# Christianity Simplified Though LOGIC ! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 6, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842 "2005-08-06T03:06:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/141 "2005-08-10T15:59:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > As to “long after the fact,” my point was that they were written too long after the fact to have been credibly been written by witnesses (and that is far from the _only_ reason to rule out eywitness authorship but it’s one). Well, just to nitpick, but Mark is probably early enough to have hypothetically been written by a witness. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/142 "2005-08-10T16:05:39Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Well, just to nitpick, but Mark is probably early enough to have hypothetically been written by a witness. Yes, but Mark is not one of the authors who is traditionally held to be a witness. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/143 "2005-08-10T17:37:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Well then the Christian church is wrong. Like I said, a lot of the stuff that Christians- including some of the authors of the NT- try to cite as prophecies for Jesus actually has no Messianic or prophetic intent at all in context. That’s a fact, not an opinion. The Christian church is wrong? We can be thankful that you did not peer review Einstein’s text. I can almost hear you informing him that Newton’s laws are fact. Frankly, were I Jewish, I wouldn’t want you arguing my side. “There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” — Daniel Dennett > [@](#): > > We can tell some things about the intent of the authors. We can tell some things about the context of frequently cited verses. We can _tell_ if a cited text is a Messianic prophecy or if it’s something else. Genre and context _mean_ something. The _prima facie_ meaning of the text _means_ something. In the case of Psalms 16, I’m not even trying to interpret it. I’m just pointing out what it _doesn’t_ say. A reading of a predictive Messianic prophecy of Jesus is simply not warranted by the text. There is nothing arrogant in my pointing that out. I’m not saying you’re arrogant. Merely that you present your own opinions as fact. Maybe that’s a bit narrow minded and pontifical, but not necessarily arrogant. Although the royal “we” is a bit much. > [@](#): > > We don’t know who wrote them but we can tell some things _about_ who wrote them and one of those things is that they were not written by witnesses. They do not even _claim_ to have been written by witnesses. Maybe not. But Luke claims that he got his accounting directly from eyewitnesses, and if you say that he recapitulated Mark, then that places Mark as an eyewitness. Also, John calls his accouning a testimony, and identifies himself as the person writing it. And honestly, your demands, when placed upon quite much contemporary and historical text effectively invalidate every biography and record of events that we have, other than autobiographies. And surely even you would concede that those are not objective. > [@](#): > > As to “long after the fact,” my point was that they were written too long after the fact to have been credibly been written by witnesses (and that is far from the _only_ reason to rule out eywitness authorship but it’s one). Whether that makes them necessarily inaccurate history is a separate argument from whether they were written by _witnesses_, which was all I was arguing against. Then why mention it at all? What is the point in constructing a phrase deliberately designed to evoke an exaggerated sense of time if not for the purpose of arguing that the amount of time had some bearing on the accuracy of what you believe to be inaccurate? I have a book about ancient Rome, written about ten years ago. I bought it on the basis of reviews, none of which bothered to mention that it was written long after the fact. > [@](#): > > It’s a lot more than “some.” It’s pretty much a matter of settled fact. Hold outs for traditional authorship of the Gospels do not exist anymore in mainstream NT scholarship but only among religious conservatives who argue from faith rather than methodology. There’s so much wrong with that that it’s hard to know where to start. For one thing, why should I believe your methodology any more than their faith? If it suits you, fine, but the fact remains that, despite all your methodology, you could be wrong. These things ebb and flow. Today’s discovery is tomorrow’s hoax. Yesterday’s mystery is today’s serendipity. I’m not even claiming you’re wrong. I’m just claiming that you don’t know. And you don’t. > [@](#): > > I’m not “privy” to anything. I’m just telling you what the facts are. Sorry you don’t like them. I see no need to qualify myself so as to avoid the possibility that I may contradict somebody’s religious beliefs. If I’m talking about the age of the earth, should I say that “some scholars believe…?” Can I say that there was no global flood or do I have to say that “some geologists believe” there was no global flood? Authorship of the Gospels is on the same level. There is no controversy among NT scholars or historians about whether they are really eyewitness accounts. They are not. No, because geologists make empirical claims. Biblical historians make analytic claims. For what it might be worth to you, [this](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/) is what I personally believe to be the very best quality online analysis (thus, analytic claims) on early Christian writings. I actually agree with some of the claims you make most of the time (although they’re often off a bit). The difference is that I do not mandate my opinion as the one everyone must have lest their opinion be worthless. > [@](#): > > And all I’m talking about is what the _author_ intended to say. The _author_ clearly had no Messianic intent. No all surmises about an author’s intent have equal pluasibility, you know. That depends on your point of view. I’m often told, for example, that I post off-topic comments about this or that because I seem to see everything in political terms. Well, my views may be filtered through a political lens, but that’s because I believe that, fundamentally, there is a political pall over everything and sundry that man does. I truly believe that the best solution to disputes over public schools is to eliminate public schools. And yet, if I post my opinion, someone inevitably whines that I’ve gone off-topic. So it is with people who interpret the Bible. It is not a science book, and therefore does not benefit from a scientific interpretation. It can be argued, in fact, that the _proper_ way to interpret scripture is through the lens of faith. > [@](#): > > You _can_ say somethings about what an author did NOT intend to say. And that’s what i’m doing. Yes, you are, and no, you can’t. > [@](#): > > I haven’t made an interpretation. I’ve only pointed out that yours is groundless. A man on a pedestal ought not to tell other men that there is no ground under their feet. > [@](#): > > Who do I _have_ to be? You have to be what you demand that the Gospel writers be — a first-hand witness to the events. > [@](#): > > I’m not attempting to speak from authority. I haven’t declared that you should believe me because I say so. I’ve given detailed explanations for my position. I’ve said nothing that requires “qualifications.” Your explanations do not compel anyone to agree with you, though. > [@](#): > > Please. You can’t possibly believe you’re actually making a point with this. Why would I have to be there when it was written or be inside the author’s mind to be able to tell that it says nothing about the Messiah? I can also tell that it says nothing about the Red Sox. You’re the only making assertions about what the text has to _mean_. I’m not commenting on what it _means_, I’m commenting on what it _says_ (and doesn’t say). There’s a difference. That’s not how I see what you’re doing. I see you taking a default position and interpreting the facts to fit it. Oddly enough, the same thing you see in others. > [@](#): > > 1. David did not write the Psalms. They are mostly post-exilic. There is doubt these days about whether David even existed. Go ahead and call me arrogant for saying that, but, as with the traditional authorship of the gospels, Davidic authorship for the Psalms is purely legendary and not supportable by any objective evidence. I agree. But that doesn’t make either of us right. Besides, whoever the author is, he certainly is speaking on behalf of David, and David is the character who is delivering the lines. Shakespeare wasn’t Romeo either. > [@](#): > > 1. Even if (for the sake of argument) David did write Psalm 16, he was talking about the Jewish belief in a resurrection of the dead on judgement day, not immediately upon death, so there is no reason he should have expected to be raised from the dead yet. But he shouldn’t already have rotted. > [@](#): > > 1. Why couldn’t he just be _wrong_? Lots of stuff in the Bible is factually wrong. What does that have to do with divining authorial intent? Where did you get the idea that if an author is wrong about something that he must not have intended to say it? He _could_ be wrong. You could be wrong. I could be wrong. Everybody could be wrong. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If David was wrong, how do you know Ezekial wasn’t wrong. Maybe he thought his vision was about the Messiah, when it was in fact about something else. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842/144 "2005-08-10T21:24:42Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The Christian church is wrong? We can be thankful that you did not peer review Einstein’s text. I can almost hear you informing him that Newton’s laws are fact. Frankly, were I Jewish, I wouldn’t want you arguing my side. “There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” — Daniel Dennett This is not analogous. Einstein did not argue for magic and not demand that his conclusions be taken on faith. A lot of NT writers took passages and fragments of the OT out of context and attempted to recontextualize them as Messianic prophecies when no such intent is evident in their original context. The “young woman” who bore a child and named him Emmanuel was not Mary (and not a virgin). The “suffering servant” was not Jesus but a personification of Israel. You know this stuff. I don’t have to tell you. Yes, some Christians see these verses as having a hidden Messianic intent, but they see it with faith, not with methodology and not with evidence. You seem to want to say that no one has a right to say that a text should be read for its _prima facie_ meaning as long as someone else says that they can spot a magical, divine, secret meaning, even if that hidden meaning has no relationship to _plain_ meaning. I think that’s absurd. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying you’re arrogant. Merely that you present your own opinions as fact. Maybe that’s a bit narrow minded and pontifical, but not necessarily arrogant. Although the royal “we” is a bit much. If a default presumption that a text should be read for its most obvious meaning and that secret, prophetic meanings require evidence is an “opinion,” then I guess I’m guilty. > [@](#): > > Maybe not. But Luke claims that he got his accounting directly from eyewitnesses No he doesn’t. I know apologists like to say this. It is not what the author claims. > [@](#): > > and if you say that he recapitulated Mark, then that places Mark as an eyewitness. How so? > [@](#): > > Also, John calls his accouning a testimony, and identifies himself as the person writing it. Wrong again. There is a late redaction at the end of John which claims that “we know” the book contains the testimony of an apostle, but the body of the book itself contains no such claim, and even the interpolated appendix doesn’t name the apostle. Plus the book could not have been written by an eyewitness for reasons I have enumerated earlier in the thread. > [@](#): > > And honestly, your demands, when placed upon quite much contemporary and historical text effectively invalidate every biography and record of events that we have, other than autobiographies. And surely even you would concede that those are not objective. Excuse me, but what “demands” are you referring to? I haven’t made any demands. > [@](#): > > Then why mention it at all? What is the point in constructing a phrase deliberately designed to evoke an exaggerated sense of time if not for the purpose of arguing that the amount of time had some bearing on the accuracy of what you believe to be inaccurate? I have a book about ancient Rome, written about ten years ago. I bought it on the basis of reviews, none of which bothered to mention that it was written long after the fact. I wasn’t trying to comment on accuracy, I was trying to refute the OP’s assertion that anything in the NT was written by a _witness_. Accuracy is a different argument. > [@](#): > > There’s so much wrong with that that it’s hard to know where to start. For one thing, why should I believe your methodology any more than their faith? You really have to ask that question? Because empirical methodology is…well…methodical. It’s based on something. it’s objective. It’s fasifiable. It’s self-correcting. It’s everything that faith is not. Why the hell should anybody apply faith to historical methodology andy more than they should apply to geology? > [@](#): > > If it suits you, fine, but the fact remains that, despite all your methodology, you could be wrong. These things ebb and flow. Today’s discovery is tomorrow’s hoax. Yesterday’s mystery is today’s serendipity. I’m not even claiming you’re wrong. I’m just claiming that you don’t know. And you don’t. Don’t be ridiculous. It’s possible to know _some_ things. Pedantically speaking, any piece of “knowledge” is potentially falsifiable, but I’m not going to go around qualifying myself about the age of the universe or the germ theory of disease, and I’m not going to qualify myself about mainstream conclusions of contemporary NT scholarship. > [@](#): > > No, because geologists make empirical claims. Biblical historians make analytic claims. Based on empirical evidence, not guesses or faith. > [@](#): > > For what it might be worth to you, [this](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/) is what I personally believe to be the very best quality online analysis (thus, analytic claims) on early Christian writings. I’ve had ECW bookmarked for a couple of years now. I agree with you. It’s my go to site for commentary and text. I sometimes correspond with the owner of the site on a couple of other message boards. He’s an extremely cool guy. > [@](#): > > I actually agree with some of the claims you make most of the time (although they’re often off a bit). The difference is that I do not mandate my opinion as the one everyone must have lest their opinion be worthless. I think you’re exaggerating the amount of subjectivity that’s involved. I don’t see my commentary as being any more realistically controversial than evolution. > [@](#): > > That depends on your point of view. I’m often told, for example, that I post off-topic comments about this or that because I seem to see everything in political terms. Well, my views may be filtered through a political lens, but that’s because I believe that, fundamentally, there is a political pall over everything and sundry that man does. I truly believe that the best solution to disputes over public schools is to eliminate public schools. And yet, if I post my opinion, someone inevitably whines that I’ve gone off-topic. So it is with people who interpret the Bible. It is not a science book, and therefore does not benefit from a scientific interpretation. It can be argued, in fact, that the _proper_ way to interpret scripture is through the lens of faith. I don’t know anyone but Fundamentalist Christians who try to read the bible as a science book. Historians study it the same way they study any other ancient literature. Should Homer be read through a “lens of faith?” Why can’t we apply the same methodology (and the same level of confidence in our conclusions) to the Bible as we apply to Homer or to _Gilgamesh_? Why should the bible be treated any differently? > [@](#): > > Yes, you are, and no, you can’t. Heh…I know you are but what am I? Are you honestly asserting that w can’t ever rule out _any_ intent for _any_ text, no matter how far-fetched, unrelated to the _prima facie_ reading, or historically anachronistic such a reading would be? Can I say that Herman Melville did not intend for Captain Ahab to be a parody of George W. Bush or would that be asserting my “opinion” as fact? > [@](#): > > You have to be what you demand that the Gospel writers be — a first-hand witness to the events. When have I demanded that the authors of the Gospels be eyewitnesses? I’ve made no such demand. I’ve only pointed out that they _aren’t_. > [@](#): > > Your explanations do not compel anyone to agree with you, though. Of course not, but that’s not the point. My point was that your request for my “qualifications” was unjustified since I have not attempted to argue from a position of personal authority or “qualification.” My arguments can speak for themselves. I notice you haven’t offered much in the way of factual rebuttal to my arguments, and it seems like you don’t necessarily even disagree with them so much as you’re taking exception to my confidence in my conclusions as facts rather than opinions. > [@](#): > > That’s not how I see what you’re doing. I see you taking a default position and interpreting the facts to fit it. Oddly enough, the same thing you see in others. That’s not what I’m doing at all. What I’m doing is taking a default position that the text should be read at face value, then I’m stopping. I’m not suggesting any further interpretation at all. All I’ve done is point out that the “Christian” interpretation is not sustainable by the _observable_ evidence. > [@](#): > > I agree. But that doesn’t make either of us right. Besides, whoever the author is, he certainly is speaking on behalf of David, and David is the character who is delivering the lines. Shakespeare wasn’t Romeo either. What makes you think the author is trying to speak as David? > [@](#): > > But he shouldn’t already have rotted. So he was wrong. So what? In any case, it was believed that the physical body would be completely restored at the resurrection, so a little interim rotting is no big deal. It’ll be all good when the dude wakes up. > [@](#): > > He _could_ be wrong. You could be wrong. I could be wrong. Everybody could be wrong. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If David was wrong, how do you know Ezekial wasn’t wrong. Maybe he thought his vision was about the Messiah, when it was in fact about something else. I’m not offering an opinion about whether any of them were right or wrong. I’m only commenting on what they _said_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christianity-simplified-though-logic/315842.md?page=7)