Hi Brady,

I was not quoting Tobin when I said “1) Did any of the primary sources conduct personal interviews with any of the supposed still living eyewitness? 2) Regarding second hand testimonies, did any of the primary sources conduct personal interviews with people who claimed that they knew any of the still living eyewitnesses? 3) Regarding even third hand testimonies, did any of the primary sources conduct personal interviews with people who knew people who knew any of the still living eyewitnesses? Those were my own questions.

Brady wrote:

This would be someone like Irenaeus. He tells us in book 5, ch. 33, para. 4 of Against Heresies:

And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp.

How can we be reasonably certain that Papias was “the hearer of John?”

Brady again:

 Here Irenaeus tells us about the Polycarp under the tutorial hand of the apostles. Irenaeus continues in Book 3, ch. 3 para. 4 of the above:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.

Regarding “conversed with many who had seen Christ,” approximately what was the date that that was first recorded? As far as I know, the oldest copies of New Testament manuscripts are not dated prior to 200 A.D. I assume that such would be the case for the writings you quoted as well. Why couldn’t later writers have simply had innocent but inaccurate revelations and made up the items that you quoted? Also, propaganda is a possibility as well.

Tobin said “That so-called ‘pious frauds,’ forgery and deceit of every kind were widely used in a cover-up is testified to by some of the early Christian apologists themselves. Even the major church historian, Eusebius – as shifty a writer as one could imagine, according to Edward Gibbon – gloated over the fact that he managed (in his account) to ‘make everything right’ for the Church.”

Brady wrote:

Irenaeus tells us more about his relationship to Polycarp and Polycarp’s relation to “those who had seen the Lord” in his letter to his friend Florinus:

For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events (inasmuch as the experiences of childhood, keeping pace with the growth of the soul, become incorporated with it); so that I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse — his going out, too, and his coming in — his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eyewitnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God’s mercy that was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God’s grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind.

My objection is the same as in my paragraph that began with “Regarding conversed with many.”

Brady wrote:

So we find that what was handed down to Irenaeus when he writes about the origin of the Gospels did not come from Papias, as Tobin mistakenly suggests, but from Polycarp:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what Peter had preached. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

                                      Against Heresies Book 3, Ch. 1

I have the same objection as before. This entire situation gets down to when the quotes you cited were first recorded. If you can’t reasonably answer that question, then there is a reasonable possibility that the actual recording dates were much later than you suppose they were first recorded and that alternations could have been added later.

Why do you presuppose that the motives and methods of historicity of the primary sources are to be trusted? After all, your sources were members of the Roman Catholic Church and part of the pernicious Roman Empire. On the one hand, Protestants criticize the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and on the other hand here you are bragging about some of the members of the ancient Roman Catholic Church.

Tobin said “The church fathers' sense of history was not like our modern critical, scientific one.’ Can you reasonably prove otherwise?

Round 5 - From Brady

Hi Johnny,

You wrote:

Tobin said “The church fathers' sense of history was not like our modern critical, scientific one.’ Can you reasonably prove otherwise?

I think it best to start here. I guess the question is what do you mean by “our”? As for you, you have repeatedly avoided any real modern, critical scientific methodology for doing history and reject the results of those, like Moreland, who offer such an approach. Compared to you, the fathers are in quite a superior position. In regards to Tobin, he has come up with a negative methodology that not only destroys all of ancient history, but all of history, including his own writings. Once again, the approach of the fathers will always be superior to Tobin’s approach.

When compare to the methods of Moreland, Craig or Montgomery, we find the fathers are not as sophisticated, but given what they have, they are headed in the right direction. Unlike you, the fathers do not reject, but embrace inductive methodologies; however, their arguments are not as well thought out as the arguments we have today.

Johnny wrote:

How can we be reasonably certain that Papias was “the hearer of John?”

Well, we are back at the same question we always come back to and you always run away from: What methodology do we use to do history? You have none and you and Tobin reject what he calls the “modern critical, scientific” methodologies. So, how can you say anything about history? It seems that you believe if you just stay ignorant enough about these methods, you won’t have to accept the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead or anything about ancient times that you don’t like.

You ask, “How can we be reasonably certain?” I ask how are we to measure “reasonably certain”? How can we be reasonably certain that Caesar fought the Gallic wars, or any other event of history? Without a criteria and a baseline there is no way to objectively measure such a concept.

But we have covered this all before. You want to talk about history and events of history, while all the time rejecting modern critical, scientific methods of investigating history. What sense does that make? Do you think it is not painfully obvious to the readers of these debates which side has the evidence and arguments, and which side relies on fallacy and runs away from modern critical, scientific methods of investigating history?

Johnny wrote:

My objection is the same as in my paragraph that began with “Regarding conversed with many.”

Johnny, a real objection is based on contrary evidence or a demonstrable problem with how the methodology is used. You have no contrary evidence, nor do you have a demonstrable problem with how the methodology is used, because you don’t have a methodology. “I don’t like it” is not a real objection, but that is all you have.

Until you come up with a “modern critical, scientific” methodology for doing history, you have nowhere to go and nothing to say about the historical reliability of the NT and the event of the Resurrection. Those that do have a “modern critical, scientific” methodology, like Moreland, are able to say something; and they say the NT is historically reliable and the event of the Resurrection took place. But more than just saying that, they are able to use their methodology to demonstrate their position. Something you cannot do.

At this point I can only suggest what I suggested at the end of my last post to you:

“Johnny, why don’t you change sides? With Christianity you get cogent inductive arguments and valid deductive arguments to work with. You don’t have to hold on to fallacies anymore, you can give them up and you also get to have meaningful metaphysical and epistemological discussions; something atheism and skepticism has had to abandon long ago. You also get to use real historical methodologies in doing real historical investigation. In addition you get a relationship with the God who created the universe and everything in it. You also get the forgiveness of your sins and you get Christ’s righteousness imputed to you. Not a bad package. Think about it.”

Regards,