The Case For Christ - A defence of Lee Strobel's 1998 apologetic book

[Lion IRC]

...But of course the minute anyone actually takes him at face value and starts to analyze, then all of a sudden it's not about that and somehow we have the burden of proof and archeology "proves" the Bible and so on.

You certainly have the burden of proof to explain how you can claim to know the identity of the Gospel writers.
Luke writes directly as a first person observer - as well as aggregator of other eye witness testimony.
That's why I claim he is an eye witness.

Now, you say YOU don't know who this 'anonymous' Luke person is. Well in that case, how do you know he isn't an eye witness?

 

[James Brown]

His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.

Those are passages from the first chapter of Matthew. How did Matthew, the tax collector, writing six to seven decades after the described events, verify the bolded portions?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

...But of course the minute anyone actually takes him at face value and starts to analyze, then all of a sudden it's not about that and somehow we have the burden of proof and archeology "proves" the Bible and so on.

You certainly have the burden of proof to explain how you can claim to know the identity of the Gospel writers.

I have made no such claim. Just the opposite in fact. That they are anonymous has been well established. We have no idea who "Mark" or "Luke" were, right off the bat (as neither of those were names of any of the disciples). Scholarly consensus on GJohn is likewise that we don't know who John was. As to Matthew YOU are the one claiming it is Matthew the tax collector referred to--bizarrely--in the third person in what is supposedly his own story, yet you still have provided zero evidence of your claim and of course you never will.

Luke

Luke who?

writes directly as a first person observer

Horseshit! The very first thing he writes is (emphasis mine):

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

He very clearly separates himself from any of the "first" who were "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (i.e., the disciples) and the fact that their stories were "handed down to us" and then makes it even more clear that he has investigated to make his own "orderly account."

He is NOT saying "this is what I personally witnessed." The exact opposite in fact. He is confessing that all he is presenting is hearsay.

Now, you say YOU don't know who this 'anonymous' Luke person is.

No, I affirm that NO ONE knows who this anonymous Luke person is, particularly since he's never named once in the entire book.

Well in that case, how do you know he isn't an eye witness?

He tells us so right in the very first paragraph.

 

[Learner]

A court reporter is a witness to the fact that someone said something in court. If we have the transcript then we have eyewitness testimony to what the defendant, or judge, or prosecutor said in court.
However, what THEY said, and what the court reporter may have recorded, could still be hearsay.

Say if someone on the stand said, "I was not at the briefing, but others told me that the president said 'Praise Xenu.'"
That would be hearsay, even if the transcript was not.

Or a journalist who writes and reports about a witness he talked to, who told him , that he (the witness) saw theives climbing out of a window in leotards?

And we're back to an account not being an eyewitness account, not to an event, but an account of being told by someone else what happened. So what your journalist writes down is hearsay.

We would have to have access to the witness to validate the journalist's reportage. Or if the original witness wrote an account. Something we could compare the journalist's work to, to see if he recorded it correctly, or if he embellished the original story.

Well yes I agree, its down to the evaluation which of course what merits each individual case. ( Koyaanisqatsi seems to have sussed it out ... apparently) I can accept "hearsay to be a across a rather broad spectrum (it seems you are applying it to) although blurry lines in places , hearsay to even my mother telling me that my grandmother used to prefer cellos than violins to which I somehow believe her.

 

[Learner]

How do you speak with authority about what Matthew did?
How do you know it was Matthew?

Deduction really (an OPINION I keep stating and keep using in posts) from what it reads , I also didn't want the "authority" against what Mathew did , be the only one, so to speak , because of erm my ego? . Anyway seriously ,...simply saying, IMO If Mathew said he first heard it from timbo who got it from franco who got it from Shiela , it would have been written as such.

And, really, the number of people between an eyewitness to an event and the person who finally records it doesn't change that if it's not the eyewitness, it's hearsay. Someone wrote down what he was told about, not what he saw happen.

So, even if your author of Matthew WAS Matthew, and he went directly to the family to ask about the genealogy, all of those begets they told him are hearsay. Matthew wasn't present at any of those births.

I'm ok with that, therefore a lot of what we know from history is written from hearsay!

(Tharmas I get you )

 

[steve_bank]

Aha! We are getting down to the nitty gritty. The reliance on the gospels as facts. The acceptance of gospels as facts is the foundation of Christianity In particularly the resurrection as true.

What I see is the same as I jave seen with the average Christian, the authenticity of the gospels are irrelevant, the question never arises.

People get a good feeling reading and discussing the bible. That serves as validation.

 

[Learner]

Aha! We are getting down to the nitty gritty. The reliance on the gospels as facts. The acceptance of gospels as facts is the foundation of Christianity In particularly the resurrection as true.

What I see is the same as I jave seen with the average Christian, the authenticity of the gospels are irrelevant, the question never arises.

People get a good feeling reading and discussing the bible. That serves as validation.

There's no nitty gritty in yours and Koyaanisqatsi biblical arguments . But To be fair ... you are authorities (perhaps like Keith asked of me) although you do imo, give quite odd interpretations of what the scripture means in your eyes.

I get the impression that one of you ( if not both) has a little lack of the phsycological human experience , its the same way I used to discuss or debate, when I was in my mid-twenties ,without understanding a little more of humans. ( however , as for myself ... my grammar is still atrocious after all this time)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koyaanisqatsi's wheel spinning is the result of an entirely mistaken belief that someone here is claiming there's NO hearsay anywhere in the New Testament.

How heavy were those goalposts, because you moved them awfully quickly.

Koyaanisqatsi wants to bury a very simple point underneath a mountain of ranting about how hard it is to believe stuff that's written by those eye witnesses.

We have no eyewitnesses. You pretending there are and just repeating vacuous phrases like that proves how disingenuous you are.

And this skeptical argument from incredulity is wasted because I have repeatedly said you don't have to believe in ghosts to accept the (entirely historical,) factual claim that a real historical person actually did say the words "I saw a ghost".

Which tells us absolutely NOTHING about whether or not ghosts actually exist.

Historical fact - person claims to have seen a ghost.

Incontrovertible fact - such a claim tells us nothing factual other than the fact that someone once made a claim.

Congratulations. You've just affirmed that Strobel's book is entirely irrelevant and serves no purpose.

My apologies. If all you wanted to do was establish that someone once claimed to see something, mission accomplished.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There's no nitty gritty in yours and Koyaanisqatsi biblical arguments .

Beg pardon? My arguments are always 100% guaranteed chock full of nitty gritty, but that's ok. We know you can't ever address any of them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well yes I agree, its down to the evaluation which of course what merits each individual case.

What?
No. If someone tells you something they were not in a position to verify, just passing along someone else's story, it is hearsay. That does not mean it is untrue. Fact/fiction/gist/lie, the truth of the matter does not change the mechanism by which you got t he information. And THAT is what does or does not make it hearsay.

( Koyaanisqatsi seems to have sussed it out ... apparently) I can accept "hearsay to be a across a rather broad spectrum (it seems you are applying it to) although blurry lines in places , hearsay to even my mother telling me that my grandmother used to prefer cellos than violins to which I somehow believe her.

I really don't care if you believe her. That has nothing to do with if it was hearsay.
The question is, do you have any evidence your mom told you that?

I mean, whether you b'leeves it or not, all WE have right now is you saying someone tokd you something that (i assume) you neve witnessed for yourself....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Deduction really (an OPINION I keep stating and keep using in posts)

but you changed from a maybe-suggestion to stating it as a fact, what Matthew DID.

Which, in a thread about pretending that Strobel used honest journalism in writing his books is at least ironic.

Anyway seriously ,...simply saying, IMO If Mathew said he first heard it from timbo who got it from franco who got it from Shiela , it would have been written as such.

See, there you go, again. How can you say WOULD HAVE? There a re no places in the gospel reporting that information in one part was eyewitnessed, other parts from interviews.

So how can you state as a fact how the author.WOULD have written it?

I'm ok with that, therefore a lot of what we know from history is written from hearsay!

Yes. Which is why historians look for corroboration. Supporting evidence. Corollary data.

Such as, a historian who lived in a city Michelangelo lived in, wrote that at that time, the city had a high level of education, that almost all the citizens could read and write. Modern historians evaluating that claim look to see the tax records of that time. They evaluated how many of the taxes were prepared by the individual, as compared to hiring a scribe to do it.

 

[Learner]

What?

No. If someone tells you something they were not in a position to verify, it is hearsay. That does not mean it is untrue. Fact/fiction/gist/lie, the truth of the matter does not cuange the mechanism by which you got t he information.

?? Evaluation to whether it is a hearsay or not

The question is, do you have any evidence your mom told you that?

I mean, whether you b'leeves it or not, all WE have right now is you saying someone tokd you something that (i assume) you neve witnessed for yourself. ...

I already said I can take that as hearsay (like everything else everyone reads of history) .

 

[Learner]

There's no nitty gritty in yours and Koyaanisqatsi biblical arguments .

Beg pardon? My arguments are always 100% guaranteed chock full of nitty gritty, but that's ok. We know you can't ever address any of them.

I thought so "young man" but take no mind , you do make arguments yes. I try and read to take note then in no time, your energetic eagerness posts several posts more , several paragrahs long to make the point. Nothing wrong with it , its just that I've become a little less patient these days to respond , (less sleep to concentrate mainly).

 

[Learner]

but you changed from a maybe-suggestion to stating it as a fact, what Matthew DID.

Which, in a thread about pretending that Strobel used honest journalism in writing his books is at least ironic. See, there you go, again. How can you say WOULD HAVE? There a re no places in the gospel reporting that information in one part was eyewitnessed, other parts from interviews.

Well thats odd... if this is contradicting (stating as a fact ) you only seem to have notice it when I did it. But thats ok , I was using the same language response to another , stating "a fact", I am a theist after all. But its good to bring to attention, so we can get on track, cheers ref.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There's no nitty gritty in yours and Koyaanisqatsi biblical arguments .

Beg pardon? My arguments are always 100% guaranteed chock full of nitty gritty, but that's ok. We know you can't ever address any of them.

I thought so "young man" but take no mind

Unless you're in your sixties, I am not a young man.

several paragrahs long to make the point. Nothing wrong with it

Well, gee, thanks "old man." So glad that you see nothing wrong with thorough argumentation, examination and analysis, particularly in a thread where that was allegedly the stated goal of the OP.

its just that I've become a little less patient these days to respond , (less sleep to concentrate mainly).

No worries. Perhaps you are in your sixties (or higher), then in which case, my apologies for the "old man" crack, however earned for the "young man" crack.

You see, after almost twenty years now (jesus!) of posting in threads like this one, most of us are used to this kind of disingenuous "challenge" by cult members who make claims like "Look at ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE" and the like and then when you get down to the nitty gritty, it always becomes, "Well, hearsay is evidence, just not a form you'd accept" in spite of all the reasons why hearsay is not, in fact, evidence.

As has been abundantly demonstrated, all it can "evidence" is that someone once made a claim. That's it. It cannot serve as evidence that the subject of the claim is true; only that someone once made a claim.

Any idiot can make a claim. No one would ever contest that fact. What is being contested in regard to Christianity is, of course, the subject of the claim--specifically that magic is real and Jesus had magical powers--not merely that someone once said something.

Understand? It's demoralizing to have someone get up in your face and say "LOOK AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE" and then when we methodically and conclusively prove to them that in fact none of it is evidence and all they are really doing is trying to argue one small point--like Lion has now backpedaled to--and that point isn't important at all and tells us exactly nothing new, or when we do respond--like I have here--in good faith and really get into the nitty gritty only to have people such as yourself try to dismiss the whole notion of in-depth analysis/argumentation/nitty gritty with a backhanded compliment....

Well, you get the point. Talk about being tired.

 

[Learner]

I thought so "young man" but take no mind

Unless you're in your sixties, I am not a young man.

several paragrahs long to make the point. Nothing wrong with it

Well, gee, thanks "old man." So glad that you see nothing wrong with thorough argumentation, examination and analysis, particularly in a thread where that was allegedly the stated goal of the OP.

its just that I've become a little less patient these days to respond , (less sleep to concentrate mainly).

No worries. Perhaps you are in your sixties (or higher), then in which case, my apologies for the "old man" crack, however earned for the "young man" crack.

You see, after almost twenty years now (jesus!) of posting in threads like this one, most of us are used to this kind of disingenuous "challenge" by cult members who make claims like "Look at ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE" and the like and then when you get down to the nitty gritty, it always becomes, "Well, hearsay is evidence, just not a form you'd accept" in spite of all the reasons why hearsay is not, in fact, evidence.

As has been abundantly demonstrated, all it can "evidence" is that someone once made a claim. That's it. It cannot serve as evidence that the subject of the claim is true; only that someone once made a claim.

Any idiot can make a claim. No one would ever contest that fact. What is being contested is subject of the claim, not merely that someone once said something.

Understand?

No not in my sixties , but I don't think you expected that the theists on this forum knew a lot more of the bible than you seem to have realised looking by how you previously demonstrated earlier arguments IOW's you seemed to have just got into some of the topics imo a little more thoroughly when those particular parts came up. (Hey I do sometimes in some other areas on the forum)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

but I don't think you expected that the theists on this forum knew a lot more of the bible than you seem to have realised looking by how you previously demonstrated

That's an odd conclusion to draw considering I clearly know them better than they know them, which is precisely why I provided such detailed responses to prove my points.

 

[Learner]

The wine is wearing off from a dinner engagement ( Lion it was Ozzy wine ) my "heart is gladdened" and now I'm going to bed.


I lurrr you awwrr

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The wine is wearing off from a dinner engagement ( Lion it was Ozzy wine ) my "heart is gladdened" and now I'm going to bed.


I lurrr you awwrr

Sleep well. Now I need a drink .

 

[Lion IRC]

OK
So I'm collating a historical account of what took place and I'm writing down exactly what the eye witness tells me;

"Late in the afternoon the Twelve came to him [Jesus] and said, “Send the crowd away so they can go to the surrounding villages and countryside and find food and lodging, because we are in a remote place here.”

...and so I ask, and then what did Jesus say? And the witness answers;

"Jesus said, “You give them something to eat.”

...and I'm like...did He really say that? And the witness (who was there) says

"hell yeah! when Jesus asked them to feed so many people the disciple dudes were all like...you gotta be kidding Jesus!!! We have only five loaves of bread and two fish—unless we go and buy food for all this crowd"