I’ll be honest. I’m just not going to go read it. I’ve read dozens of books on this from every side. I understand how archeological and textual evidence works and why while anecdotal evidence and experiences are valuable they don’t constitute anything actually concrete. I already know there is no evidence on the entire planet, from any period of time, past or present, that proves supernatural claims.
If you want to provide a few sentences on the strongest evidence you have I’ll read it. But I’m not hoping to another thread to read something and so in. Since this has circled around again I’m just going to presume Nick does not understand the question, which has been repeated several times and you are to burned out or either don’t have something to present. So regardless of what responses show up, I’ll come back to this thread in a few days and skim the responses to see if anything changed. If not, then I’ll ignore it or either find a way to turn off notifications for this thread. I have minimal time to goof around online and that includes forums. Thank you for your time though Lamb and perhaps later on in the future I’ll find my way to that thread and comment there.
So to complete this circle. Atheism is the lack of accepting supernatural claims that provide no evidence to support it. Should note again, I’m not an atheist. I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the bulk of the stories in the gospel including the supernatural claims. But there is zero evidence out there to be presented supporting it beyond reasonable doubt. About the only thing that can be solidly proven given standards in archeology and archiving, is that a man named Jesus existed and a sect of Jewish men with some women developed around his beliefs. We can’t even find solid proof of his death. We can’t find solid evidence for the majority of his followers. We can’t find evidence of things like he walked on water. We can’t even verify how many was there that saw it.
@Skovand the “long boring thread” is rather unusual for these forums and worth a read - if you’ve not studied biblical scholarship (I haven’t) there will probably be stuff you haven’t seen before. Particularly on the comparison for how much evidence we require for conventionally historical figures as opposed to religious figures.
It may be sensible to separate out the evidence for the existence of historical figures from the evidence supporting supernatural events associated with them.
Anyway it's a matter of faith not evidence. If there were evidence faith would not be needed.
@Skovand the “long boring thread” is rather unusual for these forums and worth a read - if you’ve not studied biblical scholarship (I haven’t) there will probably be stuff you haven’t seen before. Particularly on the comparison for how much evidence we require for conventionally historical figures as opposed to religious figures.
I have been studying biblical scholarship writings for close to a decade now, including taking numerous courses online and a few in person, which is what has lead to my current stance .
Also "Atheism is the lack of accepting supernatural claims that provide no evidence to support it" seems going far beyond the usual definitions. One can be atheistic and still believe in say ghosts.
Since this has circled around again I’m just going to presume Nick does not understand the question, which has been repeated several times and you are to burned out or either don’t have something to present..
That would be a mistaken presumption. From my perspective, it appears you are ignoring a simple, straightforward question. You are challenging people to prove you wrong (as long as they can do so succinctly, apparently), but you seem unwilling to discuss why you are looking for evidence that will satisfy (in your mind) one specific standard of proof. And you’re mixing concepts, at some points asking for “concrete evidence” and at other times evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
For background, I practiced law (in the US) for 35 years. I was a litigator, so I’m very familiar with different kinds of evidence and with the various standards of proof required for various kinds of claims. You have asked to be shown evidence that satisfies you by the criminal standard of proof: “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
That I have asked why that standard should apply and not one of the other standards of proof—or why any legal standard should apply at all, given that most of us don’t consciously use legal standards of proof when making day-to-day decisions—is not reason to presume I don’t understand your question. But it is, perhaps, reason to presume I am questioning or challenging the assumptions contsined in your question.
Also "Atheism is the lack of accepting supernatural claims that provide no evidence to support it" seems going far beyond the usual definitions. One can be atheistic and still believe in say ghosts.
No atheism rejects the belief of ghosts on the basis that they are supernatural beings with no evidence that they exist. Just like there is no evidence of any of the thousands of gods in existence, any of the angels or demons, or any of the people claiming to have supernatural powers regardless if it’s through prayer or magic. Cursed items and so on.
No atheism rejects the belief of ghosts on the basis that they are supernatural beings with no evidence that they exist.
And yet I know people who identify as atheists and who also believe in ghosts. “Atheism” is not a monolithic thing; it can take a variety of forms. There is no Atheist Vatican or Académie Athée.
We can’t even find solid proof of his death. We can’t find solid evidence for the majority of his followers. We can’t find evidence of things like he walked on water. We can’t even verify how many was there that saw it.
What evidence do you think it is possible to find that a man 2000 years ago walked on water? Are you expecting to find glowing footprints etched in to the Sea of Galilee?
We have all the evidence that it is reasonable to have for an event that happened 2000 years ago - people told other people, and then some people wrote it down. You can believe that this is an accurate retelling of events that happened, or you can believe that it is a pious fiction. What evidence do you think is possible to exist that would allow you to distinguish between these two options?
We can’t even find solid proof of his death. We can’t find solid evidence for the majority of his followers. We can’t find evidence of things like he walked on water. We can’t even verify how many was there that saw it.
What evidence do you think it is possible to find that a man 2000 years ago walked on water? Are you expecting to find glowing footprints etched in to the Sea of Galilee?
We have all the evidence that it is reasonable to have for an event that happened 2000 years ago - people told other people, and then some people wrote it down. You can believe that this is an accurate retelling of events that happened, or you can believe that it is a pious fiction. What evidence do you think is possible to exist that would allow you to distinguish between these two options?
Culturally impossible emotional intelligence in attested text. As @Gamma Gamaliel said, we only have the Jesus of faith. The Holy Spirit slipped up there.
Culturally impossible emotional intelligence in attested text.
An assertion you often make, but without support.
As @Gamma Gamaliel said, we only have the Jesus of faith. The Holy Spirit slipped up there.
What you might call a bug, others might call a feature.
Please point to any in the attested text. I don't have to show there isn't. I'm entirely open to being convinced that anything unquestionably written from 60-120 AD is unnatural. I want to be above all else.
The HS goes out of its way to deny its existence is a feature?
Culturally impossible emotional intelligence in attested text.
An assertion you often make, but without support.
As @Gamma Gamaliel said, we only have the Jesus of faith. The Holy Spirit slipped up there.
What you might call a bug, others might call a feature.
Please point to any in the attested text. I don't have to show there isn't. I'm entirely open to being convinced that anything unquestionably written from 60-120 AD is unnatural. I want to be above all else.
We’ve been through this many times, Martin. We’ve had whole threads on it. I’m not doing it yet again. It’s a waste of time.
The HS goes out of its way to deny its existence is a feature?
Some might say operating in a way such as to require reliance on faith rather than empirical certainty is a feature rather than a bug.
Culturally impossible emotional intelligence in attested text.
An assertion you often make, but without support.
As @Gamma Gamaliel said, we only have the Jesus of faith. The Holy Spirit slipped up there.
What you might call a bug, others might call a feature.
Please point to any in the attested text. I don't have to show there isn't. I'm entirely open to being convinced that anything unquestionably written from 60-120 AD is unnatural. I want to be above all else.
(a) We’ve been through this many times, Martin. We’ve had whole threads on it. I’m not doing it yet again. It’s a waste of time.
(b) The HS goes out of its way to deny its existence is a feature?
Some might say operating in a way such as to require reliance on faith rather than empirical certainty is a feature rather than a bug.
(a) Sorry. Yes it is. If there were any evidence in the text we'd all know it. I just hope against hope that someone has something.
(b) And some might say that. I can't. Can not. I wish I could. Dearly. Above all things. I envy all who have the Jesus of faith, sola fide. My disposition, my wiring can't do it without seeing it, without knowing it. Walking on water would follow.
Culturally impossible emotional intelligence in attested text.
An assertion you often make, but without support.
As @Gamma Gamaliel said, we only have the Jesus of faith. The Holy Spirit slipped up there.
What you might call a bug, others might call a feature.
Please point to any in the attested text. I don't have to show there isn't. I'm entirely open to being convinced that anything unquestionably written from 60-120 AD is unnatural. I want to be above all else.
(a) We’ve been through this many times, Martin. We’ve had whole threads on it. I’m not doing it yet again. It’s a waste of time.
(b) The HS goes out of its way to deny its existence is a feature?
Some might say operating in a way such as to require reliance on faith rather than empirical certainty is a feature rather than a bug.
(a) Sorry. Yes it is. If there were any evidence in the text we'd all know it. I just hope against hope that someone has something.
Why does there need to be in evidence “in the text”? Your assertion is about ancient culture in general, and about a particular example of emotional intelligence being, you assert, impossible in first century Palestine. That assertion has been refuted—not to your satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of some—in the earlier conversations and threads.
(b) And some might say that. I can't.
Which is why I intentionally said “some might say.”
No atheism rejects the belief of ghosts on the basis that they are supernatural beings with no evidence that they exist.
The term for what you're describing is secular rationalism, scientific rationalism, or secular humanism - although many of those who fit that description are STEM (science technology engineering medicine) supremacists, and I kind of think that humanism should respect the humanities.
Most atheists in the Western world, especially those with media presence for being atheists, would of course say that they're atheists because they believe there is insufficient grounds for belief in any form of supernatural, but atheism as such is just disbelief in God for any reason whatsoever.
No atheism rejects the belief of ghosts on the basis that they are supernatural beings with no evidence that they exist.
And yet I know people who identify as atheists and who also believe in ghosts. “Atheism” is not a monolithic thing; it can take a variety of forms. There is no Atheist Vatican or Académie Athée.
No atheism rejects the belief of ghosts on the basis that they are supernatural beings with no evidence that they exist.
And yet I know people who identify as atheists and who also believe in ghosts. “Atheism” is not a monolithic thing; it can take a variety of forms. There is no Atheist Vatican or Académie Athée.
Yes. I would say someone is not an atheist if they believe in the supernatural. If they do, it’s a fringe belief being wrongly labeled.
Then I would have to say you’re employing an idiosyncratic definition of “atheist” and “atheism,” and that you may be the one using labels incorrectly.
Should note again, I’m not an atheist. I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the bulk of the stories in the gospel including the supernatural claims. But there is zero evidence out there to be presented supporting it beyond reasonable doubt.
I think I'm confused now. I thought you'd said you were close to the atheist side on this or another thread?
So what I said is that if there is a spectrum of beliefs ranging from supernatural to atheist, as a Christian, it close to the atheist side.
So I am a Christian. That means I believe in God. I believe in the supernatural. These beliefs are still on spectrums. I am convinced of the theological stance of cessationism. So that means, while I accept that Paul did heal crippled people and so on, and those he laid his hands on to pass the power of the spirit too, could also do the same, these were to jumpstart the church and ended around the first century since those who received the laying on of hands could not themselves lay their hands on someone. So I reject all modern miracles and see no proof of things like instant healing, raising the dead, speaking in tongues, prophecies and so on.
Secondly, I fall under preterstic doctrines. That means I think the resurrection is spiritual resurrection and not a physical one. It means I think Satan and demons have already been destroyed, if they even existed and was not merely hyperbolic symbolic representations. So I don’t believe demons are on earth and I don’t believe anyone can be possessed.
So that knocks out instantly a very huge portion of supernatural beliefs.
Then it comes to things like intelligent design. I don’t believe in any form of intelligent design. YECism and OECism is on par with flat earthers. Then we have what you call evolutionary creationist who often believes that god somehow behind the scenes folded evolution. I reject that. I’m a Christian naturalist. That means I think naturalism answers everything about the natural world. God of the gaps issues, could be filled in with magic but I don’t see a reason too and instead just say we don’t know and should wait for more data. Such as with abiogenesis . I don’t think God actually made us or even planned us out. I think that’s just hyperbole and accomondationism.
Take prayer. I don’t think the purpose of prayer is to ask god for things which is why it seemingly never works. Every Christian with cancer and every Christian who is married prays for their healing or prayers for that their spouse and kids will be safe, and in every emergency Christians and agnostics will almost always pray for supernatural intervention and yet millions die from diseases, are murdered, dies in war and so on. We could all go to st Jude’s and pray for a kid there with stage four cancer and that kid would most likely still die. We could go up to any soldier who’s been deformed by an explosion and pray for their face to be healed and they will most likely still be scarred up. We could pray for our pets to live extra long and they most likely will still die within their natural life spans. So I believe that prayer is instead used for us to psychologically work through and meditate on what we want, the stories of the Bible, and help guide us towards a path to reach it.
Take the Bible. Any of them. There are four or five main bibles now. We see evidence of the source hypothesis and biblical seams of various traditions. Genesis 1&2 are both separate creation accounts. 1 Samuel 16&17 have very different origins of how and when David and Saul met.
Additionally, while I say I believe that Jesus walked on water it’s more like I am not opposed to it. I still think there is a decent chance that’s not literal. It’s a myth added in to help create the story God wanted. That Jesus walking on water is showing his place above the chaos of “tohu wabohu” just like the ark and basket of Moses. We see this imagery of “tree of life” conquering the dark, deep wet void again and again. So I’m equally ok with that story being fictional. Just like much of the Bible already is.
Additionally, I don’t believe in fairies, or ghosts, or Bigfoot, or telepathic visions from aliens or witches, vampires and so on. So I’ll have a worldview far more aligned with an atheist humanist than I would with a biblical literalist.
Why do you not believe supernatural actions of the Holy Spirit could have continued beyond biblical times - is there a specific reason ?
There are many specific reasons. The term is cesseationism. It’s an entire doctrine spanning Christianity.
There is a Wikipedia article under cessationism vs continuationism that is a decent place to start for those interested. It has several other key words there. Also searches for things like cessationism and preterism also brings up quite a bit. It’s become a fairly common subject within biblical studies focused on the New Testament. Within scholarship most of the discussion I’ve seen seems centered about cessationism vs symbolism/mythology of supernatural acts. Which is where I’m currently standing at the fork road as shown with the walking on water example previously mentioned. Perhaps at a later point I’ll make a thread on these.
As for now. I’m about to go biking. I try to bike 20 miles at least every other day. Though I may get there to the nature park and decide to just hike instead. Been looking for zebra swallowtail eggs and caterpillars on dwarf fruit pawpaws native to Alabama. Plus COW and Lionsmane mushrooms.
Though I think my first thread will potentially be the one about connecting with god through horror.
Wiki seems just to describe cesseationism, rather than explain why one would arrive at that position. Speaking as a Quaker, our tradition couldn’t disagree more - but that is largely based on subjective perception of connection with the divine, rather than biblical text.
Why do you not believe supernatural actions of the Holy Spirit could have continued beyond biblical times - is there a specific reason ?
There are many specific reasons. The term is cesseationism. It’s an entire doctrine spanning Christianity.
There is a Wikipedia article under cessationism vs continuationism that is a decent place to start for those interested. It has several other key words there. Also searches for things like cessationism and preterism also brings up quite a bit. It’s become a fairly common subject within biblical studies focused on the New Testament. Within scholarship most of the discussion I’ve seen seems centered about cessationism vs symbolism/mythology of supernatural acts. Which is where I’m currently standing at the fork road as shown with the walking on water example previously mentioned. Perhaps at a later point I’ll make a thread on these.
As for now. I’m about to go biking. I try to bike 20 miles at least every other day. Though I may get there to the nature park and decide to just hike instead. Been looking for zebra swallowtail eggs and caterpillars on dwarf fruit pawpaws native to Alabama. Plus COW and Lionsmane mushrooms.
Though I think my first thread will potentially be the one about connecting with god through horror.
Well, it’s a doctrine – cessationism – that spans certain strands of Protestantism, but not all of Christianity.
Culturally impossible emotional intelligence in attested text.
An assertion you often make, but without support.
As @Gamma Gamaliel said, we only have the Jesus of faith. The Holy Spirit slipped up there.
What you might call a bug, others might call a feature.
Please point to any in the attested text. I don't have to show there isn't. I'm entirely open to being convinced that anything unquestionably written from 60-120 AD is unnatural. I want to be above all else.
(a) We’ve been through this many times, Martin. We’ve had whole threads on it. I’m not doing it yet again. It’s a waste of time.
(b) The HS goes out of its way to deny its existence is a feature?
Some might say operating in a way such as to require reliance on faith rather than empirical certainty is a feature rather than a bug.
(a) Sorry. Yes it is. If there were any evidence in the text we'd all know it. I just hope against hope that someone has something.
(a.1) Why does there need to be in evidence “in the text”? Your assertion is about ancient culture in general, and about a particular example of emotional intelligence being, you assert, impossible in first century Palestine. That assertion has been refuted—not to your satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of some—in the earlier conversations and threads.
(b) And some might say that. I can't.
(b.1) Which is why I intentionally said “some might say.”
(a.1) For believers there doesn't have to be. Yes, sorry, you believe that the event described in the pericope adulterae is sufficiently attested here. I cannot.
I want to.
Codex Bezae, produced in the 400s or 500s has,
a form of text which has affinities with "Western" readings used in the 100s and 200s
Eusebius, 300s, says Papias, 100s, 'refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which might refer to this passage or to one like it'. This needs complete good will, and even then, she wasn't.
Etc, etc. Even with the fullest possible good will, everyone in the story, East and West, it can't work for me, because I'm not a believer. You are. I find it hard to believe that any unbeliever who comes to the history of the PA would find it convincing that the story happened in 30 AD. As an unbeliever, I don't. Is that because I have too much momentum, inertia in the wrong direction? I'm biased? I don't think so.
(b.1) Aye. I wasn't being funny.
I'm not being hostile Nick. And I suggest there are nuances here not covered before.
Yes, sorry, you believe that the event described in the pericope adulterae is sufficiently attested here.
Please do not make assertions about what I believe, especially if you’re going to support that assertion by linking to a Wikipedia article rather than to something I’ve actually written where I state what I believe.
Yes, sorry, you believe that the event described in the pericope adulterae is sufficiently attested here.
Please do not make assertions about what I believe, especially if you’re going to support that assertion by linking to a Wikipedia article rather than to something I’ve actually written where I state what I believe.
I'm sorry. I thought you'd used that before? And you were alluding to it? Might I ask if you accept the history of the text as sufficient?
Sure. But let’s not pretend that it just begin with some Germans a few hud red years ago. We see Chrysostom mentioning it prior to 400ad in his homily on 1 Cor. 12:1-2.
St. Augustine also wrote that speaking in tongues have ceased. That was in the Homilies on the Gospel of John 6:1-14. It can be found in the Christian classics ethereal library under the Nicene and Post Nicene Father series 1 volume 7.
So it’s not a Protestant belief but one that has been developing all the way back. There are also several others. There is also info on rhetoric around it .
But beyond even the textual arguments, it’s the very simply practical one. Not a single person has been able to demonstrate supernatural ability regardless of its magical spells, telepathic communications or laying on of hands on someone picked by a panel of skeptics. Not once. Not even among Christian skeptics. It’s why you never hear of the kids of st Jude being cured instantly. Never some man in downtown New York City laying his hands on corpses and the sick, healing them and bringing them back to life. No one was even able to bring a fly back to life.
I’ll be honest. I’m just not going to go read it. I’ve read dozens of books on this from every side. I understand how archeological and textual evidence works and why while anecdotal evidence and experiences are valuable they don’t constitute anything actually concrete. I already know there is no evidence on the entire planet, from any period of time, past or present, that proves supernatural claims.
If you want to provide a few sentences on the strongest evidence you have I’ll read it. But I’m not hoping to another thread to read something and so in. Since this has circled around again I’m just going to presume Nick does not understand the question, which has been repeated several times and you are to burned out or either don’t have something to present. So regardless of what responses show up, I’ll come back to this thread in a few days and skim the responses to see if anything changed. If not, then I’ll ignore it or either find a way to turn off notifications for this thread. I have minimal time to goof around online and that includes forums. Thank you for your time though Lamb and perhaps later on in the future I’ll find my way to that thread and comment there.
So to complete this circle. Atheism is the lack of accepting supernatural claims that provide no evidence to support it. Should note again, I’m not an atheist. I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the bulk of the stories in the gospel including the supernatural claims. But there is zero evidence out there to be presented supporting it beyond reasonable doubt. About the only thing that can be solidly proven given standards in archeology and archiving, is that a man named Jesus existed and a sect of Jewish men with some women developed around his beliefs. We can’t even find solid proof of his death. We can’t find solid evidence for the majority of his followers. We can’t find evidence of things like he walked on water. We can’t even verify how many was there that saw it.
This is, of course, your decision to make. But I regret it, because of the limits it places on your understanding--not so much that you refuse to read my thread, but rather that you demand that evidence come in bite-sized pieces before you will look at it. The real world doesn't accommodate our wishes like that. And it's inconsistent with your statement that you've read dozens of books on the subject--though perhaps you have new personal limitations that make it impossible to do so any longer, God knows I should understand that from my own problems if so.
But if you're going to refuse to look at counter-evidence if it's longer than a couple of paragraphs max, maybe you should refrain from making blanket statements about how various topics cannot be true because "there is no evidence"?
I’ll be honest. I’m just not going to go read it. I’ve read dozens of books on this from every side. I understand how archeological and textual evidence works and why while anecdotal evidence and experiences are valuable they don’t constitute anything actually concrete. I already know there is no evidence on the entire planet, from any period of time, past or present, that proves supernatural claims.
If you want to provide a few sentences on the strongest evidence you have I’ll read it. But I’m not hoping to another thread to read something and so in. Since this has circled around again I’m just going to presume Nick does not understand the question, which has been repeated several times and you are to burned out or either don’t have something to present. So regardless of what responses show up, I’ll come back to this thread in a few days and skim the responses to see if anything changed. If not, then I’ll ignore it or either find a way to turn off notifications for this thread. I have minimal time to goof around online and that includes forums. Thank you for your time though Lamb and perhaps later on in the future I’ll find my way to that thread and comment there.
So to complete this circle. Atheism is the lack of accepting supernatural claims that provide no evidence to support it. Should note again, I’m not an atheist. I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the bulk of the stories in the gospel including the supernatural claims. But there is zero evidence out there to be presented supporting it beyond reasonable doubt. About the only thing that can be solidly proven given standards in archeology and archiving, is that a man named Jesus existed and a sect of Jewish men with some women developed around his beliefs. We can’t even find solid proof of his death. We can’t find solid evidence for the majority of his followers. We can’t find evidence of things like he walked on water. We can’t even verify how many was there that saw it.
This is, of course, your decision to make. But I regret it, because of the limits it places on your understanding--not so much that you refuse to read my thread, but rather that you demand that evidence come in bite-sized pieces before you will look at it. The real world doesn't accommodate our wishes like that. And it's inconsistent with your statement that you've read dozens of books on the subject--though perhaps you have new personal limitations that make it impossible to do so any longer, God knows I should understand that from my own problems if so.
But if you're going to refuse to look at counter-evidence if it's longer than a couple of paragraphs max, maybe you should refrain from making blanket statements about how various topics cannot be true because "there is no evidence"?
No. It’s that I’ve read thousands of pages of this kind of stuff over the decade. Everyone thinks they have something new. Some knew this or that, or another reimagining of McDowell. I’ve listened to thousands of hours of YouTube arguments and podcasts.
So I’m not being limited. I’m just not wasting hours going through the same thing coming from a different face.
Also, @Martin54 just wanted to say hi. I actually specifically came here because I was told you were in these forums after Biologos was no longer blessed by your visiting. He’s probably not even aware, but he has been one of the most influential people on my approach to my faith in the last 5 years than anyone else. Going all the back to the first convo we had in 2020 sometime in January.
Sure. But let’s not pretend that it just begin with some Germans a few hud red years ago. We see Chrysostom mentioning it prior to 400ad in his homily on 1 Cor. 12:1-2.
St. Augustine also wrote that speaking in tongues have ceased. That was in the Homilies on the Gospel of John 6:1-14. It can be found in the Christian classics ethereal library under the Nicene and Post Nicene Father series 1 volume 7.
So it’s not a Protestant belief but one that has been developing all the way back. There are also several others. There is also info on rhetoric around it .
But beyond even the textual arguments, it’s the very simply practical one. Not a single person has been able to demonstrate supernatural ability regardless of its magical spells, telepathic communications or laying on of hands on someone picked by a panel of skeptics. Not once. Not even among Christian skeptics. It’s why you never hear of the kids of st Jude being cured instantly. Never some man in downtown New York City laying his hands on corpses and the sick, healing them and bringing them back to life. No one was even able to bring a fly back to life.
The notion that miracles in general (not only the gift of tongues) no longer happen at all is still only held by certain strands of Protestantism. It is not held by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or many others.
If we could produce apparently miraculous effects on demand, to satisfy people's curiosity, it would not prove miracles, but magic.
As well, we are commanded not to put the Lord our God to the test.
If you say so. Too bad Bigfoot makes cameras blurry and UFO causes shaky hands too. Also…. The apostles preformed miracles for the very sake to demonstrate the power of god before unbelievers to convince them it’s true.
Also, ever overlap images of the Bible Belt, conservatism strong holds and diseases of affluence? It’s almost as if the more Christian an area is the less healing of any kind occurs.
So I’ll say that this definitely satisfied all the boxes I look for to know there is absolutely nothing within this thread worth diving into.
So other than Klax, or potentially someone new popping in, I’m thinking it’s safe for now to pull out of this particular thread along with one or two others.
Is there a way to ignore a thread in this forum? Or is it just left to will power?
@Skovand Yes. I would say someone is not an atheist if they believe in the supernatural. If they do, it’s a fringe belief being wrongly labeled.
Most peculiar choice and certainly not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)". I'll note that in one branch of my family, I'm fourth generation atheist (except I prefer atheistic humanist) so I have some experience in how the word has been used in the last 140 years.
@Skovand Is there a way to ignore a thread in this forum? Or is it just left to will power?
Left to your will power except in the unlikely case that the powers that be decide to restrict a person's access to a particular category for breaking the rules.
@Skovand Yes. I would say someone is not an atheist if they believe in the supernatural. If they do, it’s a fringe belief being wrongly labeled.
Most peculiar choice and certainly not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)". I'll note that in one branch of my family, I'm fourth generation atheist (except I prefer atheistic humanist) so I have some experience in how the word has been used in the last 140 years.
@Skovand Is there a way to ignore a thread in this forum? Or is it just left to will power?
Left to your will power except in the unlikely case that the powers that be decide to restrict a person's access to a particular category for breaking the rules.
BTW welcome to the ship.
Well I would like any recommendations you have by atheists, not agnostics, who have written about their belief in the supernatural and their experiences with it……
Also, ever overlap images of the Bible Belt, conservatism strong holds and diseases of affluence? It’s almost as if the more Christian an area is the less healing of any kind occurs.
What does conservatism have to do with the presence of miracles?
For that matter, miracles aren’t supposed to be things that happen all the time. Or in some way that can be predicted, like the weather or even economic trends. They’re supposed to be very, very rare. It would frankly be kind of weird if you could plot them on a graph as if there was some sort of predictor.
If it is OK and you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to or anything, what religion or belief system were you raised in?
Wouldn’t some of this new sub-thread be better as its own thread, as opposed to “what constitutes a religion and whether or not atheism is one?”
As the founder of this thread, which has been dorment for months, I couldn't care less that it has morphed. Dunno if that makes one bit of difference to the management.
Conversations, unlike monographs, legitimately and potentially fruitfully drift. This has not been taken over by someone trying to subvert the topic.
I encourage everyone to pick up their cudgels and get bck to it.
Also, @Martin54 just wanted to say hi. I actually specifically came here because I was told you were in these forums after Biologos was no longer blessed by your visiting. He’s probably not even aware, but he has been one of the most influential people on my approach to my faith in the last 5 years than anyone else. Going all the back to the first convo we had in 2020 sometime in January.
: ) Hi @Skovand! Welcome aboard. I just couldn't believe it was you : ) Very pleased to see you here. Aye, the year of covid. I didn't want to interrupt your flow, your settling in. I'm most glad that you have the Jesus of faith like the vast majority here. The "long, boring thread" is entirely scholarly as I recall. It makes no claims. I very much identify with your cutting and polishing faith with independent reasoning.
Yes, sorry, you believe that the event described in the pericope adulterae is sufficiently attested here.
Please do not make assertions about what I believe, especially if you’re going to support that assertion by linking to a Wikipedia article rather than to something I’ve actually written where I state what I believe.
I'm sorry. I thought you'd used that before? And you were alluding to it? Might I ask if you accept the history of the text as sufficient?
Well, I guess we’re going to rehash this again anyway. In brief:
I may have referenced that Wikipedia article in the past as a good overview of various views about the Pericope Adulterae (PA), not as necessarily explaining or reflecting my views.
My recollection is that in the past you’ve posited the assumption that those who ultimately inserted the PA into Chapter 7 of John’s Gospel made the story up. I find that to be a warrantless assumption. It seems to me more likely, or at the very least equally likely, that the story was already in circulation before finally getting inserted into John’s Gospel. I find support for that view in the writings of a number of scholars—including, if I remember correctly, Bart Ehrman, whom you cited with approval recently. If they are correct in their take on the historical record, at least one written version of the PA was around in the early second century C.E. It is not unreasonable, I think, to assume the story was in existence orally before being written down; in fact, that seems to me an obvious assumption.
In the context of this thread though, I was referring specifically to the assumption you have put forth that the PA is anachronistic, reflecting a degree of emotional intelligence not possible in first century Palestine. I also find this assumption warrantless; it smacks to me of chronological snobbery, and I see no support for it.
So that’s the rehash. I don’t plan to pursue it any further.
Yes, sorry, you believe that the event described in the pericope adulterae is sufficiently attested here.
Please do not make assertions about what I believe, especially if you’re going to support that assertion by linking to a Wikipedia article rather than to something I’ve actually written where I state what I believe.
I'm sorry. I thought you'd used that before? And you were alluding to it? Might I ask if you accept the history of the text as sufficient?
Well, I guess we’re going to rehash this again anyway. In brief:
I may have referenced that Wikipedia article in the past as a good overview of various views about the Pericope Adulterae (PA), not as necessarily explaining or reflecting my views.
My recollection is that in the past you’ve posited the assumption that those who ultimately inserted the PA into Chapter 7 of John’s Gospel made the story up. I find that to be a warrantless assumption. It seems to me more likely, or at the very least equally likely, that the story was already in circulation before finally getting inserted into John’s Gospel. I find support for that view in the writings of a number of scholars—including, if I remember correctly, Bart Ehrman, whom you cited with approval recently. If they are correct in their take on the historical record, at least one written version of the PA was around in the early second century C.E. It is not unreasonable, I think, to assume the story was in existence orally before being written down; in fact, that seems to me an obvious assumption.
In the context of this thread though, I was referring specifically to the assumption you have put forth that the PA is anachronistic, reflecting a degree of emotional intelligence not possible in first century Palestine. I also find this assumption warrantless; it smacks to me of chronological snobbery, and I see no support for it.
So that’s the rehash. I don’t plan to pursue it any further.
Thanks. As the PA has echoes going back four centuries, or is an echo forward over that time, I would never have meant that the C5th editors had made it up from whole cloth. If the PA's emotional intelligence is natural for 30 AD, for me it certainly isn't and that has nothing to do with snobbery, it has no equal in the gospels let alone any other story in the ancient world, then there's nothing of the supernatural about it. For me it was an instance of the fingerpost, the final one. Proof where faith wasn't required. If it was natural of 30 AD, typical, there is still nothing but the Jesus of faith.
Whoa, wait a minute. I'm not here to answer any and every whacko claim you've ever heard made on behalf of Christianity. I was discussing evidence.
[deleted huge freaking miracle story right here because if I tell it on the internet, I'm endangering my family, because there are still people out there who would love to know how ... never mind. But they have guns. Fuck.]
Look. For the great majority of historical claims (that is, claims which happened in the past), you will have to judge whether they happened or not based on the testimony of witnesses. If the events are sufficiently far enough in the past, you will be relying on the written word. If they are sufficiently recent (like, REALLY recent), you might get audio, pictures or even video. But that's a really small subset of history.
You cannot demand so-called "scientific proof" of whether Jesus rose from the dead for the simple reason that this was a historical event, and like all historical events, non-repeatable. You cannot have scientific proof of what I had for supper last week, either. At most you can have judicial evidence--that is, the testimony of witnesses and if you're lucky, the aforesaid audio, video, or pictures. That's it.
Most Christian claims fall into the category of "historical event," whether you believe they happened or not. So you will need to seek out that sort of evidence, because that's what's appropriate for history. You'd have to do the same if we were discussing what Claudius died of. It's just the nature of the (historical) beast.
And if it's Christianity, that puts you eyeball to eyeball with the New Testament. Because that's where those eyewitness testimonies are.
(There are actually a few non-New Testament pieces of evidence that mention Jesus and his movement, but they aren't eyewitnesses, and why would you care, anyway? Check out the eyewitnesses first--that's the normal mode of proceding.)
Just popping in here to remind that eyewitness testimony isn't very reliable, and that's in terms of information under far more reasonable and nearer circumstances.
I would never have meant that the C5th editors had made it up from whole cloth. If the PA's emotional intelligence is natural for 30 AD, for me it certainly isn't and that has nothing to do with snobbery, it has no equal in the gospels let alone any other story in the ancient world, then there's nothing of the supernatural about it.
So the story is unambiguously attested in the third century AD according to Wikipedia. You can believe it's natural for the third century AD but not for the first? On what survey of ancient texts of the first, second, and third centuries do you base that judgement?
Whoa, wait a minute. I'm not here to answer any and every whacko claim you've ever heard made on behalf of Christianity. I was discussing evidence.
[deleted huge freaking miracle story right here because if I tell it on the internet, I'm endangering my family, because there are still people out there who would love to know how ... never mind. But they have guns. Fuck.]
Look. For the great majority of historical claims (that is, claims which happened in the past), you will have to judge whether they happened or not based on the testimony of witnesses. If the events are sufficiently far enough in the past, you will be relying on the written word. If they are sufficiently recent (like, REALLY recent), you might get audio, pictures or even video. But that's a really small subset of history.
You cannot demand so-called "scientific proof" of whether Jesus rose from the dead for the simple reason that this was a historical event, and like all historical events, non-repeatable. You cannot have scientific proof of what I had for supper last week, either. At most you can have judicial evidence--that is, the testimony of witnesses and if you're lucky, the aforesaid audio, video, or pictures. That's it.
Most Christian claims fall into the category of "historical event," whether you believe they happened or not. So you will need to seek out that sort of evidence, because that's what's appropriate for history. You'd have to do the same if we were discussing what Claudius died of. It's just the nature of the (historical) beast.
And if it's Christianity, that puts you eyeball to eyeball with the New Testament. Because that's where those eyewitness testimonies are.
(There are actually a few non-New Testament pieces of evidence that mention Jesus and his movement, but they aren't eyewitnesses, and why would you care, anyway? Check out the eyewitnesses first--that's the normal mode of proceding.)
Just popping in here to remind that eyewitness testimony isn't very reliable, and that's in terms of information under far more reasonable and nearer circumstances.
And there's a discussion of eyewitness testimony and how to evaluate it on the long, boring thread as well.
And there's a link just above to explain why it's more often than not, faulty. There's nothing intrinsically special or different about Biblical eyewitness testimony. It doesn't fall into a unique category.
I would never have meant that the C5th editors had made it up from whole cloth. If the PA's emotional intelligence is natural for 30 AD, for me it certainly isn't and that has nothing to do with snobbery, it has no equal in the gospels let alone any other story in the ancient world, then there's nothing of the supernatural about it.
So the story is unambiguously attested in the third century AD according to Wikipedia. You can believe it's natural for the third century AD but not for the first? On what survey of ancient texts of the first, second, and third centuries do you base that judgement?
The survey of that which has impinged on my 70 year old consciousness. Do you know of any I wouldn't? Of that unequalled power? Nobody else does. I mean, the whole world would know wouldn't it? Would have known for 20-17 hundred years.
Wiki
'the Latin-Greek diglot Codex Bezae, produced in the 400s or 500s (but displaying a form of text which has affinities with "Western" readings used in the 100s and 200s).' so, as I said above, that is circumstantial evidence for readings in the obviously late 100s.
The Eusebius thread about Papias (also mentioned with a larger claim 600 years later by Agapius) is from the early 300s.
There are elements used in the later story in the 150+ Protoevangelium of James.
Is it this you're referring to? 'In the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum, composed in the mid-200s, the author, in the course of instructing bishops to exercise a measure of clemency, states that a bishop who does not receive a repentant person would be doing wrong – "for you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, 'Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?' She said to Him, 'No, Lord.' And He said unto her, 'Go your way; neither do I condemn thee.''
Which isn't as beautifully embellished as the C5th version.
And yes, it's natural for the third and even late second century, well over a century after its setting because the spectacular but natural humanism of Christianity, of Jesus even, sans the 30s PA had fermented culture to make such a story possible and credible.
It's all perfectly natural, and speaks well of us. Unlike the 'gospel'.
And there's a link just above to explain why it's more often than not, faulty. There's nothing intrinsically special or different about Biblical eyewitness testimony. It doesn't fall into a unique category.
It is also true to say, however, that eyewitness testimony is not uniform. In circumstances it can be relied on and in other circumstances it is much more dubious. And it can be relied on more for some things than for others. It’s not really adequate, to sum eyewitness testimony up as if it were simply one thing.
And there's a link just above to explain why it's more often than not, faulty. There's nothing intrinsically special or different about Biblical eyewitness testimony. It doesn't fall into a unique category.
It is also true to say, however, that eyewitness testimony is not uniform. In circumstances it can be relied on and in other circumstances it is much more dubious. And it can be relied on more for some things than for others. It’s not really adequate, to sum eyewitness testimony up as if it were simply one thing.
See, to me that's just an oblique way of saying that Biblical eyewitness testimony is *a special case* that should be considered apart from others.
Comments
If you want to provide a few sentences on the strongest evidence you have I’ll read it. But I’m not hoping to another thread to read something and so in. Since this has circled around again I’m just going to presume Nick does not understand the question, which has been repeated several times and you are to burned out or either don’t have something to present. So regardless of what responses show up, I’ll come back to this thread in a few days and skim the responses to see if anything changed. If not, then I’ll ignore it or either find a way to turn off notifications for this thread. I have minimal time to goof around online and that includes forums. Thank you for your time though Lamb and perhaps later on in the future I’ll find my way to that thread and comment there.
So to complete this circle. Atheism is the lack of accepting supernatural claims that provide no evidence to support it. Should note again, I’m not an atheist. I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the bulk of the stories in the gospel including the supernatural claims. But there is zero evidence out there to be presented supporting it beyond reasonable doubt. About the only thing that can be solidly proven given standards in archeology and archiving, is that a man named Jesus existed and a sect of Jewish men with some women developed around his beliefs. We can’t even find solid proof of his death. We can’t find solid evidence for the majority of his followers. We can’t find evidence of things like he walked on water. We can’t even verify how many was there that saw it.
Anyway it's a matter of faith not evidence. If there were evidence faith would not be needed.
I have been studying biblical scholarship writings for close to a decade now, including taking numerous courses online and a few in person, which is what has lead to my current stance .
Also "Atheism is the lack of accepting supernatural claims that provide no evidence to support it" seems going far beyond the usual definitions. One can be atheistic and still believe in say ghosts.
For background, I practiced law (in the US) for 35 years. I was a litigator, so I’m very familiar with different kinds of evidence and with the various standards of proof required for various kinds of claims. You have asked to be shown evidence that satisfies you by the criminal standard of proof: “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
That I have asked why that standard should apply and not one of the other standards of proof—or why any legal standard should apply at all, given that most of us don’t consciously use legal standards of proof when making day-to-day decisions—is not reason to presume I don’t understand your question. But it is, perhaps, reason to presume I am questioning or challenging the assumptions contsined in your question.
No atheism rejects the belief of ghosts on the basis that they are supernatural beings with no evidence that they exist. Just like there is no evidence of any of the thousands of gods in existence, any of the angels or demons, or any of the people claiming to have supernatural powers regardless if it’s through prayer or magic. Cursed items and so on.
Unless, that is, a “No True Atheist” argument is being set up.
What evidence do you think it is possible to find that a man 2000 years ago walked on water? Are you expecting to find glowing footprints etched in to the Sea of Galilee?
We have all the evidence that it is reasonable to have for an event that happened 2000 years ago - people told other people, and then some people wrote it down. You can believe that this is an accurate retelling of events that happened, or you can believe that it is a pious fiction. What evidence do you think is possible to exist that would allow you to distinguish between these two options?
Culturally impossible emotional intelligence in attested text. As @Gamma Gamaliel said, we only have the Jesus of faith. The Holy Spirit slipped up there.
What you might call a bug, others might call a feature.
Please point to any in the attested text. I don't have to show there isn't. I'm entirely open to being convinced that anything unquestionably written from 60-120 AD is unnatural. I want to be above all else.
The HS goes out of its way to deny its existence is a feature?
Some might say operating in a way such as to require reliance on faith rather than empirical certainty is a feature rather than a bug.
(a) Sorry. Yes it is. If there were any evidence in the text we'd all know it. I just hope against hope that someone has something.
(b) And some might say that. I can't. Can not. I wish I could. Dearly. Above all things. I envy all who have the Jesus of faith, sola fide. My disposition, my wiring can't do it without seeing it, without knowing it. Walking on water would follow.
Which is why I intentionally said “some might say.”
Most atheists in the Western world, especially those with media presence for being atheists, would of course say that they're atheists because they believe there is insufficient grounds for belief in any form of supernatural, but atheism as such is just disbelief in God for any reason whatsoever.
Yes. I would say someone is not an atheist if they believe in the supernatural. If they do, it’s a fringe belief being wrongly labeled.
I think I'm confused now. I thought you'd said you were close to the atheist side on this or another thread?
So I am a Christian. That means I believe in God. I believe in the supernatural. These beliefs are still on spectrums. I am convinced of the theological stance of cessationism. So that means, while I accept that Paul did heal crippled people and so on, and those he laid his hands on to pass the power of the spirit too, could also do the same, these were to jumpstart the church and ended around the first century since those who received the laying on of hands could not themselves lay their hands on someone. So I reject all modern miracles and see no proof of things like instant healing, raising the dead, speaking in tongues, prophecies and so on.
Secondly, I fall under preterstic doctrines. That means I think the resurrection is spiritual resurrection and not a physical one. It means I think Satan and demons have already been destroyed, if they even existed and was not merely hyperbolic symbolic representations. So I don’t believe demons are on earth and I don’t believe anyone can be possessed.
So that knocks out instantly a very huge portion of supernatural beliefs.
Then it comes to things like intelligent design. I don’t believe in any form of intelligent design. YECism and OECism is on par with flat earthers. Then we have what you call evolutionary creationist who often believes that god somehow behind the scenes folded evolution. I reject that. I’m a Christian naturalist. That means I think naturalism answers everything about the natural world. God of the gaps issues, could be filled in with magic but I don’t see a reason too and instead just say we don’t know and should wait for more data. Such as with abiogenesis . I don’t think God actually made us or even planned us out. I think that’s just hyperbole and accomondationism.
Take prayer. I don’t think the purpose of prayer is to ask god for things which is why it seemingly never works. Every Christian with cancer and every Christian who is married prays for their healing or prayers for that their spouse and kids will be safe, and in every emergency Christians and agnostics will almost always pray for supernatural intervention and yet millions die from diseases, are murdered, dies in war and so on. We could all go to st Jude’s and pray for a kid there with stage four cancer and that kid would most likely still die. We could go up to any soldier who’s been deformed by an explosion and pray for their face to be healed and they will most likely still be scarred up. We could pray for our pets to live extra long and they most likely will still die within their natural life spans. So I believe that prayer is instead used for us to psychologically work through and meditate on what we want, the stories of the Bible, and help guide us towards a path to reach it.
Take the Bible. Any of them. There are four or five main bibles now. We see evidence of the source hypothesis and biblical seams of various traditions. Genesis 1&2 are both separate creation accounts. 1 Samuel 16&17 have very different origins of how and when David and Saul met.
Additionally, while I say I believe that Jesus walked on water it’s more like I am not opposed to it. I still think there is a decent chance that’s not literal. It’s a myth added in to help create the story God wanted. That Jesus walking on water is showing his place above the chaos of “tohu wabohu” just like the ark and basket of Moses. We see this imagery of “tree of life” conquering the dark, deep wet void again and again. So I’m equally ok with that story being fictional. Just like much of the Bible already is.
Additionally, I don’t believe in fairies, or ghosts, or Bigfoot, or telepathic visions from aliens or witches, vampires and so on. So I’ll have a worldview far more aligned with an atheist humanist than I would with a biblical literalist.
There are many specific reasons. The term is cesseationism. It’s an entire doctrine spanning Christianity.
There is a Wikipedia article under cessationism vs continuationism that is a decent place to start for those interested. It has several other key words there. Also searches for things like cessationism and preterism also brings up quite a bit. It’s become a fairly common subject within biblical studies focused on the New Testament. Within scholarship most of the discussion I’ve seen seems centered about cessationism vs symbolism/mythology of supernatural acts. Which is where I’m currently standing at the fork road as shown with the walking on water example previously mentioned. Perhaps at a later point I’ll make a thread on these.
As for now. I’m about to go biking. I try to bike 20 miles at least every other day. Though I may get there to the nature park and decide to just hike instead. Been looking for zebra swallowtail eggs and caterpillars on dwarf fruit pawpaws native to Alabama. Plus COW and Lionsmane mushrooms.
Though I think my first thread will potentially be the one about connecting with god through horror.
Well, it’s a doctrine – cessationism – that spans certain strands of Protestantism, but not all of Christianity.
(a.1) For believers there doesn't have to be. Yes, sorry, you believe that the event described in the pericope adulterae is sufficiently attested here. I cannot.
I want to.
Codex Bezae, produced in the 400s or 500s has,
so the PA could date from the 100s.
The Eastern Christianity section just doesn't have chain of evidence.
Eusebius, 300s, says Papias, 100s, 'refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which might refer to this passage or to one like it'. This needs complete good will, and even then, she wasn't.
Etc, etc. Even with the fullest possible good will, everyone in the story, East and West, it can't work for me, because I'm not a believer. You are. I find it hard to believe that any unbeliever who comes to the history of the PA would find it convincing that the story happened in 30 AD. As an unbeliever, I don't. Is that because I have too much momentum, inertia in the wrong direction? I'm biased? I don't think so.
(b.1) Aye. I wasn't being funny.
I'm not being hostile Nick. And I suggest there are nuances here not covered before.
I'm sorry. I thought you'd used that before? And you were alluding to it? Might I ask if you accept the history of the text as sufficient?
St. Augustine also wrote that speaking in tongues have ceased. That was in the Homilies on the Gospel of John 6:1-14. It can be found in the Christian classics ethereal library under the Nicene and Post Nicene Father series 1 volume 7.
So it’s not a Protestant belief but one that has been developing all the way back. There are also several others. There is also info on rhetoric around it .
But beyond even the textual arguments, it’s the very simply practical one. Not a single person has been able to demonstrate supernatural ability regardless of its magical spells, telepathic communications or laying on of hands on someone picked by a panel of skeptics. Not once. Not even among Christian skeptics. It’s why you never hear of the kids of st Jude being cured instantly. Never some man in downtown New York City laying his hands on corpses and the sick, healing them and bringing them back to life. No one was even able to bring a fly back to life.
This is, of course, your decision to make. But I regret it, because of the limits it places on your understanding--not so much that you refuse to read my thread, but rather that you demand that evidence come in bite-sized pieces before you will look at it. The real world doesn't accommodate our wishes like that. And it's inconsistent with your statement that you've read dozens of books on the subject--though perhaps you have new personal limitations that make it impossible to do so any longer, God knows I should understand that from my own problems if so.
But if you're going to refuse to look at counter-evidence if it's longer than a couple of paragraphs max, maybe you should refrain from making blanket statements about how various topics cannot be true because "there is no evidence"?
No. It’s that I’ve read thousands of pages of this kind of stuff over the decade. Everyone thinks they have something new. Some knew this or that, or another reimagining of McDowell. I’ve listened to thousands of hours of YouTube arguments and podcasts.
So I’m not being limited. I’m just not wasting hours going through the same thing coming from a different face.
The notion that miracles in general (not only the gift of tongues) no longer happen at all is still only held by certain strands of Protestantism. It is not held by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or many others.
If we could produce apparently miraculous effects on demand, to satisfy people's curiosity, it would not prove miracles, but magic.
As well, we are commanded not to put the Lord our God to the test.
Also, ever overlap images of the Bible Belt, conservatism strong holds and diseases of affluence? It’s almost as if the more Christian an area is the less healing of any kind occurs.
So I’ll say that this definitely satisfied all the boxes I look for to know there is absolutely nothing within this thread worth diving into.
So other than Klax, or potentially someone new popping in, I’m thinking it’s safe for now to pull out of this particular thread along with one or two others.
Is there a way to ignore a thread in this forum? Or is it just left to will power?
Most peculiar choice and certainly not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)". I'll note that in one branch of my family, I'm fourth generation atheist (except I prefer atheistic humanist) so I have some experience in how the word has been used in the last 140 years.
Left to your will power except in the unlikely case that the powers that be decide to restrict a person's access to a particular category for breaking the rules.
BTW welcome to the ship.
Well I would like any recommendations you have by atheists, not agnostics, who have written about their belief in the supernatural and their experiences with it……
What does conservatism have to do with the presence of miracles?
For that matter, miracles aren’t supposed to be things that happen all the time. Or in some way that can be predicted, like the weather or even economic trends. They’re supposed to be very, very rare. It would frankly be kind of weird if you could plot them on a graph as if there was some sort of predictor.
If it is OK and you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to or anything, what religion or belief system were you raised in?
As the founder of this thread, which has been dorment for months, I couldn't care less that it has morphed. Dunno if that makes one bit of difference to the management.
Conversations, unlike monographs, legitimately and potentially fruitfully drift. This has not been taken over by someone trying to subvert the topic.
I encourage everyone to pick up their cudgels and get bck to it.
And @Skovand, it's good to see you here.
And @Lamb Chopped 's "long, boring thread" is anything but boring. Well worth your time.
: ) Hi @Skovand! Welcome aboard. I just couldn't believe it was you : ) Very pleased to see you here. Aye, the year of covid. I didn't want to interrupt your flow, your settling in. I'm most glad that you have the Jesus of faith like the vast majority here. The "long, boring thread" is entirely scholarly as I recall. It makes no claims. I very much identify with your cutting and polishing faith with independent reasoning.
I may have referenced that Wikipedia article in the past as a good overview of various views about the Pericope Adulterae (PA), not as necessarily explaining or reflecting my views.
My recollection is that in the past you’ve posited the assumption that those who ultimately inserted the PA into Chapter 7 of John’s Gospel made the story up. I find that to be a warrantless assumption. It seems to me more likely, or at the very least equally likely, that the story was already in circulation before finally getting inserted into John’s Gospel. I find support for that view in the writings of a number of scholars—including, if I remember correctly, Bart Ehrman, whom you cited with approval recently. If they are correct in their take on the historical record, at least one written version of the PA was around in the early second century C.E. It is not unreasonable, I think, to assume the story was in existence orally before being written down; in fact, that seems to me an obvious assumption.
In the context of this thread though, I was referring specifically to the assumption you have put forth that the PA is anachronistic, reflecting a degree of emotional intelligence not possible in first century Palestine. I also find this assumption warrantless; it smacks to me of chronological snobbery, and I see no support for it.
So that’s the rehash. I don’t plan to pursue it any further.
Thanks. As the PA has echoes going back four centuries, or is an echo forward over that time, I would never have meant that the C5th editors had made it up from whole cloth. If the PA's emotional intelligence is natural for 30 AD, for me it certainly isn't and that has nothing to do with snobbery, it has no equal in the gospels let alone any other story in the ancient world, then there's nothing of the supernatural about it. For me it was an instance of the fingerpost, the final one. Proof where faith wasn't required. If it was natural of 30 AD, typical, there is still nothing but the Jesus of faith.
Just popping in here to remind that eyewitness testimony isn't very reliable, and that's in terms of information under far more reasonable and nearer circumstances.
And there's a discussion of eyewitness testimony and how to evaluate it on the long, boring thread as well.
The survey of that which has impinged on my 70 year old consciousness. Do you know of any I wouldn't? Of that unequalled power? Nobody else does. I mean, the whole world would know wouldn't it? Would have known for 20-17 hundred years.
Wiki
'the Latin-Greek diglot Codex Bezae, produced in the 400s or 500s (but displaying a form of text which has affinities with "Western" readings used in the 100s and 200s).' so, as I said above, that is circumstantial evidence for readings in the obviously late 100s.
The Eusebius thread about Papias (also mentioned with a larger claim 600 years later by Agapius) is from the early 300s.
There are elements used in the later story in the 150+ Protoevangelium of James.
Is it this you're referring to? 'In the Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum, composed in the mid-200s, the author, in the course of instructing bishops to exercise a measure of clemency, states that a bishop who does not receive a repentant person would be doing wrong – "for you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her, 'Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?' She said to Him, 'No, Lord.' And He said unto her, 'Go your way; neither do I condemn thee.''
Which isn't as beautifully embellished as the C5th version.
And yes, it's natural for the third and even late second century, well over a century after its setting because the spectacular but natural humanism of Christianity, of Jesus even, sans the 30s PA had fermented culture to make such a story possible and credible.
It's all perfectly natural, and speaks well of us. Unlike the 'gospel'.
See, to me that's just an oblique way of saying that Biblical eyewitness testimony is *a special case* that should be considered apart from others.