[rejecting Christianity implies ignorance, pro et contra]

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: [rejecting Christianity implies ignorance, pro et contra] · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Did Livy independently confirm Bellum Gallicum?

Zachary Miller

status

ONLY IGNORAMUSES REJECT CHRISTIANITY

There is overwhelming empirical evidence that the Gospels are true, and God's existence can be proven to near mathematical certainty. So basically, if you're aware of the history and the arguments and you're still not a Christian, you must not be very smart.

Of course, "blessed are those who have not seen and still believe." But the inverse is also true.

John Médaille

I'm curious: What evidence is there that the gospels are true?

Zachary Miller

"Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

John Médaille

That's hardly "empirical evidence that the gospels are true." Other than Josephus' mention of a sect of "Christus" in Judaism, I know of no non-christian sources.

If your sources are only the Christian sources, then Mormonism can make the same claim about the golden tablets of Joseph Smith.

C. K.

lee strobel’s books should be required reading of every human before they pass away. In it, he reviews the evidence for the resurrection and Christianity’s claims in convincing fashion.

[yahoo search]
https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lee%20strobel%20book&fr=yfp-hrmob&fr2=p%3Afp%2Cm%3Asb&.tsrc=yfp-hrmob&type=&fp=1&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmFjZWJvb2suY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAgxCeilm0-aBCvgnoULKrAsiGnks4nrBZiN0zyxTstCREOkajZ-7t-5KjolSpvzyYHUwX-CUO9kVSjRlf9o8G-KpvddaYEHsnX1fYZNGj56BIn1tEjy2HyKkabhLcZzEV836AVUlASfU8Ue889k7JSz1AYbJpitcrdC3GRomSWz

John Médaille

So if you've read these remarkable books, you should be able to share some of this remarkable evidence, no?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If your sources are only the Christian sources, then Mormonism can make the same claim about the golden tablets of Joseph Smith."

In fact, Joseph Smith is the only guy who saw the tablets.

So, the Mormon story about the Golden Tablets is nothing like the Christian story about authorship of Gospels.

Furthermore, the Gospels are based on personal memory to tradition with few or only one intermediary from, if this story is true, while the tablets ... whoever gave them, "is he in heaven, is he in hell, that demned elusive pimpernel?"

This is not as such a case for complete truth, one would have to go somewhat further into somewhat other considerations for that, but it is a case for generally truthful historic autodescription of beginning of the Church (like Mormon books about Joseph Smith, not Mormon books about Nephites).

"Other than Josephus' mention of a sect of "Christus" in Judaism, I know of no non-christian sources."

The sources from the time of St Peter in Rome don't exist any more as separate historical narratives.

From around that time, Pliny the elder can of course claim that pearls are remarkable bc Caligula wore sandals with them, previously only done by women, but that is under the heading "pearls" in Naturalis historia, not under the heading "rule of Caligula" in any preserved Roman history of his.

AR

I would agree that there is extra biblical evidence that Jesus existed. I would even accept the biblical evidence as proof of his existence.

But that doesn’t mean that what the gospels say he said is accurate or if accurate, true.

We believe on Faith what the Church teaches about Jesus. We just assume that Jesus is historical and there is plenty of evidence of that, especially if we include the NT, which we may, since it comes from the first century also and is written by eyewitnesses. But accepting his historicity does not make us believers and save us. Faith does.

John Médaille

There isn't even any extra-biblical evidence. the only evidence is that whatever did or didn't happen, a sect of Judaism became a separate religion making universal claims.

But there is no confirmation anywhere for any particular event in the Gospels. These must be accepted or rejected sola fide.

IAC, it is not helpful to evangelization just to reject those who have not accepted Christianity as "ignoramuses." In fact, it is not merely counter-productive, it is contrary to charity and therefore contrary to Christianity.

Zachary Miller

Considering the options available for dealing with heathens, some light shaming falls well under the umbrella of charitable tough love.

AR

I think it’s just untruthful. It’s not ignorance or stupidity which causes one not to believe, but a lack of Faith. And faith is a gift of God. When you call a lack of faith “stupidity”, you make it seem as if you came into your own faith by your own intelligence, i.e. as if you were the cause of your own salvation or as if God’s grace was not necessary. Which is false and, if not an ignorant saying in itself, is actually heretical and would tend to negate the faith and salvation which you think you have.

Zachary Miller

Intelligence is a gift from God.

Knowledge, understanding, wisdom, these are gifts of the Holy Spirit.

AR

So is existence, what’s your point?

We are intelligent beings, i.e. we have intellects and the power of reason.

Zachary Miller

I am replying directly to your last post here. Now stop irresponsibly throwing the word "heresy" around unless you want me to bring up yours.

AR

I didn’t say “wise” or “understanding” or “knowledge”. Because you didn’t say that. You said rather that it is by not being stupid, ie ignoramuses, that it is by our intelligence and common sense that we can and should all come to Faith in Jesus.

John Médaille

Zachary, you still haven't cited even one piece of evidence.

AR

And now you try to get out of it by saying, “our intellects are gifts from God.” So are our big toes! But it takes grace to use them for good.

John Médaille

I haven't cited evidence because there isn't any; that's the point.

In logic, the burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative.

Although I have learned it's a waste of time to cite the laws of logic to you.

Or to any ignoramus.

Zachary Miller

The harmony of the Gospels, the multitude of witnesses, the unbroken tradition, this is all compelling evidence.

AR

Compelling evidence for Faith or for believing that there was a man named Jesus who lived in Israel, did good deeds, and spoke good words?

Zachary Miller

For believing He died and was raised from the dead so that we might be saved.

AR

Yeah, there’s no “proof” for that. There’s proof that people preached that early on, but believing and living that out that takes Faith.

John Médaille

The gospels can't be harmonized. They tell a different story and present a different Jesus, and this is true even of the three syoptics, much less the synoptics difference with John.

The "evidence" for Jesus is the communities that formed in his name. That's not "historical" evidence, but it nevertheless attracts us.

EH

Witness testimony is evidence

WCh

John Médaille "Oh dem golden tablets."

Zachary Miller Yes Jesus existed but what proof that he was the "incarnation " of GOD?

John Médaille It's just "them or us" Brother, the believers vs the unbelievers, or is it the other way around?

The Baptised and the unbabtised, the "saved" and the "unsaved" The Catholics vs the Protestants.

The Sunni Muslims vs the Shia Muslims?

What evidence is that the Qur'an is true and that Mohammad was God's Prophet?

Zachary Miller

The only direct witness testimony we have is Matthew, Peter, John, and James. I certainly believe their testimony, but that is not enough to compel belief, such that we can label skeptics as "ignoramuses."

WCh

What happened to Mark?

AR : "Good thoughts, Good words, Good deeds". ~~~~ Zoroaster.

John Médaille

The apostle Mark didn't write a gospel. That was Luke's and then Peter's secretary.

WCh

Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles?

John Médaille

Yes, but Luke had no connection with Jesus, and neither did Paul.

Oh, I meant Paul's secretary, not Luke's.

C. K.

Again folks, read Lee Strobel’s book “The Case for Christ” and his follow up.

U will come away changed

John Médaille

Yea, the book changed "u" so much that "u" can't post a single piece of evidence from it.

No thanks, I think I'll take a pass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

AR "We believe on Faith what the Church teaches about Jesus."

But we believe the Church because she was around to see it happen. Because bishops now, bishops 1000 years ago, go back to the first men Christ made bishops.

John Médaille "There isn't even any extra-biblical evidence. the only evidence is that whatever did or didn't happen, a sect of Judaism became a separate religion making universal claims."

AND plenty of evidence (from writings of this "sect") that this "sect" actually considered its founder as one man who was God before being man, and who died and rose again.

"But there is no confirmation anywhere for any particular event in the Gospels."

Confirmation from independent sources is a desideratum, not a requirement, for historical reliability. How many non-Roman sources tell you Caesar conquered Gaul?

"These must be accepted or rejected sola fide."

Are you accepting Caesar conquered Gaul sola fide? Or, more exotically, rejecting it sola fide?

John Médaille "it is not helpful to evangelization just to reject those who have not accepted Christianity"

The case you just made makes me add, some considered as Catholics are helping them to remain ignorant.

Btw, the point was about "rejecting" on some sort of examination, not about those who "not accepted" since never giving it a thought. These latter may be some of them highly intelligent and well informed in their own fields of knowledge and accept it quickly once they start giving it a thought, but even so this would make them ignoramuses on this topic.

AR "I think it’s just untruthful. It’s not ignorance or stupidity which causes one not to believe, but a lack of Faith. And faith is a gift of God."

That's like saying, it's not lechery or bimboism which lands someone prematurely in bed with someone else, but lack of chastity as per lack of charity as per lack of sanctifying grace. Mortal sins, including both against chastity and against the faith, still are mortal sins in their own right, even if it would take the grace of God to avoid them consistently. There is no such thing as mortal sins that only are so to those who have received from God, but which are OK in those outside.

AR "You said rather that it is by not being stupid, ie ignoramuses,"

You are confusing intelligence with knowledge.

An "ignoramus" doesn't mean a stupid man, but one lacking knowledge - which you just showed yourself to be as to word meanings.

John Médaille "The gospels can't be harmonized."

Heresy.

"They tell a different story"

Different parts of the same story.

"and present a different Jesus,"

No, but underline different aspects of the same one.

"The "evidence" for Jesus is the communities that formed in his name. That's not "historical" evidence, but it nevertheless attracts us."

It's as much historic evidence for Jesus, as Roman Gaul is for Caesar.

WCh "Yes Jesus existed but what proof that he was the "incarnation " of GOD?"

That, liar or fool.

WCh "What evidence is that the Qur'an is true and that Mohammad was God's Prophet?"

The same as for Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith being Christ's prophet, for Theogony and Hesiod being prophet of the Nine Muses, for similar things : apparitions to one man, not backed up by miracles before the rest.

I e, insufficient. (If it were sufficient, we would have sufficient evidence for contradictory theses).

John Médaille

Well, other than calling people bad names, I don't see any actual evidence here.

It makes you wonder who the real ignoramuses are.

And of course, no "christian" discussion would be complete without someone shouting "Heresy!"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Médaille You so far didn't respond to mine, and I am not taking "heresy" back on your words so you can in dignified manner look up the rest, I didn't call you "heretic" (you were just repeating someone else's heresy, one can hope).

You have not answered in any back up to the implied charge that disharmony of Gospels can't be backed up.

How about reviewing what we have written with overview: [plus, link here]

John Médaille

There's a long list, but for one thing, the timeline in John cannot be reconciled with the timeline in the Synoptics.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you think of "when" Christ "once only" drove merchants from temple, I think He did so twice, once at beginning of carreer, which gave some impetus to Pharisaic heckling, once at end, to say "yes, I did it and I don't regret it."

John Médaille

Interesting. You "harmonize" them by positing a second incident, when none of the authors do so.

By those rules, you could "harmonize" anything.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think things harmonise a lot more than modern prejudice accounts for.

Matthew and John each speak of one incident, of similar type, not of two, this certainly does not rule out there were two and each of them describes one of them only.

St. John Chrysostom, so at least one Church Father is on my side, as per Haydock comment:

Ver. 15. He drove them all out of the temple. According to S. Chrys. (hom. lxvii. in Matt.) this casting out was different from that which is there related, c. xxi. v. 12. Wi. — How could the Son of the carpenter, Joseph, whose divinity was yet unknown to the people, succeed in expelling so great a multitude from the temple! There was undoubtedly something divine in his whole conduct and appearance, which deterred all from making resistance. The evangelist seems to insinuate this by putting these words: "The house of my Father," into our Saviour's mouth, which was making himself immediately the Son of God. This made Origen consider this miracle, in overcoming the unruly dispositions of so many, as a superior manifestation of power to what he had shewn in changing the nature of water at Cana. A. — Jesus Christ here shews the respect he requires should be shewn to the temple of God; and S. Paul, speaking of the profaners of God's Church, saith: If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy. 1 Cor. iii. 17. Which in a spiritual sense may be understood of the soul of man, which is the living temple of the living God. A.

https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment75.shtml

John Médaille

You're still positing two incidents instead of the one mentioned in the gospels. As I say, anything can be harmonized if you can just add stuff the authors don't mention.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the one mentioned in the gospels"

You don't have "the ONE mentioned in the GospelS".

You have one mentioned in one Gospel and one mentioned in another Gospel, and neither is claiming, one explicitly disclaiming complete coverage, and assuming they are the same disharmonises and assuming they are different restores harmony.

If you wantonly prefer explanations that disharmonise, reject such that harmonise, you can disharmonise anything by such rules.

Let's not forget you just called a Church Father a fraud, as well, while pretending to be Catholic.

John Médaille

Of course, no such thing ever happened, I called no one anything, and those argue in that way only admit that they have no argument.

BL

[meme : Trolls suck]

John Médaille

Right, instead of addressing issues, use ad hominems instead.

That'll win a lot of converts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Of course, no such thing ever happened, I called no one anything, and those argue in that way only admit that they have no argument."

I should obviously for the sake of exactitude have said "by implication".

You were calling me a fraud exegete because I said what St John Chrystostom had said. Implying he was one too. You are not denying he was a Church Father, are you?

How about reading my actual arguments, instead of concentrating on two reproaches made against your doctrinal purity?

How about readressing the issues I adressed instead of claiming I didn't adress any issues?

John Médaille

I'm sorry, what issues did you raise? You claimed there were two incidents, and I addressed that. What other "issue" did I miss?

CKh

The New Testament isn't evenly divinely sourced, unlike the Torah and the Koran.

John Médaille A Christian has to affirm the absurdity that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of God which is ipso facto idolatry.

John Médaille

Yes, he does. That is exactly the claim. And you are correct that it is either an absurd idolatry, or the very root of all mystery.

God either takes on all the evil in the world, or he passively allows it and takes nothing at all.

I know which God I will follow.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

CKh It so happens, while the Koran is more or less evenly non-divinely but still supernaturally sourced, both Torah and Gospels have human sources, Moses being for Genesis a bit like St Luke for his Gospel. It is because of humanly witnessed history that we believe miracles, and because of miracles we believe the ultimate source of the revelation is supernatural. And because of some miracles, like deliverance of Hebrews from slavery or rising of Christ from the dead, that we believe this supernatural is God, not the Devil.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

John Médaille "What other "issue" did I miss?"

Re-read whole thread. It's easier on my blog post than by going back on FB:

[link here]

Also, your adress of that issue you did recall would have been, if correct, a declaration that St. John Chrysostom was incomopetent as NT reader.

CKH

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am afraid I have no idea what you are saying.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not all of the Torah is "and God spoke to Moses and said".

Much is story, humanly S O U R C E D as history of participants, rather than divinely as revelation to someone. All of Genesis, beginning of Exodus, end of Deuteronomy.

It is because of the humanly well documented story that the "God spoke to Moses" parts of revelation are believed as actually revelation from God.

However, all of it is inspired by God.

John Médaille

Hans, if I missed an issue, you point it out to me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, the question of independent confirmation, do you confirm the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar from many non-Roman sources?

John Médaille

Historians do recognize that Caesar's Gallic Wars are told from a Roman pov and may not be the same story told by the Gauls.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Historians do not doubt main facts as in Caesar conquering Gaul and Vercingetorix failing to unit[e] a non-Roman Gaul.

John Médaille

Actually, since the Romans actually occupied Gaul from, oh, say a thousand different sources, that is hardly surprising. But they debate the efforts of Vercingetorix, precisely because of the unreliability of the sources.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the Romans actually occupied Gaul from, oh, say a thousand different sources,"

You don't have a thousand, a hundred, or even twenty (I was nearly saying ten) sources from back then.

You have Julius Caesar, you also have Velleius Paterculus writing in the time of Tiberius (who was careful about the memory of Caesar).

If you know more sources, tell me, but I am a Latinist and know probably more than you about Classic Antiquities, "thousand sources" isn't bluffing me.

One could equally say there were thousand sources for the Church existing, while they were fewer.

A community usually recalls how it comes about.

I also know no historian who doubts Vercingetorix died in Rome after being tied behind the triumph of Caesar.

John Médaille

Exactly. Because we have many sources.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

We have Caesar and later people depending on his account.

And they are definitely not "many".

I have a trouble calling you an "ignoramus". In Latin, that is a first person plural verb, and I find it ignorant to use it as a noun.

But you just showed ignorance of Antiquities.

John Médaille

Ah, the ad hominem argument: the admission of failure.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, it is not ad hominem, it is highly relevant to the argument.

You IMAGINE historians who admit Caesar beat Vercongetorix have LOTS of sources, FROM THAT TIME.

Someone who KNOWS doesn't.

John Médaille

Okay, Hans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So you admit that:

• history is known from tradition
• independent contemporary multiple evidence is good but not needed?