Hi Brady,

In a previous post you asked me how many historians agree with my position and what their names are. I just realized that your request was not reasonable. You and the Bible are claimants. The Bible is full of claims from cover to cover, beginning with the very first verse, which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” In courts of law, claimants are required to reasonably prove their initial claims, but defendants are not required to reasonably prove their innocence. Rules of evidence in court trials are correctly weighted in favor of defendants. Skeptics are defendants because the New Testament says that they will be charged with the crime of unbelief and sent to hell. 

As an agnostic, I don’t claim how the universe came into existence, but you do.

Since you are the claimant here, it is not up to me to provide and elaborate upon the research methods used by modern historians. Rather, it is up to you to do that research yourself and post your findings. The truth is, you don’t have a clue how modern historians conduct their research, and yet you criticize it. All that I am saying is that there is a reasonable possibility that your primary sources are not credible, but you are saying that there is not a reasonable possibility that the primary sources are not credible.

As the claimant, it is up to you to reasonably prove that the methods of research used by modern historians are not credible, and as such it is not up to me to reasonably prove that their methods of research are credible.

Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: “For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the gnostics, while suppressing – and virtually destroying – the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how gnostics denounced the orthodox. The ‘Second Treatise of the Great Seth’ polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the ‘true church’ of the gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: ‘……..we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.’”

Tom Harpur: “To make sure this story stuck, all Pagan opposition was quelled with an unequalled fury. Mystery schools and philosophical academies were closed down, libraries of books were burned, and anathemas were hurled at all who dared to raise objections. Those who risked everything by pointing out that the Christians had taken over all the old Pagan myths, rites, and ceremonies but transformed them by literalizing everything were either banished or killed.”

Richard Carrier: “All other religions but Judaism were outlawed under pain of death throughout the Mediterranean and Europe by 395 AD.”

Larry Taylor: “How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.” 

Brady, the preceding quotes conclusively prove that when the New Testament Canon was first put together, the writings of your primary sources were for the most part unopposed. For instance, Gnosticism eventually died on the vine precisely because of the unsavory gestapo tactics employed by the early Christian Church. 

Many Christian scholars place great emphasis upon various writings of early Church Fathers. However, historically, many, if not the majority of people who became Christians, including many Christians living today, never heard of names like Ireneaus, c130-200, Papias, c 60-130, Hegesippus, c 110-180, Justin Martyr, c100-165, Clement of Alexandria, c 150-215, Tertullian c160-c225, and Hippolytus, c 170-236, much less ever read any of their writings.

Christian scholars who cite various writings of the preceding sources are looking at this issue from modern, scholarly, apologetic perspectives, perspectives that were historically, and even to some extent today, far removed from the considerations of uneducated laymen, particularly those living in third world countries. Therefore, modern proponents of various writings of the early Church fathers need to tell us upon what rational bases millions of ordinary people became Christians over the span of many centuries with little or no knowledge of the writings of the early Church Fathers.      

Round 7 - From Brady

Johnny wrote:

In a previous post you asked me how many historians agree with my position and what their names are. I just realized that your request was not reasonable. You and the Bible are claimants. The Bible is full of claims from cover to cover, beginning with the very first verse, which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” In courts of law, claimants are required to reasonably prove their initial claims, but defendants are not required to reasonably prove their innocence. Rules of evidence in court trials are correctly weighted in favor of defendants. Skeptics are defendants because the New Testament says that they will be charged with the crime of unbelief and sent to hell. 

Just sort of melted down there, huh? First of all, legal proceedings has it own set of rules, which is different from historical investigation, which is different from debating rules. And heaven help the poor sap that doesn’t know the difference. In law we have a plaintiff and defendant; in history we have hypotheses and facts that will sufficiently or insufficiently support an hypothesis; in debate we have a proposition with one debater taking the pro position and the other debater taking the con position. There appears to be some similarity, because all three are based on inductive logic, but the three disciplines are not to be confused.

In a debate, the debaters present their reasons for affirming the proposition or rejecting the proposition. Then each is given an opportunity to rebut the other. Since our debate is over an historical event, it is proper to bring in methods used in historical investigation as part of our pro, con, or rebuttal positions.

The beauty of historical investigation is that it is just as easy for the con position to show that when the facts are run through a criteria, the facts are insufficient to affirm an hypothesis (if indeed they are insufficient) as it is for the pro side to show that when the facts are run through a criteria, the facts are sufficient to affirm an hypothesis (if indeed they are sufficient). This is why it is necessary to first agree on a criteria and baseline.

In our current debate, you picked the proposition (something about the NT not being historically reliable), you picked the pro side from which to argue. Now you want to hide behind legal protocol, which has nothing to do with debate or historical investigation. As for my position, Moreland has presented the case for the historical reliability of the NT for me. You have read it and were unable to rebut it. So, as it stands now, my case has been made, you are unable to rebut it; in your above statement you admit that you have no case, which means I have nothing to rebut. I think we are done here! Game Over.

If you want to quote people, that is fine, but in the face of a real argument like the one presented by Moreland, you are going to have to show why you think your sources are right and Moreland is wrong. Just finding quotes that already agree with you doesn’t mean much. This just shows that the reason you are picking these people and quoting them is not because you read, understood and found their reasoning compelling (for you have no clue how they drew their conclusions), but you picked these quotes simply because they say things that agree with your position.

As for the Church fathers, you brought them up, not Moreland or me. Why? I don’t really know. They are not part of my or Moreland’s argument.

What more is there to say? If you want to come up with an actual argument or a real rebuttal to Moreland’s argument, we can continue, if not it looks like we are done. Let me know which you want to do.

Regards,

Brady