Stephen said
Your laughing reply is not appreciated, Stephen. You laugh alone because librarians across the world do not understand what your problem is.I wasn’t laughing at you Steefen.
Actually appeals to authority are not invalid if the subject being appealed to is an actual authority. if I say Prof Ehrman believes in Markan priority that is a valid appeal to authority. If I say that NT scholar Ehrman believes in ghosts that is an invalid appeal to authority. See the difference?
That is correct. In reality, most arguments, in a classical sense, rely on a host of already established points, and those points are generally already established by some kind of authority. They can be questioned, with sufficient reason, but it would be utterly impractical to literally build every argument from the very beginning of all points. There is also the problem that many points are a mixture of facts, evidence (sometimes of questionable value, and potentially even contradictory with other evidence of similar reliability) and reasonable conjecture (often based on some kind of expertise in summarizing or applying contextual information). This is especially true for information that delves deep into the past, where the passing of time is not kind to information. If I were to invoke Sean McDowell as a legitimate authority on almost any topic other than as an expert on his own views, or perhaps some detail of his own personal experience, I would justifiably be mocked for doing so.
Stephen said
Your laughing reply is not appreciated, Stephen. You laugh alone because librarians across the world do not understand what your problem is.I wasn’t laughing at you Steefen.
Actually appeals to authority are not invalid if the subject being appealed to is an actual authority. if I say Prof Ehrman believes in Markan priority that is a valid appeal to authority. If I say that NT scholar Ehrman believes in ghosts that is an invalid appeal to authority. See the difference?
You were laughing at people who consult encyclopedias and libraries that have them, particularly Britannica.
Does not sound like an apology worth accepting, Stephen.
Actually, nothing, Stephen. You do not need to try to add to what appeals to authority are. You have a credibility problem, a BIG credibility problem.
= = =
Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** .
Logical Form:
According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true.
Therefore, Y is true.
Example #1:
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it’s true.
Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn’t make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory.
Example #2:
How do I know the adult film industry is the third largest industry in the United States? Derek Shlongmiester, the adult film star of over 50 years, said it was. That’s how I know.
Explanation: Shlongmiester may be an industry expert, as well as have a huge talent, but a claim such as the one made would require supporting evidence. For the record, the adult film industry may be large, but on a scale from 0 to 12 inches, it’s only about a fraction of an inch.
Exception: Be very careful not to confuse “deferring to an authority on the issue” with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).
The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable.
Tip: Question authority — or become the authority that people look to for answers. Also see appeal to false authority.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
You were laughing at people who consult encyclopedias and libraries that have them, particularly Britannica.
Does not sound like an apology worth accepting, Stephen.
Actually, nothing, Stephen. You do not need to try to add to what appeals to authority are. You have a credibility problem, a BIG credibility problem.
I am despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and you hid as it were your face from me; I was despised, and you esteemed me not.
Surely I have borne your griefs, and carried your sorrows: yet you did esteem me stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But I was wounded for your transgressions, I was bruised for your iniquities: the chastisement of your peace was upon me; and with my stripes you are healed.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Does Hell exist?
If so, is the most important entity there Satan?
Does Satan have influence on Earth?
Was Jesus tempted by Satan?
Holly June Graves
no, no, no, no
Steefen
Well, that changes the Bible.
I’m still keeping my secular definition of Satan: a constructive Devil’s Advocate, adversary, personification/deification of constructive adversary and constructive criticism. Putting aside the reality of God and Satan, there are thought forms of God, St. Jude, and Satan. Second, there is evil in this world today that is off the charts. So, what are you going to say, Evil does not exist? Evil exists, but Satan does not? What about the dualism of human consciousness: angel on one shoulder / demon on the other shoulder? Christ in me / Satan in me. It works both ways. Drugged up person torturing another person. I’ve heard of bad things happening to children in the history of the Vatican and the children were killed to prevent exposure. Or the evil of ignorance: a pope drank the blood of young children because he actually needed a blood transfusion not drinking blood for salvation ala Holy Communion.
Steefen said
Dr. Ehrman,After having written Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, how would you answer this question,
Given these two definitions:
Secular Definition of Satan:
a constructive Devil’s Advocate, adversary, personification of constructive adversary and constructive criticism
Satan Defined in the Bible (** you do not have permission to see this link **):
an angel filled with violence and sin; disgraceful, banished, a prideful beauty, corrupted wisdom, a splendor, unjust, dishonest, profane, destroyer of nations, would-be usurper of God, dwells in Sheol (place for the souls of the dead)
Does Satan exist?
Thank you,
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Bart D.E.
Not sure what you are asking.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Does Hell exist?
If so, is the most important entity there Satan?
Does Satan have influence on Earth?
Was Jesus tempted by Satan?
Most important question: Is Satan real/does Satan exist?
Bart D.E.
You’re asking my opinion? No. No. No. No. and No. But these are religious/theological views, not historical ones, and for the most part I try to stick to history here.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
That would be more subtractions from the Biblical Jesus to the historical Jesus.
To get from the Biblical Jesus to the historical Jesus, sometimes the religious and theological views–and the mythological views–need to be subtracted.
Jesus’ value is to deliver us from evil and evil personified-deified as Anti-Christ and Satan.
(A feat of Jesus was God intervening in history. God’s Adversary also intervenes in history.)
Steefen said
Steve Campbell, author of Historical AccuracyDoes Hell exist?
If so, is the most important entity there Satan?
Does Satan have influence on Earth?
Was Jesus tempted by Satan?
Most important question: Is Satan real/does Satan exist?
Holly June Graves
no, no, no, no
Steefen
Well, that changes the Bible.
I’m still keeping my secular definition of Satan: a constructive Devil’s Advocate, adversary, personification/deification of constructive adversary and constructive criticism. Putting aside the reality of God and Satan, there are thought forms of God, St. Jude, and Satan. Second, there is evil in this world today that is off the charts. So, what are you going to say, Evil does not exist? Evil exists, but Satan does not? What about the dualism of human consciousness: angel on one shoulder / demon on the other shoulder? Christ in me / Satan in me. It works both ways. Drugged up person torturing another person. I’ve heard of bad things happening to children in the history of the Vatican and the children were killed to prevent exposure. Or the evil of ignorance: a pope drank the blood of young children because he actually needed a blood transfusion not drinking blood for salvation ala Holy Communion.
Holly June Graves
well, I’m not sure what to comment on here!
Let’s start with “evil”. Does it exist as some kind of malevolent force? No. People do evil things, not because some kind of devil tempts them to do so, but because of selfishness, ignorance, fear, mental illness, etc. To look upon human consciousness as dualistic is rather simplistic. Our choices are determined by a wide number of factors.
Todd Clark
Satan is real, and Hell is real.
Todd Clark
The Lord Jesus Christ is 100% Almighty God, The Creator of the universe. At the same time He is also 100 % human. He died on the cross, He was buried, and on the 3rd day He rose from the dead. There is ONLY ONE REASON why a person goes…
Steefen
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction, and in that fiction, he was a false prophet or a true prophet who turned atheist. Jesus ran afoul of Leviticus 17:10. No, Jesus was a false prophet. Bart Ehrman said Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. See Deut. Chapter 18 for how prophets are to be judged. As an apocalyptic prophet there was 1) prepare ye the way of the lord, repent, 2) tribulation in Jerusalem (First Jewish-Roman War and Jewish Civil War), 3) Judgement, 4) Son of Man and the glorious kingdom. #3 and #4 did not happen, hence, apocalypticism is a failed hypothesis and the apocalyptic prophets Jesus and Paul were false prophets.
Todd Clark
There is ONLY ONE REASON why a person goes to Hell, and that one and only reason is when a person dies having rejected The Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. ALL OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD, EVERY HUMAN BEING that reaches the point of accountability receives opportunity to accept The Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour.
Those that do will spend eternity in Heaven, those that die having rejected Christ will be tormented in the flames of Hell FOREVER. If a person is LGBT and they accept Christ as their personal Saviour, from that exact moment until eternity, they are NEVER again LGBT.
Alexandra Creasy
LOL
Steefen
(Wow, the rest of his post is–[I’ll have to think about that.])
Brandon Long
The more I listen to you [Bart Ehrman] the more nonsense and one-sided subtle attacks I see. Very unbecoming of a “scholar”.
(Another “Wow”, what is this about? !)
A “lot” of people in evangelical circles think that even though they are supposed to grow,
and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge,
and change their understandings as they get older
in every *other* aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the same
religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen year old?
(Oh, Brandon read Bart’s message as condescending.)
A “lot” of people in evangelical circles think that even though they are supposed to grow,
and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge,
and change their understandings as they get older
in every *other* aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the same
religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen year old?
Steefen
The beliefs are very wrong. Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction, and in that fiction, he was a false prophet who turned atheist. Jesus ran afoul of Leviticus 17:10. In the post-war fiction (where the wars were the First Jewish-Roman War and the Jewish Civil War), Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. See Deut. Chapter 18, verses 20-22 for how prophets are to be judged. As an apocalyptic prophet there was 1) prepare ye the way of the lord, repent and get baptized, 2) tribulation in Jerusalem (First Jewish-Roman War and Jewish Civil War), 3) Judgement by Son of Man, 4) Son of Man, king of the glorious kingdom of Heaven/God/Righteousness. // #3 and #4 did not happen, hence, apocalypticism is a failed hypothesis and the apocalyptic prophets Jesus and Paul were false prophets. (See Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell (available on amazon dot com and bn dot com) if you want information that backs this up.
The beliefs are very wrong. Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction, and in that fiction, he was a false prophet who turned atheist. Jesus ran afoul of Leviticus 17:10. In the post-war fiction (where the wars were the First Jewish-Roman War and the Jewish Civil War), Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. See Deut. Chapter 18, verses 20-22 for how prophets are to be judged. As an apocalyptic prophet there was 1) prepare ye the way of the lord, repent and get baptized, 2) tribulation in Jerusalem (First Jewish-Roman War and Jewish Civil War), 3) Judgement by Son of Man, 4) Son of Man, king of the glorious kingdom of Heaven/God/Righteousness. // #3 and #4 did not happen, hence, apocalypticism is a failed hypothesis and the apocalyptic prophets Jesus and Paul were false prophets. (See Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell (available on amazon dot com and bn dot com) if you want information that backs this up.
From what historical records did you learn that Jesus was an atheist?
Jesus turned atheist.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert