Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[vorlon13]

SteveII, you left out the biggest miracle of all:

Jesus being crucified twice !!!!

Do you imagine that beating that inane drum means anything to anyone? You sound ignorant and foolish EVERY time you say it.

It's STILL in YOUR Bible !!!!

Read the damn thing !!!

[Minimalist]

From Stevie's article.

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate

Yet, when we ask what the evidence is for either of these events all we ever seem to get is "the gospels say so."

However, that runs up against another line in Stevie's article....one which he would prefer to ignore.

Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable

[TheBeardedDude]

All religions claim to have eyewitnesses, Steve.

Of course they do.  Thats why accepting eye witness testimony for any one of them is not special pleading.  On the other hand neither is it justified.

But accepting eye witness testimony as indicating truth for one while rejecting eye witness testimony as indicating truth for any other, is special pleading.

[Harry Nevis]

Here is an inductive line of reasoning:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters in emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

Before you jump all over some of the statements above, please realize 1) you do not have proof against any of them (finding someone to agree with you is not proof) and 2) it is inductive reasoning and therefore it is not claiming the list is proof of anything--it is only claiming the inference is reasonable. It is NOT a deductive argument which claims fact, fact, therefore fact. So it is a matter of opinion whether you think the list supports the conclusion or not.

---

1. We don't need proof against them, whatever that means.
2. It's also reasonable to infer that you're presenting these with a bias, as there are many who know what thy're talking about who disagree.

[TheBeardedDude]

From Stevie's article.

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and that, between one and three years later, he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate

Yet, when we ask what the evidence is for either of these events all we ever seem to get is "the gospels say so."

However, that runs up against another line in Stevie's article....one which he would prefer to ignore.

Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable

Damn pesky facts 

[Minimalist]

But accepting eye witness testimony as indicating truth for one while rejecting eye witness testimony as indicating truth for any other, is special pleading.

We have a winner.  And it sure as fuck ain't jesus.

[TheBeardedDude]

We have a winner.  And it sure as fuck ain't jesus.

Who is the winner? I MUST KNOW!!!

[Whateverist]

Of course they do.  Thats why accepting eye witness testimony for any one of them is not special pleading.  On the other hand neither is it justified.

But accepting eye witness testimony as indicating truth for one while rejecting eye witness testimony as indicating truth for any other, is special pleading.

Yeah, they're all special pleading but I felt like I needed to throw him a bone.

[TheBeardedDude]

But accepting eye witness testimony as indicating truth for one while rejecting eye witness testimony as indicating truth for any other, is special pleading.

Yeah, they're all special pleading but I felt like I needed to throw him a bone.

But all religions engaging in special pleading, doesn't mean that they don't all engage in it. So it isn't true that: "Thats why accepting eye witness testimony for any one of them is not special pleading." It precisely IS special pleading.

[Harry Nevis]

Miracles are supernatural causes with a natural effect. It doe not matter how because we cannot investigate supernatural causes with natural tools. 

Regarding Matthew 27, if we say that is an inaccuracy, what does that do to the rest? Absolutely nothing. The written accounts do not differ significantly. I would actually hope there were some minor variations--since 100% similarities would actually cause concern.

No, the most likely explanation is that the events are as described by the people who very thoroughly believed them to have happened. You are welcome to alternate theories--but the problem with them is that NONE of them ever deal with the whole picture. I have never heard a theory the explains everything we have available to examine.

We can't examine supernatural causes before we have some evidence of the supernatural existing. 

I would expect the word of god to have no inaccuracies.  I would expect the word of people to have quite a few, especially over the many years.  I would also expect that. if god wanted us to hear and understand his words, he would only allow an accurate book to be written to contain them.  If the bible had no inaccuracies, It would give me reason to pause and reconsider if this was indeed divinely inspired, if only for a fraction of a second, until my education on the subject was recalled.

It all comes down to: you want it to be true.  And your confirmation bias gives it the veneer of plausibility.