Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
More vague comments about unanswered questions? I offered to address the specific questions that are most important to you. I don't want to waste me time answering questions that don't really matter much to you. You have yet to provide any specific questions...
IWMN: The commentary video is 2 hours long and you want me to "take each point in turn"? The chances of me spending time and thought on a response that might not even matter to you is very high. I don't want to fritter my time away. I asked to prioritize questions that really matter to you. Please choose a specific question or two that you most want me to address.
TRANS: You don't have to do it all. I said you can do a few points per post. But if it's too much of a bother, you don't have to do this at all.
IWMN: If it's too much trouble for you to choose a specific question that actually matters to you, then why keep commenting about me not answering your questions??
|
Thank you for exhibiting a perverse approach. I suggested just take each point in turn (as I did) and hust as much as you can handle. I could pick out some specific points but where's the need? What dors 'what's important to me' have to do with commenting on the commentary?
And another video for us to watch, I see.
I liked the mention of seeing the OT as literature-poetry but the Gospels as a 'historical' narrative. Not a question of just accepting it but questioning.
I won't spend too much time on the account 'Jesus talking to him'. It's understandable. Not convincing, but understandable. The point about the Gospels being 'historical' in a way the other religions aren't is a good one. This covers the point about 'born in another country' 'Question and research'. The idea is the people in the other countries would read the Bible and be convinced.
I won't spend much time on the 'heartburn' issue. His experience in in the head. Excitement at conversion might produce a physical reaction. The Psychological check is also irrelevant. Conversion is nothing to do with that.
It must come down to the comment that the gospels are reliable. He mentioned about the calling os the disciples. If he knows that they conflict in ways that throw doubt on the story, he doesn't mention it.
By the way, I have also experience the odd 'not being ale to move' to get out of bed. It goes off and without prayer.
I don't know about about the conversion anecdotes. He does evade the point about a Vishnu converts - why that isn't true and his is. Then he gets onto special pleading - Islam has stuff wrong with it, Christianity is fine.
Now we got onto 'understanding'. That to me translates as 'explanatory apologetics'.. Which is what it comes down to. The Gospels are full of holes. Can they be explained? No- not really. Only if one accepts those explanations. And he says it 'If you can disprove the resurrection is not true, my religion in bankrupt'. (he misreads Paul on that, but everyone does and the point is a valid one anyway.
I think it can be shown unreliable. But anyway. He is appealing to more people seeing the resurrection than a few who saw Muhammad fly to heaven on a winged beast. In effect he says they could be lying. So why wouldn't the disciples lie?
He mentions the 500 (which is in Paul, not in Matthew). We are on the proof of the resurrection and we are stuck on the reliability of the gospels. It's what we come down in the end and specifically, the resurrection.
And we got to the Quran validating Muhammad historically true - but not the claims. So why are the claims in the gospels correct? His objection to the Quran is not that it isn't historically valid but disagrees with what the gospels say. But that could make the gospel -claims wring. We have special pleading going on.
And now he's trying to find a way out of historians writing in a particular way (critically). He refers to Jews writing it differely. But he already said that the OT is nit history. We are deep in excuses -and contradictory ones, too.
There's the point about Luke not writing like a historian. He quotes the preamble where Luke claims that he made 'careful enquiry'. But that does not tell us the sources so we can check.
Then a load of preaching really quoting Luke and Matthew and the details which he presents as valid because it's full of detail. Now he's accusing carrier of not being honest.
'claims of eyewitness testimony'. Now he's referring to what's in the Gospels say as 'outside' confirmation. In trying to find outside evidence in Jewish writing he refers to the Dead Sea Scrolls -which don't mention Jesus. Then he refers to the hostile Jewish reference to Jesus and he mixes up Tacitus referring to Jesus being crucified by Pilate (which I credit and is no evidence that he resurrected and confusing that with washing his hands as in the Gospels.
Then he says 'believe what you like - go and research for yourself. He is in pretty deep crap. He's appeals to the outside sources. Josephus (assuming the Flavian testament is genuine - where did he hear this from? From Paul, he says. So he is quoting from a non independent source. The same with Tacitus, I reckon.
So we get to why accept evidence for Washington or Napoleon but not the Gospels? The evidence for those is massive and complementary. The gospels are nothing like that.
Now we are on asking the atheist questions about the validity of he believes. And now this damn malware -block is interrupting so I'll have to leave it there. But the fellow is evading, dancing and appealing to trusting what's in the gospels as reliable. Which is what it comes down to in the end.