Friday, March 18, 2011

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Biblical Contradictions




Faithful Thinkers: Video: Biblical Contradictions

20 comments:

  1. Was this supposed to be an example of the Petitio Principii Fallacy? I wasn't sure since you've been reposting a lot on fallacies all of a sudden.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you think that the video is begging the question, then maybe you did not understand the question being asked.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "maybe you did not understand the question being asked."

    To quote the guy from the youtube video, "Someone says why do you believe the bible is accurate? In other words what it says is true and is binding on all of us... because Jesus said so and he was raised from the grave."

    Yeah, that's not circular at all...

    For your edification: Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven [in this case, the accuracy of the bible] is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise [i.e. we know Jesus was raised from the dead because the bible says so, we know the bible is accurate because Jesus was raised from the dead and he says so, round and round and round...]

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for proving you didn't understand the point of the video. The Point of the video was not proving that Jesus was raised from the dead. It was about why we can believe the Bible is true and doesn't have contradictions. The problem is yours because you are asking for Proving the Resurrection and that is a separate proposition that is not being dealt with here. You think that the only proof and evidence for the Resurrection is in the Bible, but that is not true. Sure that can be debated and discussed - but that was not the point of the video. Please try to keep up.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I knew you'd say something like that, your pride won't let you do otherwise.

    I never said the point was to prove the resurrection. My point was that the youtube apologist committed the petitio principii due to the fact that he used the bible to prove the accuracy of the bible. Non-biblical evidence for the resurrection (no one ever presents this for whatever reason) is besides the point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You said "Thanks for proving you didn't understand the point of the video. The Point of the video was not proving that Jesus was raised from the dead. It was about why we can believe the Bible is true and doesn't have contradictions."

    After I quoted "Someone says why do you believe the bible is accurate? In other words what it says is true and is binding on all of us... because Jesus said so and he was raised from the grave."

    So clearly I understood the point. Your pride is a source of much conversation, amusement, and a tiny bit of sadness.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You do not understand the point of the video. The pride is yours. You are saying that they tried to prove that the Bible is true with the Bible but they did not do that. The point was that we should believe the Bible due to the credentials of Jesus Christ. You claim that they used what the Bible says to establish those credentials and the video does no such thing. In one minute they did not cover why we should believe Jesus. We should believe the Bible not because The Bible says so but because Jesus said so. I'm praying that God opens your eyes and your mind. They are closed by your pride and arrogance and presuppositions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The point was that we should believe the Bible due to the credentials of Jesus Christ.

    And just where do you find Jesus' credentials?

    We should believe the Bible not because The Bible says so but because Jesus said so.

    Again, where does Jesus say so?

    ReplyDelete
  9. As a side note, putting aside the blatant petitio principii aside, John 10:35 would only cover what we know now as the old testament, and Matthew 24:35 would only cover the gospels so you are left with Acts, all the Epistles and Revelation which should not necessarily be believed because Jesus said so.

    Just something to consider, but please, focus on my last post, I want to know where you think we find Jesus' credentials.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As a side note, putting aside the blatant petitio principii aside, John 10:35 would only cover what we know now as the old testament, and Matthew 24:35 would only cover the gospels so you are left with Acts, all the Epistles and Revelation which should not necessarily be believed because Jesus said so.

    Many so called Bible "contradictions" come from the Old Testament and I can't even remember an example raised from Acts, all the Epistles, or Revelation.

    Just something to consider, but please, focus on my last post, I want to know where you think we find Jesus' credentials.

    Everyone agrees that Jesus was a first century Rabbi, and even Jews and Muslim today agree that he believed, taught, and agreed with the Old Testament. It's agreed that he was crucified, the tomb was empty, and that his followers say that he rose bodily from the dead. These are extrabiblical facts. Beyond question. You claimed that the extrabiblical attestation are not relevant but just because you can't deal with them do not mean they are not relevant.

    The best credentials for Jesus comes from personal relationship and experience which you have not had and just because you have not had it does not mean no one has. I know personally many people who have and do. The point is you can have that born-again personal and real experience so you will know Jesus is who He says He is.

    ReplyDelete
  11. These are extrabiblical facts.

    No, they are not. You seem to miss the point that if not for the gospels and Paul, Jews and Muslims today would not necessarily agree (or even be aware) that people believed Jesus was crucified, his tomb was empty, and that his followers said that he rose bodily from the dead.

    Please cite a source for the resurrection that does not rely on the new testament writings.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Last thing, someone can still commit a logical fallacy while making their own argument even if there exists a stronger, fallacy free argument.

    I believe it's your pride that keeps you from seeing this. Or maybe it's just embarrassment that you reposted such a flawed argument (I guess that's still related to pride).

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think it's your pride and selective amnesia that prevents you from remembering that we have been over this ground before. Remember Mariano's list of extrabiblical citations of Jesus? We discussed it. You have to admit that there is more than one and given the combination of Josephus and Tacitus and Talmud alone is enough to establish what I stated as extrabiblical facts.

    Here let me help you your memory.

    http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/06/jesus-in-quran.html

    http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/07/manuscript-attestation-for-new.html

    Last thing, someone can still commit a logical fallacy while making their own argument even if there exists a stronger, fallacy free argument.

    I agree, just like you can reject a premise to that argument. You can cry "fallacy" all you like and/or raise arguments but the bottom line is the video was not attempting to prove that the Bible is true only that there is no contradictions. Related, but not the same exact thing. The flawed argument is yours and you will always be flawed as long as you continue to rebel against the One who created you and loves you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You have to admit that there is more than one and given the combination of Josephus and Tacitus and Talmud alone is enough to establish what I stated as extrabiblical facts.

    I said the resurrection, not his possible existence.

    Marcus said "the bottom line is the video was not attempting to prove that the Bible is true only that there is no contradictions."

    guy from Youtube said "Someone says why do you believe the bible is accurate? In other words what it says is TRUE and is binding on all of us...

    Did you even watch it? It was only 2 minutes long. But I guess you must not have, given your current "interest" in fallacies, you'd think if you actually watched it you would have spotted the petitio principii right off.

    ReplyDelete
  15. guy from Youtube said "Someone says why do you believe the bible is accurate? In other words what it says is TRUE and is binding on all of us...

    Did you even watch it? It was only 2 minutes long. But I guess you must not have, given your current "interest" in fallacies, you'd think if you actually watched it you would have spotted the petitio principii right off.


    The context was about "Contradictions" in the Bible. Did you watch it? The question being asked was how do you deal with bible contradictions and I would not equivocate as you have done. Your objection has nothing to do with the subject of the video. If you want to extend the talk about that, contact them and ask them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 15 post ago you could have just said "You know what, you are right, that is circular, my bad".

    It's very funny that you are apparently incapable of doing something as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 17 posts ago you failed to see the whole point of the video.

    I'll keep praying for you however. Hopefully God will have mercy of you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's pretty clear I didn't. But you think whatever you need to think.

    ReplyDelete