Is the Bible 100% truth?

[Carol]

Great discussion, Heretic :asian:

The issue is that we live in a society where, for example, a large segment of the population believes the world was literally created in six days some 6,000 years ago for no other reason than "the Bible tells me so". And, of course, if you disagree with them on this (or anything else that they hold "comes from" the Bible), then you're going to burn in hell. For these people, there is no understanding of allegory and metaphor in the text, or a recognition of the socio-historical context of the text. The precepts that condemn homosexuality are not understood as a social construction of a patriarchal-agrarian society, but as "eternal truths" handed down by "God".
By any other name, this is literalism and fundamentalism. And this is why we have to deal with nonsense such as forcing creationism and intelligent design in our science classrooms, attempted constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the erecting of religious monuments (i.e., the Ten Commandments) on the property of federal courthouses. All of the aforementioned movements are derived precisely from an intolerant and very literal reading of the Biblical text.

Make no mistake, I am not a supporter of fundamentalist behaviour....but I don't support intolerance that is pro-fundamentalist or intolerance that is anti-fundamentalist.

This strikes me as being a bit intolerant on the anti-fundamentalist side.

Fundamentalist Christians are not to solely at fault for persecution of gay people and other social misdeeds.

Gay people have been struggling for basic civil rights in all faiths. Had they not, Massachusetts and Canada wouldn't be making news with the issue. Of particular interest is that the Canadian parliament has MPs that are of a wider ethnoreligious background than our Congressmen are...and this has brought the debate in to many decidedly non-Christian religious enclaves...including non-dogmatic, non-Abrahamic faiths.

It is rigidity and intolerance that builds these walls. It takes an open mind, a warm heart...and sometimes a strong stomach to tear these walls done, but it can be done.

To me it seems that intolerant people are often angry about something. Angry people usually aren't very happy. But...when an angry person is around another angry person...the anger often intensifies.

When an angry person is around a peaceful, loving person, the anger often subsides...even when that angry person is a fundamentalist Christian....or an angry anti-fundamentalist Christian.

For tolerance to truly be tolerance, one must tolerate what one doesn't like.

 

[Stealth]

I said no since it is not 100% truth. But there is much symbolism. Also we must take into consideration that it was written by men thousands of years ago who did not have the understanding of the world that we have today. There should be no battle between religion and science. If God created everything, he did it through scientific methods.

 

[heretic888]

Great discussion, Heretic :asian:

Thanks much. :asian:

Make no mistake, I am not a supporter of fundamentalist behaviour....but I don't support intolerance that is pro-fundamentalist or intolerance that is anti-fundamentalist.

This strikes me as being a bit intolerant on the anti-fundamentalist side.

I tend to use "fundamentalism" in a rather broad sense as generally referring to ethnocentrism or sociocentrism. Also, I don't necessarily see this as "bad" as opposed to being a stage of personal development. Please see the reference to Fowler's Faith-Development Theory that I made on the 'Follower or Fundamentalist' thread.

In my opinion, so-called "anti-fundamentalists" are just fundamentalists of a different variety. There is still the same rigid "us vs them" mentality and invocation of epistemological and moral absolutisms.

Fundamentalist Christians are not to solely at fault for persecution of gay people and other social misdeeds.

I never claimed that they were. One need not look farther than the histories of communist Russa, Cuba, and China to see how "secular fundamentalism" can appear.

However, in the United States, it was the so-called "Religious Right" that has attempted to invoke a movement to constitutionally ban gay marriage (a gesture that has zero hope of passing in Congress, but still). In many ways, these particular fundamentalists seem to be advocating a sort of quasi-theocracy in the United States.

It is rigidity and intolerance that builds these walls. It takes an open mind, a warm heart...and sometimes a strong stomach to tear these walls done, but it can be done.

Sure.

For tolerance to truly be tolerance, one must tolerate what one doesn't like.

Well, "tolerance" is an interesting one. I try to give everyone their fair hearing in my relations, so I suppose I'm "tolerant" in that sense.

However, "tolerance" in my opinion does not mean passively nodding your head or turning the other way when somebody makes an absurd or illogical claim. Everybody is welcome to logical discourse and communal discussion. But, that doesn't mean you're not going to be called on it when say something illogical or absurd.

That's my philosophy, anyway.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I said no since it is not 100% truth. But there is much symbolism. Also we must take into consideration that it was written by men thousands of years ago who did not have the understanding of the world that we have today. There should be no battle between religion and science. If God created everything, he did it through scientific methods.

One is reminded of the words of St. John of the Cross:

"Although God may answer [requests for signs, visions, and extraordinary experiencies], this method is not good, neither is it pleasing to God, but rather it is displeasing to Him. The reason for this is that it is lawful for no creature to pass beyond the limits which God has ordained for his governance in the order of nature. In His governance of man He has laid down rational and natural limits wherefore the desire to pass beyond them is not lawful."

Also:

"With respect to divine visions and revelations and locutions God is not wont to reveal them, for He is ever desirous that men should make use of their own reason as is possible."

This is a mystic saying these words, mind you. Kinda makes you wonder about all the modern "Christians" that thumb their nose at the findings of science.

Laterz.

 

[Stealth]

One is reminded of the words of St. John of the Cross:

"Although God may answer [requests for signs, visions, and extraordinary experiencies], this method is not good, neither is it pleasing to God, but rather it is displeasing to Him. The reason for this is that it is lawful for no creature to pass beyond the limits which God has ordained for his governance in the order of nature. In His governance of man He has laid down rational and natural limits wherefore the desire to pass beyond them is not lawful."

Also:

"With respect to divine visions and revelations and locutions God is not wont to reveal them, for He is ever desirous that men should make use of their own reason as is possible."

This is a mystic saying these words, mind you. Kinda makes you wonder about all the modern "Christians" that thumb their nose at the findings of science.

Laterz.

Great read!

 

[Beowulf]

There are a lot of strong opinions on this subject. And there is also a lot of bad information out there. But the amount of proof for the Bible is quite overwhelming if one cares to look at it with an open mind.

Also, a word about "fundamentalists" in the news:

Originally, if I'm not mistaken, "fundamentalist" meant "one who takes the sacred writings of their religion seriously." Simple. As Martin Luther said when making a stand, "Sola Scriptura". Scripture Alone. Not a power hungry church, but scripture will guide me.

But in our time period it appears that "fundamentalist" has become a word for ranting, yelling, uneducated wackos on the news (they do manage to make the news since bad news sells-I did some journalism) who spread hate and believe they are doing God's work. They also seem to think God wants to kill everyone.

Ever notice the apostles in the bible never acted this way?
Alot of times its just one psycho and his family members (like the guys who go to all the soldier funeral's with their lunacy). They really shouldn't be representative of Christianity, but would you bother to watch news about a good example? Come on, how exciting is it to watch news about a guy who reads the bible every morning and is nice to everybody?

Some misinformed "Christians" do everything they can to condemn and force one commandment in the bible on everyone who is not a Christian, and in doing so they often are breaking every other commandment.

Maybe if they read their bibles they would know better.
Remember the words St. John regarding the reason for Christ: "...not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved"

Respects!

 

[heretic888]

There are a lot of strong opinions on this subject. And there is also a lot of bad information out there. But the amount of proof for the Bible is quite overwhelming if one cares to look at it with an open mind.

The mount of proof that the moon is made of cheese is also quite overwhelming if one cares to look at it with an open mind. . .

See how sweeping assertions like this work?? You can claim virtually anything without having to bother to deal with the Burden of Proof. After all, if somebody disagrees with you it's obviously because they don't have an "open mind". I mean, God forbid your "proof" (which you yet have to present) isn't what it's all cracked up to be.

As for me, methinks I'll stick with an actual logical argument and point out the Burden of Proof is on you. Sweeping generalizations and thinly-veiled ad hominems ain't gonna work here.

I'm also slightly amused by the mention of "bad information". Exactly which part of my arguments did you find "bad"?? The objective reporting of Palestinian geography?? The accurate description of typical Passover customs?? Or the pointing out of a contradiction concerning the dates??

Originally, if I'm not mistaken, "fundamentalist" meant "one who takes the sacred writings of their religion seriously." Simple. As Martin Luther said when making a stand, "Sola Scriptura". Scripture Alone. Not a power hungry church, but scripture will guide me.

In modern terminology, a "fundamentalist" is someone who interprets a literal reading of their group's text to be factually true in its entirety. This is a manifestation of the sociocentrism that I mentioned earlier and "fundamentalism" (whether religious or secular) is always characterized with an intensified in-group bias and "us versus them" dualistic thinking.

Sometimes, this leads to violence. Martin Luther is a perfect example of "fundamentalism", as he was extremely intolerant of other individual's interpretations of Scripture (including other Protestants) and incited his followers to physical violence against their perceived "enemies".

Laterz.

 

[Brother John]

The mount of proof that the moon is made of cheese is

God forbid your "proof" (which you yet have to present) isn't what it's all cracked up to be.

As for me, methinks I'll stick with an actual logical argument and point out the Burden of Proof is on you..

I understand where you are coming from "H", and you have some interesting points..
I'd just like to point out that there's more to life than "logic" and not everything, infact many very Important things, can be "proved".
Just something to think about....


Your Brother
John

 

[Beowulf]

Well Heretic, (interesting name by the way, could there be any personal vendetta involved here?) you seem to be angry that the bible could be true. Why would you have a problem with that?

There is usually a deeper reason for choosing to disbelieve it, and its usually not intellectual. I wonder...

By the way, the reason the proof is "overwhelming" is that it would probably take all day for me to write it out for you here. What if I asked you to prove to me that Goerge Washington was ever our president. There is plenty of evidence for it (none that can be observed) would you spend all day on your computer writing it, or would you tell me perhaps I could look into it myself. Then I would just reply with the moon is made of cheese argument. What kind of proof are you attempting to dismiss?

Historical: As far as historical accuracy, find me something that is not historical in the Bible. I'm sure you'll find things that are impossible to disprove. But since you seem to take the idea of the bible being true very personally, I'm sure you'll do your best.

By the way, do you have a religion?

 

[pstarr]

I remember not too many years ago that the whole notion of "Hittites", as mentioned in the Bible was poo-pooed because no one could find any evidence that they'd ever existed.

Then some archeologist found the remains of a Hittite city.

As my Jewish friend is fond of pointing out, not a single archeolical dig in Israel (and surrounding areas) has ever shown the Bible to be false or inaccurate. In fact, the evidence over there has done just the opposite - validated names, place, civilizations, and so forth.

Beowulf is right; to write out all that has been validated would take up too much space.

 

[Laeticia]

A wonderful discussion, thank you to all the participants. :asian:

I definitely have to dig up my bible when I get back home and revise the New Testament... As a non-christian student of japanese religions I tend to give lower priorities to anything that's "mainstream" or geographically too "close", but given that I haven't read bible after my confirmation in 1998 it's about time.

Interested in (all) religions/religious thoughts = lots of reading

Yours truly,
Laeticia

 

[heretic888]

I understand where you are coming from "H", and you have some interesting points..
I'd just like to point out that there's more to life than "logic" and not everything, infact many very Important things, can be "proved".

Sure. I never said otherwise.

However, I'm not sure what that little qualifier exactly has to do with the discussion at hand. At least three times on this thread I have already pointed out that the "historical" claims and the "spiritual" truths of Scipture are unrelated to one another. Do I really have to do so again??

Something tells me you're just preaching to the choir here.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Well Heretic, (interesting name by the way, could there be any personal vendetta involved here?) you seem to be angry that the bible could be true. Why would you have a problem with that?

There is usually a deeper reason for choosing to disbelieve it, and its usually not intellectual. I wonder...

Ah, yes. Apologetic Strategy 101: Attack the character of everybody that disagrees with you. After all, that's what Christ would do, right?

When you first entered this thread, it was everybody that didn't see what you see didn't have an "open mind". Now, everybody that disagrees with your perspective has some kind of deep-seated emotional issues ("there is usually a deeper reason for choosing to disbelieve, and it's usually not intellectual").

Delightful! Just keep laying on the ad hominems! It makes your position look all the more absurd to casual onlookers.

Look, Beowulf. I'm a psychology major. The study of the human mind is both my academic responsibility and my hobby. This feeble attempt at psychoanalysis that you're attempting is a complete joke. There is, to be perfectly blunt, nowhere near enough information to determine anything about a person's personality characteristics from a handful of posts you read on an online forum.

And, for the sake of argument, let's assume I do have some type of "deep" problems that prevent me from having an "open mind" about the subject. If then, so what?? It doesn't mean I'm wrong or that my arguments are faulty. In fact, is has absolutely no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.

Try to Poison The Well all you want, Beowulf. But I'll call you on your non-sequiters each and every time.

By the way, the reason the proof is "overwhelming" is that it would probably take all day for me to write it out for you here.

Likewise, the reason that the proof for the moon being composed of cheese is "overwhelming" is that it would take me all day for me to write it our for you here. And, of course, if you disagree with my proof it's simply because you're close-minded and have deep-seated emotional problems with the cheese industry!!

Sorry, but no dice. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the Burden of Proof, Beowulf.

Furthermore, you have just invoked another lesson from Apologetic Strategy 101: Oversaturation trumps logical arguments. You can list a thousand faulty arguments and fallacious "proofs", but it doesn't change the fact that they're faulty and fallacious.

It's about quality, not quantity.

What if I asked you to prove to me that Goerge Washington was ever our president. There is plenty of evidence for it (none that can be observed) would you spend all day on your computer writing it, or would you tell me perhaps I could look into it myself.

Uh, no. I wouldn't do that precisely because it is intellectually dishonest.

I would either cite my sources or keep my mouth shut. But, then again, I've had ideas like academic integrity ingrained into me, so go figure.

Then I would just reply with the moon is made of cheese argument. What kind of proof are you attempting to dismiss?

In case you haven't figured it out by now, my "moon is cheese" argument was tongue-in-cheek. I was illustrating the logical fallacies of your claims.

Historical: As far as historical accuracy, find me something that is not historical in the Bible. I'm sure you'll find things that are impossible to disprove.

Well, this is a tricky area. A text can be entirely accurate in nine of its claims, but that doesn't demonstrate that it will be accurate in its tenth claim.

I'm not saying there is no historical facts in the Bible whatsoever. Pontius Pilate was definitely governor of Judea at this time and there were definitely Jews living in Judea at this time. That's about as factual as you get.

But as for the fudging of other facts, I (and others) have already pretty much laid this stuff out throughout the thread. I suppose we could begin with Matthew's Jesus being born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) versus Luke's Jesus being born during the census of Quirinus (in 6 CE). Or the geographical anamolies that Mark and John make. Or the absurdity of the trial and crucifixion taking place on Passover. Or the meaninglessness of Jesus telling Jewish women not to divorce their husbands. So on and so on.

Just look over my previous posts. It's all there.

By the way, do you have a religion?

Ah, yes. The invocation of religious belief. Because that is so relevant in regards to the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Not only is your question very much off-topic, but I already answered it in the "What Do You Believe?" thread at the top of the forum.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I remember not too many years ago that the whole notion of "Hittites", as mentioned in the Bible was poo-pooed because no one could find any evidence that they'd ever existed.

Then some archeologist found the remains of a Hittite city.

Oh, joy. Another appeal to anonymous authorities, with no details mentioned.

Imagine my surprise.

As my Jewish friend is fond of pointing out, not a single archeolical dig in Israel (and surrounding areas) has ever shown the Bible to be false or inaccurate.

Ah, yes. The anonymous Jewish friend, whose ethnicity and nationality proves he can't be wrong about archaelogy or Biblical scholarship.

Non-sequiter, I stab at thee!

In fact, the evidence over there has done just the opposite - validated names, place, civilizations, and so forth.

Then you won't have any problems with citing this "evidence" --- complete with citation to an academic journal entry and a brief description of the methodology used to acquire said evidence. After all, "evidence" does not exist in a vacuum, just waiting for us to come along and pick it up. It is created via a methodology.

I'll give you an easy one. What evidence is there that the Jewish "Davidic Empire" ever existed??

Beowulf is right; to write out all that has been validated would take up too much space.

In other words, oversaturation trumps logical proofs. Gotchah.

Also, once again: Burden Of Proof.

Seriously, you guys are starting to crack me up. The absurdity of your arguments is sheer comedy.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I found this is article in my online wanderings. It delves right into the meat of what passes for "New Testament Scholarship" these days:

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/intensity/turtondefense.pdf

Introduction

Recent events in the world of bloggers and internet discussion groups marked a climax of the growing tension between conservative scholars who have trapped themselves tightly around the mantle of New Testament Scholarship on one hand and the ever-improving, pervasive group of amateurs who progressively engage the works published by the mainstream scholars in the academia. It was a clash of two worlds, and the heat that the impact generated boiled off the boundary between these worlds and forced a confrontation that unmasked the conservatives. Observers afforded a glimpse of the terrified and insecure intellectual weakling that lurks behind the scholastic mien that conservatives adorn.

In May 2006, a well-instructed amateur ruthlessly debunked a freshly-published book by a respected scholar in the field and left it to waste even before impressionable crowds of lay Christian readers could eagerly line up to purchase the book. This review predictably embarrassed the scholar and his privileged friends in the academia.

In the past, amateur reviews of "magisterial" works by scholars were met with smug indifference. But the review in question, which we discuss below, instantly shattered the mask of smug indifference and elicited intellectually hollow denunciations, instead of a crushing blow-by-blow logical refutation from them.

The review in question was written by Michael Turton, a language lecturer at the university and a keen discussant and writer on New Testament issues. Turton has written critical reviews of more than a dozen books on NT scholarship and debated with various New Testament scholars at lists like XTalk. He maintained a very active blog called The Sword in which he discussed contemporary issues in New Testament scholarship. One of Michael's recent works has been his The Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark - hereafter HCGM. In that work, Michael's central thesis is that a literary analysis of the Gospel of Mark demonstrates that it is a fictional product from the writer of the gospel. In HCGM, Michael employs literary criticism, narrative criticism, rhetorical and historical criticism and draws from the techniques used by German scholar Hermann Gunkel, arguably the father of form criticism, and other scholars like John Dart and Ann Tolbert. From his detailed study of Mark, Michael concluded that the character of Jesus in Mark is not a historical person but a fictional construction by the author of the gospel.

Turton's tenor in the dozens of discussions that he has been engaged in has recently entailed a strict adherence to rigorous methodology and a strong antipathy for arguments that rely on unproven assumptions. In a field that has pastors and other individuals with confessional interests as the vanguards, Michael inevitably rubbed most of them the wrong way. He quickly got the attention of conservative scholars who manage most of the discussion lists on the net who developed a habit of deleting Michael's posts.
This merely strengthened Michael's convictions that he had stumbled upon a field mobbed by honest but grossly incompetent "scholars" with a fixed idea, many of who were qualified but employed sham reasoning in their work devoid of a methodology to help them separate facts from fiction in the NT texts.

One such "scholar" is Dr. James Tabor. Tabor chairs the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has a Ph.D. in biblical studies from the University of Chicago and is an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian origins.

Tabor in the Neck of the Woods

Now, James Tabor recently wrote and published The Jesus Dynasty. Tabor regarded the book as his ultimate contribution to the New Testament Scholarship and saw it as the ticket to his place alongside the rank and file of other New Testament Scholars that have written books on the Historical Jesus. In his view, it was a culmination of several decades of teaching and research on the Historical Jesus. Pumped up with favorable reviews from conservative readers and eager to display his magisterial work to the world, Tabor registered in an ancient history list that examines historical questions surrounding Jesus.

The discussion list he joined is The JesusMysteries - hereafter called JM. In JM, the listers approached Tabor's work enthusiastically and in no time, Tabor was flooded with damaging questions and, predictably, howlers started emerging from him.

To cut a long story short, within minutes, Tabor found himself in a corner and everything he gave out was taken apart with relentless logic backed by historico-critical method. He was left with nothing to hold on to. As most people do when they find themselves in the neck of the woods, Tabor sought a quick exit.

James Tabor walked out of the JesusMysteries list, declaring that he was "utterly convinced that Jesus existed, as is every competent historian" at any major university in the Western world. This tendency by dogmatic scholars of imposing a narrow interpretation of the evidence and declaring it to be the only way was one Turton was all too familiar with. Indeed, this dogmatic assertion got Tabor locked on Turton's crosshairs and Turton promised to go through the book with a toothcomb.

One of the listers, Rod Green, remarked:

"Dr. Tabor's comments [are] a great reminder of the walls that still exist between academia in all disciplines and the rest of the intellectual world (and there is an intellectual world existing outside the walls of academia). I was most interested in his statement that every competent historian in the western world (that he knew of) asserted the historicity of Jesus. This statement would have been more impressive if it had asserted that 'every' or even 'most' historians in the western world agreed with Dr. Tabor's position (we'll set aside the regional geo-political bias in that statement), but of course, this would not have been an accurate statement. There are, of course, historians and academics of various stripes who have challenged the historicity of Jesus and certainly the Jesus of Dr. Tabor's imaginings, but they would thus not qualify in Dr. Tabor's eyes as 'competent.' Competence here means agreeing with the commentator's position. All others become, by definition, incompetent."

The walls between the conservative right and the liberal left in New Testament studies that Green comments on were further manifested when
Turton stuck a pin in the backside of Tabor's bloated work, and the vituperative reaction that ensued after the deflation.

In a week's time, as promised, Michael wrote a review of Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. It was a scathing, hard-hitting review. Michael had no kind words for Tabor and it was clear from Michael's review and the ensuing discussions that Tabor's training and presumed familiarity with New Testament Scholarship had no bearing on the contents of the book. In short, it was a methodology-free, amateurish work written by a scholar. Turton stated that it constituted "an insult to the efforts of all the New Testament scholars" and was "an insult to his [Tabor's] lay readers whose minds he filled with pap, and whom he did not take the time to educate."

No Patient Objections to the Ludicrous

Patient objections to the ludicrous become ludicrous themselves, Roger Kimball observed in The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctnedd Sabotages Art. Kimball's sentiments resonated in Turton's review because Tabor's work relied on sham reasoning and exposed acute absence of critical scholarship. Indeed, as Turton observed, Tabor's work was no more supported by any credible methodology than any of the looney tooney fringe stuff like the Da Vinci Code. He further observed that, "The really ironic thing is that Tabor's work is being posited as an antidote to the Da Vinci Code when in fact it is exactly like it. The only difference is that its breathless secret reading of the text is orthodox, whereas Da Vinci Code's isn't.

But some of Tabor's conservative buddies were not pleased. They would not stand by and watch a "dilletante" use one of their own to mop the floor. In retrospect, Turton's review was the spark that made the smoldering embers between Turton and Jim West burst into flames that would burn off West's scholarly mask, to reveal the apologist that lurks beneath.

Divine Science or Star Trek?

Michael's review got a disparaging, emotive reaction from Dr. Jim West, titled Invincible Ignorance and Inept Reviewers. West's response was a poorly-written, choking kludge peppered with paradoxes like "mindless idea" and hyperbolic use of superlatives in expressions like "the worst, rudest, and most revolting", but devoid of substance. Dr. West was so furious that he became incapable of realizing that his position is contradictory. I have captured an image of West's response at the end of this write up lest West deletes it from his blog.

One reader notes regarding West's contradictory and vacuous response:

"The issue" according to Dr West is "the rightness or sensibleness of dilettantes delving into arena's in which they have no competence, ability, or training." When I read this blog entry I saw no defence of this issue. I saw no evidence regarding the competence of the dilettante he is haranguing. All I saw was the writer's anger, the writer's feeling of some affront caused by the dilettante somehow encroaching on his turf, turf for which he has a license to be on.

Dr West writes "Does free speech really mean any and every fool who has a stupid or mindless idea or opinion should befoul the airwaves with it?" However, we know by the fact that he took the trouble to read the review that he is not in fact dealing with a stupid person with mindless ideas, unless Dr West is a masochist who likes reading foolish rubbish despite himself. He actively sought out the review. He went to the site. He didn't have to.

West complains that Turton is "not a professionally trained exegete" and yet fails to provide readers of his blog with a link to Turton's review so that they can judge by themselves. He would rather limit the readers of his blog into relying on his own content-free, vituperative assessment of Turton's review.

Clearly angry, West questions "the rightness or sensibleness of dilettantes delving into arena's in which they have no competence, ability, or training."

West appears unfamiliar with the Russian, Harry Igor Ansoff, who was trained as an engineer and mathematician yet he became Professor of Strategic Management and is arguably the father of Corporate Strategy. He would otherwise not wonder why "a person who teaches one subject imagines himself an expert in another." Besides, Michael never claimed expertise: he simply debunked Tabor's work, which was, for all intents and purposes, pure bunk.

It is strange that Jim West thinks that one's abilities are limited to the training they have gained. Indeed, several fields in scholarship have been influenced remarkably by contributors from other fields. So much so that the expression "think outside the box" became a common phrase among people seeking solutions to problems or fresh perspectives. Any interested observer knows that the New Testament scholarship needs fresh perspectives, unchained by the confessional interests that have becalmed several scholars as they stand in stagnant hermeneutical waters, unperturbed by the choking
putrescence of their flatulent paradigms.

West's fulminating response completely failed to address anything substantive that Michael wrote and focused solely on Turton's credentials. His overwrought carping on Turton's alleged dilettantism was a smokescreen designed to hide the glaring defects of the work of Tabor. The bloated mentality of West's patronizing stance cannot make up for the numerous holes Turton punched in Tabor's work.

It is clear that West and like-minded critics of Turton are incapable of mustering a scholarly response that directly address the issues that Turton raises regarding Tabor's book. Since West's vaunted credentials fail to help West in any way to respond to Michael, and since his response is purely fuelled by bigoted anger and sectarian bias, West has failed to show exactly how his credentials make him better qualified to comment on the matter. Before we wrap our minds around West's reaction, we ought to understand who he is.

Meeting Dr. Jim West – Divinity Doctor

Who is Dr. Jim West? We encounter the following introduction in biblioblog:

Jim West is the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Petros, Tennesee. He received his MDiv and ThM from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and his ThD from Andersonville Baptist Seminary.

From this brief introduction, we learn that West is a pastor and a holder of a couple of cornflake certificates from Theological Seminaries. What is a doctorate in divinity worth? An observer has remarked that a doctorate in divinity is "as valuable as a doctorate in Star Trek". But more seriously, a Philosophy Doctor reminds us in the same page:

"…a degree simply points to a person having an extensive knowledge about a field. It does not automatically make that knowledge truthful. People should not use the fact of their degrees in place of arguments for positions, whether the degrees are accredited or not. A degree does not guarantee truth or prevent one from being in error."

As a pastor, Jim West is a priest having spiritual charge over a congregation. This means that West presides over certain ceremonies where dogmatic assertions are made regarding Biblical texts: the very texts that critical scholarship demands that West studies objectively. The very same texts West considers sacrosanct. In Andersonville's "Doctrine" page, under The Scriptures, we find the following passage:

"We believe that the Bible is the Word of God and is the absolute authority in determining the faith and practice of God's people. We affirm that the sixty-six books of the Bible are inerrant, divinely and uniquely inspired, and are given to mankind written as they were inspired by the Spirit of God. These Scriptures are divinely intended for personal study through the guidance of the Holy Spirit."


Objective Biblical Inerrantist?

Clearly, West lumps with Biblical inerrantists. How much objectivity can we expect from a pastor who has committed himself to such dogmatic beliefs? Indeed, doesn't honesty demand that West and like-minded individuals, who are supposed to be objective, disqualify themselves on the grounds of lack of impartiality?

Let us consider the West's entire response is rational. In Why People Believe in Weird Things, Michael Shermer defines rationalism as the practice of arriving at conclusions based on evidence or logic and dogmatism as forming conclusions based on authority rather than logic and evidence. We thus clearly see that West's response was irrational.

West's substance-free put-down exposes his lack of impartiality and is an effort to suppress the free expression of ideas that are contrary to the doctrinaire historical Jesus axiom of which West is a strong believer. West is deluded if he thinks that anybody is naive enough to regard a pastor as capable of critical scholarship.

The Theology Contagion

To appreciate the extent to which theology has engulfed critical scholarship in NT studies, let us redirect a bit. Fifteen years ago, in The Historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan wrote regarding the unstandardized nature of historical Jesus research: "the historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke". Crossan added that because of this unscholarly, foggy nature "it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography". However, J. P. Meier, believes that Crossan and like-minded scholars are deluded on this and he contends that HJ scholars are doing theology, whether they realize it or not.

Interestingly, Crossan received a doctorate of divinity from Maynooth College, Ireland, in 1959. JP Meier, his compatriot, and who is normally on the receiving end of his criticism, is a Catholic University scholar who believes that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. He is a scholar who, among other things, has tried to bridge the gap created by Rudolph Bultmann's dichotomy, which sought to separate Christ from the historical Jesus. Meier holds a doctorate in sacred Scripture (1976) from the Biblical Institute in Rome. In 1968, he graduated from the theology program at Gregorian University and has served as a Catholic priest.

Meier thinks that "a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they're doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology". When asked about historicity of Jesus' miracles, he opines that "It's a matter of faith."

We Are Only Going To Improve

This matter-of-faith approach regarding the existence of a historical Jesus is what set off Turton. And since Turton dismembered Tabor's work, followed by Jim West's assault, a number of strange things have unfolded including Turton's public apology to Tabor and his deletion of the infamous review from the net.

As Jim and like-minded theologians celebrate Turton's withdrawal, I would like to remind them of Turton's recent observation:

"For the nonce their output, like my own, is that of dilettantes, people who have to study in their spare time. It is unruly -- uneven, polemical, enormously energetic, wildly erroneous, sometimes amazingly uninformed, sometimes staggeringly insightful. But whatever its faults it is only going to improve. And each year that the Christian Right digs at the foundations of the United States, the number of ahistoricists will grow, because it is the natural response of people like me who were once willing to live and let live …Doherty himself is an excellent example of how these two ideas cross-fertilize, for not only does he work on ahistorical Jesus theories, he also works with groups that oppose the Christian Right. And as the number of ahistoricists grows, Jim, we're going to get better at it. Why? Because there is no historical Jesus, Jim. He's a legitimating construction of the early proto-orthodox Christian Church in its struggles with competing Christianities, evolving out of many roots."

We are only going to improve.

 

[Beowulf]

Look, Beowulf. I'm a psychology major. The study of the human mind is both my academic responsibility and my hobby.

Ahh, I knew it. Its okay, make people feel dumb because they aren't psychology majors, great tactic. Why would anyone dare go against someone who's taken all those psychology classes? You are not intimidating.
I'm may only be business major, but I have the same chuckling English professors as you. Its easy for someone to convince you of something when they are giving you a grade. Not that they are experts on the bible, but they sure do their best.

Sorry, but no dice. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with the Burden of Proof, Beowulf.

Here's a source for you:
Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Josh McDowell

You did say quality not quantity right?

Like a mini encyclopedia, I lent my copy out. If I had to pick one source it would be this. Pick one up and find me all the holes in it and get back to me. Josh began as a student who wanted to write a book refuting the bible. He changed his mind.

I would either cite my sources or keep my mouth shut. But, then again, I've had ideas like academic integrity ingrained into me, so go figure.

Hmm. Interesting sarcasm. Lets not pretend that we have more academic integrity ingrained in us than the next guy. Your not the only one who has ever had to sit in college classes and write papers. But even if someone weren't, are they less than you? Is this sort of pompous attitude necessary?

Here is another one:

The Case for Christ
Lee Strobel

Journalistic approach. This one's good, easier than Josh McDowells, in a start to finish way.
"Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is better for college papers.

Here is a great one on prophesy:

The Search for Messiah
Mark Eastman, MD

Beliefs of the ancient rabbis and Christ's fullfillment. Excellent work.

Well, this is a tricky area. A text can be entirely accurate in nine of its claims, but that doesn't demonstrate that it will be accurate in its tenth claim.

I'm not saying there is no historical facts in the Bible whatsoever. Pontius Pilate was definitely governor of Judea at this time and there were definitely Jews living in Judea at this time. That's about as factual as you get.

But as for the fudging of other facts, I (and others) have already pretty much laid this stuff out throughout the thread. I suppose we could begin with Matthew's Jesus being born during the reign of Herod (who died in 4 BCE) versus Luke's Jesus being born during the census of Quirinus (in 6 CE). Or the geographical anamolies that Mark and John make. Or the absurdity of the trial and crucifixion taking place on Passover. Or the meaninglessness of Jesus telling Jewish women not to divorce their husbands. So on and so on.

Just look over my previous posts. It's all there.

In the meantime you can look over the source books I cited.
Its all there.

Oh, of course you'd rather I sat here for weeks and argued with you.

I'm afraid I'll just choose to dissapoint you.

Go ahead, take the last word.

Peace, love, recycle

 

[Beowulf]

P.S.:
As far as the Herod's, there was more than one.

You might want to check this out:
Thrones of Blood, A History of the times of Jesus
Josephus Josephus

Don't hate man, its good to have people like you to test my faith against. But trying to make it out as a complicated war between conservatives and liberals is not going to do anything for me. More than anything its just chasing mice in your own head. You still haven't convinced me of anything.

Sorry but you'd actually have to do a little better than that. Long, boring narratives about conservative leaders or Knitpicking little dates and historical names will do little. Thats the sort of thing that can easily be refuted,probably with a little research. Its never failed yet.

The "I'm a really intelligent psychology major who is logically infallible" approach will do nothing to convince the educated, just makes you look ego-driven.

You don't like some of the teachings in the bible.

Great, but you still haven't convinced me sir. I may not have an answer right away (nor care) but it will come in time.

No offense but your arguments are incredibly long-winded by the way. Is this a tactic to cause people to eventually find you tiresome and let you have the last word?

You would learn well from a verse in ecclesiastes: "the more that is said the less it means; what good does this do anybody?"

No offense but its true.


If you want to send me messages and I'll gentlmanly research your various assertions against the bible I'd be cool with that. It would only strengthen my faith. Maybe its God's will.

"Seek and you shall find,
Ask and you shall recieve"

 

[Ray]

Look, Beowulf. I'm a psychology major. The study of the human mind is both my academic responsibility and my hobby. This feeble attempt at psychoanalysis that you're attempting is a complete joke. There is, to be perfectly blunt, nowhere near enough information to determine anything about a person's personality characteristics from a handful of posts you read on an online forum.

I can't quite figure out if that's an appeal to authority, straw man, anecdotal account or other fallacy.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Biblical Archeology is a very interesting topic and at times using the bible as a guide seems to work. On others it seems to work at pointing at a few different sites and then it is up to the archeologists to battle it out and find definitive proof.

But that is not why I am posting here, after reading this post I was hit by a quote form Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker’s guide to the Universe and I thought you might need a little levity at the moment. I know this will probably get me bludgeoned here but here goes.......

"Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence
of God. The arguement goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves
you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic."

--THGTG

 

[heretic888]

Ahh, I knew it. Its okay, make people feel dumb because they aren't psychology majors, great tactic. Why would anyone dare go against someone who's taken all those psychology classes? You are not intimidating.

Straw Man

Beowulf, taking what I said out of its original context does not somehow change my argument. What I actually said in regards to the invocation of my major was:

"This feeble attempt at psychoanalysis that you're attempting is a complete joke. There is, to be perfectly blunt, nowhere near enough information to determine anything about a person's personality characteristics from a handful of posts you read on an online forum."

My point was simply that we can know very little about a person's personality characteristics or flaws from perusing a few posts they make on an online discussion board. I made no other claims regarding my knowledge of the social sciences beyond this. Your claim that I was using my academic background to invalidate your argument is, to be perfectly blunt, a Straw Man (see above).

Allow me to reiterate this point. . .

Oftentimes on online communities such as this, we see attemts to ascertain the personality characteristics or the underlying "logic" of the people behind the posts. As a psychology major, I am going to immediately come out and say that this is an exercise in folly. Even someone well-versed in the social sciences such as myself simply does not have enough information to go on to make informed evaluations of anybody here based solely on the handful of posts I may come across from them.

As such, I hold that we should take each others' posts at face value, analyzing the logic and evidence that they present for what it is. It is tempting to try to speculate on the personality traits or the personal history of our fellow posters, but it is just that: speculation.

You're the one that was going on about "open minds" and "deep issues", not me. Of course, the only reason you did so in the first place was to discredit those that disagree with you without having to go through all the trouble of addressing their arguments. Non-sequiter.

Is this sort of pompous attitude necessary?

Yes, the invocation of intellectual dishonesty is perfectly valid when one makes claims such as "I have overwhelming evidence for my case, but I'm not going to present it because it's just so overwhelming!" To be blunt, this is a cop-out and is intellectualy dishonest (as well as condescending to one's opponents).

The invocation of intellectual dishonesty is further supported when one perpetually makes claims such as those that disagree with you have "deep issues" that prevent them from having an "open mind" about the subject, as well as the construction of Straw Men arguments that distort the claims of one's opponent.

So, yes, I think this strategy is both appropriate and necessary.

In the meantime you can look over the source books I cited.
Its all there.

I didn't ask for a bibliography, I asked for evidence and logical proofs. If I so desired, I could also just start tossing names (without actually engaging in the arguments of my sources) that support my position. But, honestly, what would that prove other than I've read a few books??

But, since this is the game you want to play. . .

Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Josh McDowell

The Great Propsterous
Robert Price

A Rejoinder to Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict: 'Jesus-- God's Son'
Robert Price

The Case for Christ
Lee Strobel

Challenging The Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ
Earl Doherty

The Search for Messiah
Mark Eastman, MD

Let's look to a book review on amazon.com:

"From reading the Forward and Prologue one has reason to expect this book to contain a WEALTH of evidence attesting to the historicity, Messiahship, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The author(s) assure that 'the sceptic will be challenged'. As a matter of fact I was sadly disappointed as I went thru this 'gateway of discovery' on the 'grand adventure' that reportedly 'unveils a trove of treasure'. I found the 'evidence' to be weak, sparse, and confusingly presented. The book is obviously written for a Christian audience to provide some inspirational hype to bolster the faith of the believer. The author(s) appear to confuse hearsay with 'evidence'. This is most obvious in Ch.8 where reference is made to 'tens of thousands of witnesses' and numerous sources that should suffice to satisfy our need for indisputable 'evidence'of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The bible is presented as 'evidence' without informing the reader that only FOUR of its authors where in fact eyewitnesses to only SOME of these events of the life of Jesus. They inexplicably waited more than 20 years (and as many as 50-60 years) before recording these events. The author(s) don't attempt to differentiate between eye witness (all be it tardily recorded) accounts and hearsay recollections in the biblical record. This 'evidence' does not rise to the level claimed for it by the author(s) of the book. The 'ancient rabbinic literature' is also appealed to. No 'trove of treasure' here. I only found 2 applicable sources that were presented. Each lacked the specificity necessary to clearly identify a referrance to 'Jesus of Nazareth'. In fact contextual considerations would strongly resist such an interpretation. In the area of 'secular historical references' there are 7 listed and the author(s) make claim to: 'many other non-Christian historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth but since space is limited we will move on...'. I wish space wasn't 'limited' (I can't help suspecting the main limitation being a dearth of pertinent sources). They need more sources because out of the 7 presented only 2 actually MENTION Jesus!!! Those 2 are NOT eyewitnesses and are NOT even contemporary to Jesus. Josephus was 60 years after the fact and Tacticus was at least 80 years after Jesus. The Divinity and Messiahship of Jesus are primarily presented from the Biblical evidence. Numerous texts are used but confusingly organized and often gratuitous (having no bearing on the issue under consideration). The 2 strongest texts supporting the contention for a suffering/sacrificial Messiah, Psalms 22 and Isaiah 52-53 are well presented in part. What is lacking is an explanation of the contradictory passages which appear when one reads the entire prophecies. Ps.22 has the protagonist escaping death thru God's intervention due to his crying 'day and night'. Is.52-53 has a silent protagonist who is ultimately dispatched having 'opened not his mouth'. It seems to me that both passages cannot be talking about the same person. I feel the view of the author(s) that the 'ancient rabbinic literature' shows an expectation for a suffering/dying Messiah was poorly substantiated. Numerous passages are cited in the text and appendices; but one gets the feeling that there has always been a disparity of belief among the rabbis rather than a shift of position from 'ancient' beliefs to contemporary ones. I did email one of the authors (Mark Eastman) with a few of my questions. He was gracious enough to reply. He related that he was 'a big picture kind of guy'; and was mainly trying to show that rabbinic views have changed down thru the ages. His reply though did not give any further specific support for his position. I have no problem with the author(s) holding such beliefs. Being born and raised in a conservative Christian family myself; I too have enjoyed the belief that I have access to the knowledge of God and am therefore pretty well informed. I'm a little resentful (and frankly underwhelmed) though, when the author(s) start making grandiose claims of 'evidence' (that suck me into an examination of their argument); but only present the same inadequate (to me) material that I've seen and heard in the past."

Laterz.