Religious dialogue

Aberdeen, Scotland

A comment on Rick Beaudin's helpful article.

http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2007/03/witnessing-tips-part1.html

Hi Rick,

A helpful article. It is good to be familiar with documents of other religions in particular when they use Biblical concepts and yet contradict Biblical theology. A general and continual increase in overall, philosophical, theological, and Biblical knowledge is also helpful in any religious dialogue. Another point comes to mind. In 2002 in Manhattan a very educated philosophical friend and I were approached by a Hare Krishna and a debate ensued. I thought my friend and I had made our points and we had reached a place with the Hare Krishna where we needed to agree to disagree, but my friend was forcing the issue trying to win the argument and this upset the Hare Krishna who became defensive. To me there is a point at times in evangelism where once we have defended the gospel message and are facing an obstacle in a person, we should back off and allow God to work with the person we are debating as the Lord sees fit. Basically, personally speaking I need to not try to win arguments as much I need to ask God to help me to witness most effectively.

In addition to the comments I made on Rick's site, I am not stating that my friend was definitely wrong, as perhaps what he did was beneficial, but at times I think that an over aggressive approach is not helpful. It could be that my friend influenced the Hare Krishna to reconsider his position against the gospel, or perhaps he hardened in his mind against it. I am all for Christian apologetics and learning about and debating issues, but ultimately each person must come to their own philosophy and I believe that God influences persons as he wills. I deduce that human beings have a limited free will and God deals with persons and some come to accept the gospel message, but my job as a Christian is primarily to present the message accurately as opposed to trying to win arguments aggressively. I am glad that I live in a democratic Western country where we have a degree of religious freedom and persons are allowed to disagree on philosophical and religious issues agreeably.

Certain texts and types of texts I have found useful for religious dialogue:

-The Bible
-Biblical commentaries
-Theology text books
-Text books on world religions
-As mentioned, texts from various religions
-Philosophy texts with articles from secular and religious perspectives

The following texts have been helpful in my PhD work as well.

BURR JOHN, R AND MILTON GOLDINGER (1976) (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Topics include:

-Hard determinism
-Soft determinism
-Libertarianism
-Does God exist?
-The problem of evil
-Mind and Body

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

Topics include:

-Determinism, freedom and moral responsibility
-Scepticism and the problem of induction
-Body, mind and death
-The existence of God
-A priori knowledge
-Meaning

PETERSON, MICHAEL, WILLIAM HASKER, BRUCE REICHENBACH, and DAVID BASINGER (1996) (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Topics include:

-The Divine attributes
-Theistic arguments
-The problem of evil
-Life after death
-Religion and science
-Philosophy and theological doctrines

An interesting article on the Jesus Family story:

http://weekendfisher.blogspot.com/2007/02/annual-anti-easter-pageant-2007-edition.html

Russ:)

The Jesus Family

Tel Aviv in the spring

Let us be hip (not always true in my case) and on top of things and respond to fresh and recent news. Here are two articles I found from ankerberg.com in regard to the Jesus Family. I will provide the link and comment on portions of the articles.

First from Ben Witherington:

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/the-Jesus-family-tomb/the-Jesus-family-tomb-witherington-response.htm

Witherington states:

James Cameron the movie director who made the enormously successful film “Titanic”, on the night after the Oscars, will give an Oscar winning performance at a news conference along with Simcha Jacobovici who have now produced a Discovery Channel special on the discovery of Jesus’ tomb, ossuary, bones, and that of his mother, brothers, wife, and his child Jude as well!

First of all, I have worked with Simcha. He is a practicing Jew, indeed he is an orthodox Jew so far as I can tell. He was the producer of the Discovery Channel special on the James ossuary which I was involved with. He is a good film maker, and he knows a good sensational story when he sees one. This is such a story. Unfortunately it is a story full of holes, conjectures, and problems. It will make good TV and involves a bad critical reading of history.

Interestingly Witherington knows one of the producers of the film.

He continues:

1) The statistical analysis is of course only as good as the numbers that were provided to the statistician. He couldn’t run numbers he did not have. And when you try to run numbers on a combination name such as ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease the statistical sample dramatically. In fact, in the case of ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease it to a statistically insignificant number! Furthermore, so far as we can tell, the earliest followers of Jesus never called Jesus ‘son of Joseph’. It was outsiders who mistakenly called him that! Would the family members such as James who remained in Jerusalem really put that name on Jesus’ tomb when they knew otherwise? This is highly improbable.

Witherington notes that the names found on the ossuaries were common ones as he writes: The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed.

Back to Witherington:

2) there is no independent DNA control sample to compare to what was garnered from the bones in this tomb. By this I mean that the most the DNA evidence can show is that several of these folks are inter-related. Big deal. We would need an independent control sample from some member of Jesus' family to confirm that these were members of Jesus' family. We do not have that at all.

Yes, without actual known living descendents of Joseph and Mary living today, DNA evidence cannot demonstrate that this is the family of the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Witherington writes:

3) Several of these ossuaries have very popular and familiar early Jewish names. As the statistics above show, the names Joseph and Joshua (Jesus) were two of the most common names in all of early Judaism. So was Mary. Indeed both Jesus’ mother and her sister were named Mary. This is the ancient equivalent of finding adjacent tombs with the names Smith and Jones. No big deal.

Even if the popular names Jesus, Joseph and Mary match the Biblical family, if any of the other ossuary names do not match the probability of this family being that of Jesus Christ decreases significantly. These popular names matched the Biblical family, but if some names found in the ossuary do not match such as is the case with Matthew and Jude (the son and not half-brother of Jesus), then we likely have a different family despite any similar names.

Witherington continues:

4) The historical problems with all this are too numerous to list here: A) the ancestral home of Joseph was Bethlehem, and his adult home was Nazareth. The family was still in Nazareth after he was apparently dead and gone. Why in the world would be buried (alone at this point) in Jerusalem? It’s unlikely. B) One of the ossuaries has the name Jude son of Jesus. We have no historical evidence of such a son of Jesus, indeed we have no historical evidence he was ever married; C) the Mary ossuaries (there are two) do not mention anyone from Migdal. It simply has the name Mary-- and that's about the most common of all ancient Jewish female names. D) we have names like Matthew on another ossuary, which don't match up with the list of brothers' names. E) By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty-- even the Jewish and Roman authorities acknowledged this. Now it takes a year for the flesh to desiccate, and then you put the man's bones in an ossuary. But Jesus' body was long gone from Joseph of Arimathea's tomb well before then. Are we really to believe it was moved to another tomb, decayed, and then was put in an ossuary? Its not likely. F) Implicitly you must accuse James, Peter and John (mentioned in Gal. 1-2-- in our earliest NT document from 49 A.D.) of fraud and coverup. Are we really to believe that they knew Jesus didn't rise bodily from the dead but perpetrated a fraudulent religion, for which they and others were prepared to die? Did they really hide the body of Jesus in another tomb? We need to remember that the James in question is Jesus' brother, who certainly would have known about a family tomb. This frankly is impossible for me to believe.

It is unlikely the family of the Biblical Jesus would be buried so far away from home as they were not wealthy from what the Biblical text indicated. We have no serious evidence within the Christian community that Christ was married or had a son and therefore to assume that Christ was related to these folks in the ossuaries is pure speculation. It is hard to believe that Jesus' half-brothers James and Jude would proclaim and write about the gospel while facing intense persecution and likely an eventual terrible death for something they knew was a lie. Yes, persons in history have likely fought for what they knew were lies but I have a difficult time finding the benefits for James, Jude and others to live an average life faced with persecution for what they knew was a false religion. If they were becoming wealthy and getting multiple wives/sex out of a false religion perhaps I can understand bad motives. I can understand the idea of those who are preaching what they know is false fighting militarily for their movement. However, it would not make sense for people who know they are not telling the truth to lay down their lives as non-resistant martyrs, as was the case of many followers of Jesus Christ.

My final comments from Witherington:

And one more thing to add---Eusebius the father of church history (4th century) tells us that there had been since NT times a tomb of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, which was near the Temple mount and had an honoric stele next to it, and that it was a pilgrimage spot for many Christians. It was apparently a single tomb, with no other Holy family members mentioned nor any other ossuaries in that place. The locality and singularity of this tradition rules out a family tomb in Talpiot. Christians would not have been making pilgrimage to the tomb if they believed Jesus' bones were in it-- that would have contradicted and violated their faith, but the bones of holy James were another matter. They were consider sacred relics.

Second from Darrell Bock:

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/the-Jesus-family-tomb/the-Jesus-family-tomb-bock-response.htm
Bock states:

First, there is a suggestion that this is a family tomb of Jesus, when Jesus was in Jerusalem as a pilgrim, not a Jerusalem resident. How did his family have the time in the aftermath of his death to by the tomb space, while also pulling off a stealing of the body and continue to preach that Jesus was raised BODILY, not merely spiritually.

A good point, and why would they preach that Jesus was bodily raised? Are not first century Christians known for being persecuted, rather than for being richly rewarded in a worldly sense for proclaiming Jesus?

Bock continues:

Second, we have to believe that in a family tomb, some who were not in the family are included, that is, Matthew. How do we explain this? Does this inflate the statistical numbers in the show to include such “evidence?”

On Larry King, Monday, the filmmakers discussed the statistical evidence in their favour, but the numbers are less favourable when people such as Matthew and Jude that are included in the ossuaries are shown to not be part of Biblical Jesus family.

For the critic may I state that I do not have blind faith and hold to the Christian faith because I believe that God has guided me through mainly Biblical evidence and philosophical reason. If evidence was to show that Christianity was perhaps false I would reconsider my views, but archeologists and scholars of religion alike seem to dispute the findings of the film, and therefore it is not a serious challenge to my faith/philosophical theology.

Cheers,

Russ;)

The meaning of life

Trees, Versailles

Greetings,

I am thankful to God today for a good formal academic review from my PhD advisor, but there is much more work to do. I am also thankful for discovering through the internet a product called Klear Screen which is alcohol and ammonia free and cleans glossy LCD screens like mine and works better than water as a cleaner. A little bit of water cleans the screen but at least on my screen leaves mineral deposits which are now gone. Plastic LCD screens should be cleaned differently than glass monitor screens which can be cleaned with traditional glass cleaner.

On the Albert Mohler program today I listened to a friendly debate between Mohler and atheist Susan Jacoby. I side more with Mohler's reasoning, but agree with Mohler that Jacoby made a good point when stating that many Christians do not know their Bible well enough for the importance they attach to it.

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-02-22

I presented the argument below in a comment in a different form on satire and theology. It concerns meaning in life. As far as meaning is concerned, the following does not on its own demonstrate God's existence or everlasting life.

Premise 1: Strictly speaking, there is no scientific, empirical evidence for everlasting life.

Premise 2: The deduction is made that Donald Trump being a billionaire receives a life quality rating of 9/10.

Premise 3: The deduction is made that the male drug addict on Main and/or Hastings Street in Vancouver receives a life quality rating of 1/10.

Premise 4: Both of these men shall die and since they cannot take their physical body or any of their material possessions with them their life quality ratings will drop to 0/10. Neither person can take any of their earthly success with them because they are unconscious and dead and all that exists physically is their remains.

Premise 5: Trump's life will likely provide a superior legacy to that of the drug addict and some will at least enjoy Trump's legacy, and perhaps some will enjoy the legacy of the drug addict but as the centuries and millennia go by the legacy of both men will fade. Even with Trump's legacy all persons that enjoy his life work will die and not consciously remember Trump or experience his impact.

Conclusion: Human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated.

Outside of this argument may I state that the Christian understanding is that the Bible provides a historically based theology of meaningful everlasting life for believers through the atoning work and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ was empirically viewed by followers in his resurrection form although everlasting life itself has not been empirically, scientifically demonstrated. The culmination of the Kingdom of God would provide repeated verifiable scientific evidence of everlasting human life.

Thanks for reading.

Begging the question

Tuscany, Italy

Greetings,

I have 18 surveys returned to me so far, and so if anyone is on the fence about whether or not they should ask to fill out a survey or let someone else know about the questionnaire; would you mind jumping over to my side of the fence?;) I am not begging, but just asking.

In books and on blogs I see the term begging the question thrown around a lot. Here is a look at how three philosophy texts define this term.

Simon Blackburn in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy writes that begging the question assumes what is at issue in an argument. Blackburn (1996: 39). Although persons are commonly accused of begging the question there is no logical definition of those kinds of arguments that beg the question. Blackburn (1996: 39). In the widest sense any valid argument may beg the question since its premises already contain its conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39). Blackburn explains that these types of arguments can still be reasonably held. Blackburn (1996: 39). I do however, attempt to avoid arguing my conclusion in any one of my premises although a premise could allude to a conclusion, although I attempt to avoid this as well. Blackburn writes that a best definition of begging the question would be if a clear premise would not be accepted by any reasonable person who is initially prone to deny the conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39).

David H. Sanford within The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines begging the question under the heading of circular reasoning. It is described as reasoning that traced backwards forms it own conclusion and returns to that starting point. Sanford (1996: 124). Sanford explains that presuming a truth of a conclusion within a premise thwarts the attempt to increase the degree of reasonable confidence that a conclusion is true. Sanford (1996: 124). It is better when putting together different types of arguments to establish separate but related premises that would ultimately support a conclusion rather than weakening an argument by assuming the conclusion within a premise and therefore not providing actual evidence for the conclusion.

David A. Conway and Ronald Munson in The elements of reasoning explain begging the question (Petitio Principii) as when the issue at hand is begged and not really addressed. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is when some reason offered for some conclusion is not really different from the conclusion itself. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is stating a conclusion that also serves as a premise. Conway and Munson (1997: 132).

In my view it is not begging the question to define a viewpoint without argumentation or to state that if a certain view is assumed correct then a related point could be assumed correct in a hypothetical context. If a person defines a theory in response to a contrary view it is not begging the question because the person is merely pointing out the differences between two different perspectives and not arguing for or against those perspectives. Also if a person states that if an assumption is correct then another assumption may be true is also not begging the question since the person would be offering hypothetical analysis and not an argumentation on the truth of the claims. Begging the question would be if a person specifically argued the conclusion of an argument within a premise.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Begging the question’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

SANFORD, DAVID H. (1996) ‘Circular Reasoning', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.