Jump to content

When was Jesus Born?


God Save Us From Christians

Recommended Posts

Dear Bryan,

I have read some pretty lame apologetics defending the gospel narratives, but yours just about takes the cake.

Bwa ha ha!  <_<  :)

Do you want me to wreck my laptop? I nearly spat soda-pop all over the thing when I read that! You really are scraping the bottom of the apologetics barrel with this one aren't you?

My mistake. You did respond to one part of my post. One line, taken out of context.

That, combined with the fallacy of appeal to ridicule, is the best you can do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Margaret
Dear Bryan,

I noticed that you didn't address the last paragraph of my original post on the topic. Which read:

"Would you be happy if high school history teachers taught as historical facts that there existed in first century Palestine, a god-man hybrid named Joshua the Nazarene who was born as the result of an adolescent Jewish girl being inseminated by the Hebrew battle god Yahweh?

Would you be comfortable if they taught about angels singing in the sky, and other miraculous prodigies that heralded his birth?

That he walked on water?

That he cast demons out of people and into a herd of pigs?

That he magically trans-mutated water into wine?

That he routinely raised people from the dead?

That he restored sight to a congenitally blind man by rubbing muddy spittle in his eyes?

That he cured a deaf and mute man by sticking his fingers in his ears and spitting on his tongue?

That he miraculously fed 5000 people with five bread loaves and two small fishes?

That he magically killed a fig tree with a curse because it was not bearing fruit out of season?

Would you like it taught as a historical fact that he was killed, then came back to life, and that after several clandestine post-mortem appearances to a small group of his followers, flew away into the sky never to be seen again?"

Why is that? Is it because you truthfully don't believe all these 'tall tales', or did your fingers just get tired of typing by the time you got to this bit?

For your information, I have read all the gospels very carefully, several times. That's why I can't possibly take them seriously as being records of fact.

Would you care to inform me as to whether you actually believe these outrageous stories? "lol"

What would a dingo possibly know about the bible. How silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave
What would a dingo possibly know about the bible. How silly.

More than most of the Christians I have ever known. :blink:

I was a Christian for many years. I was a Sunday school teacher, and a church youth camp leader. I was also involved in church musicsl programs, and sang in the church choir.

It was only after I decided to really examine the foundations of what I claimed to believe that I came to the conclusion that the extravagent claims my pastor and other church leaders were making, simply did not stand up to critical scrutiny.

I also decided to read the Bible for myself. By that I mean the whole Bible, not just the parts that were being promoted to the 'flock' from the pulpit.

What I discovered shocked me.

Talk about 'the big lie'!

Much of what the clergy were saying about the nature of the 'good book' were gross distortions or outright contradictions of what was really contained within it's pages.

Here was a book which openly endorsed things such as slavery, mass murder and genocide, religious intolerance, a hatred of learning and free enquiry, the subjugation of women, polygamy and celibacy, human sacrifice, the punishment if the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, racism, blood feuds, prohibitions on criticising the government and the clergy, discrimination towards the disabled, eternal punishment for finite offences, and a host of other things which ran directly contrary to the values I had been taught to uphold, and what the clergy claimed to represent.

It was only after I had actually read the book and had thoughtfully considered it's contents, that I decided that I couldn't in all good conscience continue to support it, or the institutions which claimed to be based upon it.

So please don't imply that I don't know the Bible just as well as the next person.

Tell me Margaret, how much of the Bible have you actually read for yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
More than most of the Christians I have ever known. :)

I was a Christian for many years. I was a Sunday school teacher, and a church youth camp leader. I was also involved in church musicsl programs, and sang in the church choir.

It was only after I decided to really examine the foundations of what I claimed to believe that I came to the conclusion that the extravagent claims my pastor and other church leaders were making, simply did not stand up to critical scrutiny.

I also decided to read the Bible for myself. By that I mean the whole Bible, not just the parts that were being promoted to the 'flock' from the pulpit.

What I discovered shocked me.

Talk about 'the big lie'!

Much of what the clergy were saying about the nature of the 'good book' were gross distortions or outright contradictions of what was really contained within it's pages.

Here was a book which openly endorsed things such as slavery, mass murder and genocide, religious intolerance, a hatred of learning and free enquiry, the subjugation of women, polygamy and celibacy, human sacrifice, the punishment if the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, racism, blood feuds, prohibitions on criticising the government and the clergy, discrimination towards the disabled, eternal punishment for finite offences, and a host of other things which ran directly contrary to the values I had been taught to uphold, and what the clergy claimed to represent.

It was only after I had actually read the book and had thoughtfully considered it's contents, that I decided that I couldn't in all good conscience continue to support it, or the institutions which claimed to be based upon it.

So please don't imply that I don't know the Bible just as well as the next person.

Tell me Margaret, how much of the Bible have you actually read for yourself?

Thank you Dave! That needed to be said. I hope you understand that most Americans are reasonable, logical and forgiving. We are going through a rough patch right now but I'm hoping that locig and tolerance will win out in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you be happy if high school history teachers taught as historical facts that there existed in first century Palestine, a god-man hybrid named Joshua the Nazarene who was born as the result of an adolescent Jewish girl being inseminated by the Hebrew battle god Yahweh?

Would you be comfortable if they taught about angels singing in the sky, and other miraculous prodigies that heralded his birth?

That he walked on water?

That he cast demons out of people and into a herd of pigs?

That he magically trans-mutated water into wine?

That he routinely raised people from the dead?

That he restored sight to a congenitally blind man by rubbing muddy spittle in his eyes?

That he cured a deaf and mute man by sticking his fingers in his ears and spitting on his tongue?

That he miraculously fed 5000 people with five bread loaves and two small fishes?

That he magically killed a fig tree with a curse because it was not bearing fruit out of season?

Would you like it taught as a historical fact that he was killed, then came back to life, and that after several clandestine post-mortem appearances to a small group of his followers, flew away into the sky never to be seen again?

You’ve got to be joking!

Well said. What will it take for people to actually think about life armed with knowledge in the 21st century? The intellectual void that religion perpetuates is frightening. We may not know the truth about life and creation but you better believe we know what is NOT the truth. I like to say we know enough to know we don't know. it's the fools who claim to know the "truth" and it's absolutely infuriating that they curse the people who take them to task. Religion is a crutch - often for good people but often for fools. How about in 1820s when John Smith trekked out to Utah, creating rules he said were on gold plates- voila, Mormonism. Please people, WAKE UP from your fairy tale world - you can still actually practice your religion in that we can all agree to feed the poor, help the needy and treat all creatures with dignity. Why do you all reflexively reject reason?!?!? Help me understand how you believe the utter nonsense of the above "miracles".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave
Bryan wrote: "I noticed that you didn't address anything that I wrote. What do you propose to do about it?"

Nothing.

If you refuse to recognise for yourself that the article in question was composed almost entirely of special pleading and a resort to 'how it could have been' scenarios, then I'm afraid that nothing I say is likely to change your mind.

And all of this for the purpose of attempting to justify the absurd notion that the Hebrew tribal god Yahweh inseminated an adolescent Jewish girl back in first century palestine in order to manufacture a 'perfect' human sacrifice for himself. (Which was obviously cooked up by early church leaders in order to appeal to potential Pagan converts who had their own virgin births and savior gods)

Bryan wrote:"My mistake. You did respond to one part of my post. One line, taken out of context. That, combined with the fallacy of appeal to ridicule, is the best you can do?"

No. However, ridicule is the best that these preposterous doctrines deserve. At least you won't be burned at the stake, tortured, or have your property confiscated for holding them.

Like I said, you are quite capable of doing your own research into the matter if you are truly interested in doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing.

If you refuse to recognise for yourself that the article in question was composed almost entirely of special pleading and a resort to 'how it could have been' scenarios, then I'm afraid that nothing I say is likely to change your mind.

I don't think you know what special pleading is, and "how it could have been" scenarios are standard procedure in the historical sciences.

Feel free to try to point out any one example of special pleading

And all of this for the purpose of attempting to justify the absurd notion that the Hebrew tribal god Yahweh inseminated an adolescent Jewish girl back in first century palestine in order to manufacture a 'perfect' human sacrifice for himself.

Well, something like that.

(Which was obviously cooked up by early church leaders in order to appeal to potential Pagan converts who had their own virgin births and savior gods)

So what's one of those supposed pagan religions with a virgin birth and a savior god for which they tailored the tale?

Or have you no need of evidence?

No. However, ridicule is the best that these preposterous doctrines deserve. At least you won't be burned at the stake, tortured, or have your property confiscated for holding them.

Referencing the witch trials over a thousand years later?

Those had little to do with religion; certainly the idea that it was a repression of paganism per se is a myth.

It was punishment for maleficium, about half those accused were acquitted, and probably the bulk would describe themselves as Christians (especially in cases where the tortured accused started pointing fingers at those in power, which was frequently effective on the Continent).

Like I said, you are quite capable of doing your own research into the matter if you are truly interested in doing so.

I know that I'm capable of doing the research because in most cases I've already done it.

Now go point out those alleged special pleading fallacies for us.

You don't want people to think you're just making it up for effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave
That's #1 on the list. :)

"1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian." --http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

Great link. That just about sums it up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about in 1820s when John Smith trekked out to Utah, creating rules he said were on gold plates- voila, Mormonism.  Please people, WAKE UP from your fairy tale world -

I think it was the Bible scholar Robert Price who said; "There's a sucker born again every minute"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that this was a moderated forum.

Why are the moderators allowing this kind of juvenile and libelous personal attack to pass their screening process?

I recall that not so long ago, the moderators got their panties in a twist over the use of the 'F' word, and apologised to readers for not having immediately edited it out.

Yet they give this sort of non-constructive garbage a free pass? WTF?  :)

If this sort of idiotic posting is permitted, then why have a moderated forum at all?

I second this. The moderators can do as they please, of course, but Dave is absolutely right. Juvenile attacks without content do nothing to advance any discussion. If immature and irresponsible individuals wish to post such things on their own, that is one thing, but to be given a forum for it --- I see nothing productive in that, and that's true on any and all sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Bryan,

I noticed that you didn't address the last paragraph of my original post on the topic. Which read:

"Would you be happy if high school history teachers taught as historical facts that there existed in first century Palestine, a god-man hybrid named Joshua the Nazarene who was born as the result of an adolescent Jewish girl being inseminated by the Hebrew battle god Yahweh?

Would you be comfortable if they taught about angels singing in the sky, and other miraculous prodigies that heralded his birth?

That he walked on water?

That he cast demons out of people and into a herd of pigs?

That he magically trans-mutated water into wine?

That he routinely raised people from the dead?

That he restored sight to a congenitally blind man by rubbing muddy spittle in his eyes?

That he cured a deaf and mute man by sticking his fingers in his ears and spitting on his tongue?

That he miraculously fed 5000 people with five bread loaves and two small fishes?

That he magically killed a fig tree with a curse because it was not bearing fruit out of season?

Would you like it taught as a historical fact that he was killed, then came back to life, and that after several clandestine post-mortem appearances to a small group of his followers, flew away into the sky never to be seen again?"

Why is that? Is it because you truthfully don't believe all these 'tall tales', or did your fingers just get tired of typing by the time you got to this bit?

For your information, I have read all the gospels very carefully, several times. That's why I can't possibly take them seriously as being records of fact.

Would you care to inform me as to whether you actually believe these outrageous stories? "lol"

Dave, in addition to what you posted, the Christian narrative requires its believers to accept the following:

1. That an omnipotent, omniscient and loving god has a hell waiting for everyone who is not redeemed for sins that were cast upon them not by their own acts, but by virtue of their birth;

2. That eternal torment in this hell, without any possibility of redemption, is justice;

3. (Without that this awaiting hell, there would be no need for a savior, so that the story of Jesus as savior relies upon it entirely);

4. That this same god sent his only begotten son to sacrifice himself in atonement for all these sins --- the most important event in all history, an act of pure Love if one somehow slides past the premises --- and offers salvation on conditition of belief, yet somehow neglected to tell most of the world about it for many centuries after it happened.

Draw your own conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, in addition to what you posted, the Christian narrative requires its believers to accept the following:

1. That an omnipotent, omniscient and loving god has a hell waiting for everyone who is not redeemed for sins that were cast upon them not by their own acts, but by virtue of their birth;

2. That eternal torment in this hell, without any possibility of redemption, is justice;

3. (Without that this awaiting hell, there would be no need for a savior, so that the story of Jesus as savior relies upon it entirely);

4. That this same god sent his only begotten son to sacrifice himself in atonement for all these sins --- the most important event in all history, an act of pure Love if one somehow slides past the premises --- and offers salvation on conditition of belief, yet somehow neglected to tell most of the world about it for many centuries after it happened.

Draw your own conclusions.

More info on the 'nonsensical-ness' of it: http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, in addition to what you posted, the Christian narrative requires its believers to accept the following:

1. That an omnipotent, omniscient and loving god has a hell waiting for everyone who is not redeemed for sins that were cast upon them not by their own acts, but by virtue of their birth;

2. That eternal torment in this hell, without any possibility of redemption, is justice;

3. (Without that this awaiting hell, there would be no need for a savior, so that the story of Jesus as savior relies upon it entirely);

4. That this same god sent his only begotten son to sacrifice himself in atonement for all these sins --- the most important event in all history, an act of pure Love if one somehow slides past the premises --- and offers salvation on conditition of belief, yet somehow neglected to tell most of the world about it for many centuries after it happened.

Draw your own conclusions.

Might as well be an appeal to emotion (among the favorite logical fallacies among lawyers when it's time to convince a jury of something).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave
Bryan wrote: "I know that I'm capable of doing the research because in most cases I've already done it. Now go point out those alleged special pleading fallacies for us. You don't want people to think you're just making it up for effect."

You asked me to justify my claim that the apologetics article you referred to defending the New Testament birth narratives, http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html , was "full of maybes and 'how it could have been' speculations."

I intend to do so in a little while, if for no other reason than merely to shut you up about it.

But first some background on the rationalist approach to the birth narratives as we find them in the gospels.

There is every reason to believe that the author of 'Matthew' fabricated the nativity stories by cobbling together passages from the Old Testament. And he wasn't shy about ripping texts out of their original context, and even misquoting those texts in order to suit his theological agenda. This is the rationalist approach to the issue.

Here are some examples.

"In view of the lack of historical support for the story of the wise men and the star of Bethlehem it is very likely that the whole story was composed by Matthew from Old Testament passages.

On the "star in the east"

Numbers 24:17 ; There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a specter shall rise out of Israel

On the wise men

Isaiah 60:3 ; And the Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising

On their presents

Isaiah 60:6 ; And they shall bring gold and incense. "

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/nativityother.html#2

"The planetary conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter occurred in 7BC but the distance between the planets, as viewed from the earth, was still far enough apart for each of the planets to be discernable as separate objects. It was highly unlikely that they could have been mistaken for a single star.

(Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p791-792 ; Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p58)"

"EPISODES IN THE NATIVITY GOSPEL VERSES OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES

The Anunciation Luke 1:26-38 Daniel 9:23 Daniel 10:12 Judges 6:12 Judges 13:3-4

The Magnificat Luke 1:46-56 I samuel 2:1 Malachi 3:12 II Samuel 22:51

The Virgin Birth Luke 1:27; Matthew 1:18 - Isaiah 7:14

The Birth in Bethlehem Luke 2:4-6 ; Matther 2:1 - Micah 5:2

The Wise Men From the East Matthew 2:1-12: - Isaiah 60:3 , Isaiah 60:6 , Exodus 30:23 , Psalms 72:10

The Star of Bethlehem Matthew 2:2, 9-10 ; Numbers 24:17

The Slaughter of the Innocents Matthew 2:16-17 ; Exodus 1:15-16 ; Jeremiah 31:5

The Return from Egypt Matthew 2:13-15 ; Hosea 11:1

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/nativi...er.html#2"

"Our first example is of Matthew citing an Old Testament text that supposedly prophesied Jesus' birth in Bethlehem:

Matthew 2:5-6 For it is written by the prophet: "And you, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah, for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel."

Matthew was quoting from Micah. But note that the original passage was slightly different:

Micah 5:2 ; But you O Bethlehem Ephranath, who are little among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler of Israel.

Note how the evangelist had tried to elevate the status of Bethlehem by changing Micah's "who are little among..." to "are by no means the least among". [1] This change is manifestedly a minor one, but it does show that Matthew had no qualms about twisting Old Testament passages to suit his theology."

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/matthewprophecies.html

"Another example is taken from the episode on Joseph and his family's return from Egypt:

Matthew 2:14-15 ; And he [Joseph] rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord has spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt will I call my son."

The Old Testament passage Matthew was quoting came from the book of Hosea. Let us look at that passage in its context:

Hosea 11:1-2 ; When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols.

It takes either a very gullible person, or someone who is bent on believing no matter what, to actually believe that the passage in Hosea above relates to Jesus. "

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/matthewprophecies.html

Now let me post some passages from the article in question, http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html , and let the readers decide whether the apologist was engaging in speculations, and 'how it could have been' scenarios or not. (note: the emphasis is mine.)

"They (the Magi) headed for Jerusalem and made inquiries. Someone reported them to Herod and they were brought before him. He told them, "Go to Bethlehem and bring me word so that I may come and pay him homage also." This remark has been ridiculed on the grounds that Herod was too clever and too suspicious to have depended on the Magi. Surely he would have had them followed. But how do we know that he did not? Perhaps the Magi, because they were clever, or because they were lucky, or because God was with them, managed to give Herod's spies the slip and come to Bethlehem untailed. They may not have told anyone the details, and indeed may not have known anything about it themselves. There were many Jews who hated Herod and who were hoping for the Messiah. There was an active guerrilla movement, called the Zealots, and it surely had spies at Herod's court. Perhaps when the Magi left Jerusalem, followed at a discreet distance by a few of Herod's spies, a small band of horsemen rode out of the hills, slit the spies' throats, and rode away without the Magi's ever knowing about it."

"The Magi, being warned in a dream, did not report back to Herod, but returned home by a different way (or "by different ways"). They may have been influenced by the fact that Mars was due to join Jupiter and Saturn in February, and Mars is the planet of war and bloodshed. This, plus what they had learned of Herod, by meeting him and in other ways, may have made them suspect trouble ahead. "

"If Joseph's family had come from Bethlehem, he may very well have been owner or part owner of some small bit of land thereabouts, not necessarily of great commercial value, but of great value to him as representing his ancestral inheritance.......We may doubt that Joseph's little plot of ground had belonged to his family for 12 centuries, or even for five (since the return from the Babylonian captivity). But if it had been in his family for several generations, and if he believed that probably it had once belonged to his remote ancestors, perhaps to David himself, family honor might seem to demand that the land, given to Salmon in the days of the Conquest, passed on to Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David, later lost to strangers, and finally recovered by Joseph's own great-great-grandfather, should not be lost again simply because the journey to Nazareth would be a hardship."

"If the census was being conducted under the Egyptian rules, then obviously Joseph would have been required to bring Mary. If the Egyptian rules did not apply, then he could legally have left Mary behind. However, if he were going to Bethlehem to save the family estate from confiscation, and if Mary had inherited some Bethlehem property in her own right (a possibility we shall come back to later), then she would come along for the same reason."

"Another consideration is that Matthew makes it explicit that Joseph and Mary were not formally married until after Mary was already pregnant. In order to spare Mary the gossip that would result from her giving birth less than nine months after the wedding, Joseph may have decided to bring her to Bethlehem fairly early in her pregnancy, and to remain there with her for at least a few years."

"If at that season of the year the animals were being kept in the fields day and night, the stable could be cleaned out and scrubbed down, and Joseph the carpenter could put up a few partitions and make the whole place much more pleasant than the guest-chamber."

(Now he's got Joseph renovating the stable :unsure: )

"Tertullian, writing around 200, says that Jesus was born at Bethlehem during the census taken by Saturninus. One possibility is that Tertullian has calculated the date of the birth on his own, looked up the dates of the Roman governors, and come up with Saturninus as the correct name. Unlikely. Tertullian was not that kind of scholar. Besides, when he does give a date for the birth, it is too late (around 2 BC, if I remember correctly). Can he have found the Saturninus reference in some other work, now lost? This too is unlikely. He knows the four gospels, and refers to them in language that makes it clear that he regards them as the final authority on the life of Christ. It is improbable that he would accept any evidence that Saturninus was the correct name so long as his copy of Luke said that it was Quirinius. I conclude, therefore, that Tertullian's copy said, "Saturninus." If it did, then we have the equivalent of two alternative manuscript readings at this point, and are entitled to prefer the factually correct one."

"Instead of trying to defend Luke against a charge of saying that Quirinius was governor of Syria during the lifetime of Herod, we may admit that he did say it and maintain that he was right. I know of two arguments used for this purpose. The first argument relies on an incomplete inscription known as the Tiburtine inscription. This lists the accomplishments of an llustrious Roman. Unfortunately, the top of the stone is broken off, so we cannot be sure which illustrious Roman. However, some of the details match known details in the career of Quirinius, and the mystery man was apparently governor of Syria twice, with other appointments between. If the inscription does refer to Quirinius, then there is no reason to dispute Luke's assertion (if he does assert it) that Quirinius was governor around 7 BC. "

"I maintain that a perfectly possible interpretation of Luke's statement is: "In those days, Caesar Augustus expressed a wish that the domains of King Herod might be completely surveyed and added to the tax rolls. In the days when Quirinius was governor of Syria, his wish was fulfilled." Alternatively, we may suppose that Luke is using the word APOGRAPHE to refer, not to the preliminary surveying, registration, and assessment of real estate, but to the collecting of the taxes. In this case, we translate he statement somewhat as follows: "In those days, Augustus commanded that real estate everywhere should be taxed, and that the preliminary surveying and registration should begin at once. The tax was actually collected (in Palestine) in AD 6 when Quirinius was governor of Syria." This interpretation has Luke using the same term for the registration and for the taxation, but this is not surprising in anyone not a tax lawyer. Given this interpretation, Luke's use of "occurred" rather than "completed" for the events of AD 6 is above even the most nit-picking criticism."

And his final conclusion?

"SUMMARY: I conclude that Luke is clearly right about all aspects of the census except the assertion that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time. Here, perhaps Luke has wrongly confused two censuses, perhaps he was miscopied, perhaps the translation that makes him assert this is wrong, perhaps Luke described Quirinius's role non-technically, and perhaps Quirinius really was governor of Syria at the time. It is unsatisfactory not to know which, but when we are dealing with ancient history, sometimes the evidence is ambiguous.

We have seen that Luke is right on all points but one, and on that one cannot be shown to be wrong. And I think we must leave it at that."

I hope these examples will suffice to justify my claims about the 'how it could have been' approach this guy took in order to defend these tall tales, when there is a far more plausible explanation available. That is, that they are largely if not entirely, legends concocted and passed on by credulous and ignorant religious enthusiasts for the purposes of aggrandising their fledgling cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dingo Dave
Bryan wrote: “I don't think you know what special pleading is…”

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of double standard.

A more difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of:

* reference to vocabulary that is owned by a distinct community with sole rights to assess meaning and application

* unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter

Example: I'm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.

* claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly

Example: Cocaine use should be legal. Like all drugs, it does have some adverse health effects, but cocaine is different from other drugs. Many have benefited from the effects of cocaine.

* assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know you think that I should be giving my money to the poor, but you've never been rich before. There are things about wealth that you don't understand.

* assertion that literally nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know the idea that ball lightning is caused by ghosts makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena.

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

Going by at least a couple of these definitions, the apologist was most definitely guilty of special pleading.

If not, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of double standard.

A more difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of:

* reference to vocabulary that is owned by a distinct community with sole rights to assess meaning and application

* unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter

Example: I'm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.

* claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly

Example: Cocaine use should be legal. Like all drugs, it does have some adverse health effects, but cocaine is different from other drugs. Many have benefited from the effects of cocaine.

* assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know you think that I should be giving my money to the poor, but you've never been rich before. There are things about wealth that you don't understand.

*              assertion that literally nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know the idea that ball lightning is caused by ghosts makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena.

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

Going by at least a couple of these definitions, the apologist was most definitely guilty of special pleading.

If not, why not?

Good answer and good question. Unfortunately, we cannot count on an equally impressive response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of double standard.

A more difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of:

* reference to vocabulary that is owned by a distinct community with sole rights to assess meaning and application

* unexplained claims of exemption from principles commonly thought relevant to the subject matter

Example: I'm not relying on faith in small probabilities here. These are slot machines, not roulette wheels. They are different.

* claims to data that are inherently unverifiable, perhaps because too remote or impossible to define clearly

Example: Cocaine use should be legal. Like all drugs, it does have some adverse health effects, but cocaine is different from other drugs. Many have benefited from the effects of cocaine.

* assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know you think that I should be giving my money to the poor, but you've never been rich before. There are things about wealth that you don't understand.

*              assertion that literally nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know the idea that ball lightning is caused by ghosts makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena.

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

But you knew all that before looking it up and posting it via copy & paste, right?

Heh.

Going by at least a couple of these definitions, the apologist was most definitely guilty of special pleading.

For example?

If not, why not?

Now you need to go look up the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan wrote: "I know that I'm capable of doing the research because in most cases I've already done it. Now go point out those alleged special pleading fallacies for us. You don't want people to think you're just making it up for effect."

You asked me to justify my claim that the apologetics article you referred to defending the New Testament birth narratives, http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html , was "full of maybes and 'how it could have been' speculations."

(bold emphasis added)

No, Dingo Dave, I asked you to justify your claim that the article contained special pleading.

Maybes and speculations are a normal part of historical inquiry, as I have already explained to you.

I intend to do so in a little while, if for no other reason than merely to shut you up about it.

Riiiight. Because if you slap down a straw man of your own construction it constitutes a mighty victory for Dingo Dave.

Hilarious.

But first some background on the rationalist approach to the birth narratives as we find them in the gospels.

There is every reason to believe that the author of 'Matthew' fabricated the nativity stories by cobbling together passages from the Old Testament. And he wasn't shy about ripping texts out of their original context, and even misquoting those texts in order to suit his theological agenda. This is the rationalist approach to the issue.

So far, the "rationalist approach" makes absolutely no allowances for differences in culture or genre.

Is that rational?

Maybe we should keep tabs on this "rationalist approach" to see if it lives up to its billing.

Here are some examples.

"In view of the lack of historical support for the story of the wise men and the star of Bethlehem it is very likely that the whole story was composed by Matthew from Old Testament passages.

On the "star in the east"

Numbers 24:17 ; There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a specter shall rise out of Israel 

On the wise men

Isaiah 60:3 ; And the Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising 

On their presents

Isaiah 60:6 ; And they shall bring gold and incense. "

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/nativityother.html#2

The "rationalist approach" made use of the appeal to silence to the point of fallacy. Is that rational?

1) The use of "star" in Numbers does not appear to refer to astronomy, but to its representative use for an important person. Such a passage could be used in like manner to justify each of the gospel narratives in its entirety.

2) The "wise men" passage doesn't mention wise men. The wise men were gentiles, but not kings. If Matthew was written late, the the author could easily refer to contemporary converts (see writings of Paul and Luke) in fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures. Matthew should have made the wise men kings in order to make an impact.

3) Why did Matthew add "myrrh" to the mix? Wouldn't we expect his story to have more impact with a higher degree of parallelism?

In sum, Dingo Dave, the competing analysis you're offering consists of maybes and "could have beens" and does not present any example of special pleading on the part of the reference I used.

"The planetary conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter occurred in 7BC but the distance between the planets, as viewed from the earth, was still far enough apart for each of the planets to be discernable as separate objects. It was highly unlikely that they could have been mistaken for a single star.

(Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p791-792 ; Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p58)"

So this opinion states that it was impossible for the planetary conjunction to have been the physical manifestation corresponding to the "star" in Matthew?

Or could it have been?

It'd be fun to go through your whole digression, but time forbids. I'll just mention that it should come as no surprise that gospel writers would connect Jesus with passages in the Hebrew scriptures given that Jesus himself did the same thing according to the same gospels. It does not work against the credibility of the account to discover parallels in the gospel texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good answer and good question. Unfortunately, we cannot count on an equally impressive response.

Paul, were you really too asleep to notice that he ignored my real question about his allegations of special pleading in favor of his awesome demonstration of hypothetical reconstruction in the discipline of history?

Is it really possible to be a lawyer and a sucker for such a tired trick at the same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...