Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Minimalist]

We have hundreds of surviving Christian writings from before Roman got involved.

No.  You really don't.



Also note the predominance of papyrus "texts" ( and these are largely fragmentary ) which indicates Egypt and thus, for xtianity, Alexandria.

[Secular Elf]

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity? 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

The problem with this is, eyewitness evidence, even if there was some for Christianity, is notoriously BAD evidence.

And I am talking about eyewitness evidence for crimes that can be proven to have taken place, in the present, with no alleged supernatural events taking place.

You don't have anything like that for Christianity. All you have is alleged eyewitness accounts, from texts written a generation or more after the alleged events took place, by non-eyewitnesses.

Very true. Any comparative reading of the accounts of Yeshua ben-Yusef's supposed resurrection will show how problematic such "evidence" is. Even if you suspend for a moment, for the sake of argument, disbelief in invisible beings called "angels" then you will have to wonder how many women were at the tomb and what the angels commanded them to do. If it were in a court of law any reasonable judge would throw such testimony out as completely hearsay and unreliable.

[Harry Nevis]

BTW, we don't have any original writings by this paul fucker, either.  It has been noted that no two manuscripts of any pauline horseshit agree with each other.   Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

Of course that's your understanding.  That isn't the understanding of objective scholars, but if you already decided it's the word of god from the get-go, you can explain away anything you want.

---

Thank you for your response regarding that particular quote, though I'm still waiting for you to answer these questions I asked based on your statements: "I believe Paul was who he said he was", and, "I believe the epistles are what they appear to be."

My questions are: 

1. What evidence lead you to these two beliefs?

2. Why do you find this evidence persuasive?

1. It is a long established view that Paul wrote at least most of the epistles ascribed to him. We have early copies of those letters. We are as certain as you can be that he wrote them (there is no reason to doubt).  
2. If the skeptics are not skeptical, why should I be? I have no trouble believing the content--the letters make no extraordinary claims beyond what the gospels say--they are largely about Christian living.

1.  YOU have no reason to doubt.
2.  Because it's part of critical thinking.  Deciding to believe isn't.

[Secular Elf]

The topic is the often repeated charge that somehow Christianity is no different than any other religion and to think it is different is "special pleading". I contend that it is different in that there is more information to weigh than any other religion (by far).

No there isn't, coward. For example Vorlon's citation of mormonism, where we have proof of the founder, his history, his religion's history, everythinghe wrote and quite a lot of what he said. As we have virtually nothing of christianity until well into its second century (and no three word fragments of single pages don't count) you cannot truthfully claim christianity has the same evidentiary basis as mormonism. Hell, even with islam, another religion bsed solely off legend we know most of the major players actually existed and did at least some of the stuff attributed to them. We can say this about exactly none of the founding members of christianity (unless you want to argue it was largely founded at Nicaea).

So your latest baseless assertion fails under even the most dilletantish of scrutinies.

And not only that, an examination of Early Christian History shows that from the very beginning they did not agree on the substance of who Jesus was. The diversity of Christian theology was even more intense in the 1st and 2nd Centuries CE than even now. A sect of Judaism, divided among Ebionites, Nazarenes, and Elkasites, each of whom had different versions (Christologies) of Jesus based on their theology (Docetism, Adoptionists, and Gnosticism). It was the Proto-orthodox view, championed by Paul the Apostle, gained wider adherence throughout the Roman Empire as they gained more influence with the imperial throne, you know, Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, the oppression of Pagans, and all that. You Christians really have a nasty habit of weeding out opposing views and killing them off. Does not help your cause one little bit.

---

I'm giving this the answer it deserves...

Just as I thought...

It's funny how you guys shut up the moment anything resembling evidence is is actually produced...

Since you refuse to respond, you forfeit the privilege of requesting that any theist produce  evidence from now on.

The all powerful Judeo-Christian god, the ancient Canaanite war god, the supposed creator of the universe, did not lift one finger to save nine people in a church, IN A CHURCH, HIS CHURCH, from a white racist asshole. There is some evidence for you. What is one to think? Either this supposed being does not exist, or it is a monster, or a racist, or both.

[RoadRunner79]

We don't have original copies of most of the writings from this time.

Do you have an example of where two manuscripts disagree with each other in something significant?  From what I have been told the manuscript collection for the new testament is vast, consisting of earlier and more manuscripts than we have for most anything comparable for the time.  It is also my understanding, that the collection of manuscripts support the consistency in transmission of the text.  There are differences, but it is important to look at what those differences consist of.  They are mostly spelling errors,  transposing of words, or a missing jot or tilde (mundane errors, which are easily dismissed).  There may may be a different use of words, which don't change the meaning, but are technically different.  It is my understanding, that there are very very few variants, which have any doctrinal significance, and that we can weigh those, by looking at earlier or the majority of text (because we have so many).  

So what is it, that you are saying, by saying that no two manuscripts agree with each other?  Do you have evidence of something other, that is significant?

Of course that's your understanding.  That isn't the understanding of objective scholars, but if you already decided it's the word of god from the get-go, you can explain away anything you want.

If I am missing something, and you would like to add facts or reasoning to the discussion, then lets examine it. Also is your meaning of "objective scholars" those who agree with you?

[vorlon13]

We have original uncontested* documents, penned by Joseph Smith in his own hand, in support of Mormonism.  We have nothing like that in regards to Jesus.


*curiously, the Mormon hierarchy has an issue with the account of Joseph Smith's First Visitation he penned since it does not concur with the official church version of his First Visitation. I also note, failing to believe in the church's account is grounds for excommunication, raising the possibility, that if he were alive today, Joseph Smith would be excommunicated from the very church he established.

[snicker]

I remember the South Park Season 7 Episode 12 "All About Mormons."  I thought it was great, nailed it on the head.  I could not find a full free episode to link to, nor a clip that was not either deleted or screwed up with someone's lame music picks to overlay it.  So if you want to pay to see it, or have subscriptions to them already, here are the You Tube and Hulu links:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4bDgWOYvRA

Hulu: https://www.hulu.com/watch/250048

Comedy Channel repeats all the South Park episodes often enough, just set your DVR.

[Amarok]

So let's recap .

The photograph was light something natural that has hundreds of natural sources . And has jumped to the conclusion that light means magic man because the bible mentions light. Bit of a gap there

The photograph was religious mania something natural and unlike huggies assertions about placebo's is backed by science.

And quotes from people who didn't think critically about this.

Does that sum things up?

[SteveII]

1. Yes, that is what he was doing. No, Paul did not found Christianity. He came later on the scene. His conversion was not until Acts 9--four years of activity before he comes on the scene. His first missionary journey was not for another fourteen years.  He didn't start writing for at least another two after that. You really need to read Acts. It is actually the book written to answer these questions (Luke actually says that). 

2. What kind of question is that? Constantine did not come for over 275 years (11 generations) after the first Christians. We have hundreds of surviving Christian writings from before Roman got involved.

The Paul character was the first one to write about the Yeshua character [1] (the book of Galatians, 49 A.D. https://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-...o-wrote-it).  So according to the fairy tale that means that Paul saw his vision of Yeshua 17 years earlier, around 32 A.D.

According to Acts people were first called Christians in the city of Antioch, as a result of Paul's preaching.[2]

1. That is a fact not in evidence. Scholars believe there were documents before the gospels. Paul's may be the earliest writings that survived. 

2. Acts 11:19-30. The church existed (v 20-21). Barnabas, more senior than Paul (mentioned in Acts 4-- ~four years earlier) took him up there around 42 AD and they taught the people there (verse 25). 42 AD is 12 years after the beginning of Acts. Paul did not start Christianity--not even close.

[vorlon13]

Using consistent criteria to evaluate Christianity vs. Mormonism, hell, Mormonism wins hands down.

If not for special pleading, all our Christers here would be Mormons. Instead of deriding/denying 'special pleading' it instead otta be a sacrament of their faith. Without it, their faith wouldn't exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

You must realize that, allowing for a moment the fiction of Paul - the act of "going up around there and teaching people" is what would have started christianity?  How can we fail to appreciate a situation in which christianity had not yet been codified?  What would the purpose of "Pauls", lol, "letters"...... be other than to effect such codification?  

If Paul was teaching, and if Pual was acting as an arbitrator of accuracy in dogma...and if pauls are the works which survived and upon which christianity became based..........'

Then had some other person been teaching some other thing to some other group you could not xpect that the wheels of "history" would have yielded the same result.  The centuries of rooting out heresy...on it's face, puts the lie to any such conjecture. As points of fact, other people were teaching other things to other groups of people. This is precisely what -necessitated- the pogroms in the first place.  

What -you- believe about Paul and christianity is incoherent and self defeating.