Do you teach your children that your faith is the only correct one?

[Hapax Legomena]

We read, after all similar stories of miraculous and supernatural events in other religions and traditions. Do you accept all those as history? The standards applied to the Bible in terms of it's historicity are no different then those we apply to all historical documents.

 

Wishbone, I agree with you that we should use the same type of analysis for these various documents. In fact, that is why I made some posts to this thread. I wanted to respond to the idea that it is not possible to know the truth and that our quest for the truth concerning Jesus is hampered by the lack of evidence.

 

We have sound methods we can use to evaluate various truth claims. We don't have to retreat to bewidlerment and speculation.

[WishboneDawn]

The lawyer’s name is Simon Greenleaf. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Fuller referred to him as “the highest authority on evidence cited in our courts.â€

 

Greenleaf wrote The Testimony of the Evangelists, a book setting forth the gospel accounts in parallel format. The 50 page introduction to that book presents Greenleaf’s examination of the gospel writers’ testimony. That introduction also appears in the appendix of John Warwick Montgomery’s book The Law Above the Law.

 

I agree with you that judges determine the admissibility of evidence. However, courts also have rules relating to the evidence once admitted. These include such matters as oral evidence, hearsay, the standard of proof for a proposition of fact, the credibility of witnesses, the burden of impeachment, etc. With these considerations in mind, Greenleaf concludes that the testimony of the evangelists is true.

 

You are correct that someone else may disagree. Some persist in claiming that these accounts are mere false, corrupted or mythological. However, Greenleaf’s examination standing in stark contrast to those opinions and is most compelling because of his preeminent expertise in evidentiary matters.

 

Greenleaf's essay looks like a good read. I've skimmed it but haven't read it closely - full text is here for those interested.

 

Certainly, from a legal standpoint, Greenleaf may well (and seems to from what I've read in researching him) have made strong argument but that's just one point from which to view the gospels. Armed with a certain faith and view of the Bible as infallible and literally true it can convince. Without that faith or POV and armed with different measures it may not. The conditions needed to prove something in court are not the same as those needed to determine the accuracy or historicity of an ancient document by textual or historical criticism - the tools used by biblical scholars. Certainly the conditions of proving something in court for Greenleaf are very different from the idea of proof in scientific terms. For someone who was looking at the gospel from a scientific standpoint all the testimony in the world about what people thought they saw would amount to anecdotes and say little if nothing about the scientific truth of what happened.

 

And again, none of this is to say you're wrong in your belief or that you need to justify it to anyone else if you choose not to. Simply that, equipped with different tools we uncover different views of things, even the gospels. From where I'm standing I doubt Greenleaf will convince me of anything. However, I'm betting that if I read him I'll gain some appreciation and insight into how you see the gospels so thank you for bringing him up. :) I'm off to read that now!

[WishboneDawn]

Wishbone, I agree with you that we should use the same type of analysis for these various documents. In fact, that is why I made some posts to this thread. I wanted to respond to the idea that it is not possible to know the truth and that our quest for the truth concerning Jesus is hampered by the lack of evidence.

 

We have sound methods we can use to evaluate various truth claims. We don't have to retreat to bewidlerment and speculation.

 

I agree but I don't think our ideas of "sound methods" would be the same. One method I might use would be a scientific understanding of the natural world (which would already limit me in supernatural matters!). There's nothing in science that would suggest that many of the events in the gospel can have really happened. So if I'm someone without faith, and I'm lacked a methoud of evaluation you have, i'm out of luck from the get-go. If my method is textual criticism, looking at the earliest copies and trying to ferret out the original text then again, I'll be coming to a different conclusion then someone who approaches the Bible as error-free.

 

I won't argue we don't have methods, just that our methods can be very different and each can lead to very different conclusions.

 

edited to add: I'm not saying we need to throw our hands up and say it's unknowable but that the fact that we'll approach the same text and end up knowing different things (It's literal fact, it's allegory, Jesus lived, Jesus is myth, I just don't know, etc.).

Edited April 17, 2009 by WishboneDawn

[Hapax Legomena]

I would have to read the book you are talking about to really respond to what this guy says -- and I actually intend to. It will be on my "to read" list.:)

 

However, I just want to point out that your argument confuses me

 

AMSunshine, Thanks for the reply. Perhaps a few additional comments will provide some clarification. First, Greenleaf was writing in the 19th century commenting on common law principles. If you practice in the US and search the Federal Rules of Evidence or state rules modeled after the federal rules, you will not find the provisions Greenleaf mentions. As you quite accurately point out, these rules concern admissibility matters. Even so, Greenleaf's reasoning is sound legal reasoning based on the common law principles underlying our laws.

 

Second, I agree with your point about the distinction between the judge's role and that of the trier of fact, notwithstanding the fact that the judge may perform both roles in some cases.

 

My statement concerning the various matters discussed in Greenleaf's article was confusing because I had deleted a large chunk material explaining some of Greenleaf's points. It occurred to me that my post was way too long and that most people were probably not interested in the legal details anyway. I decided to switch my focus to merely mention some of the topics in the article. When I merely listed those topics, I forgot to change the prior sentence. Parol evidence and hearsay matters fall into the admissibility camp.

 

Finally, the topics as Greenleaf lists them are rather cumbersome. To make things brief and merely try to give the reader a quick idea of the items in his article, I tried to shorten them. In light of those changes and the fact that our current rules do not contain those categories, I can see why you were a bit confused.

 

I hope that helps. By the way, you may also enjoy searching on John Warwick Montgomery. He has written extensively on these matters and has a very fascinating background. I first learned of Greenleaf from Montgomery in Dallas several years ago. JWM used to appear regularly on a religious program called Issues and Answers out of Kansas City, I think. The last time I checked, his audio archives were still available for download there.

[jenadina]

I believe with my heart, my soul, my whole being that God is larger than just one religion; that he has a path for all his children.

 

Janet

 

:iagree: I teach my son oneness of religion; I believe that the core message of all the world's religious writings is the same: ethical integrity, honesty, sincerity, compassion, tolerance and non-violence; and that all of these paths lead to the same God.

 

And yes, it does drive me nuts when people get their panties in a twist when someone says Allah...Allah is the Arabic word for God, just as Dios is the Spanish word for God.

Edited April 18, 2009 by jenadina

[amsunshine]

AMSunshine, Thanks for the reply. Perhaps a few additional comments will provide some clarification. First, Greenleaf was writing in the 19th century commenting on common law principles. If you practice in the US and search the Federal Rules of Evidence or state rules modeled after the federal rules, you will not find the provisions Greenleaf mentions. As you quite accurately point out, these rules concern admissibility matters. Even so, Greenleaf's reasoning is sound legal reasoning based on the common law principles underlying our laws.

 

Second, I agree with your point about the distinction between the judge's role and that of the trier of fact, notwithstanding the fact that the judge may perform both roles in some cases.

 

My statement concerning the various matters discussed in Greenleaf's article was confusing because I had deleted a large chunk material explaining some of Greenleaf's points. It occurred to me that my post was way too long and that most people were probably not interested in the legal details anyway. I decided to switch my focus to merely mention some of the topics in the article. When I merely listed those topics, I forgot to change the prior sentence. Parol evidence and hearsay matters fall into the admissibility camp.

 

Finally, the topics as Greenleaf lists them are rather cumbersome. To make things brief and merely try to give the reader a quick idea of the items in his article, I tried to shorten them. In light of those changes and the fact that our current rules do not contain those categories, I can see why you were a bit confused.

 

I hope that helps. By the way, you may also enjoy searching on John Warwick Montgomery. He has written extensively on these matters and has a very fascinating background. I first learned of Greenleaf from Montgomery in Dallas several years ago. JWM used to appear regularly on a religious program called Issues and Answers out of Kansas City, I think. The last time I checked, his audio archives were still available for download there.

 

Thanks for the response. I will check this out on the link another poster posted when I have the time.

 

However, regardless of whether we are talking about common law or current law, it seems to me that -- as I initially indicated, and as you have agreed -- these rules deal with admissibility in court. They do not deal with truth or falsity of the content of a particular piece of evidence. All kinds of sketchy evidence can be admitted in court. So, anyway, it seems kind of a stretch to rely on this stuff to say that biblical writings are trustworthy or even truthful. I'm not saying they are not. I'm just saying that it's quite a jump from point A to point B, and if that's how this person is trying to argue the point -- it's a fairly weak argument.

[Hapax Legomena]

Given the diverse beliefs across the world we live in, I'm always shocked when I meet someone or come across someone's writing online that discusses teaching their children how mistaken others are, with no possibility that there could be any other way. And this is on both sides of the fence--I have an atheist friend who would never in a million years consider teaching her child that any kind of god might possibly exist and refuses to even entertain the possibility.

 

Are those of us who allow space for other possibilities really such a tiny minority? If you don't allow space for other possibilities (as in, you teach your kids that anyone who does not believe as you believe is simply wrong and misguided), can you explain why?

 

(Standard disclaimer: Let's try to have a thoughtful conversation, be polite, not get the thread locked, etc.)

 

 

In our family we study the Bible to learn what it teaches concerning these matters. We don't so much focus on saying that other people are wrong as much as we center our attention on the truth of the Scripture.

 

Here is a distinction that might be of interest. If we merely ask, "Isn't X possible" we will most likely remain eternal skeptics concerning theology. The better question is, "if X were to be true, what is the evidence for X?" Does the evidence for X make more sense than the evidence for Y?"

 

By the way, if we continued to ask "What about X" every time we were making decisions about other daily matters, we would have a hard time getting dressed, crossing the street and deciding whether to use the elevator or the stairs.

 

Pascal said, "It is not certain that everything is uncertain."

 

Are those of us who allow space for other possibilities really such a tiny minority? If you don't allow space for other possibilities (as in, you teach your kids that anyone who does not believe as you believe is simply wrong and misguided), can you explain why?

 

There is a difference between an open mind and an informed mind. In fact, the Hebrew word for "open" is used to refer to the naive in the Proverbs.

 

We do not belittle people of other faiths or speak about them in derogatory terms. I did not become a Christian for many years; it had no captivation for me. I understand something about holding other views, having a lack of interest in Christianity and thinking of committed Christians as a bit unusual.

 

Finally, when we encounter differing views that do not align with what the Bible teaches, we discuss why. For example, recently someone argued:

 

At

John 1:1

there are two occurrences of the Greek noun

the·os'

(god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [

lo'gos

] was with God [a form of

the·os'

]"). This first

the·os'

is preceded by the word

ton

(the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God"). On the other hand, there is no article before the second

the·os'

at

John 1:1

. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second

the·os'

(a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god."

The Watchtower Bible Society society translates John 1:1 in this fashion. However, there is no article before the word theos in verse 1:18 either. if the word theos without the article means "a god" why does the Watchtower fail to translate verse 1:18 using the words "a god"? The Watchtower is not consistent in its translation, because reading 1:18 "No man has seen a god at any time" would contradict what has just been said in verses 1-18. Therefore, the Watchtower is not being consistent when it argues so strongly about verse 1:1.

 

Many arguments can readily be eliminated just general observation of the argument, simple study of the Bible and rudimentary understanding of logic.

 

I realize that others have differing views they hold them for various reasons. My only wish is that they would base them on something other than whim or feeling. These matters are too important to treat lightly. There really is a great deal of evidence to support the Christian faith, but most people don't think about it in that manner. The evidence is not so strong that it will force someone to believe if he will not, but their is ample evidence to support the Christian faith.

 

Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility. All that Christianity professes is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid and the serious inquirer. (Bishop Wilson, The Evidences of Christianity, p. 38).

 

We probably disagree, but now you may have a better understanding of why.