are not characteristic of Josephus’ writing. Besides that, however, the rest of the text is generally considered to be authentic. As scholars have said before:

“Few have doubted the genuineness of this passage.”

“Today there’s a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations.”

(Source: Dr. Edwin Yamauchi. The Case for Christ, p. 79.)

One thing is certain: The Testimonium cannot be dismissed as a late fabrication. The text is quoted in its entirety by fourth-century Church historian Eusebius in his History of the Church. Eusebius was a meticulous scholar, who thoroughly researched his sources. Despite his obvious enthusiasm for defending and furthering the Gospel, there is no evidence he wilfully used fraudulent source material to prove his point. 0:55

(Source: Timothy J. Dailey. Mysteries of the Bible: Exploring the Secrets of the Unexplained. p. 190)

Finally, it is noteworthy that there are no manuscripts of Josephus’ antiquities that do not have this passage. Thus we can be certain that truly does belong there. So here we have established the authenticity of the passage in general. What does that lead us to conclude? John Meier writes:

Read the Testimonium without the [bracketed] passages and you will see that the flow of thought is clear. Josephus calls Jesus by the generic title “wise man.” Josephus then proceeds to “unpack” that generic designation (wise man) with two of its main components in the Greco-Roman world: miracle working and effective teaching. This double display of “wisdom” wins Jesus a large following among both Jews and gentiles, and presumably—though no explicit reason is given—it is this huge success that moves the leading men to accuse Jesus before Pilate.

(Source: John Meier. The Testimonium: Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible. p. 23.)

It is also noteworthy that elsewhere in his Antiquities, Josephus mentions James, the half-brother of Jesus:

..so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…

As far as I can tell, nobody doubts that the passage regarding him is authentic. Given this account of Josephus talking about “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” it shouldn’t be surprising at all for him to refer to Jesus and the Christian movement.

And then there are these events, which reportedly took place during Jesus’ death:

It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. (Luke 23:44, ESV)

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. (Matthew 27:51, ESV)

Interestingly enough, these events are corroborated by pagan sources:

Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 A.D., reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was “the greatest eclipse of the sun” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.”

(Source: Paul Maier. Pontius Pilate. p. 366.)

There is also a certain quote by a historian from 51 A.D. by the name of Thallus. Although the original copy of his work is lost, it is quoted in the writings of Julius Africanus in 221 A.D. Julius quotes:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent down by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.

(Source: Julius Africanus. Chronography. Chapter XVIII, 1.)

Thus, we see that a significant event that occurs at the moment of the crucifixion is recorded for us in two different pagan sources. Surely this should be enough to convince even the most ardent sceptic that the events of the crucifixion are historically grounded

Now, there is then the testimony of Jesus’ burial in the tomb, and the fact that it had been found empty 3 days later: events which as far as I know are well-attested to by both Christian and Jewish witnesses, not to mention most recognized scholars and historians up until now. Paul Maier writes:

Where did Christianity first begin? To this the answer must be: “Only one spot on earth-the city of Jerusalem.” But this is the very last place it could have started if Jesus’ tomb had remained occupied, since anyone producing a dead Jesus would have driven a wooden stake through the heart of an incipient Christianity inflamed by His supposed resurrection.

What happened in Jerusalem seven weeks after the first Easter could have taken place only if Jesus’ body were somehow missing from Joseph’s tomb, for otherwise the Temple establishment, in its imbroglio with the Apostles, would simply have aborted the movement by making a brief trip over to the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea and unveiling Exhibit A. They did not do this, because they knew the tomb was empty. Their official explanation for it-that the disciples had stolen the body- was an admission that the sepulchre was indeed vacant. (Source: Paul Maier. “The Empty Tomb as History,” Christianity Today, vol. 19, March 28, 1975. p. 5.)

However, it is not the empty tomb that convinces the disciples of Jesus that He is risen (with the possible exception of John). This is where we arrive at the post-resurrection appearances. These are recorded by the apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians, where he writes:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 5:3-8, ESV)

Now, sceptics often explain away this account by saying that everybody in question merely experienced hallucinations. This is the explanation championed by noted atheist philosopher Richard Carrier, who states this:

I believe the best explanation, consistent with both scientific findings and the surviving evidence…is that the first Christians experienced hallucinations of the risen Christ, of one form or another…In the ancient world, to experience supernatural manifestations of ghosts, gods and wonders was not only accepted, but often encouraged.

(Source: Richard Carrier. The Spiritual Body of Christ. p. 184.)

However, despite what Carrier would have you believe, the hallucination theory is not “consistent with both scientific findings and the surviving evidence.” The theory does not explain why the sceptical half-brother of Jesus or the anti-Christian Saul would experience hallucinations of that type. Moreover, it is extremely improbable that 500 people would simultaneously experience the same illusion. As renowned psychologist Gary Collins explains:

Hallucinations are individual occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given hallucination at a time. They certainly aren’t something which can be seen by a group of people. Neither is it possible that one person could somehow induce a hallucination in somebody else. Since a hallucination exists only in the subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it.

Thus, I would conclude, along with Dr. Gary Habermas, “That these different individuals in each of these various circumstances would all be candidates for hallucinations really stretches the limits of credibility.”

(Source: Gary Habermas. Beyond Death. p. 120.)

Thus, we see this string of facts and evidence that taken as a whole, provide a solid testimony for the Christian faith. I do not think that the naturalist worldview can explain all of these facts with anywhere near the same level of clarity, consistency and persuasiveness as the biblical worldview. If the atheist chooses to balk and deny the faith that has been once for all delivered to the saints, he does so at his own risk, for in doing so he runs against the entire testimony of history. Thank you.

Hackenslash

I am going to be arguing on one premise, and providing instances from the NT that show that, as a historical document, it cannot be relied upon. And then I will briefly rebut Fisher’s opening. Is that OK?

Clock on.

I would argue that any source, without independent corroboration of specific statements, cannot be relied upon as a historical source.

So, in order to present my case, I figured I’d go straight for the jugular. In order to show that the NT is an unreliable source without critically robust independent support, it becomes suspect in terms of its actual veracity.

I only need find one instance of contradiction to cast doubt on the veracity of the stories.

So, we’ll start with genealogy

Matthew Chapter 1 V. 6-16. 29 Generations from David to Jesus. Luke C 3 v. 23-31, 43 generations. Between those two lists, only three names are in concurrence.

When Christ tells his disciples where to go after the resurrection: Matthew 28:10 and Mark 16:7 say Galilee, while Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4 say he tells them to stay in Jerusalem.

In the book of John alone, between only two chapters, John flat out contradicts himself, saying in 3:22 that Jesus was performing Baptisms, while in 4:2 he says it was only the disciples who were performing them

I have done a quick sketch in bullets to rebut your opening.

1. Your opening was a massive argumentum ad populum. The influence of a work is no guide to its veracity, so that’s a massive non-sequitur before you even begin.

2. No argument that the bible is a historic document, following on from that and through your opening. Historical, however, is not the same as historic.

3. Argument from manuscript. Contemporary sources only, please/

4, Josephus. Any interpolation renders the whole document suspect

5. Critically robust sources please for the suspension of the natural laws, i.e. miracles.

7. Argument from improbability re hallucinations. Group hallucinations are a known phenomenon.

Fisher

First off, I’m glad Hack pointed out the genealogies example

It’s one of the most famous arguments. In fact, I used it myself back in my agnostic days, but it can be quite easily explained.

Ben Witherington writes:

It has been traditional to assume that Matthew’s genealogy traces Jesus’ lineage through Joseph (his legal genealogy), whereas Luke’s genealogy traces his lineage through Mary (his natural genealogy). [This solution finds] support from the fact that the Matthean birth narrative focuses more on the role of Joseph than of Mary, while Luke’s narrative makes Mary the more central figure in the drama. It also comports with the ancient conjecture that Joseph is ultimately the source of much of the Matthean birth narratives, while Mary is the source for most of Luke’s material.

(Source: Witherington, Ben III. The Birth of Jesus. p. 65.)

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe expand upon this in their book “When Critics Ask,” where they write:

[The genealogies] are two different lines of ancestors, one traced through His legal father, Joseph, and the other through His actual mother, Mary. Matthew gives the official line, since he addresses Jesus’ genealogy to Jewish concerns for the Jewish Messiah’s credentials which required that Messiah come from the seed of Abraham and the line of David (cf. Matt. 1:1). Luke, with a broader Greek audience in view, addresses himself to their interest in Jesus as the Perfect Man (which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:38)…

..Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was “as was supposed” (Luke 3:23) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary’s genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel which has been called “the Gospel for Women.”

(Source: Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. p. 385-386)

Also, the John 3 and John 4 thing is not a contradiction either. It’s pretty easy to simply say that since Jesus works through His disciples, whatever the disciples are doing is attributed to them in general.

As for the Galilee/Jerusalem discrepancies: Is Jesus even talking to the same groups of disciples? Given the number of them, it’s most likely that some were stationed in Galilee, while others remain in Jerusalem.

Finally, I’d like to address this idea of “word-for-word” correspondence, as it is terribly anachronistic and misleading.

The inspired truth of Scripture does not depend on word-for-word agreement among all biblical manuscripts on or between parallel accounts of the same event.

In the first place, the notion of word-for-word agreement is a relatively recent historical development. “In times of antiquity it was not the practice to give a verbatim repetition every time something was written out.” To b e sure, I don’t believe that one passage of Scripture ever directly contradicts other passages. Yet, when someone asks, “Does everything in Scripture and in the biblical manuscripts agree word-for-word?” that person is asking the wrong question. The answer to that question will always be a resounding no.

(Source: Timothy Paul Jones. Misquoting Truth. p. 31-32.)

The variations in the resurrection narratives tend to support, rather than undermine, their authenticity. They demonstrate that there were several independent traditions stemming from some event that must indeed have happened to give rise to them.

(Source: Paul Maier. In the Fullness of Time. p. 180.)

If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we really only have one testimony that everybody else is just parroting.

(Source: Craig L. Blomberg. The Case for Christ. p. 45.)

There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.

(Source: Simon Greenleaf. The Testimony of the Evangelists. Vii.)

Interestingly, hack has not at all addressed the pagan corroboration for the eclipse

or the earthquake, for that matter

And he claims that the entire Josephus text is suspect, which brings me to my question:

Do you know of any manuscripts that do not contain the testimonium? If so, provide a source for this. If not, then explain why you think a partial interpolation is tantamount to a total one (which goes against responsible historical scholarship).

Hackenslash

I will answer your question first, then I have some issues with your rebuttal.

I never said it was tantamount to a total interpolation, only that any interpolation renders it suspect as a critically robust evidential source.

Now, then. Group hallucinations and what we really know. We now that the human brain is an illusion generator par excellence. It can provide us with complete sensory input where there is none. It is also clear that all of our sensory input is tainted by our preconceptions, and by stimuli that we are not even aware of. May I direct your attention to this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1OVhlRpwJc

You can watch it later, but it deals with the influences on us that we are not even aware of.

hallucinations are subject to the same principles, and confirmation bias is a well-understood phenomenon.

Galilee/Jerusalem. You are making that up on the spot. These are different accounts of what he’s supposed to have said, and any conjecture on your part about what circumstances MAY have surrounded it does not support your argument, it supports mine. I only need reasonable doubt, remember.

OK, my question: If the genealogies were traced through different lineages (which would be interesting in and of itself, since Judaic practice always traced through the father), why do they both lead back to David?

Fisher

David did not have just one son. He had plenty of them. If you look closely, one traces His lineage through Solomon, the other through Nathan (not to be confused with the prophet of the same name).

Also, the bid about Judaic practices is irrelevant for one reason: Luke, the one who is tracing through Mary, is Greek. He is also writing for a Gentile audience. Thus, your parenthesis about Judaic practice is a complete non-sequitur.

Now, I would like to talk about the bit about hallucination

Hackenslash

Excellent, because now you’re getting into science.

Fisher

Group hallucinations do sometimes happen. However, from what I understand, they generally don’t hallucinate the exact same thing, and a crowd of 500 is pretty hard to influence that way

Also, It does not explain why Saul, the great persecutor of Christians, and James, the sceptical half-brother of Jesus, saw Him as well. If anything, they would be primed -against- seeing such hallucinations.

So my question is this: How do you account for James’ and Paul’s visions?

Hackenslash

Right, but we don’t have testimonies to their accounts, we only have the assertion that they were there. Further, recent studies on eyewitness accounts have shown major discrepancies

Interestingly, when my brother died many years ago, I saw him everywhere for the first few months. This is well-documented, and coupled with what I was saying earlier about hallucinatory stimuli, renders your points entirely moot. Further, to take your argument seriously, it would have to be axiomatic that miracles are possible, and that the natural laws can be suspended. I believe I asked for critically robust evidence for this in my opening. Care to address that?

Fisher

The problem with your question is that presuppositions make you rule out any possibility of suspension of natural laws. Thus, even if you were presented with the various such experiences that have been documented even up until recent decades (there’s a wide variety of examples: jewels falling from the sky, the Roman Catholic marian apparitions, Hindu statues drinking milk etc) you would dismiss them out of hand.

(Disclaimer: Just because I gave a certain example of a miracle doesn’t mean that I endorse it. Even if it is likely to be supernatural, I would disagree as to their origin, but that is an inter-theist debate, so I won’t go further into that.)

Also, arguing from a personal anecdote doesn’t count for much when a debate is in question, I think you know that. On that note, you may claim James and Paul are giving personal anecdotes. However, they, unlike you, had no motive or predisposition to hallucinate. It is also possible that they are lying, but why would they? Look what that got them: Nothing but persecution, humiliation and death

And now for my final question: I mentioned before that non-Christian sources documented the eclipse in Luke 23:44, not to mention the earthquake in Matthew 27:51. Do you dispute these corroborations? If so, why?

Hackenslash

No. No presuppositions. Here’s the thing, and this is the root of the scientific method. I investigate that which is evident. So, I see what is, and then I formulate a hypothesis, and then I test it. The rules of logic and science determine that I dismiss anything which a) has no explanatory power, b) is not supported by any critically robust evidence and c) constitutes any unnecessary assumption. There is no evidence, as far as I am aware, that such a suspension is possible, so it is discarded, until there is evidence to support the viability of such a hypothesis. This has not been forthcoming.

Further, your response constituted a complete evasion of my question. About that evidence…?

I will be happy to forego my last question, and give the floor to the audience, as long as I get an answer to my first question.

Fisher

Well, you can always look up the examples I gave you. The Jewels, the apparitions, the Hindu drinking statues.

I haven’t seen those things first-hand though, so I can’t speak for the ones who saw/heard them directly

Hackenslash

They can all be dismissed under the rubric of what I have presented, and the principle of the shaving implement of the late, lamented cleric of Norfolk

Fisher

Also, would you like to answer my final question as well?

I’d like to know what you think of Thallus and Phlegon

If you don’t feel like going through the transcripts, I can paste the quotes back up

Hackenslash

A tiny correlation. Further, I have made my case, because all I need is doubt to render your document suspect as a historical source. I leave it open to the judgement of the audience, since my objections were evaded, rather than answered, IMO.

ProoF

It’s like 3 parts

Hold on

Hack, is my understanding correct at you trying to argue that people were pretty much seeing things when Jesus appeared to them?

Or did I get that wrong

The 500

Hackenslash

I am arguing that it is one of many possible explanations that are not considered within the confines of the doctrine. Most of them have a degree of parsimony that far exceeds the biblical account.

So arguing for it against only one other is a false dichotomy.

There is a vast range of possible explanations, and most of the can be explained by group hallucination and the power of suggestion.

Does that answer your question?

ProoF

Okay. So my question is, would it be more plausible to argue that all of them were mistaken or seeing things, that includes sceptics. Or would it be more plausible that Jesus did really appear to them?

Hackenslash

False dichotomy. They could have seen someone who looked like Jesus. They could have been hallucinating. Some of them may WANT to have seen Jesus, which is a powerful suggestive force, and well documented.

The rest may be Chinese whisper, or broken telephone to our US cousins.

Parsimony is a valuable tool in discerning between hypotheses.

ProoF

That is fine. Thanks for answering. I came to my conclusion. Just needed to hear your input.

Hackenslash

So I can provide an explanatory example from multiple fields of science to support my contention. However, I have yet to see anything that would suggest that suspension of the natural laws is possible. Occam’s Razor wins

RazorsKiss

For both debaters: Hackenslash says that you only need a “reasonable doubt.” By what universal standard, applicable to another human being, and not merely to yourself, is something reasonable or unreasonable – such as a ‘reasonable’ doubt?

Fisher

Hack is arguing from a personal, subjective standard when he states things “reasonable doubt” and “absurdities.” Heck, even appealing to Occam’s Razor. All of this presupposes the Naturalistic worldview is true. However, I contend that Hack’s explanations for the evidence provided, rather than providing the most “reasonable” explanation, actually strains at the evidence.

For example

Hack says that a predisposition to want to see what the people who saw Jesus saw accounts for their hallucinations But, as I said before, Paul and James actually were predisposed AGAINST such hallucinations. Remember, the former was an opponent of Christianity before his conversion, and the latter was very sceptical of his own half-brother. Granted, they could have lied, but as I said, they have no reason to do so. It only resulted in their persecutions and death.

Hackenslash

You mean that they had motive for it not to have happened? This is precisely the thing I’m talking about. This gives enough stimuli to bring on a hallucination, and if you look at the study on witness testimony, you can see that these two combined can provide exactly the circumstances you describe. The working of the mind is increasingly well-understood.

They didn’t necessarily have to lie. They only had to believe. Argument from belief is just as fallacious as argument from popularity My first question has not been answered. I require critically robust, peer-reviewed material that suggests that miracles are possible. If that is not forthcoming, I think we’re done.

I would say that doubt is reasonable when a) the source is suspect in terms of i) veracity ii) tampering iii) corroborative contemporary evidence iv) provenance or b) i) source ii) motive.

The NT actually fails on most of these counts.

RazorsKiss

My question was: On what universal standard, applicable to any person, id something reasonable – such as doubt – the same question applies to each of your individual reasons listed. On what basis are those objective, not subjective?

Fisher

Well, if you want me to provide a quick answer to that

We have a set of facts and evidences.

Both sides have a set of presuppositions

My standard of reasonability would be which side’s presupposition can explain the facts better

Facts: I’ve mentioned the testimonies and statements of various persons, both biblical and extra-biblical, Christian as well as non-Christian.

Presuppositions: We both believe certain things about the world, even if those beliefs are non-religious or naturalistic.

So the question is whose worldview fits with the facts

Hackenslash

I have no beliefs of any description

Fisher

So……………………………………….. you’re a Nihilist?

Hackenslash

Nihilism, by the way, IS a belief. It is the belief that it’s all pointless.

I have a question:

What are these presuppositions I have, as per your earlier assertion?

Fisher

Hackenslash What are these presuppositions I have, as per your earlier assertion? <<<>

RazorsKiss

No, my question is: what makes any of those listed reasons reasonable descriptors of whether something is, or is not, reasonable?

Hackenslash

That is not a presupposition. It is an evidentially supported position. There is no reason to suspect that it is otherwise, especially since the scientific method has provided us with the only real answers we have ever had.

RazorsKiss

in other words – how do you decide those are valid descriptors of “reasonable? by what standard?

Hackenslash

RK, by the standard that they it is the only standard which has provided us with real, usable information about how the world works. It is simply a matter of standard of evidence. In my opinion, the NT doesn’t stack up, and there is enough doubt concerning its veracity to render it useless as a historical source. This was the central point of my opening, and one which my opponent has singularly failed to address. The other thing he’s failed to address is my request for evidence that a suspension of the natural laws is in fact possible. He has also failed to do this. All I need is sufficient doubt in the source, and my argument is made.

RazorsKiss

So, you don’t have an objective basis. Thank you.

Hackenslash

That IS an objective basis. It deals with only that for which reasonable evidence can be provided.

nickels

You mentioned a few lines ago that only science (i.e. the scientific method) can provide for us knowledge? Have I understood you correctly or is this a straw man?

Hackenslash

Although, give me a second. I have drunk much wine, and I need to see to the animals.

I didn’t say that only science can provide knowledge, so in a sense, yes. What I said was that the scientific method has given us the only way of looking at the universe with clear eyes, and has provided for us the world in which we can discuss these things over so many miles.

In other words, it is a mechanism by which we can know, while all other worldviews that have so far been advanced have only provided guesses and conjecture.

That’s not to say that it’s infallible in the short term, but the long term is process of refinement and revision, so it’s self-correcting, in a way that no other system of thought is.

nickels

Science by its very nature can only produce results. Those results have to be interpreted by the preconceptions of the scientist. For example, physics, as far as I know, relies heavily upon the theorems about Calculus developed by mathematicians. Mathematics, as opposed to science, starts off with an axiomatic system and reasons deductively, not inductively.

Therefore, science itself is subject to preconceptions. That’s not really a question, I know, but how would you respond?

Hackenslash

Science has only one preconception, and that is that we can know, if we keep looking. I can respond thus. Mathematics is axiomatic precisely because we understand the system that describes it. Science is not the same, as it deals with no axia.

That is why the word ‘proof’ is only applicable in mathematics. A proof is an axiomatic construct, ‘proving’ the applicability of certain axia. Hence, the axiom is that the summing of two integers give the product. The proof of that would be 1+1=2 That is what a proof is.

nickels

Technically, 1+1=2 is not one of the Peano axioms but rather is derived from them.

Hackenslash

And that’s why proof is not applicable in science, and why the highest an idea can achieve is ‘theory’. It is a proof of the axiom Do you see what I’m getting at? Anybody else have a question, or can we wrap up?

nickels

I believe so. However, we are still left with the conclusion that science is not the beginning of knowledge. Proper mathematics and logic must known first.

EmpireOfZombies

1. Hack, why do you consider Fishers argument is not reasonable? Summarize it, if possible.

2. Hack, Fisher provided many testimonies to support his argument. Is there any reason these do not support him or are irrelevant?

3. Hack, final question. can you give us an example of evidence that would lift reasonable doubt (for you) from Fisher’s argument?

Hackenslash

1. Because it is circular, in that it relies on the occurrence of miracles. Unless one can provide evidence that such an occurrence is possible, I have to go with the parsimonious explanation for these events. The demands of parsimony dictate that I rule out anything which constitutes an unnecessary assumption or cannot be supported by critically robust evidence.

2. They all constitute hearsay. The nearest contemporary source is Josephus. His work was pretty good in many respects, but unfortunately all of it is rendered invalid by the least suspicion of interpolation or tampering. Further, his second entry constitutes hearsay, which has been shown to be an unreliable source of historical data.

EmpireOfZombies

2. Why do they constitute hearsay?

Hackenslash

3. I answered this in my initial post. Provide critically robust evidence that a suspension of the natural laws is even viable for the consideration of scientists to look at.

2. Because they only talked about what other people believed or said concerning the events.

EmpireOfZombies

3. I was hoping for something more specific.

Hackenslash

More specific than ‘there is no critically robust evidence to support your postulate’? I don’t know how I can be much more specific than that. I would require a robust correlation with reliable contemporary diarists or historians that concurred with the bible. I would also require some evidence to support the ridiculous notion that miracles can occur, and that magic man is responsible. Neither of these has been shown to my satisfaction, and further, my opponent has singularly failed to answer my questions and objections.

EmpireOfZombies

Fisher. What do you consider an objective basis for determining anything? What do you consider reasonable evidence?

Fisher

EoZ, one thing I would like to stress is that we -all- have a certain way of looking at the world. The question is whether this way of looking at the world is consistent, both with itself and the facts. I have mentioned various facts, such as that various 1st century witnesses corroborate the testimonies of the gospel writers, not to mention the testimony of the gospel writers themselves. Of course there is the possibility that they are lying, misinterpreted the facts or have merely imagined what they wrote down. But the question is whether these accusations are warranted. As far as I see, they are not.

Hackenslash

Good questions, BTW.

Again with the facts. Where is the critically robust evidence for these ‘facts’?

EmpireOfZombies

I don’t agree with calling witness testimony factual.

testimony is just that.

A recount of their perception of what happened.

Which is entirely subjective.

Which does not answer my question.

I asked what your basis for objective reasoning was.

Fisher

Like I said, internal consistency and corroboration. Unless I’m interpreting your question wrong

EmpireOfZombies

It was a general question.

If you were looking at anything.

Not this specifically.

Third question. How is Hack subjective if subjectivity refers to emotions, feelings, and predispositions?

Fisher

Not sure where I called Hack subjective. BUT, I would say that some of Hack’s statements are subjective, such as his stating “believability” as a criterion for accepting or rejecting a certain account as true. Remember, what is believable for one person may be completely incredulous to another.

EmpireOfZombies

You did during the questions.

Someone asked a question and you specifically stated he was subjective.

Hackenslash

Which is precisely why I don’t do belief

Fisher

Ahh right, now I remember

And Hack, everybody believes certain things

Doesn’t matter whether those things are considered “religious” or not.

Hackenslash

No, I believe nothing. I can give you the full set, if you like, and a justification for my assertion.

Fisher

The question is whether those beliefs (and yes, I’m using that term broadly) can be corroborated

EmpireOfZombies

Yes. It’s actually the first question I had, but I saved it for last because it’s not exactly important compared to my other two.

Hackenslash

I have no beliefs. It is that simple: Beliefs are the eyelids of the mind – David Zindell

Fisher

Hack, am I real person, Hackenslash?

Hackenslash

Ah, the argument from solipsism is about to rear its ugly head

Fisher

It’s not that. What I’m saying is

You take it for granted that you are debating a human being, though this could easily be an advanced AI or a well-trained chimpanzee.

So if you say I’m a real person, that would be considered a belief.

Hackenslash

I have no critically robust evidence to suggest otherwise, and all the evidence from my interaction, and the interaction of those I know, is only a construct. That fails the principles as well, for the simple fact is that my assumption about the rest of the world being out there is evidentially supported, and doesn’t exceed the demands of parsimony. We have only consistency.

Fisher

“Belief – something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. ” -dictionary.com

Hackenslash

So to dismiss you as a real person, given your interaction, would fail the demands of parsimony, and leads only to solipsism, which can teach us nothing.

Hackenslash

You can quote definitions all you like. I did offer my justification, but you had already made your mind up that I was wrong.

Fisher

Gee, that’s one of the things right…

You constantly clamor for facts and evidence. Remember who it is that provided virtually all the references and sources during the course of this debate.

EmpireOfZombies

Fisher, there have been many psychological studies regarding the power of suggestion and hallucination. For example, if someone tells you a house is haunted, you are more likely to see a ghost in that house. These studies would argue against your point that scepticism provides a predisposition against seeing something not there. In regards to your original point that what they saw could NOT be hallucinations based solely on the fact of their scepticism, how would these studies stand?

Hackenslash

If you had taken me up on my offer of an explanation, you would have been more enlightened. Instead, you chose to decide what it means.

When we have hard evidence from reality, belief is superfluous.

You may have provided sources, but I had no need to provide much supporting evidence, because my point was entirely in the realm of logic, and required no support. Where it was required, I provided video evidence in support of my postulates. Your sources were all non-contemporary and hearsay, apart from the one source I focused on. And you singularly failed to answer my questions. In fact, you didn’t answer my first question, and you haven’t.

Fisher

Well, if merely seeing something is insufficient for you, Paul also went blind for three whole days after seeing what he saw. Can hallucinations cause blindness? Also, I’m not well-versed in psychology. From what I understand though, even if you can induce a large crowd to experience mass hallucinations, it is highly unlikely that they’ll see the exact same thing.

Hack, do you want to continue, or conclude?

Hackenslash

Blindness is a known trigger of hallucination. Perhaps there is a more parsimonious explanation…

I think we’re done.