Home

Legend.

Simon,

The following quote is from the original debate I mentioned above.

. . . the simple fact is that the life of Jesus is so incredible preserved in the historical record it matches, if not out-runs many of the Caesars. So I will assume you have enough historical credibility not to dispute that Jesus was an actual historical figure who lived in Palestine during the early decades of the first century and was crucified by the Romans.

Disputing Jesus’ mere existence betrays a woeful lack of credibility when it comes to historical knowledge. Now unless you have a serious alternative to premise one don’t bother posting comments here, and (I don’t want this to sound harsh, but sometimes a harsh word needs to said) don’t bother pretending your atheism is intellectual respectable.

I do not dispute his actual existence. Legend.

Simon,

I hope you know that by comment 3, if your are affirming that Jesus was a legend, is absolutely incoherent.

Now that I think about it, how is it that I know so much about your views and yet you know so little of mine….still! Somebody has their ears closed.

Look it’s not hard, and if you’d Listened to my comments you’d know. I certainly do think that Jesus was a real man. But that the historical account is partially/mostly legendary. Again, it’s not hard: you believe exactly the same for other religions’ figures’ claims to divinity or miracles, and that the records are embellished/legendary.

This is entirely coherent. Most of the world agrees with me.

I agree Simon. Legend.

I used to think ‘Lord’ but, sadly, that just didn’t stand up to honest scrutiny. When you talk to someone of a different faith it dawns on you that they have almost exactly the same fundamental reasons for belief and precisely the same degree of conviction that they are right. When make that observation, the only option left to you if you want to retain your integrity is to turn the spotlight of scepticism you reserve for all other religions back onto your own. I did it and found it sadly lacking.

I like much of the story of Jesus and I believe that there was likely a real person about whom perhaps some of the stories are true but the rest of it is elaboration.

Legend.

I agree Simon and Damian. Legend.

As for the liar aspect “I think it is intuitively obvious” only makes sense if you believe Jesus… we may never know if he was a good enough liar! Plenty saw Peter Popoff as a miracle worker until James Randi weaved his magic.

Thanks, Damian! I am in exactly the same position as you. Used-to-be-Christian turned empath.

Personally I find it important that the later a gospel is written the more obviously made-up it is. The closer to year zero it is the less self-importantly divine Jesus claims to be and the more its content is believeable. I think that simply extrapolating this trend makes the thesis that Jesus the man was divinised by a religious sect quite tenable – just like happens in every other religion and sect.

Simon and Damian,

All right – so his existence is not legendary, but—you claim—his radical self-conception was. Therefore you must believe that which was reported by the Gospel accounts was somehow false. With my previous post in view then (Paley on the Gospels Authenticity/), that concluded that the Gospel’s reported faithfully what they originally proclaimed and believed about Jesus, you must be affirming either Jesus was a liar or a lunatic.

“Which he quickly dismissed”

I have noticed that among those who debate Creationists and Christian apologists, many are not inquirers. Thus they do not allow truth to question their stand.

…that concluded that the Gospel’s reported faithfully what they originally proclaimed and believed about Jesus, you must be affirming either Jesus was a liar or a lunatic.

Who concluded? Who affirms?

Legend. No two ways about it. Just apply some honest scrutiny to your own claims rather than constantly seeking to bolster them.

Simon,

I am curious about the following statement that you made

I certainly do think that Jesus was a real man. But that the historical account is partially/mostly legendary.

Pray, tell me, which portions of the account are partially legendary and which ones are mostly legendary.

Johnson C. Philip

Damain,

Who concluded? Who affirms?

Paley concluded: on the basis of his exposition of the external evidence for the Gospels authenticity (see the link provided).

You affirm: if you are to maintain that Jesus was a legend, and not deny Jesus was an actual historical figure, then you must believe that Jesus’ radical self-conception was somehow false.

I deny that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible is an accurate representation of the real character. Hence, legend.

Damian,

I deny that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible is an accurate representation of the real character.

Ok. What do you think are good arguments to support this view?

Stuart, @post 9

From the way you phrase particulary your first sentence I get the feeling that you think quite differently about Jesus/gospels/history to how I do.
I’m not sure who you mean by ‘they’ in your last sentence. But the fact that you used ‘they’ without feeling the need to specify who ‘they’ are perhaps also points to this difference in thinking.

I wouldn’t normally recommend the God Delusion, but you should probably read the chapter that deals with Cargo Cult(s?).

From the 11 points in the previous post it does not follow that the people who actually travelled/knew Jesus believed in what the gospels say; the gospels came later. What does follow is that the people circa the time of a gospel’s writing believed what the gospel(s) say.
Personally I believe that whatever Jesus did he aquired a following (and rightly so if his teachings as described in the gospels are accurate), and that that following grew and his legend was expanded upon. His legend was expanded upon in congruence with the religio-culture of the day – virgin birth, healing miracles etc.

Did the users of the gospels proclaim what ‘they’(the church at the time) believed about Jesus? Yes, I think so. Are the gospels factually false in many respects. Yes, I think so.
Was he either a lunatic, liar or lord? No, I think he was a man. The He which christians believe is the character of the gospels: a largely legendary He, I think.

Pray, tell me, which portions of the account are partially legendary and which ones are mostly legendary.

Ahhh….that is the right question; perhaps asked with the wrong tone?

I can only claim to use my ‘god’-given powers of reason when deciding what in the gospels is fiction. Which, I imagine, is the same as what you use when deciding what in the gospels is fiction! No?

you must be affirming either Jesus was a liar or a lunatic.

We can’t do both? ;) Actually you’d be hard pressed to prove he wasn’t either – not because the evidence suggests he was but because of the paucity of evidence full stop. It also leaves out a third possibility which is that he was sincere but deluded. Any details about his character and the like necessarily have a fairly wide margin of error around them.

Ian, “sincere but deluded” is Lunatic.

Simon,

Re17:
Supporting reason in an atheistic universe is another debate :-) How is what you decide is not-legendary and what is legendary not ad hoc or based on philosophical pre-suppositions?

Re16:

Was he either a lunatic, liar or lord? No, I think he was a man. The He which christians believe is the character of the gospels: a largely legendary He, I think.

I think your aware that you conflate the Lord option with Legend option, but I just wanted to make it clear to others. Trying to eliminate that option from the three alternatives by impugning the authors historical accuracy is illegitimate, because the argument itself does not rely on the authenticity or historical accuracy of the Gospels alone. The argument focus’ instead on the question, Who did Jesus think he was? and the answer in the Gospel’s, from which we do not depend entirely upon for this information, is clear that he conceived of himself as Lord – that is the unique Son of God: wholly divine.

So its here I think the problem with your view lies: you have a very small amount of time in which the creation of a legend about Jesus’ self conception can develop. Too small I would argue.

Firstly, you admit the Gospels are authentic to what the original authors proclaimed and believed. That gives you c. 30 years for these legends to develop and become universally acknowledged within the Christian community. Secondly, you also admit that Jesus had disciples who carried on his teachings. Are you actually saying then, that; within the lifetime of those disciples; and contemporaneously with other living witnesses; and (as I mentioned before) in a culture that values highly the preservation of accurate knowledge with oral tradition, there arose and developed a sophisticated legendary account of Jesus’ self-conception that was utterly incorrect? All that plus the host of early and multiple attestation to the life of Christ not yet discussed, make your view wildly implausible, and to be frank, seemingly to lack in sincere historical credibility.

It occurs to me that all the reports of Jesus’ own self-conception are that he was divine, so claiming that he did not conceive himself that way is not going with the historical information, but against it.

It occurs to me that all the reports of Jesus’ own self-conception are that he was divine, so claiming that he did not conceive himself that way is not going with the historical information, but against it.

But this is based on your starting assumption that the Bible accurately records what Jesus’ self-conception was. Do you see the circularity here?

I don’t believe that the Bible is free from exaggeration (especially when you look at, as Simon mentioned, the progression of tall tales through the gospels in direct correlation with the age of their authorship).

It seems to me Damian that you think the age of the Gospel’s authorship with respect to each other is a clear cut issue, which it is not. There is a diversity of belief among scholarship and good reasons to consider alternative theories (other than that Matthew and Luke borrowed portions from Mark) as valid. Some people even place John before 70 AD which, if correct, would utterly decimate that idea.

Simon has also not answered how he determines which facts are ‘tall tales’ and which facts are genuine in a way that is not ad hoc and not based upon philosophical presuppositions. I invite you also to do so, In the meantime I’ll go about addressing your first point in comment 22 with another post.

@Simon

Simon, in comment 17 your have tried to answer the question that I posed to Ian in comment 12.

My question was based upon Ian’s statement that said

I certainly do think that Jesus was a real man. But that the historical account is partially/mostly legendary.

In response to which I asked Ian

Pray, tell me, which portions of the account are partially legendary and which ones are mostly legendary.

Would you care to give me a direct answer instead of evading the question?

Johnson C. Philip

Would you care to give me a direct answer instead of evading the question?

I did answer: all the supernatural claims.

@Johnson

Ehh????? Comment 12 is addressed to ME. Your first quote in 24 is from ME! And 24 is addressed at me, yet as far as I can tell, you mean to ask Ian!

Please go back to 12 and look at who you addressed it to.

:|

Simon,

No matter who address what to who, you still have failed to answer the question.

(1) Johnson asks:

Pray, tell me, which portions of the account are partially legendary and which ones are mostly legendary.

(2) I ask:

How is what you decide is not-legendary and what is legendary not ad hoc or based on philosophical pre-suppositions?

Stuart,

Re17:
How is what you decide is not-legendary and what is legendary not ad hoc or based on philosophical pre-suppositions?

How is what you decide is true not based on philosophical presuppositions? I used to believe as you do, so I, at least, question my presuppositions.

I think your aware that you conflate the Lord option with Legend option, but I just wanted to make it clear to others.

Not sure what you mean. You might want to check my quote for He(capital h) vs. he(small h).
It’s quite simple, there is Jesus the man and Jesus of the gospels (ignoring the gospels’ contradictions for now). Christians simply take these two as being the same: the conflation is not mine! It is entirely sensible that the Jesus of the gospels contains factual truth about Jesus the man, and legend.

Trying to eliminate that option from the three alternatives by impugning the authors historical accuracy is illegitimate, because the argument itself does not rely on the authenticity or historical accuracy of the Gospels alone.

(I assume you mean eliminating the Lord option.) Yes it can. The contradictions amongst them, The fact that they copied each each other, or other documents like ‘Q’(so much for independant), the fact that -when they copied the same documents – they conveniently left out different bits which were antithetical to the the author’s motives/themes, the trend of gospel over time I pointed out earlier. etc. These all speak to the historical authenticity of the gospels.
But I’m not saying I rely entirely on these. And neither do you rely entirely on the historicity of the gospels for your opinion.

The argument focus’ instead on the question, Who did Jesus think he was? and the answer in the Gospel’s, from which we do not depend entirely upon for this information, is clear that he conceived of himself as Lord – that is the unique Son of God: wholly divine.

I’m not sure what other information you mean? Paul?
I don’t think I’ve ever focussed on the question “Who did Jesus think he was?” I’ve mainly thought about “What is the most likely explanation when religious books claim supernatural things about someone?”
I don’t think it clear that Jesus thought himself divine. I DO think it clear that the gospel writers thought he was divine, just like Mormons think that God spoke to Joseph Smith.

So its here I think the problem with your view lies: you have a very small amount of time in which the creation of a legend about Jesus’ self conception can develop. Too small I would argue.

I think a few years is plenty. One has only to look at instances of modern sects springing up; there are plenty in India, for example. Again, actually read something about sects.

Secondly, you also admit that Jesus had disciples who carried on his teachings. Are you actually saying then, that; within the lifetime of those disciples; and contemporaneously with other living witnesses;………….there arose and developed a sophisticated legendary account of Jesus’ self-conception that was utterly incorrect?

Yes, happens all the time. There are many people alive today who have followings who proclaim them divine. I’m not sure if Jesus encouraged this while he was alive or not. Either way wouldn’t surprise me.

…in a culture that values highly the preservation of accurate knowledge with oral tradition

I don’t think this is that much of a hurdle, really. For a start it was the literate elite that were interested in oral tradition and Jesus’ followers just weren’t; elite or Jews, mainly. The Jews were interested in memorizing very old tradition: One would be inclined to think “remember this because it’s as old as our culture” not “remember this because it’s a generation old, told to my dad by his friend” The scene of the early church would have been quite electric, excitatory – people had discovered a purpose! (else they wouldn’t have been drawn to it) – this is a perfect breeding ground for the creation of legend.

All that plus the host of early and multiple attestation to the life of Christ not yet discussed, ….

What attestations? If you refer to within the bible, so what? How is this different to any other religion? You can answer your own question.
If you refer to without the bible, you won’t find much, including a few forgeries (hint: these will harm your cause)

Simon,

All that writing and still no answer to Johnson’s or my question.

How is what you decide is true not based on philosophical presuppositions?

I’m quite willing to accept that I have presuppositions that make me predisposed to consider the whole of the Gospel narratives as historically accurate in all they assert. But there are two things to say in this regard. First, when I see the canons of historical research confirm this I gain confidence in my original presuppositions. In the same way I gain further encouragement when defeaters fail in light of the rules for right-thinking. Second, at least my presuppositions are stated and supported with sound arguments, and – at least in my opinion – what is the best historical data and well-balanced conclusions that are available.

So, how do you answer both questions in 27?

Glad you chose not to address 28. :)-

I’m quite willing to accept that I have presuppositions………….But there are two things to say in this regard………

You do not understand what presuppositions are, Stuart. Presuppositions are not things which can be supported by evidence. If they were they would not be ‘presuppositional’ at all.

SImon,

I’ll be addressing the issues raised in 28 for the most part in a coming post I’m planning. In the mean time you should answer the specific questions asked repeatedly of you in 27, and still not addressed. They are critical to your case.

Presuppositions are not things which can be supported by evidence.

Sure they can. All a presupposition is, is a belief that is tactically assumed beforehand at the beginning of an argument. It follows that there can be arguments for those presuppositions. For instance I can adopt a presupposition (even one I think false) for the sake of argument to refute a point of view. What you describe is a foundational presupposition – and those cannot have arguments to support them – they properly guard against infinite regress.

Yes, I suppose you could call that-which-you-bring-to-an-argument as a presupposition. But ultimately it is not because there are reasons for those presuppositions, too. But my point is in line with your constant claims; that you have absolutely perfect knowledge of your christian beliefs. Not perfect as in omnipotent, but perfect as in they-don’t-depend-on-presuppositions.
Anywho, ultimately things which you bring to an argument can themselves be disected and there is no end to it. Ultimately I think that we are just pragmatic beings. (I know not of ‘foundational presuppositions’ and I have to say I disbelieve you and them – everything has a reason)

Anyhow I’ll call them _conclusions_, not presuppositions. Pragmatically: I deconverted myself from christianity for at least several reasons.

- The blatantly false claims of miracles. Anywhere. Anyhow. (And 13 pages of excuses doesn’t impress me or any other sane thinker without compromising presuppositions)
- The realisation that I would have been equally zealous for my birth religion no matter which I was born into.
- The convenience of anything religious as being ‘beyond’ falsification.
- The fact that morality is largely the same no matter the religion (including the fact that the claim that all the ‘wrong’ people live in god’s universe and so exhibit similar morals works in any direction)

Many others. But as to discussions of this nature, about the factual validity of the bible – yes I do come presupposing these things. (As you point out, so do you.) But, invoking the empirical again, I used to presuppose pretty much the opposite of these things given that I was a christian for most of my life. The facts changed my presuppositions. And facts could change them once again. I seriously doubt that they could change yours.

Oh, post 27!………..no they are not critical to my case. The arguments in post 28 are the ones critical to my case. In any case(lol), why should I feel compelled to give my ‘presuppositions’ when you havn’t?

Simon,

Thank you for spelling out your reasons for disbelieving Christianity. Many of those roads have been travelled before so I’ll restrain myself in answering them here. You’ll not be surprised to note that I don’t think any of them are good arguments or reasons to abandon Christianity – maybe I’ll respond to them in another post.

But your not really engaging with the argument or line of discussion here. You’ve still failed to offer reasons for why you accept some portions of the Gospels as partially-legendary and other portions as fully-legendary. Those reasons are essential to your case. Giving none smells of a dogmatically presupposed an unsupported anti-supernaturalism. If that it the case, it makes your reasoning circular and therefore patently informally invalid.

I thought it would be obvious what my own presuppositions are as a Christian apologist. Presuppositions form the world view that you have, and the inference to what mine are is not a huge leap of reasoning. The presupposition’s that are relevant to the above discussion are (1) I have a supernatural world view where miracles are possible, and (2) I have a Christian world view, where Jesus is Lord. Hopefully though I don’t lean on those assumptions in the arguments I make. Whereas, because of the absence of answers to the questions of Johnson and myself (laid out in comment 27), it makes it appear that you do dogmatically presuppose an unsupported anti-supernaturalism – in which case your begging the question.

absolutely perfect knowledge of your christian beliefs

I’ve never claimed this. I may have perfect knowledge of the belief themselves, but I certainly don’t have perfect knowledge of the truth of Christian belief. I don’t argue for mathematical certainty, but reasonableness or in this case “beyond reasonable doubt.”

I’ll try get the other post I’ve promised. I’ve got another assignment that I should do first though, so have a little patience. :-)

I have explained perfectly well the reasons why I think what I thnkabout the gospels. Look at 28 for a start! Not only have I explained them but they make perfect sense to you since you believe the same with respect to all other religions!

Hehe. I don’t know why you wrote 34. You claim I havn’t done things which I blatantly have, rely on circular reasoning via dogmtic ‘presuppositions’ yourself, and then accuse me of being circular and dogmatic! You then go and misquote me and then correct me for misreading you, but I didn’t misread you and you’d know this if you took the time to not misqote me.

Dude, you’re gonna have to make this a two-way conversation otherwise there’s no point in having it. Inanely claiming that I havn’t answered the question over and over shows an obvious lack of rebuttal. Jesus was largely legend. All the evidence points towards this and you have continually failed to explain away the evidence.

Simon,

The only part in 28 I discern that was remotely adressing the questions of 27 is;

The contradictions amongst them, The fact that they copied each each other, or other documents like ‘Q’(so much for independant), the fact that -when they copied the same documents – they conveniently left out different bits which were antithetical to the the author’s motives/themes, the trend of gospel over time I pointed out earlier. etc.

But this is not really answering Johnson’s question;

Pray, tell me, which portions of the account are partially legendary and which ones are mostly legendary.

nor mine; how do you determine that?

But on reflection these aren’t answering the questions, and you seem to recognise that as the following sentence states;

These all speak to the historical authenticity of the gospels.
But I’m not saying I rely entirely on these. [...]

But we’re not asking for the historical authenticity of the whole of the gospels, but the portions of the accounts that you somehow decide are historically less/more authentic.

If I’m incorrect in my analysis of 28, maybe you can quote the relevant portion that answers directly those questions bellow.

Give up Simon. You’ve done a good job of outlining your case. The rest is cutting into valuable living time. ;)

I have answered your question, and you still don’t understand what a presupposition is.

The quote above: These facts speak to the authenticity of the gospels all right. Negatively. I’m going to exit this conversation on this point because when people know what you mean but try to twist your words to say the opposite, you know they’ve got nothing. It occurs to me that maybe you think that using infantile tactics is better than saying nothing. It doesn’t. The more you try to avoid dealing with the obvious sense in the case against you the less respect people will have for your cause.

Let us know when you’re prepared to open our eyes.

Yeah, good point Damian.

Its clear to me at least that you haven’t answered the question. Somehow you’ve managed to decide what information in the Gospel narratives is a part of the portrait of the historical Jesus and what information is not. I’m asking what your criteria is – not the reasons for your general mistrust of the whole tradition. From what I’ve managed to glean from you, you accept he existed at least, that he had disciples, some of his teaching like ‘love your neighbour’ but not much else – why do you accept these and not other things?

Simon—

But, invoking the empirical again, I used to presuppose pretty much the opposite of these things given that I was a christian for most of my life.

i. You were not a Christian by my account. A Christian is someone whose profession of faith is genuine; and a genuine profession stems from being reborn of the Spirit. One cannot be “unborn”.

ii. Why should we consider the fact that you allegedly believed in the authenticity of the gospels for “most of your life” to be in any way relevant? What if I used to believe in their lack of authenticity for “most of my life”, and now believe the opposite? You’re just full of non-sequiturs.

The facts changed my presuppositions.

Then by all means, present them. Over forty posts in, you have yet to offer anything except your own prejudiced speculation and unsupported opinions as reasons to disbelieve that the gospels are accurate. You point us to your post 28, but although you allege plenty of “facts” there, you actually give us none. Merely saying “contradictions” exist does not show these contradictions. Merely saying the gospel writers “copied each other” does not demonstrate that what was copied (if it was copied) is false. Merely imputing insidious motives does not prove the existence of such. Merely claiming to observe a trend does not indicate that the trend exists, or that you are interpreting its meaning correctly if it does. Merely pointing to the existence of modern sects whose followers believe their leader to be divine doesn’t suggest that this is what happened in Christianity, nor that it was even possible or likely in that social context. In fact, you don’t appear to have done even the most basic reading on the formation of the Christian canon, the early Christian religion, or anything else remotely pertinent to the question.

Either stop hand-waving and show convincingly that you have a case, or stop pretending that you are basing your view on the “facts”, and just admit that you are relying merely upon your own superficial reading of the gospels, your own superficial “knowledge” of their socio-historic context, and your own prejudice. And then, by all means, “let us know when you’re prepared to open our [sic] eyes.”

Regards,
Bnonn

You were not a Christian by my account. A Christian is someone whose profession of faith is genuine; and a genuine profession stems from being reborn of the Spirit. One cannot be “unborn”.

Normally when someone deconverts from any religion I welcome them like a brother having shared many of their experiences. Bnonn, if you ever deconvert I will laugh at you for days.

Blind.

Sorry, but how am I blind?

i. You were not a Christian by my account. A Christian is someone whose profession of faith is genuine; and a genuine profession stems from being reborn of the Spirit. One cannot be “unborn”.

I was a genuine spiri-filled christian, Bnonn. But I am staggered that you, the backup big-gun no less, actually think this! This is the alpha and omega of circular resoning. If the real world doesn’t fit, just deny it! Facts will never change this thinking, and I find it ironic, but more poignantly Freudian, that fact and logic are so conspicuously your(pl) defence of christianity.

ii. Why should we consider the fact that you allegedly believed in the authenticity of the gospels for “most of your life” to be in any way relevant? What if I used to believe in their lack of authenticity for “most of my life”, and now believe the opposite? You’re just full of non-sequiturs.

They are extremely relevant when discussing presuppositions, Bnonn. Duh!
That you used to believe….. is extremely relevant, too. What’s the big……..ah!: Could the facts change your mind Bnonn? Well, I suppose you’ve already answered that one in my first quote of you here. Certainly not.

Then by all means, present them. Over forty posts in, you have yet to offer anything except your own prejudiced speculation and unsupported opinions as reasons to disbelieve that the gospels are accurate. You point us to your post 28, but although you allege plenty of “facts” there, you actually give us none. Merely saying “contradictions” exist does not show these contradictions. Merely saying the gospel writers “copied each other” does not demonstrate that what was copied (if it was copied) is false. Merely imputing insidious motives does not prove the existence of such…..

This is childish, Bnonn. I certainly have given good reasons why my position changed. That you disagree with them or have the opinion of that they aren’t good does not prove that they are invalid, and the arguments here for Lord as opposed to Lunatic, Liar, or Legend are, symmetrically, weak in my opinion.
I am not interested in battling over the details of biblical scholarship; I’ve done far too much of that before. Me hashing out the minutia of what I think will go nowhere except to highlight the differences in what you and I consider ‘good’ evidence. There are plenty of scholars out there who agree with you, and there are plenty who agree with me. I already agree that there is a case to be made for christianity; to claim there is none is just stupid. The question is, are you stupid? The question is whether you think that there is a case to be made for [at least partial] Legend. The question is whether you can transcend your own biases.

Simon and Ian,

pray tell me why exactly do you guys maintain that the supernatural claims recorded in gospels are false! You must definitely realize that an assertion in itself is not evidence!

It occurred to me awhile ago – so I thought I’d mention it here so I didn’t forget – that a similar trilemma to liar, lunatic or lord can be posed for all the sources that record that Christ was Lord or thought of himself as divine. As Simon denies the Gospel traditions factual authenticity on Christ’s divine claims, his rhetoric begs an answer to the question; were the authors liars, lunatics, legends,* or were they exactly what they claimed to be; writers recording accurate historical biographies of who Jesus was and what happened.

The other serious problem with Simon’s view is of the multiple attestation to the life of Christ from outside of the Gospel tradition. That’s why I’m trying to find time now to work on the portrait of the historical Jesus.

* I think Paley does a good job in discounting this possibility, and from memory Simon accepted the Gospels as what we have written today was what was written by the original authors c. 60 AD.

Simon—

I was a genuine spiri-filled christian, Bnonn.

Interesting—so the Spirit does exist?

But I am staggered that you, the backup big-gun no less, actually think this!

While I’m flattered, maybe you should sit down. These discussions seem to have a powerful effect on you.

This is the alpha and omega of circular resoning. If the real world doesn’t fit, just deny it!

What are you even talking about? Are you saying that I, as a Christian, should accept that your “spiritual” experience was genuine, despite the fact that it contradicts the biblical evidence, and that you yourself deny its genuineness? Plenty of people have spiritual experiences. People in other religions have all manner of them. People at music concerts and sports events have them. Should I assume that the Spirit of God is working in all these cases; or is it perhaps reasonable to think that they are qualitatively different kinds of experiences to the indwelling of the Spirit described by Scripture? Please, stop and think before you impute these woesome fallacies to me. Actually put your mind into gear instead of just reacting with the first excited gibberish that pops into your head.

That you used to believe….. is extremely relevant, too. What’s the big……..ah!: Could the facts change your mind Bnonn? Well, I suppose you’ve already answered that one in my first quote of you here. Certainly not.

Let me draw everyone’s attention to Simon’s contention: “that you used to believe … is extremely relevant”.

Now, let me draw everyone’s attention to the argument used to support this claim:

What, you say? Where is it? Don’t ask me. Ask Simon! All he gave to support his assertion was a random conversational snippet, and a question which he answered himself (although, unsurprisingly, he got the answer wrong).

This is childish, Bnonn. I certainly have given good reasons why my position changed.

Again, allow me to draw attention to the fact that Simon’s modus operandi is not to present any arguments or any facts, but merely to repeat his prejudiced opinions, while demeaning those who disagree with them.

@Johnson

pray tell me why exactly do you guys maintain that the supernatural claims recorded in gospels are false!

You are trying to make this too black and white: I maintain there is not enough reason to suppose the supernatural elements are true and, given the context around them, sufficient reason to doubt their truth.

You must definitely realize that an assertion in itself is not evidence!

Indeed… in fact it is precisely this reason that I doubt the supernatural aspects of the gospels in the first place: because all we have is assertion.

So what you’re admitting is really that you have an a priori commitment to disbelieving miracle claims despite whatever historical evidence there is, and despite how objectively sound it appears.

So what you’re admitting is really that you have an a priori commitment to disbelieving miracle claims despite whatever historical evidence there is, and despite how objectively sound it appears.

Far from it. Allow me to expand on my view of things:

Consider the following:

1. Supernatural claims are significant and extraordinary claims
2. To date no supernatural claim has been objectively verified beyond anecdote
3. Plenty of supernatural claims have been objectively “debunked”
4. People are easily deceived

Now taking those on board we then consider the claim of supernatural events in the bible:

5. There is no objective evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible
6. There are plausible natural explanations for most if not all supernatural claims in the bible
7. There is a long history of humans falsely using the supernatural to explain the inexplicable
8. There is motivation to make the claims of the bible sound miraculous

Taking the eight points above into account, I think I have a reasonable basis for entering any discussion of supernatural claims in the bible with a healthy dose of skepticism. The above is not a satisfactory basis to disregard all supernatural claims in the bible without further thought (and I have never claimed to do that) but given the above I would be foolish to take such claims lightly either.

Hi Ian.

1. Supernatural claims are significant and extraordinary claims

In what sense? I agree that supernatural claims are unusual claims, and that they point to and corroborate significant claims of another sort (namely the gospel etc). On the other hand, I don’t agree that supernatural claims are significant or extraordinary from a metaphysical point of view, since my metaphysic incorporates and expects supernatural events. You can’t claim that miracles are metaphysically significant or extraordinary without begging the question.

2. To date no supernatural claim has been objectively verified beyond anecdote

I don’t agree. I have not investigated this subject personally, but on the testimony of those who have, there appear to be a number of supernatural claims which have been investigated quite rigorously and remain inexplicable except on supernatural terms. I’m sure Google will turn up some good examples.

3. Plenty of supernatural claims have been objectively “debunked”

I’m not sure this is true, depending on what you mean by “plenty”. We need to be comparing apples with apples. Have “plenty” of supernatural claims of the kind in Scripture and with the level of corroboration described in Scripture been objectively debunked? This narrows the playing field significantly. But there is also a difficulty in evaluating this, since there are a lot of outspoken people dedicated to debunking these sorts of claims because they a priori believe them to be false. Therefore, it can be difficult to find instances where supernatural claims are given a fair hearing, or where apparent debunkings are perspicuously genuine. If you are simply being credulous about debunkings, while being incredulous about verifications, then you’re begging the question.

4. People are easily deceived

In a sense this is true, but the same point applies about comparing like with like. People are not typically given to being deceived into thinking that street magicians have healed the sick, cured the blind, or raised the dead. Additionally, we know that people living in first century Palestine were typically far more skeptical of supernatural claims, and more discerning with regard to apparent miracles, than people today are—largely because they lived in such a pluralistic and superstitious culture where half the people on the street claimed to have some kind of mystic abilities. So, while (4) is true, it’s irrelevantly true.

5. There is no objective evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible

Firstly, this is false, as Stuart is currently researching. Secondly, even if it were true, you are tacitly, but illicitly, treating the Bible as a single volume—when in fact it is a compendium of independent testimonies. Thus, the various witnesses within Scripture itself constitute objective evidence.

6. There are plausible natural explanations for most if not all supernatural claims in the bible

Patently absurd, unless by “natural explanations” you mean “lying” or “misreporting” or something of that nature. The whole point of many of the miracles witnessed in Scripture is that there is no plausible natural explanation. That’s why the miracles were performed—to act as proofs to the supernatural claims of a prophet.

7. There is a long history of humans falsely using the supernatural to explain the inexplicable

Even if true, this is irrelevant. If 50 people falsely claim to have a red car, that doesn’t mean that my claim to have a red car is false. Furthermore, there is a long history of humans ostensibly correctly using the supernatural to explain the inexplicable as well. I “use” the supernatural in the same way that the ancient Hebrews did, for instance, to “explain” morality; the same way the ancient Greeks did to explain consciousness; the same way Muslims did to explain the existence of the universe; and so on. Not precisely the same way, of course, but in principle the explanations are similar. And there are good reasons to think these explanations are true—anyone denying their plausibility is merely misinformed or a bigot. So these are not false explanations unless you’re presupposing your conclusion here, so your claim is even further undermined.

8. There is motivation to make the claims of the bible sound miraculous

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Motivation on the part of whom? The authors? What motivation did they have, and how do you know this? On the part of us? Why? Aren’t we merely bearing witness to the self-evidently miraculous claims of Scripture? It isn’t as if we’re trying to make them seem more miraculous than they are, or attest miraculous events where merely natural ones are described.

Regards,
Bnonn

I’ll reply using the numbering to avoid confusing quoting so refer to comments 50 and 51 for context:

1. They are significant in the sense that objective verification of them is a big deal. They are extraordinary in the sense that showing Jesus walked on water is a bigger deal than proving he had lunch one day. This simply shows the issue is non-trivial.

2. Inexplicable is quite different from objectively proven as supernatural. This shows there is some cause for doubt.

3. This is merely a part of the picture. Peter Popoff leaps to mind as a nice relevant example but there are many others. This simply shows that false beliefs can be held sincerely and on mass.

4. People are deceived about many things and often spread these misbeliefs. This is just another piece of the picture and offers a potential mechanism for misbelief.

5. There may be anecdotal or circumstantial evidence for the supernatural claims in the bible but this is far from objective (and repeatable) evidence and to be honest we wouldn’t expect such evidence to exist. This simply shows there is some cause for doubt.

6. You show me a claim that has “no plausible natural explanation” and I’ll show you a plausible natural explanation. I understand their purpose is to validate the divine source of the bible but (as we’ll see later) this is reason to doubt, not accept.

7. If there is a trend of people falsely claiming to have red cars, I would be foolish to blindly accept the next claim I encountered. It may well be a true claim but it is sensible to approach the claim with caution. This demonstrates doubt.

Also it seems we use supernatural is quite different ways. I “use” the supernatural to describe things that shouldn’t exist or be possible if material existence is all there is. It is more than just being immaterial in nature.

8. I seriously doubt that the bible was written indifferently with no interest in convincing other people of it’s truth and it’s miraculous nature. Given that, there is sufficient reason to suspect (like all such documents) that some degree of emphasis or exaggeration was inevitable. The question is whether this was a distorting feature or not and therefore is a reason to doubt.

Ian,

Just a few comments.

2. [on miracles] . . . This shows there is some cause for doubt.

What do you think of these rules for verification of supernatural activity Here? If a modern miracle passed all (or some of) these tests, do you feel you would be justified in believing it was a genuine miracle and a supernatural source?

Re5: “objective” is an unrealistic standard to hold in verification of historical events -especially miracles, which are generally cause for great rejoicing. One wonders how anything of history is known, if this is the standard. Its unreasonable to place this standard on the biblical texts, when it is placed on no other text or event of history in order to verify its veracity. “Repeatable” is the same and requires the historical method to have the proficiency of the empirical-scientific method.

Re6: I’ll be arguing later – when I get time – hopefully – that the resurrection of Christ has no better naturalistic hypothesis that fits the evidence (yet to established here also) in the rules for the best explanation. This miracle explicitly verifies the Lordship of Christ (as used in 2iv and 3vi) and by extension the whole of the New Testament.

Re7 and 8: Demonstrating doubt is understandable, but not an honest procedure for the historian, the forensic investigator, the archaeologist, and more besides. What I think you lack is a proper method of evaluating historical claims and data. It seems all you have now is speculation tainted with anti-supernaturalism. I suggest to you take the inference to the best explanation method (explanatory power, explanatory scope, degree of ad hocness, etc.) and the tools and rules of historical research (criteria of dissimilarity, criteria of embarrassment, multiple attestation, etc.) as these are the standard methods for professional historical investigation.

@Stuart

2. I only briefly looked at your list (and will try and look deeper later on) but my initial impression was that you were focusing on ruling out skepticism. For me the focus would be better set on establishing the positive claim that it is a miracle rather than showing it isn’t not a miracle :).

Off the top of my head I’d argue a key test of a miracle is that it should be apparently impossible. Anything less is probably not miraculous? I realise I didn’t quite answer your question so feel free to throw that one back at me.

5. Objective might be a tough standard for historical accounts but that just reinforces the need for caution when dealing with history, not the need to loosen one’s rigor.

6. I look forward to it.

7&8. Historical analysis is necessarily less rigorous because the information available is less rigorous and historians have methods for trying to compensate for that. However I am skeptical of a present day claim for which historical evidence dominates the evidence for it. Therefore I’d argue my call for caution is still warranted.

I agree that any of those issues in isolation are generally not enough to warrant rejecting the idea but in combination they make a much more powerful argument for caution and I think a reasonable basis to doubt the claims.

Ian,

For me the focus would be better set on establishing the positive claim that it is a miracle rather than showing it isn’t not a miracle

Its either m or not-m. “isn’t not a miracle” is not-not-m which is to say m. Unless there is some other category I’m missing?

I think your definition of miracle needs tightening up. A miracle would be an event where the natural conditions for the causation of that event were not present. To be distinguished from an event where the natural conditions were present to cause the effect. In popular the latter could still be a miracle (as in an answer to prayer) but I think it helpful to say that was God’s providential working through secondary causes, and not the type of miracle we are talking about. The type of event like walking on water would be. Raining would not be, unless the natural conditions for rain, such as rain clouds, were not present.

5. I don’t think lessening ones rigour in investigation is called for when miracles are on the table. And I can grant you all the caution you wish. But requiring objectivity of your primary and secondary sources as a standard is to rule out everything ever written on the subject before any investigation is begun – which is of course drawing conclusions in advance of honest research and arguing in a circle.

Re6: Here are the miracles that you claim have plausible naturalistic explanations. Chose any; the Ascension, the transfiguration, the leper cleansed, blind Bartemaus receives his sight, the lame man at the pool of Bethesda, the feeding of the 5000, and 4000, Jesus walking of water, etc.

Re7-8

However I am skeptical of a present day claim for which historical evidence dominates the evidence for it.

I don’t get what you’re saying in that sentence.

I agree that any of those issues in isolation are generally not enough to warrant rejecting the idea but in combination they make a much more powerful argument for caution and I think a reasonable basis to doubt the claims.

Put many leaky buckets together, and you still don’t get a container that holds water. You can have caution, but doubt is jumping the mark and presupposing a position before investigation has begun.

Its either m or not-m. “isn’t not a miracle” is not-not-m which is to say m. Unless there is some other category I’m missing?

My point was that you really need to make a distinction between the inexplicable and the miraculous. Let us say that we identify a person who apparently can walk on water (and do it at will) and who appears to not be cheating. We would probably have no explanation for such an observation. If we were to rule out all explanations we can think of then it would still be a non-sequitur to then say “ergo god exists” – all we can say is that we don’t know how it happened.

I think your definition of miracle needs tightening up.

I agree entirely and would argue that yours does too :)

A miracle would be an event where the natural conditions for the causation of that event were not present.

Except we can never show this to be true unless we fully understand the natural laws (which we probably never will and certainly don’t at the moment). The best we could say in such an instance is that we don’t know any natural cause. This is why I think ruling out natural explanations is a poor way to approach the issue.

re 5. My point is that if all you have is historical claims then you will always struggle for certainty. Historians are well aware of this and seek the next best thing out of necessity, not because it is ideal.

re 6. Some possibilities:

the Ascension: Hallucination
the transfiguration: Trick of the light
the leper cleansed: Wasn’t a leper to start with
Blind Bartemaus receives his sight: not completely blind and only claimed healing
The lame man at the pool of Bethesda: wasn’t really lame
The feeding of the 5000, and 4000: He gave them food?
Jesus walking of water: Rocks under the water, shallow water, mud, stilts…

All of the above could have been easily exaggerated into miraculous accounts…

re 7-8. Loosely translated: Christianity makes a claim that god exists now and then uses events of 2000+ years ago as one of the major supporting arguments.

So what you’re admitting is really that you have an a priori commitment to disbelieving miracle claims despite whatever historical evidence there is, and despite how objectively sound it appears.

I find your statement a little hypocritical, though. It’s not as though you approach the topic of miracles (any topic) without a-priori commitments. These commitments have caused you to build up what you consider to be a very robust set of reasons that christianity must be true, which is why you – for instance – focus on what the ‘most sensible’ conclusion is given the gospels. My commitments lead me to focus on other sets of reasons; resons which I consider to be robust. I try to drag theses arguments towards my reasons, and you and Stuart try to drag/keep them in your territory.
This a-priori stuff: I would consider it obvious that, once we have concluded something like the truth of christianity or the non-existence of miracles, we are at least partially at the mercy of the confirmation bias, which, of course, leads us to build an even stronger ‘logical’ case for what we have already concluded. Wouldn’t you agree?

The thing that I find absurd is that there is almost no-one out there who would convert to christianity because of the logical arguments for it. – So much so that the likes of yourself would not consider it a real conversion without the ‘spiritual’ aspect. – And yet the claimed inevitability, and unavoidability of the historical evidence is pushed so forcefully in this forum that you and Stuart can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that there is a case at all for an alternate explanation for the evidence. There is something amiss when people can’t do this.

Again, allow me to draw attention to the fact that Simon’s modus operandi is not to present any arguments or any facts, but merely to repeat his prejudiced opinions, while demeaning those who disagree with them.

The problem is that you have set up your worldview in order that you automaticlly consider certain arguments as ‘bad’. I have given plenty of reasons – reasons which would be agreed by many scholars – it’s just that you don’t think them good. And I, too, could throw sarcasm and mockery at you because I consider your arguments as prejudiced opinion; I consider many of your arguments as wrong. But I am sane enough to realise that my conclusions are biased by my worldview, and that there is a case for christianity. And again, you avoid the question (AND the question of whether evidence could change your position, Bnonn.), which is suspicious. Can you bear to consider the possibility that other people – including many scholars – consider different evidence important to what you do? And, as biased as you think their disregarding of what you judge as good evidence is, can you see that what you consider good evidence is biased also? Can you admit, as I can for your case, that there is a case for Jesus as legend?

Ian,

I think if you see someone walking on water (and it checks out such that you don’t know what – if any – natural explanation can be given) you would be obtuse not to think it a miracle, according to my definition as well as anyone else’s. Agnosticism in the face of somethings so blatantly not apart of the natural scheme of things would reveal a sever hardening of the heart to really good evidence.

The problem that you have now is the frequency of similar events that could not be given natural explanations.

And its important to note that Jesus walking on the water is not some random event without a context. It comes instead as apart of life and ministry that was characterised by the miraculous a – a ministry and life that in a very short space of time after the crucifixion, people understood to be signifying that Jesus was divine.

Except we can never show this to be true unless we fully understand the natural laws (which we probably never will and certainly don’t at the moment). The best we could say in such an instance is that we don’t know any natural cause. This is why I think ruling out natural explanations is a poor way to approach the issue.

re 5. My point is that if all you have is historical claims then you will always struggle for certainty. Historians are well aware of this and seek the next best thing out of necessity, not because it is ideal.

Re5: I’m o.k. with the best thing historians can think of. I agree that naturalistic explanations are to be preferred. But in the absence of naturalistic defeaters to the miraculous, there is no good reason to ignore the supernatural when it fully explains the data according to the rules of the inference to the best explanation.

the Ascension: Hallucination
the transfiguration: Trick of the light
the leper cleansed: Wasn’t a leper to start with
Blind Bartemaus receives his sight: not completely blind and only claimed healing
The lame man at the pool of Bethesda: wasn’t really lame
The feeding of the 5000, and 4000: He gave them food?
Jesus walking of water: Rocks under the water, shallow water, mud, stilts…

All of the above could have been easily exaggerated into miraculous accounts…

What you mainly do is change the details of the story given by the gospels. In these case you must be using some criteria that clues you in as to where the author of the text is either lying or mistaken and where the information given is truthful and correct. But what is this criteria?

As I pointed out before, if Jesus is not liar, lunatic or lord, the people presenting his biography are either liars, legends, or imbeciles themselves. Legends is ruled out by Paley’s excellent argument in the previous post. The liars option is ruled out by; the void of other accounts; that these accounts were written contemporaneously with the apostles and other living witnesses, who would have repudiated these stories given the culture; and that the witnesses of these events were willing to die for the beliefs that were the Gospels spell out for us. The imbeciles option is ruled out by the fact that Christianity grew and grew fast under their preaching; that Paul, who is unanimously agreed to be a bright spark, met and agreed with these witnesses; and that most of these are unmistakably miraculous to any moron.

The only option left is that the Gospels were faithfully recording what happened.

If your not changing the details of the stories your naturalistic explanations bomb. Take one example: the ascension. If this was an hallucination then you have a problem with the multiple witnesses present experiencing the same hallucination. Hallucinations aren’t shared with other people as they occur in the mind and are person relative. They shared both a visual hallucination, and an auditory hallucination. The disciples weren’t in the conditions that enable hallucinations. Then you have Jesus’ absence after the ascension that needs to be explained. With respect to the hallucination theory proposed by people trying to explain away the appearances of Jesus post his death on the cross; (1) you have the origin of the Christian faith itself; (2) The empty tomb that still needs to be explained; (3) The very un-Jewish belief that God raised Jesus from the dead, as any hallucination of Jesus would have been interpreted that Jesus was glorified and in heaven awaiting the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the age, etc.

Re7: I still don’t understand the thrust of your point here. Could it be your saying the evidences efficacy has deteriorated with time?

In response to that: evidence doesn’t become bad evidence because there is a long period of time between its reporting and now. What matters is the period of time that elapses from the occurrence of the event and when the account of it is written, and that time period doesn’t change.

Rather than tackling that point by point (I am a bit short of time at the moment), here is a simple restatement of some key points (which address most of what you talk about):

1. The inexplicable is not automatically miraculous (in the god-did-it sense)
2. The supernatural isn’t really an explanation if it is just a synonym for inexplicable
3. Legends can grow very quickly from very little.
4. Paley’s arguments suggest genuine intent from the gospel authors, nothing more. Neither “lunatic” or “liar” is ruled out.
5. Liar, lunatic or lord is, in my opinion, a loaded (and probably false) trichotomy

If there are any specific points you really want me to follow up or feel has been left hanging please let me know and I’ll do my best.

2. The supernatural isn’t really an explanation if it is just a synonym for inexplicable

Couple the miraculous with the claims of being divine you have an uphill climb towards plausibility I think. Would you modify this claim if the same man claimed he was divine and then said “I’ll prove it my dying and being raised to life,” and then he is resurrected after his very public execution?

3. Legends can grow very quickly from very little.

This may be true. But you have to prove this is possible within a similar cultural backdrop. In other words you have to compare like with like. In order to find a like to compare with you must remember two things about first century Jews; (i) that the Jews held the truth in high regard while at the same time repudiated lies and alteration in the narrative genre; and (ii) that the culture valued oral tradition so highly exact memorisation was required of a rabbi’s disciples in order that the core of his teaching and events of his life were not distorted even 2-3 generations after events.

4. Paley’s arguments suggest genuine intent from the gospel authors, nothing more. Neither “lunatic” or “liar” is ruled out.

If the Jesus presented in the gospels is not the genuine Jesus of history, then your pushing the argument back a step and placing the three options on the authors (from which the liar, lunatic, lord argument does not fully rely, btw). Paley’s argument states these reports were not legend and the authors believed these reports to be true. Therefore, either the gospel writers were liars, lunatics, imbeciles, or faithfully recording what actually happened. Here are some reasons to discount those options.

Liars they were not, for there is no other tradition or account of Jesus’ non-miraculous life, the disciples were willing to die for their beliefs which included Jesus was Lord (the one true God, fully divine). Lunatics they were not, for the generated a large following from their preaching, and intelligent people believed them and investigated the beliefs of the disciples. Imbeciles they were not, for their writing is of studied and refined quality.

Which leaves the option that the Gospel writers faithfully reported what actually happened. Given this, Jesus did disclose his self-conception, that self-conception is accurately reported, and that makes Jesus either a liar, a lunatic or Lord. The points above in the article against the liar and lunatic options therefore stand.

5. Liar, lunatic or lord is, in my opinion, a loaded (and probably false) trichotomy

Apart from it leaves out “Legend” as an option, how is it a false trichotomy? And how is it loaded? It seems to me to cover all the options.

Pursue anyone of these you wish :-)

A couple of quick comments:

Would you modify this claim if the same man claimed he was divine and then said “I’ll prove it my dying and being raised to life,” and then he is resurrected after his very public execution?

Not really. A person saying something before that happened only shows they had foresight of an inexplicable event, something that would be in itself inexplicable. You are no closer to an explanation, there is just another level of complexity there.

Apart from it leaves out “Legend” as an option, how is it a false trichotomy? And how is it loaded? It seems to me to cover all the options.

It is false for a few reasons – firstly liar to lunatic is a continuum, not a discrete choice. Secondly by “Lord” I assume you mean that in the Christian sense such that if Jesus was actually a manifestation of the flying spaghetti monster he would not be lord. Thirdly, as you suggest in your post, it is not clear who the lying or the lunacy actually applies to. Finally Chinese whispers (and similar effects like selective memory) can mean that a false story can be faithfully passed on through relatively few tellings to become a false end result with no lying or lunacy.

The reply buttom no longer works :(
http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/the-inherent-value-of-human-life/

“Now how is it you can hold moral values as objective if man is merely a machine with no free will. If we are programmed by nature (and nurture) how is it you can condemn someone’s actions as wrong (and conversely praise someones actions as good or right) when they had no choice in the matter?”

You are confusing the meaning of the word choice. It was not my “choice” where I was born, who my parents are, what time I was born in, how I was raised, my DNA or any number of thing. However, all these make me who I am. While the individual choice you make is predetermined, it is predetermined because of who you are. It is no use saying “my history made me become a bad person” because it does not change the fact you are a bad person.

It is notable that determinism has emperical support (like the fact that crime rates vary over time) while free will has none. Free will also suffers from being nonsensical and impossible as well- in order to have free will you are essentially saying that you can violate casulty.

“You must give some sort of account about how foxes, humans, etc., acquired sapience, on your definition, if its not going to be a figment of your imagination. You can’t just assume it – its the ad hoc linchpin of your whole argument.”

It is an emergent property of having enough brain tissue. Explaining it is like saying when water acquires the property of wetness. A single molecule isn’t wet, nor two, nor three, but a bucket full is.

” What does sapience rely on?”

Some sort of physical information processing structure. It won’t come with all- hopefully we will make idiot savant style computers.

“On the Christian view, sapience is a result of God giving human life inherent value, which also includes things like an actual free-will, the capacity for rationality, to have relationship with God, to be creative, and other things.”

Giving inherent value. Would you like to use a phrase that isn’t inherently inconsistent?

-free will is impossible as it violates casulty
-rationality is seen in other living things that can problem solve
-creativity is also seen in other animals- any that can problem solve, that makes displays that aren’t off a predetermined pattern, etc.

“But if God has not given us those things, then the naturalistic account reduces moral values to mere subjective expressions determined by nature – so your system of ethics, Samuel, is thoroughly inconsistent.”

How is it inconsistent? After all, that is exactly how ethics works. It is wrong to toss someone out of a plane if they don’t have a parachute, but if they do it is okay. The right action depended entirely on the nature of the situation.

If you are talking about reality itself, than no. Ethics do not exist in the natural world.

On topic
The reason I dismiss miracles is simple- if God wanted to do something miraculous, it would be VERY obvious. Things like raising the dead, messing around with the Moon or something that obviously violated what we know about reality and can be checked by many people. I doubt the Gospels for the simple reason that if you had a man going around performing miracles, the word would get out and people would flock from all over the empire to ask for favors. After all, this is the classical period, where the life expectancy was in the 40s or 50s.

“2i) Most recognise that Jesus taught the highest standards of morality ever taught, and great moral teachers would not teach lies such as he was God.
2ii) Jesus had a positive impact on mankind like no other man. A positive impact does not come from teachings based on lies.
2iii) Jesus’ love an compassion for his fellow man does not fit the profile of a selfish liar.”

Uh, from what I remember, Jesus teaching are essentially egalitarianism. That isn’t really radical.

“2iv) His resurrection was genuine.”

He died surprisingly quickly, right? Isn’t it more likely he didn’t die, but interpreted coming of the cross and survivng as coming back from the dead?

“2v) Deceitful men do not die for what they know to be false. He was arrested for his claims all he needed to do was to say he was not God. Instead he was silent before his accusers and surrendered himself to the most brutal form of torture devised – crucifixion.”"

Given that he was killed for essentially crimes against the state, I’m pretty sure saying that he wasn’t God would not spare him from execution. The Romans did not find forcing people to give apologies a good deterant.

’3i) Jesus was the greatest teacher that ever lived and insane people make lousy teachers.”

Prove it. That is an entriely subjective statement.

’3ii) His miraculous life proves he was not a lunatic ”

Do I need to bring up other individuals with miraculous lives? The fact they had a category to fit him in proves there were many others like him.

“3iii) Lunatic’s disciples eventually come to their senses, and Jesus’ disciples were at least willing to go die for their beliefs.”

You have never met a Marxist, have you?

“3iv) A lunatics moral example does not endure many generations.
3v) Lunatic’s lives do not inspire movements that change the world.”

Ayn Rand, Marx and so many others show that just isn’t true.

“Over 300 prophesies were fulfilled in the life and ministry of Jesus.”

it is really easy to fullfill prophecies when you know what they are going to be. of course, the fact that the people who kept track of the prophocies didn’t believe him counts against him.