cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[gnostic]

The first cause is self-evident.

Really? Is it “self-evident”?

If that were really true, then why is it that no one can agree with what the “first cause” is?

In Egyptian myth, Nu - the personification of primeval water - was the first. While in other tradition or myth, especially in New Kingdom period, it was Amun.

While in Sumerian-Akkadian myth it was Tiamat and Abzu or Apsu.

In Greek myth, Chaos was the first, who brought forth Eros (love), Gaea (Earth) and Nyx (night).

In Hinduism, there were many, among them are Brahman, Shiva, Shakti (or by her other known manifestations, eg Adi Parashakti, Durga, etc), depending on the sects.

In Shinto, it was Izanagi.

Taoism have the Sānqīng or the Three Pure Ones.

And the list of the numbers of “first cause” goes on, so in religions, the numbers of “first cause” are as many as there are numbers of different religions.

Really, there’s nothing unique about the Abrahamic version.

And even then, the Gnosticism turned Genesis Creation, upside down, so that the first was monad, the original aeon, but the “god” who created Adam, cause the Flood, and brought forth laws of Moses, was actually a lesser being, an usurper or pretender. According to Gnosticism, the god as portrayed in the Old Testament was really the Gnostic version of the Devil.

Which of these myriad do you think is the true “first cause”? Which of these are “self-evident”?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your argument falls down on a number of counts. The first is that Luke records Mary's genealogy. Matthew records Joseph's genealogy, and the two are quite distinct. Joseph's genealogy passes forward through Solomon, whereas Mary's passes back through Nathan. Both Solomon and Nathan were sons of David, but only Solomon was of the royal line. This means that Jesus only had one natural line, and that was the line through his mother! And, since Mary conceived miraculously, it adds 'And Jesus began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli...'

What makes you think that is what they did? As you know, or should know by now , the stories are a myth. It makes more sense that each one made up their own genealogies. There is nothing in the Bible that hints or even implies that one is Joseph's and one is Mary's. In fact for a while in the past it was argued the other way around. The odds are that Jesus, like most Jews, did not know his genealogy. That appears to have been limited to the priestly order.

And just because we can no longer find evidence of Heli does not mean he didn't exist. As l have demonstrated from Josephus, the genealogical records of priests and royalty were available in the public records. Given that both Mary and Joseph were direct descendants of David, both would have had records in the public offices.

No, it is the claim that they were descended from them by later apologists. The two lists both appear to be of Joseph's line. Also back then illiteracy was the norm, not the exception. And since Christianity appealed mostly to the lower classes at that time the odds are very high that very few of them could have checked the records and they would probably not even have thought of ti.

I have to say that l would far sooner believe the record that has come down to us in the canon of scripture, than to accept an apocryphal tradition.

Why? What makes one more trustworthy than the other?

Then we have some additional testimonies that you appear to overlook. Luke's Gospel was written well before the Jewish wars and the destruction of the temple, because Luke's second treatise was completed before these events. That means both books were completed before 70 CE.

Oops, someone has been listening to apologists again. I am not sure of the dating of Acts but the Gospel of Luke, not "Luke's Gospel" is dated no earlier than 80 CE.

If the crucifixion took place in about 33 CE, then Mary was still alive and able to give her own testimony of her parentage. Mary lived under the same roof as John following the crucifixion (John 19:25-27). Interestingly, there were other woman at the scene who would also have known details of Mary's life, including Mary's own sister! Yet, somehow, you think that these eyewitnesses could not give an accurate account of their parent's names!

So, what you criticise as Protestant apologetics, is actually the most reliable of evidence, because it looks to the earliest testimonies found in the Biblical record; the very ones that had the apostles' 'stamp' of approval.

No, Mary would have been ancient by the year 80CE. Actually she would have been dust by then. You should not get your "evidence" from suspect sources. One thing that you need to remember: Believers, such as apologists only want to believe. Scholars, whether Christian or secular want to know. The latter publish in peer reviewed journals where others can and will point out any errors that they made. Apologists use their own press and unless an error is extremely bad they pretty much keep their mouths shut.

Here is a long excerpt from an article on when they were written and why scholars have this belief, spoiler alert it is later than 90CE:

Most modern scholars who write about Acts favor an intermediate date, i.e., c. 80-c. 90 CE, and they cite a number of factors to support this dating. The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Roman armies in 70 CE is not mentioned in Acts but is probably alluded to in Luke 21:20-24. But Acts could not have been written before c. 90 CE, since the author seems to be ignorant about Paul's letters, which were not collected and circulated before that date.[1]

Several implications follow from dating Acts in this intermediate period. It becomes unlikely that Acts provides us with an eye-witness account of the life of Paul. The author is a generation removed from the time of those persons he writes about and, although he devotes sig-nificant attention to Paul, he fails to mention important things about him. For example, Paul's letters reveal that he claimed to be an apostle and that this status was vital to him. But in Acts 1:21-22 the criteria for being an apostle definitively exclude Paul from membership in this group. Further, Acts 1:13 has a list of eleven apostles, to which number Matthias is added to replace Ju-das (Acts 1:26). Acts makes it clear that the number of apostles cannot be more or less than twelve and that Paul is not included among them. It would be highly unlikely for an author who was also a companion of Paul to go to such lengths to exclude Paul from an office that he so vig-orously claimed for himself.[2]

A growing number of scholars prefer a late date for the composition of Acts, i.e., c. 110-120 CE.[3] Three factors support such a date. First, Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the second century. Second, compelling arguments can be made that the author of Acts was acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 CE. If the author of Acts knew of some pieces from this document, he could not have written his book before that date. Third, recent studies have revised the judgment that the author of Acts was unaware of the Pauline letters. Convincing arguments have been made especially in the case of Galatians by scholars who are convinced that the author of Acts not only knew this Pauline letter but regarded it as a problem and wrote to subvert it.[4] They especially call attention to the verbal and ideational similarities between Acts 15 and Galatians 2 and show how the dif-ferences may be intended to create a distance between Paul and some of his later interpreters and critics.

You can read the whole article here:

When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written? | Bible Interp

 

[Redemptionsong]

Both genealogies profess that that these two lines were of Jesus’ ancestors, but both stated that these two lines were that of Joseph’s genealogies, not Mary’s genealogy.

Luke does not say that his genealogy is of Joseph. Where does he say that?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What makes you think that is what they did? As you know, or should know by now , the stories are a myth. It makes more sense that each one made up their own genealogies. There is nothing in the Bible that hints or even implies that one is Joseph's and one is Mary's. In fact for a while in the past it was argued the other way around. The odds are that Jesus, like most Jews, did not know his genealogy. That appears to have been limited to the priestly order.


No, it is the claim that they were descended from them by later apologists. The two lists both appear to be of Joseph's line. Also back then illiteracy was the norm, not the exception. And since Christianity appealed mostly to the lower classes at that time the odds are very high that very few of them could have checked the records and they would probably not even have thought of ti.



Why? What makes one more trustworthy than the other?


Oops, someone has been listening to apologists again. I am not sure of the dating of Acts but the Gospel of Luke, not "Luke's Gospel" is dated no earlier than 80 CE.



No, Mary would have been ancient by the year 80CE. Actually she would have been dust by then. You should not get your "evidence" from suspect sources. One thing that you need to remember: Believers, such as apologists only want to believe. Scholars, whether Christian or secular want to know. The latter publish in peer reviewed journals where others can and will point out any errors that they made. Apologists use their own press and unless an error is extremely bad they pretty much keep their mouths shut.

Here is a long excerpt from an article on when they were written and why scholars have this belief, spoiler alert it is later than 90CE:

Most modern scholars who write about Acts favor an intermediate date, i.e., c. 80-c. 90 CE, and they cite a number of factors to support this dating. The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Roman armies in 70 CE is not mentioned in Acts but is probably alluded to in Luke 21:20-24. But Acts could not have been written before c. 90 CE, since the author seems to be ignorant about Paul's letters, which were not collected and circulated before that date.[1]

Several implications follow from dating Acts in this intermediate period. It becomes unlikely that Acts provides us with an eye-witness account of the life of Paul. The author is a generation removed from the time of those persons he writes about and, although he devotes sig-nificant attention to Paul, he fails to mention important things about him. For example, Paul's letters reveal that he claimed to be an apostle and that this status was vital to him. But in Acts 1:21-22 the criteria for being an apostle definitively exclude Paul from membership in this group. Further, Acts 1:13 has a list of eleven apostles, to which number Matthias is added to replace Ju-das (Acts 1:26). Acts makes it clear that the number of apostles cannot be more or less than twelve and that Paul is not included among them. It would be highly unlikely for an author who was also a companion of Paul to go to such lengths to exclude Paul from an office that he so vig-orously claimed for himself.[2]

A growing number of scholars prefer a late date for the composition of Acts, i.e., c. 110-120 CE.[3] Three factors support such a date. First, Acts seems to be unknown before the last half of the second century. Second, compelling arguments can be made that the author of Acts was acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his Antiquities of the Jews in 93-94 CE. If the author of Acts knew of some pieces from this document, he could not have written his book before that date. Third, recent studies have revised the judgment that the author of Acts was unaware of the Pauline letters. Convincing arguments have been made especially in the case of Galatians by scholars who are convinced that the author of Acts not only knew this Pauline letter but regarded it as a problem and wrote to subvert it.[4] They especially call attention to the verbal and ideational similarities between Acts 15 and Galatians 2 and show how the dif-ferences may be intended to create a distance between Paul and some of his later interpreters and critics.

You can read the whole article here:

When and Why Was the Acts of the Apostles Written? | Bible Interp

At last, you have brought something to the table that is worth reading and considering!

In this article, the author weighs the arguments for three distinct options with regard to the dating of the book of Acts. He calls them the 'early', 'intermediate', and 'late' dating.

The early dating is before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, and corresponds to all that l have argued. The only argument provided against the early dating of Acts is that there appears to be no evidence of the Pauline epistles being collected and circulated before 90 CE, but he then offers a footnote reference that disputes this notion. I could add further arguments that dispute the late circulation of Paul's letters.

What is immediately apparent from the arguments presented in favour of the intermediate and late dates is they are based on speculation, not facts. And, as l keep saying, they overlook the salient events of 66 - 73 CE, when the Romans and Jews were at war. These Jewish wars are well attested historical events, as was the destruction of the temple, and the mass suicide of zealots at Masada.

Anyone claiming the intermediate or late dating of the NT books needs to explain the exclusion of these highly significant events in history. Not only did Jesus prophesy the destruction of the temple, but Josephus tells us that somewhere near a million people died in the seige and famine at Jerusalem.

In Rome, an arch, the arch of Titus, was erected in memory of the great victory of the Romans over their Jewish enemies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At last, you have brought something to the table that is worth reading and considering!

In this article, the author weighs the arguments for three distinct options with regard to the dating of the book of Acts. He calls them the 'early', 'intermediate', and 'late' dating.

The early dating is before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, and corresponds to all that l have argued. The only argument provided against the early dating of Acts is that there appears to be no evidence of the Pauline epistles being collected and circulated before 90 CE, but he then offers a footnote reference that disputes this notion. I could add further arguments that dispute the late circulation of Paul's letters.

What is immediately apparent from the arguments presented in favour of the intermediate and late dates is they are based on speculation, not facts. And, as l keep saying, they overlook the salient events of 66 - 73 CE, when the Romans and Jews were at war. These Jewish wars are well attested historical events, as was the destruction of the temple, and the mass suicide of zealots at Masada.

Anyone claiming the intermediate or late dating of the NT books needs to explain the exclusion of these highly significant events in history. Not only did Jesus prophecy the destruction of the temple, but Josephus tells us that somewhere near a million people died in the seige and famine at Jerusalem.

In Rome an arch, the arch of Titus, was erected in memory of the great victory of the Romans over their Jewish enemies.

They are not "overlooking" anything. They are far ore aware of those events than you are. They simply do not support your beliefs as strongly as you think they do and they showed some huge problems with your dates, which is why there are not accepted.

By the way I have as yet to see a Christian that has ever been able to justify their claim of "speculation".

Also remember, you have not brought anything to the table. You have only quoted apologeticists. When you do that you have no business at all complaining about Wikipedia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Luke does not say that his genealogy is of Joseph. Where does he say that?

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 3:23-38 - English Standard Version

 

[gnostic]

Luke does not say that his genealogy is of Joseph. Where does he say that?

If you already have glasses, then you need a new pair.

Can you not read "...of Joseph son of Heli"?

Where in verse 3:23 mention Mary at all?

The passage say that Jesus ("he") was thought to be the "son of Joseph", IT DOES NOT "Joseph was thought to be the son of Heli".

It simply say "Joseph son of Heli". You are short-sighted or you're lying.

This is why I don't trust Christian apologists: they completely ignore what is front of them, so they make up something that's not there. Then they become defensive and whine when people accuse apologists of being liars.

You still don't have any ancient source that verify Heli being Mary's father. You just rely on stupid apologists like Torrey, who clearly don't have the skill of a scholar, and like Torrey they just make up some stupid lies about who Mary's father is.

This is not atheists vs theists, because the churches have long believe that Mary was Joachim's daughter, not Heli's daughter.

And don't keep talking about Jerusalem keeping records of Nathan's lineage to Heli, because it doesn't exist. You are just making unsubstantiated speculation about these official documents.

As I told before, only royal lines and genealogies of priests were kept, and only Solomon's line was recorded, not any of David's other descendants from his other sons.

 

[Redemptionsong]

They are not "overlooking" anything. They are far ore aware of those events than you are. They simply do not support your beliefs as strongly as you think they do and they showed some huge problems with your dates, which is why there are not accepted.

By the way I have as yet to see a Christian that has ever been able to justify their claim of "speculation".

Also remember, you have not brought anything to the table. You have only quoted apologeticists. When you do that you have no business at all complaining about Wikipedia.

As we both know, Wiki is only as good as it's contributors.

You use the word 'apologist' (of a Christian) in a derogatory manner, when, in fact, the word refers to a person who makes a reasoned case for believing the Bible. The apologists are only as good as the arguments they make. And this applies equally to the sceptics. A sceptic is only as convincing as his argument.

I want to see what specific arguments you have against the Bible narrative, and this means providing 'chapter and verse' criticism.

The case you make against Herod's registration cannot be verified; but that doesn't lead us to the conclusion it never took place. It simply means that, so far, evidence hasn't been found to conclusively prove the case one way or the other. That leaves you unable to say that the Bible is false, and me free to belief that it is a truthful testimony.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Can you not read "...of Joseph son of Heli"?

You obviously have clear eyesight, for you can read the words. However, you have failed to distinguish the words that are written in italics from the words that are not. Do you know why the KJV uses italics for certain words? It's because these words do not appear in the Greek original, and have been added by the translators to clarify meaning. The problem is that, by adding words, the meaning can be altered, and this is apparent in a number of passages. This just happens to be one of them!

 

[Redemptionsong]

And don't keep talking about Jerusalem keeping records of Nathan's lineage to Heli, because it doesn't exist. You are just making unsubstantiated speculation about these official documents.

Allow me to quote to you from Josephus, once again.

This is taken from his autobiographical account, The Life Of Flavius Josephus, section 1.
'Now , l am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general , but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, l am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother l am of the royal blood ; for the children of Asmoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood and the dignity of a king for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. [Which he does]...as l was born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar....Thus have l set down the genealogy of my family as l have found it described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me [ as of a lower original]'.

Josephus states that he is from a priestly and royal line. He finds records relating to both lines in the public records, and is, thus, able to provide evidence to his critics.

By doing so, Josephus makes it known that priestly and royal records were available, from which an accurate genealogy could be established. If these records were available to Josephus, then they would have been available to people reading Matthew's and Luke's Gospels. And anyone wanting proof of the claims made about Jesus would begin their research in the public records. As such, we can pretty much say that these genealogies were not challenged, for had they been challenged there was an authority ready to act as arbiter.

 

[syo]

Which of these myriad do you think is the true “first cause”? Which of these are “self-evident”?

All Deities are self-evident.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The first cause is self-evident.

Causes happen in the universe.
So yes, there was a "first" cause.
The universe already existed though.

 

[Valjean]

It seems to me that the first question is not whether a particular effect serves as sufficient proof of a particular cause, but whether that effect is sufficient evidence to render the inference of some cause reasonable.

It is only after that question is resolved that the discussion can proceed in any useful manner.

The concept of "cause" is an experiential thing. Cause is an aspect of the material world we're familiar with, and experience. It is not an aspect of quantum reality.
'Real reality' does not reflect everyday experience, or even common sense. It's a mistake to try to shoehorn reality into everyday experience.

 

[Valjean]

OK that's fine, but we are talking about speculation of what might have existed before the BB (if that is even a sensible statement)

The adherents to the BB beginning of the universe are eventually obliged to explain either, what existed before, or how the nothing to something creation process works?

"Before" the Big Bang makes no sense. "Before" presupposes time. Time didn't exist before the BB.

 

[gnostic]

Allow me to quote to you from Josephus, once again.

This is taken from his autobiographical account, The Life Of Flavius Josephus, section 1.
'Now , l am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general , but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another , l am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother l am of the royal blood ; for the children of Asmoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood and the dignity of a king for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. [Which he does]...as l was born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar....Thus have l set down the genealogy of my family as l have found it described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me [ as of a lower original]'.

Josephus states that he is from a priestly and royal line. He finds records relating to both lines in the public records, and is, thus, able to provide evidence to his critics.

By doing so, Josephus makes it known that priestly and royal records were available, from which an accurate genealogy could be established. If these records were available to Josephus, then they would have been available to people reading Matthew's and Luke's Gospels. And anyone wanting proof of the claims made about Jesus would begin their research in the public records. As such, we can pretty much say that these genealogies were not challenged, for had they been challenged there was an authority ready to act as arbiter.

You ignoring the facts that, Nathan was never king, nor any of Nathan’s descendants, so Nathan’s line weren’t “royal”, so his descendants wouldn’t be recorded along with Solomon’s genealogy as public records.

And you have no public records of Nathan’s genealogy. The sole source of genealogy of Nathan’s line, only come from Luke 23.

You keep talking of public records, but there are no such records that can verify the gospel’s claim.

And as to the genealogy in the gospel of Matthew, as I told you in the past, the gospel’s genealogy is missing a total of 4 generations, with 3 successive generations. For some mystical reason the gospel have to arrange 3 groups, in which each group is 14 generations.

To omit 4 generations for the sake of magic number “14”, showed that the gospel author was more interested in superstition than being accurately conforming to the same number of generations in OT Kings. The gospel genealogy was inconsistent with the OT list of kings of Judah.

And you are wrong here too:

If these records were available to Josephus, then they would have been available to people reading Matthew's and Luke's Gospels.

Josephus have notable lineages, one from the priesthood and one from aristocracy, so he would have access to places that most Jews wouldn’t have.

But Josephus’ ancestors were that of the Hasmonean dynasty, not that of David-Solomon line.

And we don’t know the identities of these 2 gospel authors, and I would doubt they would have same access to sources as Josephus.

All you are doing is making up speculations about the gospel authors whom we know nothing about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The concept of "cause" is an experiential thing. Cause is an aspect of the material world we're familiar with, and experience. It is not an aspect of quantum reality.
'Real reality' does not reflect everyday experience, or even common sense. It's a mistake to try to shoehorn reality into everyday experience.

Poor Galileo. The whole Pisa [thought] experiment vanquished by a bit of sophistry.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The concept of "cause" is an experiential thing. Cause is an aspect of the material world we're familiar with, and experience. It is not an aspect of quantum reality.
'Real reality' does not reflect everyday experience, or even common sense. It's a mistake to try to shoehorn reality into everyday experience.

Sure, but the everyday world is not just QR or real reality.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You ignoring the facts that, Nathan was never king, nor any of Nathan’s descendants, so Nathan’s line weren’t “royal”, so his descendants wouldn’t be recorded along with Solomon’s genealogy as public records.

And you have no public records of Nathan’s genealogy. The sole source of genealogy of Nathan’s line, only come from Luke 23.

We know, from the book of Chronicles that there was a genealogy of Nathan's line [1 Chronicles 14:4]. Since it finds a place in scripture, it must have been considered worthy of record.

In the Talmud, Pesahim 62b, there is mention of 'the Book of Genealogies', which is described as, 'A commentary on Chronicles, presumably so called because of the many genealogical lists it contains'.

What authority do you have to deny this 'Book of Genealogies'?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We know, from the book of Chronicles that there was a genealogy of Nathan's line [1 Chronicles 14:4]. Since it finds a place in scripture, it must have been considered worthy of record.

In the Talmud, Pesahim 62b, there is mention of 'the Book of Genealogies', which is described as, 'A commentary on Chronicles, presumably so called because of the many genealogical lists it contains'.

What authority do you have to deny this 'Book of Genealogies'?

I don't. I just have a different faith. That is how simple it is. I don't have to have the same faith as you.

 

[Redemptionsong]

To omit 4 generations for the sake of magic number “14”, showed that the gospel author was more interested in superstition than being accurately conforming to the same number of generations in OT Kings. The gospel genealogy was inconsistent with the OT list of kings of Judah.

Missing generations is not, in itself, a problem for legitimacy, if the short cut returns to the legitimate line. The question you should be asking, is why these particular individuals were bypassed.

What we know is that three of the missing names were descendants of Athaliah, the murderess [2 Chronicles 24:7]. Her sons were responsible for breaking up the house of God.