05-10-2007, 03:09 AM
Believer: "Everything I found [about Simon Greenleaf] was that he was a bitter opponent of Christianity and believed that the resurrection of Christ was the greatest hoax of history."
If I do a Google search on Simon Greenleaf, I too can find quite a few similar statements. Is this the information you speak of? I asked you where you found the information, and you have yet to answer. Please tell me what evidence supports your assertion, since the websites all seem to offer this as a "just so" story. As far as I can tell, it's nothing more than a legend propagated by credulous believers, on a par with Darwin's supposed deathbed renunciation of this theory. As I asked before, have you made any attempt to corroborate it, or to examine this claim critically before passing it on? You have not yet given an answer.
I also asked "Do you realize that Greenleaf started his investigation [meaning his book] with the *presupposition* that the Bible is the inerrant word of the Christian god?" This I can support with evidence. In the fourth paragraph of Testimony of the Evangelists, which I encourage you to read for yourself, Greenleaf states...
"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true." (emphasis added)
Thus, Greenleaf asserts that nothing in his inquiry is directed toward supporting the assertion that the Bible is the revealed word of the Christian god, and by extension, that such a god exists; rather, he assumes at the outset that this is so. This reveals several things. First, Greenleaf is supposing something that is far more spectacular than what he purports to show, for if it is the case that an almighty god vouchsafed the gospels, is it not an infinitesimal step from there to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead? (By the way, this explains why Greenleaf continually assumes that events unfolded precisely as described in the Bible, which undermines his entire argument.) Secondly, this admission does not square at all with the ubiquitous claims that Greenleaf's investigation was responsible for his conversion to Christianity. For if that had been the case--if his investigation was itself such compelling evidence for the existence of the Christian god that it converted him--then not only would his failure to state this fact be quite odd, but relegating it to an a priori assumption would be completely inexplicable.
Now, if you have some concrete evidence to the contrary, I invite you to share it. And, by the way, sentences that begin with "I read somewhere that..." will count for very little (if anything).
For a very interesting analysis of similar judicial apologetics, see the article by Richard Packham. As with many essays by non-believers, Packham provides links to rebuttals to his essay. (In my experience, this is a rarity among Christian writers, even when politely asked to reciprocate the favor.)
Lest they get forgotten, for your convenience I'll list a few other questions that you have not yet responded to, plus a several more for good measure:
1) I said "Surely they [the 9/11 hijackers] would not have died for what they knew to be a lie, therefore, at this very moment they are enjoying the services of 72 virgins. Do you agree?" If not, why not?
2) Who were the "eyewitnesses" to the resurrection? What did they see? How you know that your information is reliable?
3) Please list for me the titles of a few books you've read that are critical of Christianity.
4) Please list for me the names of a few scholars (historians, theologians, philosophers, etc.) who have published books that refute claims of Christianity.
5) If you have not availed yourself of any of the hundreds of books that critically examine Christianity, please explain in what way you have actually challenged ANY of your thinking about religion, and more importantly, why anyone at this site should feel obliged to serve as your personal tutor if you put no effort into learning on your own?
You asked if I agree that many good things have been accomplished by Christians? That's a fair question, and I'll be happy to answer it as soon as you answer mine. Let me be more clear about my previous points. Do you agree that many good things have been done by non-believers and adherents of other faiths? Do you agree that self-proclaimed Christians have also perpetrated many despicable things?
You said "...the Dead Sea Scrolls refute your statement here [i.e. that the Bible is brimming with interpolations and forgeries]. They prove that the Old Testament scriptures were not changed throughout the centuries."
Believers often tout the Dead Sea Scrolls as confirming evidence for the Bible. This is a colossal stretch. What it confirms is that many (not all) of the stories from the Old Testament changed very little in the intervening centuries. It does not imply that they were true at the time they were written, nor that they agree with the originals, as in most cases there is little known about when they were written or by whom. Here are some links for you to consider that make similar points, some with further references that you can investigate:
Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless
http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/ra1fic0a.htm
Critical examination of the Bible
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/bookr.html#CEB
The Trinity Forgery
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/trinity_forgery.html
Translation Errors and Forgeries in the Bible
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
Errors and Forgeries in the Bible
http://www.bandoli.no/whyerrors.htm
You went on to say "...It is unlikely that New Testament scriptures could have been tampered with as there are still so many ancient copies of them available." That's a fine hypothesis, but it's not an argument unless you support it with something. Having "ancient" copies does not rule out interpolations and forgeries for two reasons. First, the "ancient" copies that are available are not themselves originals, but many copies removed. Second, many of the epistles are admitted to be inauthentic by the church. (Joseph Wheless documents dozens of these.) Third, "ancient" copies do not all agree, hence there was already divergence (or incomplete convergence) by the 2nd century. Here are a few more links, specifically concerning the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection story, that may help you get started researching this for yourself. In my opinion, after reading volumes of material from both sides of the argument, is that there is scant evidence that Jesus ever existed, and even some positive evidence that he did not. I sincerely doubt that we will ever know with certainty one way or the other. As for the resurrection, the evidence is absolutely abysmal, unless you first grant yourself a fantastic premise to argue from, such as "The Bible is the word of god."
Historicity of Jesus
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...istoricity.html
Why I don't buy the resurrection story, by Richard Carrier
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...r/resurrection/
By the way, I must correct something I said earlier. I said that Greenleaf "ignored" one of the fundamental legal principles governing the use of ancient documents in a court of law. That was not quite right. He clearly identifies the principle and claims that the Bible meets this level of credibility. So, what I should have said is that he ignored the evidence of interpolation and forgery in the Bible, much of which was already available at the time of his writing. (Much more is known today, of course, as critical analysis of the Bible was scant before the 20'th century.)
Since you've been polite in your posts, I'm going to try to phrase this a politely as I can. I strongly encourage you to do some critical inquiries of your own before propagating something as a fact. Just because something confirms what you already believe, it does not make it true. This is the trap that most religionists fall into, in my opinion. They exhibit very strong selective blindness, seeing only that which confirms their beliefs. While this is a universal human tendency, it seems to be taken to an extreme by religionists, and Christians in particular. Just consider for a moment what a sermon consists of. It is a one-way communication that is meant to instill belief; it has none of the earmarks of a process designed to discern what is true. It does not encourage questioning. It has little room for doubt. It generally ignores or grossly misrepresents opposing views. It fosters social pressures that maintain belief. All of these things are directly antithetical to honest and open investigation.
At one point your post you said " So, I challenge you to check out the truth of what you believe too." Can you please point to a single thing I've said that would indicate that I do not do this? I have read (studied!) the books you've been touting, and I'm very familiar with the arguments on both sides. I take them seriously, and weight them against competing arguments. That does not seem to be the approach that you have taken. Am I wrong about that? Have you truly "challenged" your beliefs by studying what critics of Christianity have to say? I think not. At least you have given no indication of it thus far.
If you wish to continue discussing Christianity here, I politely ask you to first read some of the information that is posted here, and more generally, seek out, read, and understand arguments that are contrary to your own. Waiting for the information to come to you (via those of us here who are willing to help you, for example), is not challenging yourself, in my opinion. It is not exercising critical thinking, which is the responsibility of every able-minded adult. I find absolutely no honor in credulity.
If I do a Google search on Simon Greenleaf, I too can find quite a few similar statements. Is this the information you speak of? I asked you where you found the information, and you have yet to answer. Please tell me what evidence supports your assertion, since the websites all seem to offer this as a "just so" story. As far as I can tell, it's nothing more than a legend propagated by credulous believers, on a par with Darwin's supposed deathbed renunciation of this theory. As I asked before, have you made any attempt to corroborate it, or to examine this claim critically before passing it on? You have not yet given an answer.
I also asked "Do you realize that Greenleaf started his investigation [meaning his book] with the *presupposition* that the Bible is the inerrant word of the Christian god?" This I can support with evidence. In the fourth paragraph of Testimony of the Evangelists, which I encourage you to read for yourself, Greenleaf states...
"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true." (emphasis added)
Thus, Greenleaf asserts that nothing in his inquiry is directed toward supporting the assertion that the Bible is the revealed word of the Christian god, and by extension, that such a god exists; rather, he assumes at the outset that this is so. This reveals several things. First, Greenleaf is supposing something that is far more spectacular than what he purports to show, for if it is the case that an almighty god vouchsafed the gospels, is it not an infinitesimal step from there to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead? (By the way, this explains why Greenleaf continually assumes that events unfolded precisely as described in the Bible, which undermines his entire argument.) Secondly, this admission does not square at all with the ubiquitous claims that Greenleaf's investigation was responsible for his conversion to Christianity. For if that had been the case--if his investigation was itself such compelling evidence for the existence of the Christian god that it converted him--then not only would his failure to state this fact be quite odd, but relegating it to an a priori assumption would be completely inexplicable.
Now, if you have some concrete evidence to the contrary, I invite you to share it. And, by the way, sentences that begin with "I read somewhere that..." will count for very little (if anything).
For a very interesting analysis of similar judicial apologetics, see the article by Richard Packham. As with many essays by non-believers, Packham provides links to rebuttals to his essay. (In my experience, this is a rarity among Christian writers, even when politely asked to reciprocate the favor.)
Lest they get forgotten, for your convenience I'll list a few other questions that you have not yet responded to, plus a several more for good measure:
1) I said "Surely they [the 9/11 hijackers] would not have died for what they knew to be a lie, therefore, at this very moment they are enjoying the services of 72 virgins. Do you agree?" If not, why not?
2) Who were the "eyewitnesses" to the resurrection? What did they see? How you know that your information is reliable?
3) Please list for me the titles of a few books you've read that are critical of Christianity.
4) Please list for me the names of a few scholars (historians, theologians, philosophers, etc.) who have published books that refute claims of Christianity.
5) If you have not availed yourself of any of the hundreds of books that critically examine Christianity, please explain in what way you have actually challenged ANY of your thinking about religion, and more importantly, why anyone at this site should feel obliged to serve as your personal tutor if you put no effort into learning on your own?
You asked if I agree that many good things have been accomplished by Christians? That's a fair question, and I'll be happy to answer it as soon as you answer mine. Let me be more clear about my previous points. Do you agree that many good things have been done by non-believers and adherents of other faiths? Do you agree that self-proclaimed Christians have also perpetrated many despicable things?
You said "...the Dead Sea Scrolls refute your statement here [i.e. that the Bible is brimming with interpolations and forgeries]. They prove that the Old Testament scriptures were not changed throughout the centuries."
Believers often tout the Dead Sea Scrolls as confirming evidence for the Bible. This is a colossal stretch. What it confirms is that many (not all) of the stories from the Old Testament changed very little in the intervening centuries. It does not imply that they were true at the time they were written, nor that they agree with the originals, as in most cases there is little known about when they were written or by whom. Here are some links for you to consider that make similar points, some with further references that you can investigate:
Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless
http://members.tripod.com/jbrooks2/ra1fic0a.htm
Critical examination of the Bible
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/bookr.html#CEB
The Trinity Forgery
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/trinity_forgery.html
Translation Errors and Forgeries in the Bible
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
Errors and Forgeries in the Bible
http://www.bandoli.no/whyerrors.htm
You went on to say "...It is unlikely that New Testament scriptures could have been tampered with as there are still so many ancient copies of them available." That's a fine hypothesis, but it's not an argument unless you support it with something. Having "ancient" copies does not rule out interpolations and forgeries for two reasons. First, the "ancient" copies that are available are not themselves originals, but many copies removed. Second, many of the epistles are admitted to be inauthentic by the church. (Joseph Wheless documents dozens of these.) Third, "ancient" copies do not all agree, hence there was already divergence (or incomplete convergence) by the 2nd century. Here are a few more links, specifically concerning the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection story, that may help you get started researching this for yourself. In my opinion, after reading volumes of material from both sides of the argument, is that there is scant evidence that Jesus ever existed, and even some positive evidence that he did not. I sincerely doubt that we will ever know with certainty one way or the other. As for the resurrection, the evidence is absolutely abysmal, unless you first grant yourself a fantastic premise to argue from, such as "The Bible is the word of god."
Historicity of Jesus
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...istoricity.html
Why I don't buy the resurrection story, by Richard Carrier
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...r/resurrection/
By the way, I must correct something I said earlier. I said that Greenleaf "ignored" one of the fundamental legal principles governing the use of ancient documents in a court of law. That was not quite right. He clearly identifies the principle and claims that the Bible meets this level of credibility. So, what I should have said is that he ignored the evidence of interpolation and forgery in the Bible, much of which was already available at the time of his writing. (Much more is known today, of course, as critical analysis of the Bible was scant before the 20'th century.)
Since you've been polite in your posts, I'm going to try to phrase this a politely as I can. I strongly encourage you to do some critical inquiries of your own before propagating something as a fact. Just because something confirms what you already believe, it does not make it true. This is the trap that most religionists fall into, in my opinion. They exhibit very strong selective blindness, seeing only that which confirms their beliefs. While this is a universal human tendency, it seems to be taken to an extreme by religionists, and Christians in particular. Just consider for a moment what a sermon consists of. It is a one-way communication that is meant to instill belief; it has none of the earmarks of a process designed to discern what is true. It does not encourage questioning. It has little room for doubt. It generally ignores or grossly misrepresents opposing views. It fosters social pressures that maintain belief. All of these things are directly antithetical to honest and open investigation.
At one point your post you said " So, I challenge you to check out the truth of what you believe too." Can you please point to a single thing I've said that would indicate that I do not do this? I have read (studied!) the books you've been touting, and I'm very familiar with the arguments on both sides. I take them seriously, and weight them against competing arguments. That does not seem to be the approach that you have taken. Am I wrong about that? Have you truly "challenged" your beliefs by studying what critics of Christianity have to say? I think not. At least you have given no indication of it thus far.
If you wish to continue discussing Christianity here, I politely ask you to first read some of the information that is posted here, and more generally, seek out, read, and understand arguments that are contrary to your own. Waiting for the information to come to you (via those of us here who are willing to help you, for example), is not challenging yourself, in my opinion. It is not exercising critical thinking, which is the responsibility of every able-minded adult. I find absolutely no honor in credulity.