Questions for Dave

This is a satirical response to the nonsensical stuff posted by a guy named Dave at Raytractors. (sorry Dave but Greenlief answered Barker’s challenge long ago)

1.Do you go out of your way to use the most unreliable sources possible?

You happen to think that the books were chosen at the Council of Nicea (all that wasw diputed at the council of nicea was the doctrine of trinity) and that Paul somehow believed in a spiritual resurrection (Zero evidence for there ever being a belief in a spiritual resurrection in Judaism). Did you consult any studies (like the ones eminent scholar N.T. Wright carries out in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God ) or are you just talking out of ignorance?

2.How the heck did you come up with the crazy idea that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection?

Never mind there is no evidence whatsoever of belief in a spiritual resurrection in Judaism. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 uses the word anastasis which in all Greek and Jewish literature means a literal physical resurrection.In 1 Corinthians 6:11-13 paul explicitly says we should not commit sexual immorality and defile our body because someday our bodies will be raised to be with the Lord. If Paul did not believe in a physcial resurrection how does this make sense? Also in verses like Phil. 3:20-21 , Paul clearly says that our mortal bodies will be transformed to be lke Jesus’. In light of these verses how can you say he did not believe in a physical resurrection?

3.Why do all your questions commit the fallacy of question begging so heavily?

4.The only accounts of Ceasar explicitly crossing the Rubicon are from 4 writers , each writing over a century after the fact. Each conflates the account with their own ideologies and ideas of the expansion of Rome. How can they be reliable?

5. In Tacitus’ The Annals of Rome , he describes 2 towns and says they were 25 miles apart.The real distance is known to be 125 miles. Most Roman histical scholars believe this is a copyist error. What do you think?

6. What good reasons do we have to say that Mark was written after 70CE as you say many times in your question?

(i will not accept the foretelling of the destruction of Jerusalem as a reason because it was cearly intended to be a prophecy.)

7 .You complained in your questions that there are instances where the bible “violates natural order”.Can you prove naturalism is true? If not wouldn’t you just be arguing that the bible is false because it contradicts your worldview?

8. Are you aware of the preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse?

9. You say “miracles don’t happen today”. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you just dismiss any kind of testimony of a Christian having experienced a miracle offhand because of your naturalistic worldview? You might say “no-one has ever proven a miracle” but you cannot make a positive claim to knowledge about no miracles occuring based on them being unproven.

10. Are you aware of the use of typology in Jewish literature in interpreting prophecy? If not please acquaint yourself with it before critiquing Matthew.

BONUS QUESTION:

I am holding a glass of water in my hands.Is this H20 because it is water, or is it water because it’s H2O?

(Meant to demonstrate the meaninglessness of Euthyphro dilemma.)

About these ads

12 Comments

  1. larryniven said,

    September 29, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Ooh – how about, rather than ask stupid questions about one of the classic problems in theology, you actually answer it. Which horn of the Euthyphro do you accept?

  2. facilis said,

    October 1, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy .I am going to agree with Aquinas who said that yes, God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that “good is an essential part of God’s nature”. So goodness is grounded in God’s character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good.( You should look at Dave’s questions to get a little background). He acknowledges this but kind of rambles on about how we know God’s nature is moral. Once you accept what Aquinas says it all boils down (no pun intended) to a question like the H2O one I posted.

  3. larryniven said,

    October 2, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    That’s both answers – you need to try again. Let me try to rephrase the question, because people often respond better to this variation. Does God define good or follow good? Or, if God commanded that one person murder and that another person not murder in otherwise exactly the same circumstances, would both commandments demand the moral good?

  4. facilis said,

    October 4, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    In a way it is both. God’s unchanging nature dictates the standard of morality. God commandments are an expression of his moral nature -so his commandments do follow morality.
    So god would not command someone to murder (here using murder as unlawful killing with malice) because it is contrary to his moral nature

  5. Dave said,

    October 5, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    This is a satirical response to the nonsensical stuff posted by a guy named Dave at Raytractors. (sorry Dave but Greenlief answered Barker’s challenge long ago)

    Barker’s challenge was to produce a singular narrative. I see no singular narrative on that page. Rather, I see an attempt to harmonize the resurrection details in roughly chronological order, and a pretty lousy one at that.

    1.Do you go out of your way to use the most unreliable sources possible?

    Only when the present king of France is in town.

    You happen to think that the books were chosen at the Council of Nicea (all that wasw diputed at the council of nicea was the doctrine of trinity) and that Paul somehow believed in a spiritual resurrection (Zero evidence for there ever being a belief in a spiritual resurrection in Judaism).

    Since you seem to think that “how the heck did you come up with THAT crazy idea” is a valid argumentative methodology (see below), I’ll simply use it here.

    Did you consult any studies (like the ones eminent scholar N.T. Wright carries out in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God ) or are you just talking out of ignorance?

    I consulted the same studies you did, plus studies that did not agree with your party line. Simple mathematics suggest, then, that I consulted more studies than did you — if anything, that makes me less ignorant than you.

    2.How the heck did you come up with the crazy idea that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection?

    From the Bible.

    Never mind there is no evidence whatsoever of belief in a spiritual resurrection in Judaism.

    That’s precisely what made early Christianity so revolutionary — physical resurrection accounts were a dime a dozen.

    Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 uses the word anastasis which in all Greek and Jewish literature means a literal physical resurrection.

    Paul does not use anastasis. He uses egeiro, which means “awaken.”

    In 1 Corinthians 6:11-13 paul explicitly says we should not commit sexual immorality and defile our body because someday our bodies will be raised to be with the Lord. If Paul did not believe in a physcial resurrection how does this make sense?

    There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 6:11-13 that says anything about our bodies being raised.

    Also in verses like Phil. 3:20-21 , Paul clearly says that our mortal bodies will be transformed to be lke Jesus’. In light of these verses how can you say he did not believe in a physical resurrection?

    Again, by looking at what the Bible says. The transformation that Paul refers to here is one into a spiritual being, and/or a new body.

    3.Why do all your questions commit the fallacy of question begging so heavily?

    For the same reason you stopped beating your wife.

    4.The only accounts of Ceasar explicitly crossing the Rubicon are from 4 writers , each writing over a century after the fact. Each conflates the account with their own ideologies and ideas of the expansion of Rome. How can they be reliable?

    Because they agree with the writings of Caesar’s contemporaries, including his enemies such as Cicero, as well as inscriptions and coins produced shortly after the fall of the Republic, not to mention the entire history of the Roman empire, which could not have happened as it did had Caesar not moved an army across the Rubicon. Oh, and by the by, we also have the writings of Caesar himself to confirm this.

    5. In Tacitus’ The Annals of Rome , he describes 2 towns and says they were 25 miles apart.The real distance is known to be 125 miles. Most Roman histical scholars believe this is a copyist error. What do you think?

    On this particular subject I defer to the consensus of historical scholars, as I have no specific reason to do otherwise.

    6. What good reasons do we have to say that Mark was written after 70CE as you say many times in your question?

    See my answer to 5. (Historical method’s a bitch, isn’t it?)

    7 .You complained in your questions that there are instances where the bible “violates natural order”.Can you prove naturalism is true?

    Yes.

    8. Are you aware of the preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse?

    Yes.

    9. You say “miracles don’t happen today”. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

    By being alive and aware today.

    Did you just dismiss any kind of testimony of a Christian having experienced a miracle offhand because of your naturalistic worldview?

    No, I dismissed it due to insufficient evidence.

    You might say “no-one has ever proven a miracle” but you cannot make a positive claim to knowledge about no miracles occuring based on them being unproven.

    Yes I can.

    10. Are you aware of the use of typology in Jewish literature in interpreting prophecy?

    Yes.

    BONUS QUESTION: I am holding a glass of water in my hands.Is this H20 because it is water, or is it water because it’s H2O?

    Neither. There is no causal relationship between a particular mass being H2o and that mass being water.

    (Meant to demonstrate the meaninglessness of Euthyphro dilemma.)

    I happen to agree that there is no causal relationship between what “God” commands and what is good — but I’m an atheist, so I can get away with that.

  6. Dave said,

    October 5, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    My apologies — my response to 4 began with a bad HTML tag, and should not be in italics.

  7. facilis said,

    October 5, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    1)I consulted the same studies you did
    I find it hard to believe that any respected scholar would say that the early Christians didn’t believe in a physical resurrection.
    2)physical resurrection accounts were a dime a dozen.
    Where?
    Paul does not use anastasis.
    Wrong. Check Strong’s concordance

    And it was a mistake on my part check1Corinthians6: 13-16
    Paul clearly says in Phil that bodies will be transformed though-not “left behind in our tombs while the spirits float away” as you seem to say
    4) I was applying the same logic you do to the gospels to those accounts of the crossing.
    5)The point was that it is plausible that copyist errors can creep intoancient documents- including the bible.
    So will you defer to the consensus of historical scholars on matters like whether the Tomb of Jesus was empty (75% of historians agree that it was) basically all agree that Paul believed in a physical resurrection..
    6)Then assert that the consensus of scholars said Mark was written then- Don’t assert it as a fact as you try to.
    7)Wow you can prove it. I’d like to see your “proof”.
    8)Then why make the comments you did on the olivet discourse?
    9)Yes I can.
    2 can play it that game. I see insufficient evidence for naturalism and dismiss the claims of naturalists on this basis. Based on a lack of evidence I make the positive assertion that naturalism is not true. See how you can turn it around.
    10)Then why did you make such ignorant comments on the gospel of Matthew. I figured that you were just ignorant but the only option I can see now is that you were deliberately misleading.

  8. Dave said,

    October 5, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    facilis said,

    So goodness is grounded in God’s character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good.( You should look at Dave’s questions to get a little background). He acknowledges this but kind of rambles on about how we know God’s nature is moral.

    For the record, here is the “rambling” that he refers to:

    It does no good to respond that morality is dictated by God’s unchanging nature, as that only pushes the question back a notch: is murder wrong because God’s nature says it is, or does God’s nature say murder is wrong because murder is wrong? (You cannot say that God’s nature qua God’s nature necessarily exists in the absence of a particular sort of ontological argument for God’s existence, a sort which has never been offered, still less proven.)

  9. Dave said,

    October 5, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    1)I consulted the same studies you did
    I find it hard to believe that any respected scholar would say that the early Christians didn’t believe in a physical resurrection.

    Your difficulty in believing a proposition does not affect the truth status of that proposition.

    2)physical resurrection accounts were a dime a dozen.
    Where?

    Pre-sack Palestine.

    Paul does not use anastasis.
    Wrong. Check Strong’s concordance

    I did. He doesn’t.

    And it was a mistake on my part check1Corinthians6: 13-16
    Paul clearly says in Phil that bodies will be transformed though-not “left behind in our tombs while the spirits float away” as you seem to say

    There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 6:13-16 which says anything about our bodies being raised.

    4) I was applying the same logic you do to the gospels to those accounts of the crossing.

    The logic works just fine if the facts to which you apply it are accurate.

    5)The point was that it is plausible that copyist errors can creep intoancient documents- including the bible.
    So will you defer to the consensus of historical scholars on matters like whether the Tomb of Jesus was empty (75% of historians agree that it was) basically all agree that Paul believed in a physical resurrection..

    No, because I have reason to do otherwise.

    6)Then assert that the consensus of scholars said Mark was written then- Don’t assert it as a fact as you try to.

    Such a consensus is sufficient to establish a fact prima facie. There are no factors that I am aware of to overturn it.

    7)Wow you can prove it. I’d like to see your “proof”.

    Since I am reasonably certain that you only wish to see the proof for the purposes of deconstructing them, and since your method of deconstruction can be applied from a mere statement of the argument just as easily as from an actual defense of it (cf. your response to the Euthyphro Dilemma), I’ll save myself some typing by providing the former. Suffering. Nonbelief. Doctrinal confusion. History of science. Cosmology. Teleology. Morality. Evolution. Mind-brain relationship. Single-attribute incoherencies. Multiple-attribute contradictions.

    8)Then why make the comments you did on the olivet discourse?

    Because the preterist interpretation is indefensible.

    9)Yes I can.
    2 can play it that game. I see insufficient evidence for naturalism and dismiss the claims of naturalists on this basis. Based on a lack of evidence I make the positive assertion that naturalism is not true. See how you can turn it around.

    Your original point concerned the ability to make, not a mere assertion, but a knowledge claim. Such a claim can only be made in the absence of factual error, such as your error that there is a lack of evidence for naturalism. See my response to 7.

    10)Then why did you make such ignorant comments on the gospel of Matthew.

    For the same reason you stopped molesting your children.

  10. Dave said,

    October 5, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    I neglected to add in my response to 3: the spiritual resurrection interpretation of the Philippians passage is contextual to the Pauline body of writings.

  11. larryniven said,

    October 6, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    “…god would not command someone to murder (here using murder as unlawful killing with malice) because it is contrary to his moral nature”

    Define “murder” however you want, that’s not the issue: the point is, at various times in the Bible, God commands both an act and its negation. You cannot say that God is at once morally perfect and morally contradictory – unless, of course, you have some very strange ideas of perfection. So, when God commands p and ~p, how are we to know what to do? On your standard, we must do both – hardly a feasible suggestion! The only way to resolve this – and, hence, the only way to get out of the Euthyphro seemingly unscathed – is to admit that God’s moral sense is subordinate to an independent truth about what’s right and wrong. But now you’ve just undermined a central Christian claim: that God is the source of morality. How do you intend to rectify this myriad of contradictions in your viewpoint? More importantly, do you intend to do so?

  12. larryniven said,

    October 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    …cue deafening silence…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: