When was Jesus Born?

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote: “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 will now attempt to show you why I accuse this apologist of ‘special pleading’ if it will make you happy.

I will use the definitions which I cut and pasted from the Wikipedia website.

By the way, why should you expect me to retype an entire article, when it is quicker, easier, and more accurate, to simply cut and paste it?

Let’s begin.

“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”

The apologist assumes that the miraculous aspects of the gospels (in this case the birth narratives) are statements of fact, and not fiction. Would he be prepared to grant other ancient documents the same benefit of the doubt? In other words, would he be prepared to believe reports of pagan, or other non-Biblical miracles which were commonly reported at around the same time? For example, would he be prepared to believe Josephus’s report that a cow gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the Jerusalem temple, or that horses and chariots were seen flying through the sky above Jerusalem during the Roman siege? Would he be prepared to believe all of the outrageous miracles reported in the other early Christian literature, such as the apocryphal gospels and epistles? If not, (and I’m willing to bet he wouldn’t) then he was applying an exemption from critical scrutiny to the Biblical text, which he would most certainly not grant to other ‘non-sacred’ ancient documents. A double standard? I think so.

It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that the whole purpose of his apologetic was to attempt to justify the outrageous claim that the god Yahweh inseminated a young Jewish girl in first century Palestine in order to manufacture a perfect human sacrifice for himself.

He tried to claim that 2 ‘stars’ could be construed as one star (the star of Bethlehem) for the sake of harmonising the Biblical text with the reality that the triple conjunction (in 7 BC) would actually have been observed as two stars, not one.

Not once in the whole article did he acknowledge that there might be naturalistic explanations for why the texts are as we find them. The most obvious being that these stories were simply inventions of the gospel authors. Why? Because offering these, would be unfavourable to his thesis.

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

"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."

He makes claims to data that are most definitely unverifiable. The whole of the Biblical birth narratives are unverifiable!

But it gets worse.

Is Luke right about the angel Gabriel visiting Mary with the news that she was going to give birth to a god-man hybrid whose father was Yahweh?

Is Luke right when he reports angels singing in the sky above ancient 1st century Palestine, then ascending back into heaven after they’d finished?

Is Luke right when he claims that the angel Gabriel appeared to the priest Zechariah while he was burning incense in the temple and then struck him dumb, for doubting the angel’s news that his ancient wife Elizabeth was to miraculously give birth to John the Baptist?

Remember, these annunciation stories are the foundation upon which the rest of the birth narratives, and his whole article are based. He must accept, and he must presume that the reader will accept these reports as being true, otherwise the rest of the gospel birth narratives, and his analysis of them, will be found to be entirely without basis in reality in the first place.

Surely this is special pleading at it’s most blatant. If not, why not?

* 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.

Isn’t this what all Christians do when they invoke gods and angels to explain phenomena which can be satisfactorily understood without recourse to supernatural beings?

As I said; “Going by at least a couple of these definitions, the apologist was most definitely guilty of special pleading.

If not, why not?”

[Guest Dingo Dave]

QUOTE(Paul @ Feb 10 2007, 07:12 AM)

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).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Paul was appealing to common sense rather than to emotion Bryan.

It is far more common for Christians to appeal to emotions in an attempt to convince us skeptics about the 'truth' of their beliefs, than the other way around.

This comment of yours is mererly a red herring which you introduced in an apparently deliberate attempt to distract readers from the serious and problematic Christian doctrines which Paul quite legitimately raised in his comment.

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

I will now attempt to show you why I accuse this apologist of ‘special pleading’ if it will make you happy.

It would sure be better than seeing you answer a point that I did not make as though you were dealing me some sort of decisive defeat.

I guess no apology is forthcoming?

I will use the definitions which I cut and pasted from the Wikipedia website.

I predict that it will be more accurate to say you will abuse the definitions which you cut and pasted from the Wikipedia website.

By the way, why should you expect me to retype an entire article, when it is quicker, easier, and more accurate, to simply cut and paste it?

If it were me, I would put it in my own words (without needing to peek or paraphrase) and then provide a URL so that you could confirm what I said.

I have no problem with cutting and pasting, but cutting and pasting doesn't exactly convincingly dispel my suspicion that you did not know what special pleading was.*

Let’s begin.

The apologist assumes that the miraculous aspects of the gospels (in this case the birth narratives) are statements of fact, and not fiction.

Where does he do that?

I believe you are mistaken. He does not focus on any miraculous portion of the narrative.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html

It's not an auspicious beginning for you if you have to make things up, Dingo Dave.

Would he be prepared to grant other ancient documents the same benefit of the doubt? In other words, would he be prepared to believe reports of pagan, or other non-Biblical miracles which were commonly reported at around the same time? For example, would he be prepared to believe Josephus’s report that a cow gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the Jerusalem temple, or that horses and chariots were seen flying through the sky above Jerusalem during the Roman siege? Would he be prepared to believe all of the outrageous miracles reported in the other early Christian literature, such as the apocryphal gospels and epistles? If not, (and I’m willing to bet he wouldn’t) then he was applying an exemption from critical scrutiny to the Biblical text, which he would most certainly not grant to other ‘non-sacred’ ancient documents. A double standard? I think so.

So, based on your false premise that he affirms the historicity of miraculous events in this paper combined with your willingness to bet that he doesn't act consistently regarding miracles in other similar documents therefore he is guilty of special pleading?

That would be a bad argument even for an Aussie who'd just downed three dozen pints.

Should I assume that you're sober and serious? It's rather hard to believe.

It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that the whole purpose of his apologetic was to attempt to justify the outrageous claim that the god Yahweh inseminated a young Jewish girl in first century Palestine in order to manufacture a perfect human sacrifice for himself.

Perhaps we should be filled with awe for both the author (who accomplishes this alleged purpose without emitting so much as a peep about the virgin birth) and for Detective Dingo Dave, who was able to discover the true purpose of the article despite its failure to mention miracles and/or the virgin birth.

Again: You're sober and serious?

I might get a better argument than this from Strife.

He tried to claim that 2 ‘stars’ could be construed as one star (the star of Bethlehem) for the sake of harmonising the Biblical text with the reality that the triple conjunction (in 7 BC) would actually have been observed as two stars, not one.

I believe you are mistaken again.

1) He presents a number of possibilities, including comets.

2) He does not suggest that the two "stars" would be taken as one, but that the visual manifestation of the conjunction would be described as "a star" because of the nature of the Greek language (mentioning precedent).

It has been disputed whether they would have called a conjunction a "star," but the usage is not without precedent in Greek, and considering that Greek was probably not the native language of the wise men, this objection must not be given too much weight.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html

So again, Dingo Dave seems to be making stuff up in order to make his case.

Not once in the whole article did he acknowledge that there might be naturalistic explanations for why the texts are as we find them.

Uh--what's that supposed to mean? The texts were either man-made or divinely zapped into existence. Nobody that I know of suggests that nature and nature's laws accounts for the Bible text.

In fact, he suggests copyist error as one possible explanation for the discrepancy in Luke, and that's about as close as one can come to "naturalistic" explanations for a man-made text.

I'm eager for you to explain what you're trying to say, in any case.

The most obvious being that these stories were simply inventions of the gospel authors. Why? Because offering these, would be unfavourable to his thesis.

I don't see why "inventions" is any more "naturalistic" than copyist errors, FWIW.

And I should point out that the failure to hold an anti-supernatural bias is not a sufficiently reliable indicator of special pleading, which is what you were going to argue for.

"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."

He makes claims to data that are most definitely unverifiable. The whole of the Biblical birth narratives are unverifiable!

But isn't he talking specifically about the census and not the "whole of the Biblical birth narrative"?

Why wouldn't the account of the census be verifiable?

Be careful to avoid special pleading in your answer.

But it gets worse.

Is Luke right about the angel Gabriel visiting Mary with the news that she was going to give birth to a god-man hybrid whose father was Yahweh?

Is Luke right when he reports angels singing in the sky above ancient 1st century Palestine, then ascending back into heaven after they’d finished?

Is Luke right when he claims that the angel Gabriel appeared to the priest Zechariah while he was burning incense in the temple and then struck him dumb, for doubting the angel’s news that his ancient wife Elizabeth was to miraculously give birth to John the Baptist?

Remember, these annunciation stories are the foundation upon which the rest of the birth narratives, and his whole article are based. He must accept, and he must presume that the reader will accept these reports as being true, otherwise the rest of the gospel birth narratives, and his analysis of them, will be found to be entirely without basis in reality in the first place.

Surely this is special pleading at it’s most blatant. If not, why not?

Well, it's primarily not special pleading because

1) Kiefer doesn't mention the visitation

2) Kiefer doesn't mention angels singing

3) Kiefer doesn't talk about Gabriel's appearance to Zechariah

Dingo Dave hasn't come remotely close to showing Kiefer guilty of special pleading. Indeed, Dingo Dave seems bent on just making stuff up.

Kiefer:

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.

Kiefer writes in English, AFAICT, but Dingo Dave seems completely unable to discern the word "census" in there.

Is drink to blame? We'll have to wait for Dingo Dave's explanation.

Isn’t this what all Christians do when they invoke gods and angels to explain phenomena which can be satisfactorily understood without recourse to supernatural beings?

As if Kiefer appealed to gods or angels in his analysis of these passages in Matthew and Luke???

As I said; “Going by at least a couple of these definitions, the apologist was most definitely guilty of special pleading.

If not, why not?”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Either sleep it off or ... if it's not because of drink I don't know how to advise you.

That was one horribly inept argument you just presented.

If you're going to make a case for special pleading, it's usually a good idea to actually use something the author wrote or said to make your case.

Better luck next time.

*and the ensuing argument only incriminated Dingo Dave further

[Guest Ed from Mass.]

Dear Bryan,

I will now attempt to show you why I accuse this apologist of ‘special pleading’ if it will make you happy.

I will use the definitions which I cut and pasted from the Wikipedia website.

By the way, why should you expect me to retype an entire article, when it is quicker, easier, and more accurate, to simply cut and paste it?

Let’s begin.

The apologist assumes that the miraculous aspects of the gospels (in this case the birth narratives) are statements of fact, and not fiction.  Would he be prepared to grant other ancient documents the same benefit of the doubt? In other words, would he be prepared to believe reports of pagan, or other non-Biblical miracles which were commonly reported at around the same time? For example, would he be prepared to believe Josephus’s report that a cow gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the Jerusalem temple, or that horses and chariots were seen flying through the sky above Jerusalem during the Roman siege? Would he be prepared to believe all of the outrageous miracles reported in the other early Christian literature, such as the apocryphal gospels and epistles? If not, (and I’m willing to bet he wouldn’t) then he was applying an exemption from critical scrutiny to the Biblical text, which he would most certainly not grant to other ‘non-sacred’ ancient documents. A double standard? I think so.

It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that the whole purpose of his apologetic was to attempt to justify the outrageous claim that the god Yahweh inseminated a young Jewish girl in first century Palestine in order to manufacture a perfect human sacrifice for himself.

He tried to claim that 2 ‘stars’ could be construed as one star (the star of Bethlehem) for the sake of harmonising the Biblical text with the reality that the triple conjunction (in 7 BC) would actually have been observed as two stars, not one.

Not once in the whole article did he acknowledge that there might be naturalistic explanations for why the texts are as we find them. The most obvious being that these stories were simply inventions of the gospel authors. Why? Because offering these, would be unfavourable to his thesis. 

"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."

He makes claims to data that are most definitely unverifiable. The whole of the Biblical birth narratives are unverifiable!

But it gets worse.

Is Luke right about the angel Gabriel visiting Mary with the news that she was going to give birth to a god-man hybrid whose father was Yahweh?

Is Luke right when he reports angels singing in the sky above ancient 1st century Palestine, then ascending back into heaven after they’d finished?

Is Luke right when he claims that the angel Gabriel appeared to the priest Zechariah while he was burning incense in the temple and then struck him dumb, for doubting the angel’s news that his ancient wife Elizabeth was to miraculously give birth to John the Baptist?

Remember, these annunciation stories are the foundation upon which the rest of the birth narratives, and his whole article are based. He must accept, and he must presume that the reader will accept these reports as being true, otherwise the rest of the gospel birth narratives, and his analysis of them, will be found to be entirely without basis in reality in the first place.

Surely this is special pleading at it’s most blatant. If not, why not?

Isn’t this what all Christians do when they invoke gods and angels to explain phenomena which can be satisfactorily understood without recourse to supernatural beings? 

As I said; “Going by at least a couple of these definitions, the apologist was most definitely guilty of special pleading.

If not, why not?”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just curious. What the hell is a "dingo" ??

[Strife767]

Just curious. What the hell is a "dingo"  ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please search the forum (or use Google for 15 seconds) before you post something redundant like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo

[Bryan]

I think Paul was appealing to common sense rather than to emotion Bryan.

Why the appeal to a supposed moral outrage, then? Is morality common sense?

It is far more common for Christians to appeal to emotions in an attempt to convince us skeptics about the 'truth' of their beliefs, than the other way around.

Since it's more common for Christians, therefore Paul didn't do it?

Well, couldn't he secretly be a Christian?

This comment of yours is mererly a red herring which you introduced in an apparently deliberate attempt to distract readers from the serious and problematic Christian doctrines which Paul quite legitimately raised in his comment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point was that Paul does not present any argument, Dingo Dave.

There's nothing about "X is always wrong, Christianity teaches X, therefore Christianity is wrong" That's how a strong argument would normally work. Paul doesn't engage the problem that way at all. He presents no argument at all, in fact. All he does is present some doctrines as though they are supposed to be self-evidently ridiculous, and a huge part of that appeal is moral outrage (literal hell), which is essentially an emotional appeal.

Red herring, you say?

There's another one you need to look up.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Just curious. What the hell is a "dingo"  ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was just waiting for that. You're right on cue.

[Bryan]

Just curious. What the hell is a "dingo"  ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's kind of like an upside-down coyote.

http://images.google.com/images?client=fir...F-8&sa=N&tab=wi

[Guest Guest]

I think Paul was appealing to common sense rather than to emotion Bryan.

It is far more common for Christians to appeal to emotions in an attempt to convince us skeptics about the 'truth' of their beliefs, than the other way around.

This comment of yours is mererly a red herring which you introduced in an apparently deliberate attempt to distract readers from the serious and problematic Christian doctrines which Paul quite legitimately raised in his comment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Common sense? Paul like most lawyers and judges has lost almost all common sense. The state of our legal system today is a prime example.

[God Save Us From Christians]

Just curious. What the hell is a "dingo"  ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you the hell look it up?

[Guest Guest]

Just curious. What the hell is a "dingo"  ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A DOG FROM DOWN UNDER! kinda like some place in hell

[Stixx3969]

A DOG FROM DOWN UNDER! kinda like some place in hell

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dingo Dave,

Please don't let a handful of idiots color your perception of all of us in the US.

Thanx

[Strife767]

I was just waiting for that. You're right on cue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol, right? Who would have known such a simple alias would get such a strong and permeative reaction?

[Strife767]

Common sense? Paul like most lawyers and judges has lost almost all common sense.  The state of our legal system today is a prime example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just like most Muslims are terrorists, right?

[God Save Us From Christians]

A DOG FROM DOWN UNDER! kinda like some place in hell

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*sigh* More Christian Stupidity

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Dear Bryan,

The apologist, by defending the historicity of the birth narratives in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, is attempting to lend credence to the rest of these ancient documents. Documents which incorporate legends such as demon possession and exorcism; reports of dead people coming back to life; people flying through the air unassisted; people walking through solid walls and being instantly teleported to different locations around Palestine; the apparitions of the ghosts of long dead people; Easter zombies climbing out of their graves and wandering around Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion; angels appearing and having conversations with people; the impregnation of a virgin girl by a god; a man controlling the weather by a spoken word; a man changing the chemical composition of various substances by simply wishing it to happen; a man defying the laws of physics by walking on water etc. The gospel birth narratives are an integral part of these documents, and I maintain that they were added to the original documents to assist in bolstering up the many other claims that are made within them.

If the claim had not been made that the god Yahweh had impregnated the virgin Mary in order to manufacture his god-man chimera, there would be no stories about wise men worshipping a baby, or magic stars, or the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, or Joseph and Mary fleeing into Egypt after having been warned to do so by the god Yahweh.

Kiefer believes that the gospels are accurate in their entirety, (including all the miraculous bits), and he thinks that if he can somehow rationalise certain sections of the birth narratives, then it will make it easier for people to accept the rest of the gospel stories as being accurate reports of real historical events. He says so himself in his introduction.

Read it again and then tell me this isn’t so.

"The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke by James Kiefer

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION

It is often said that the Gospels (or more generally, all the books of the New Testament) were written long after the Crucifixion, and that therefore they cannot be historically reliable. I have written elsewhere on the dating of the Gospels, but it strikes me that a more direct approach is in order. For the most part, we are interested in the date at which a Gospel was written primarily as an aid in estimating the historical reliability of the narrative. I therefore propose to discuss directly the question: Where we can check them, how reliable are the Gospels as historical accounts? Ordinarily, in the biography of a public figure, one expects that the account of his adult life, after he became well known, will stick reasonably close to the facts, since there will be many people around who have observed the facts, but that the account of his early years will be somewhat embellished. Thus, when reading a biography of an American President, we tend to take with a grain of salt stories about George Washington and the cherry tree, or Abraham Lincoln as a youth walking ten miles to pay six cents to a customer he had accidentally overcharged, or twenty miles to borrow a law book, while at the same time expecting the book to be quite accurate about things like the date of the president's inauguration, his wife's name, the name of his vice-president, etc. Similarly, if we were to discover that the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels are quite inaccurate, we would not necessarily conclude that the entire account is worthless. However, if we find Matthew and Luke accurate in their accounts of the birth and early years of Jesus, accurate precisely where most biographies are least trustworthy, then we shall have good grounds for expecting accuracy in their accounts of Jesus' public career. For this reason, I shall be concentrating on the Infancy Narratives in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke."

I wrote: “The apologist assumes that the miraculous aspects of the gospels (in this case the birth narratives) are statements of fact, and not fiction.”

You wrote : ”Where does he do that? I believe you are mistaken. He does not focus on any miraculous portion of the narrative.

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA/li...y/infancy1.html

It's not an auspicious beginning for you if you have to make things up, Dingo Dave.”

And

“So, based on your false premise that he affirms the historicity of miraculous events in this paper combined with your willingness to bet that he doesn't act consistently regarding miracles in other similar documents therefore he is guilty of special pleading?”

He certainly does assume the miraculous portions of the birth narratives to be true.

Let me quote again from his article.

“SCENARIO FOR THE VISIT OF THE WISE MEN"

We take it, then, that a group of astrologers living somewhere east of Jerusalem saw the conjunction and decided to act on it. They were probably from Babylon, where astronomical observation was expert and astrological belief was nearly universal, and which was the home of many Jews and a center of Jewish learning. Perhaps they were themselves Jews. If not, they were familiar with Jewish beliefs and the expectation of a Messiah. Perhaps they were encouraged by the fact that the second of the three conjunctions (May 29, October 3, December 4) took place on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the Jewish year…..They 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."...

“The Magi, being warned in a dream, did not report back to Herod, but returned home by a different way (or "by different ways").”....

“Joseph, being warned of God in a dream, took the child and his mother and fled to Egypt.”

Warned by whom?

Here, we have Kiefer admitting his acceptance of stories, which make claims about the effectiveness of astrology and prophecy in predicting future events, and include the god Yahweh, or one of his angels, warning the Magi not to return to Herod, and also warning Joseph to take his wife and her child to Egypt.

Would he give a story like this a free pass if it appeared in any other ancient document besides the Bible? Perhaps he is gullible enough to do so, but I doubt it.

You wrote: “Perhaps we should be filled with awe for both the author (who accomplishes this alleged purpose without emitting so much as a peep about the virgin birth) and for Detective Dingo Dave, who was able to discover the true purpose of the article despite its failure to mention miracles and/or the virgin birth”

Once again I’ll quote from his article.

“Another consideration is that Matthew makes it explicit that Joseph and Mary were not formally married until after Mary was already pregnant.”

Considering that Kiefer stated in his introduction, that he wrote this article in order to bolster support for the accuracy and historicity of other gospel stories, I wonder just who he might be implying made Mary pregnant in the first place? Would it have been Joseph? Or one of Joseph’s neighbours? Or Yahweh?

Why would the Magi, after seeing an astrological sign in the sky predicting the birth of some sort of ‘messiah’, (which was supposedly prophesied by Yahweh in the old Testament), come to worship the baby if a miraculous birth was not accepted as an integral part the story line?

Are you suggesting that Kiefer is saying that the wise men were in the habit of routinely going around worshipping random babies for no particular reason? How absurd.

You wrote: “And I should point out that the failure to hold an anti-supernatural bias is not a sufficiently reliable indicator of special pleading, which is what you were going to argue for.”

It’s not that he 'doesn’t hold anti-supernatural biases' , it’s that he does hold ‘pro-supernatural biases’ , at least where the Bible legends are concerned. This is not some dispassionate analysis of history he is conducting here. As he himself admitted in his introduction, it is an apologetic, exressly written in the hope that it will help to bolster the believer’s faith in the historicity and reliability of the other gospel stories.

Would he be just as willing to accept reports of miracles in contemporary Pagan and other non-Biblical documents?

If not, then we have a clear case of special pleading, do we not?

If you want to call it something else, then that's your business. But it's close enough for me.

You wrote: “As if Kiefer appealed to gods or angels in his analysis of these passages in Matthew and Luke???”

As I hope I have already demonstrated, he does indeed do this very thing. Both explicitly and implicitly.

By the way, what's with the ad hominems about me being drunk when I wrote my last response?

Are you aware that with the time difference between the U.S. and Australia, I was writing at somewhere around 7-8 A.M? I hardly had the need to 'sleep anything off'. I had only just gotten out of bed and was drinking my morning coffee.

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

The apologist, by defending the historicity of the birth narratives in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, is attempting to lend credence to the rest of these ancient documents. Documents which incorporate legends such as demon possession and exorcism; reports of dead people coming back to life; people flying through the air unassisted; people walking through solid walls and being instantly teleported to different locations around Palestine; the apparitions of the ghosts of long dead people; Easter zombies climbing out of their graves and wandering around Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion; angels appearing and having conversations with people; the impregnation of a virgin girl by a god; a man controlling the weather by a spoken word; a man changing the chemical composition of various substances by simply wishing it to happen; a man defying the laws of physics by walking on water etc.

How is any of that special pleading?

The gospel birth narratives are an integral part of these documents, and I maintain that they were added to the original documents to assist in bolstering up the many other claims that are made within them.

That, Dingo Dave, is an empty claim if ever there was one.

Writing in those early times was expensive. Writers kept to the essentials, things that they felt would contribute to their purpose in writing.

If the claim had not been made that the god Yahweh had impregnated the virgin Mary in order to manufacture his god-man chimera, there would be no stories about wise men worshipping a baby, or magic stars, or the slaughter of the innocents by Herod, or Joseph and Mary fleeing into Egypt after having been warned to do so by the god Yahweh.

Again, your objection seems to be morphing from Kiefer commits the fallacy of special pleading to Kiefer fails to display an antisupernatural bias in evaluating the text.

Kiefer believes that the gospels are accurate in their entirety, (including all the miraculous bits), and he thinks that if he can somehow rationalise certain sections of the birth narratives, then it will make it easier for people to accept the rest of the gospel stories as being accurate reports of real historical events. He says so himself in his introduction.

Read it again and then tell me this isn’t so.

1) You have insufficient basis in this writing of Kiefer's to conclude that he "believes that the gospels are accurate in their entirety." Case in point, Kiefer believes that Luke may have made an error of misidentification respecting the governor of Palestine. That is bad logic on your part, Dingo Dave.

2) Kiefer affirms that early accuracy of a historical narrative, where narratives tend to be least accurate, bolsters the reliability of the rest of the text. That is a standard approach to ancient documents.

He certainly does assume the miraculous portions of the birth narratives to be true.

Let me quote again from his article.

“SCENARIO FOR THE VISIT OF THE WISE MEN"

We take it, then, that a group of astrologers living somewhere east of Jerusalem saw the conjunction and decided to act on it. They were probably from Babylon, where astronomical observation was expert and astrological belief was nearly universal, and which was the home of many Jews and a center of Jewish learning. Perhaps they were themselves Jews. If not, they were familiar with Jewish beliefs and the expectation of a Messiah. Perhaps they were encouraged by the fact that the second of the three conjunctions (May 29, October 3, December 4) took place on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the Jewish year…..They 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."...

“The Magi, being warned in a dream, did not report back to Herod, but returned home by a different way (or "by different ways").”....

“Joseph, being warned of God in a dream, took the child and his mother and fled to Egypt.”

Warned by whom?

Here, we have Kiefer admitting his acceptance of stories, which make claims about the effectiveness of astrology and prophecy in predicting future events, and include the god Yahweh, or one of his angels, warning the Magi not to return to Herod, and also warning Joseph to take his wife and her child to Egypt.

Are you serious? Or are you tipping the bottle?

Let's isolate your highlights.

group of astrologers

They were probably from Babylon, where astronomical observation was expert and astrological belief was nearly universal

and the expectation of a Messiah

1) I believe in astrologers. Don't you? There are a number who have businesses near my home. They still publish magazines dedicated to their pastime.

2) Your second highlight is like the first. There's nothing supernatural in believing in the existence of astrologers. Moreover, the Babylonian skill in observing astrological signs (also known as astronomy) is not a supernatural element.

3) Jews today believe in the future coming of a messiah. If I acknowledge that, am I invoking supernaturalism in my analysis?

“The Magi, being warned in a dream, did not report back to Herod, but returned home by a different way (or "by different ways").”....

“Joseph, being warned of God in a dream, took the child and his mother and fled to Egypt.”

In this case, you have taken Kiefer to task for quoting the text.

Quoting the text as though it is accurate is basic to proper historical study.

Think science for a moment. Try to think of how you would test a hypothesis that you believe is not true.

You proceed precisely thus: Treat the hypothesis as if it were true and test for what would result if the hypothesis were true.

History works in much the same way. By taking Kiefer to task for quoting the text as though it were true (where the reliability of the text is exactly the point at issue in his paper), you simply reveal that you do not understand how historical study works.

Would he give a story like this a free pass if it appeared in any other ancient document besides the Bible? Perhaps he is gullible enough to do so, but I doubt it.

Where the reliability of the text is at issue, it would be perfectly normal (expected, required) to grant the text the benefit of the doubt while probing its reliability.

Once again I’ll quote from his article.

“Another consideration is that Matthew makes it explicit that Joseph and Mary were not formally married until after Mary was already pregnant.”

And by this time we have advanced enough scientifically to realize that it is not possible for a woman to be pregnant before she is married?

Considering that Kiefer stated in his introduction, that he wrote this article in order to bolster support for the accuracy and historicity of other gospel stories, I wonder just who he might be implying made Mary pregnant in the first place? Would it have been Joseph? Or one of Joseph’s neighbours? Or Yahweh?

Kiefer, in keeping with the best practices of historical study, keeps his personal views out of his analysis. He takes the text at face value because that is the first step toward performing a proper analysis of the text.

It is illegitimate to criticize either that step or the results of his analysis per se. The method he uses in performing the analysis should be the point at issue and only that.

Why would the Magi, after seeing an astrological sign in the sky predicting the birth of some sort of ‘messiah’, (which was supposedly prophesied by Yahweh in the old Testament), come to worship the baby if a miraculous birth was not accepted as an integral part the story line?

Because in the general thinking of the time a miraculous birth was not prerequisite to being a messiah.

Note Herod's reaction. He's not concerned over a "miraculous birth" one single bit. He's concerned about competing royalty.

Are you suggesting that Kiefer is saying that the wise men were in the habit of routinely going around worshipping random babies for no particular reason? How absurd.

Your argument is absurd. People today act on the basis of astrological and other "supernatural" beliefs. Why should such actions be ruled out in the study of history?

It’s not that he 'doesn’t hold anti-supernatural biases' , it’s that he does hold ‘pro-supernatural biases’ , at least where the Bible legends are concerned. This is not some dispassionate analysis of history he is conducting here.

Why not?

Because he won't rule out miracles a priori or for some other reason?

As he himself admitted in his introduction, it is an apologetic, ex[p]ressly written in the hope that it will help to bolster the believer’s faith in the historicity and reliability of the other gospel stories.

You seem to be making stuff up again, Dingo Dave.

Kiefer wrote that if the birth narratives were completely inaccurate (I'm paraphrasing) that the subsequent material was not necessarily entirely discredited while on the other hand accuracy where historical accounts tend to be least accurate would lend credence to the subsequent material.

What's wrong with that reasoning, apart from the fact that you do not like the conclusion that Kiefer reached?

Moreover, where is the example of special pleading, which was supposedly what you were going to accomplish in your examination of Kiefer's paper?

Would he be just as willing to accept reports of miracles in contemporary Pagan and other non-Biblical documents?

Isn't that the question you need to definitively answer for both Kiefer and the historical profession in general before proclaiming that Kiefer is guilty of special pleading?

If not, then we have a clear case of special pleading, do we not?

You're not going to skip the step of showing the Kiefer treats other texts differently, I hope.

Historical study would bid him treat historical narratives alike. It would beg the question fallaciously to assume that Kiefer acts inconsistently as to the very point at issue.

If you want to call it something else, then that's your business. But it's close enough for me.

As I hope I have already demonstrated, he does indeed do this very thing. Both explicitly and implicitly.

And it might be the most eloquent presentation of a perfectly worthless argument that I've ever seen.

1) Granting the text the benefit of the doubt for the sake argument is normal practice--no special pleading.

2) Assuming that Kiefer would not treat another text similarly fallaciously begs the question of his alleged special pleading.

That's your argument in a nutshell.

By the way, what's with the ad hominems about me being drunk when I wrote my last response?

I find it hard to believe that somebody could present such an inept argument while in a sober state. That is not an attack on you, but an attack on your argument.

I did not assume you were drunk; I merely posited the idea as a hypothesis that might explain the argument you presented.

I left it so that you might settle the matter of your mental state in a subsequent post (taking you at your word).

So far, you're not saying.

Are you aware that with the time difference between the U.S. and Australia, I was writing at somewhere around 7-8 A.M? I hardly had the need to 'sleep anything off'. I had only just gotten out of bed and was drinking my morning coffee.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The time stamps at KOTW do not correspond to the time of authorship, but to the time the post was unveiled by the moderators. I don't know what time of day you did your writing. Plus you could always compose an argument after a drunken binge, black out for awhile, and then submit it to KOTW well after you originally composed it.

But you say you composed it in the morning, implying that you were not drunk.

The argument is still a completely inept mess. You just did it while sober.

You find fault with lending the document the benefit of the doubt while assessing the document (normal historical practice), and you beg the question fallaciously in supposing that Kiefer treats other historical narratives differently.

And you failed to see (or at least acknowledge) your errors the first time I pointed them out, somehow.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

Why the appeal to a supposed moral outrage, then?  Is morality common sense?

Since it's more common for Christians, therefore Paul didn't do it?

Morality is based on common sense. A concept such as "Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you." is entirely based on common sense, and the natural desire which most people have not to be unnecessarily harmed.

Well, couldn't he secretly be a Christian? 

My point was that Paul does not present any argument, Dingo Dave.

He was simply pointing out some of the nonsensical doctrines of this particular religion.

There's nothing about "X is always wrong, Christianity teaches X, therefore Christianity is wrong"  That's how a strong argument would normally work.  Paul doesn't engage the problem that way at all.  He presents no argument at all, in fact.  All he does is present some doctrines as though they are supposed to be self-evidently ridiculous, and a huge part of that appeal is moral outrage (literal hell), which is essentially an emotional appeal.

They are self evidently ridiculous. Paul doesn't need to make some long winded intellectual argument against them. They do it all by themselves.

It's just that Christians have been so brainwashed by the clergy to think that black is white, and that up is down, that they no longer recognise these doctrines for being as immoral and nonsensical as they actually are.

Red herring, you say?

There's another one you need to look up.

"The phrase red herring has a number of specific metaphorical meanings, all sharing a general concept: something being a diversion or distraction from the original objective. These include:

a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments (see Ignoratio elenchi).

In literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot.....

In detective work, mystery fiction, and puzzle-solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.

In adventure games, an item or object of no practical use; its purpose may be to frustrate the gamer who tries to find the intended use for it."

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I used the term 'red herring' to suggest that your comment was merely designed to distract readers from the real issues which Paul raised in his post. That is the immoral and problematic doctrines contained within the Christin religion.

My use of the term was entirely appropriate within the context of my comment.

You really are getting desperate with your attempted hair splitting now aren't you?

[Guest river]

Just like most Muslims are terrorists, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NO!!!!!!!!But all Terrorists are Muslims!! radicals

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Dear Bryan,

You imply that Kiefer is some kind of dispassionate historical analyst when it comes to examining Bible stories, and that I am out of line to accuse him of believing in all the miracles reported therein. If you seriously expect me or any other level headed person to swallow such a load of bullshit, then you are are deluding yourself!

You wrote: "Kiefer, in keeping with the best practices of historical study, keeps his personal views out of his analysis."

and

In this case, you have taken Kiefer to task for quoting the text. Quoting the text as though it is accurate is basic to proper historical study.

Think science for a moment. Try to think of how you would test a hypothesis that you believe is not true.

You proceed precisely thus: Treat the hypothesis as if it were true and test for what would result if the hypothesis were true.

History works in much the same way. By taking Kiefer to task for quoting the text as though it were true (where the reliability of the text is exactly the point at issue in his paper), you simply reveal that you do not understand how historical study works.

This all sounds great on the surface, but what you fail to recognise is that Kiefer is not conducting historical analysis. He is writing Christian apologetics.

Please allow me to quote from another of Kiefer's articles, which clearly reveals his mindset, and the biases with which he approaches his analysis of the gospel legends and the Bible in general.

(note:emphasis is mine)

"The Sabbath was given to Israel to commemorate the deliverance from Egypt. This is most plausibly understood by supposing that the Israelites' first day of freedom, of deliverance from bondage, was kept by them as a Sabbath, and every seventh day thereafter. (The Sabbath is not mentioned between Genesis 1 and Exodus 16, but those who suppose that the Sabbath was kept in an unbroken cycle from the Creation to the Exodus will not find this inconsistent with the supposition that God arranged the emergence from the Red Sea to occur just before the Sabbath.)

But Our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished a far greater deliverance when He rose from the dead, leading captivity captive. If the day on which the Israelites emerged from the Red Sea into freedom deserved to be commemorated as a day of deliverance, the day on which all the ransomed of Christ are delivered from the bondage of sin and death deserves to be commemorated with a glory that far eclipses the former deliverance from a merely temporal bondage....

The stone which the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner. This is the LORD's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. (Psalm 118:22-24)....

What is the stone of which the Psalmist speaks? We are plainly told that it is Jesus Christ (1P 2:7; Mt 21:42 ; Mk 12:12 ; Lk 20:17). When did the builders reject Him? on Good Friday. How was He made the headstone of the corner? by being raised from the dead on the following Sunday (Ac 4:10-11). Accordingly we read, "This (that is, the Resurrection) is the LORD's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This (Sunday, the first day of the week, the day of the Resurrection of Our Lord) is the day that the LORD has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Amen! Alleluia! Praise the Lord! May you all have a blessed Easter now and every Sunday of the year.

Yours,

James Kiefer

4998 Battery Lane

Bethesda, MD 20814 "

Yeah. He sure looks like a cool and level headed historian to me. NOT!

"Are you serious? Or are you tipping the bottle?"

"I find it hard to believe that somebody could present such an inept argument while in a sober state."

Bryan, you are off your rocker. Or as we say here in Australia; "You appear to have some kangaroos loose in your top paddock".

[Guest Anne]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

Morality is based on common sense. A concept such as "Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you." is entirely based on common sense, and the natural desire which most people have not to be unnecessarily harmed.

He was simply pointing out some of the nonsensical doctrines of this particular religion.

They are self evidently ridiculous. Paul doesn't need to make some long winded intellectual argument against them. They do it all by themselves.

It's just that Christians have been so brainwashed by the clergy to think that black is white, and that up is down, that they no longer recognise these doctrines for being as immoral and nonsensical as they actually are.

"The phrase red herring has a number of specific metaphorical meanings, all sharing a general concept: something being a diversion or distraction from the original objective. These include:

a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments (see Ignoratio elenchi).

In literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot.....

In detective work, mystery fiction, and puzzle-solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.

In adventure games, an item or object of no practical use; its purpose may be to frustrate the gamer who tries to find the intended use for it."

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I used the term 'red herring' to suggest that your comment was merely designed to distract readers from the real issues which Paul raised in his post. That is the immoral and problematic doctrines contained within the Christin religion.

My use of the term was entirely appropriate within the context of my comment.

You really are getting desperate with your attempted hair splitting now aren't you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope this isn't a stupid question..... What is a dingo ??

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

Morality is based on common sense. A concept such as "Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you." is entirely based on common sense, and the natural desire which most people have not to be unnecessarily harmed.

Can you explain why people go against their moral "common sense" so routinely?

People seem generally better at not sticking their hand deliberately into a fire than, say, cheating on their spouse or on their taxes.

He was simply pointing out some of the nonsensical doctrines of this particular religion.

You could certainly take it that way, and no doubt Paul hoped for that reaction from the audience, but Paul provided no argument as to why the doctrines were nonsensical. No argument at all.

An approach of that type has no realistic chance of changing anybody's mind. At best he was "preaching to the choir."

They are self evidently ridiculous.

No, they are not.

Paul doesn't need to make some long winded intellectual argument against them. They do it all by themselves.

No, they do not.

It's just that Christians have been so brainwashed by the clergy to think that black is white, and that up is down, that they no longer recognise these doctrines for being as immoral and nonsensical as they actually are.

It's almost like you've been brainwashed into believing that.

"The phrase red herring has a number of specific metaphorical meanings, all sharing a general concept: something being a diversion or distraction from the original objective. These include:

a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments (see Ignoratio elenchi).

In literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot.....

In detective work, mystery fiction, and puzzle-solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.

In adventure games, an item or object of no practical use; its purpose may be to frustrate the gamer who tries to find the intended use for it."

(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Ah. So this means you know what a red herring is.

I used the term 'red herring' to suggest that your comment was merely designed to distract readers from the real issues which Paul raised in his post.

Right, because if Paul were actually to present an argument in favor of the ridiculousness of the doctrines everyone ... would soon forget about it ... thanks to me ... asking about it ...

Oh, wait--you're serious?

That is the immoral and problematic doctrines contained within the Christin religion.

My use of the term was entirely appropriate within the context of my comment.

You really are getting desperate with your attempted hair splitting now aren't you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The red herring charge doesn't make sense using any of its standard definitions.

[Guest bewildered]

Both Bryan and Kiefer start off with the wrong premise: treating propaganda and/or myth as history. This is not a biography; it is propaganda put together to sell a product, i.e., Christianity.

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

You imply that Kiefer is some kind of dispassionate historical analyst when it comes to examining Bible stories, and that I am out of line to accuse him of believing in all the miracles reported therein.

You're out of line because there was no evidence of miracle-belief in the text you were supposed to be evaluating.

If you seriously expect me or any other level headed person to swallow such a load of bullshit, then you are are deluding yourself!

Well, you're just making stuff up again, Dingo Dave, because you know you're up against it regarding your claim that Kiefer engaged in special pleading.

This all sounds great on the surface, but what you fail to recognise is that Kiefer is not conducting historical analysis. He is writing Christian apologetics.

Regardless, your charge that he engaged in special pleading must come from the text in question. Not from your imagination.

Please allow me to quote from another of Kiefer's articles, which clearly reveals his mindset, and the biases with which he approaches his analysis of the gospel legends and the Bible in general.

(note:emphasis is mine)

Yeah. He sure looks like a cool and level headed historian to me. NOT!     

"Are you serious? Or are you tipping the bottle?"

"I find it hard to believe that somebody could present such an inept argument while in a sober state."

Bryan, you are off your rocker. Or as we say here in Australia; "You appear to have some kangaroos loose in your top paddock".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This, Dingo Dave, is a red herring.

You were to produce evidence in support of your claim that Kiefer engaged in special pleading in the text in question (not that you've found it any place other than your imagination even now).

Instead of addressing the main issue, you addressed something else, apparently as intended distraction from your failure.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

[Strife767]

NO!!!!!!!!But all Terrorists are Muslims!! radicals

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL, just as stupid! It's sure not Muslims who bomb abortion clinics here in the USA, for one.