My good friend and fellow Central Florida Chesterton Society member Brandon Vogt hosts a blog called Strange Notions. He posted a call for atheists to ask any question of a Catholic Bible scholar SEE LINK BELOW.

Please use the link. Don't post your questions here for me to pass along.


Thanks


Ask Me Anything

He can't be asked a question for public forum. How weak!

Almost as weak as your God bob

But at least I didn't sit by and do nothing while thousands of boys were abused by my army of priests

Brother Bob, perhaps my post was not clear-STRANGE NOTIONS IS a public forum with a significant following including many atheists. In fact, STRANGE NOTIONS frequently features articles by atheists. My request not to post questions here was to avoid my acting as the intermediary.

Here is a sample of the comments in response to the request so far. These are not the answers-just comments I copied and pasted here.

92 Comments
Strange Notions
Login
1
Recommend 1
Share
Sort by Oldest

Attach
LOG IN WITH





OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS




−
Avatar
Jim (hillclimber)
a day ago
To my understanding, there is now reasonable scholarly consensus that the Gospels are best understood as belonging to the genre of bioi or Graeco-Roman biography. First of all, do you agree that this is a correct and useful classification? If so, what are some of the most noteworthy differences between that genre and the genre of modern historical biography? In particular, what liberties might we reasonably expect authors of bioi to take that a modern biographer would not, and what are some of the literary devices might we expect authors of bioi to use that modern biographers would not?
6 Reply
−
Avatar
OverlappingMagisteria
21 hours ago
To what extent do you believe that the gospels record history vs theology? For example, Matthew 27:51-53 tells of the tombs in Jerusalem being opened and saints walking out and appearing to many people. My understanding is that the author of Matthew is not recording an event that actually happened, but making a theological point about resurrection. Similar things have been said about the nativity stories. How much of the gospels actually happened and how much was written in to support a belief?
7 Reply
−
Avatar
Ignatius Reilly OverlappingMagisteria
21 hours ago
And, how do you know the difference between historical happenings and theological points?
4 Reply
−
Avatar
neil_pogi OverlappingMagisteria
17 hours ago
http://www.biblicalperspective...

http://www.biblicalperspective...
0 Reply
−
Avatar
Steven Dillon
20 hours ago
The earliest testimony we have regarding Christ's burial seems to be that of St. Paul's recorded in Acts 13:27-29 wherein he states that Christ was taken down from the cross and buried in a tomb by non-Christian Jews who sought his execution. Does this testimony conflict with the Gospel reports that Christ received an honorable burial, and if it does, which testimony is to be regarded as historically reliable?
2 Reply
−
Avatar
neil_pogi Steven Dillon
17 hours ago
minor or major discrepancies don't count as evidence that they were not reliable.

http://www.biblicalperspective...

http://www.biblicalperspective...
0 Reply
−
Avatar
TomFromMD Steven Dillon
13 hours ago
I see that as a pretty narrow reading. "The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus...they asked Pilate to have him executed ...When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb" The people of Jerusalem is a pretty big group. Certainly, they didn't all take him down from the cross and lay him in a tomb. This would have been done by just a few people. So it seems reasonable to me that "they" doesn't indicate the same exact set of people for all three of those statements. Rather, a large set of the people of Jerusalem (the group as a generality) did not recognize Jesus, and some set of the people of Jerusalem asked for Pilate to have him executed (probably a subset of the first group). Later, some set of the people of Jerusalem (or their rulers) took him down and laid him in a tomb. As an analogy, the people of America voted for President Bush, and later voted for President Obama. But I'll bet there wasn't an enormous overlap - probably just a few percent.
0 Reply
−
Avatar
Steven Dillon TomFromMD
9 hours ago
I agree that "they" doesn't indicate the same exact set of people for all three of the statements. But, my claim was just that according to the text, non-Christian Jews who sought his execution were the ones who buried Christ. Paul doesn't specify how many of these folks were involved, but he seems clear that it was non-believers who buried Christ.
0 Reply
−
Avatar
Shawn Pierce
20 hours ago
A question that was posed to me by an agnostic/atheist friend of mine was this: "How can I believe in a book (the Bible) that is written mostly by men?" While I don't consider the claim a debunking of the Bible's historicity, it points to a cultural reason why some may be averse to the Bible and reading it. Many may find the answer, whatever that may be, to offer a keener historical lens when reading the Bible.
0 Reply
−
Avatar
Brandon Vogt Shawn Pierce
20 hours ago
"How can I believe in a book (the Bible) that is written mostly by men?"
To clarify, by using the word "men", do you think your friend doubts the reliability of the Bible because it was written by males (as opposed to females) or humans (as opposed to God/gods)? Thanks!
2 Reply
−
Avatar
Shawn Pierce Brandon Vogt
16 hours ago
Sorry, I see the need for clarification. He meant males, not men as in humanity. It was the first I have ever heard someone use that as an argument against the Bible. I was quite taken aback and was unsure how to move the conversation on from there.
0 Reply
−
Avatar
neil_pogi Shawn Pierce
17 hours ago
maybe because women were busy doing their household chores, and at that time, women are not entitled to several rights, including the right to writing.
0 Reply
−
Avatar
Shawn Pierce neil_pogi
16 hours ago
Neil, that could be some of the reason. I'm going to need to do a little research into Jewish society, in particular the roles of women.
0 Reply
−
Avatar
ben Shawn Pierce
11 hours ago
Your "friend" needs to ask rather:
1. What was the status of women in the whole world at that time?
2. If the status and dignity of women has been elevated, when, where, in what culture? In Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or Christianity?
0 Reply
−
Avatar
SpaceGhoti
19 hours ago
Why should I believe any of the supernatural claims made in the Bible?
1 Reply
−
Avatar
Brandon Vogt SpaceGhoti
18 hours ago
Thanks for the questions, but it's very broad. Mind asking about one specific supernatural claim?
1 Reply
−
Avatar
William Davis Brandon Vogt
18 hours ago
In the past, I have tried and failed to get comments on this miracle from Mark 9. It seems to be a text book case of epilepsy, though it was deemed and "unclean spirit". I'll quote for clarity

17 Someone from the crowd answered him, “Teacher, I brought you my son; he has a spirit that makes him unable to speak; 18 and whenever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they could not do so.” 19 He answered them, “You faithless generation, how much longer must I be among you? How much longer must I put up with you? Bring him to me.” 20 And they brought the boy[e] to him. When the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy,[f] and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 Jesus[g] asked the father, “How long has this been happening to him?” And he said, “From childhood. 22 It has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you are able to do anything, have pity on us and help us.” 23 Jesus said to him, “If you are able!—All things can be done for the one who believes.” 24 Immediately the father of the child cried out,[h] “I believe; help my unbelief!” 25 When Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You spirit that keeps this boy from speaking and hearing, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!” 26 After crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, “He is dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he was able to stand. 28 When he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, “Why could we not cast it out?” 29 He said to them, “This kind can come out only through prayer.”
Symptoms of a grand mal seizure (specific list from Mayo clinic here) include convulsions, foaming at the mouth, screaming, and loss of consciousness after the seizure. Epilepsy usually starts to show in childhood, just as the story suggests.
First question, if Jesus were divine, why would he call a neurological disorder an unclean spirit? The disciples new something was different, as likely other "unclean spirits" were simply psychosomatic and believing you are healed would potentially result in actual healing, placebo can be quite powerful. Second question, how can we have confidence the boy was actually healed? Jesus and the disciples left the town right after according to the next verse, and an extended period of observation would be required to have any idea if the condition had improved.
Epilepsy has often been confused for demon possession. Here is a terrible case where a poor epileptic girl died during prolong attempts at exorcism. The priests were found guilty negligent homicide.
see more
4 Reply
−
Avatar
Brandon Vogt William Davis
18 hours ago
Do you think it's possible that the narrative could be describing a case which *both* involves epilepsy and an unclean spirit? That unclean spirits, if they exist, could cause some, but not all, epileptic seizures?
2 Reply
−
Avatar
Rick Bateman Brandon Vogt
18 hours ago
Isn't that contrary to Occam's Razor? (If we already have a well-established explanation for something, it doesn't make sense to add an additional hypothesis that hasn't been validated.)
4 Reply
−
Avatar
Brandon Vogt Rick Bateman
17 hours ago
Great question, Rich. I don't think it violates Occam's Razor because I agree with Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and other classical thinkers that 1) there are multiples forms of causality (material, efficient, formal, final) and therefore 2) to identify one form of causality (i.e., to give one explanation) does not necessarily exhaust all forms of explanation.

For example, if you walked outside and saw a man on fire, sitting in the middle of the road, you would naturally wonder, why is that man on fire? Suppose your neighbor answered, "Oh, because he poured gasoline over himself and then lit a match. The gas and the match caused it."

You wouldn't be satisfied.

That may provide what Aristotle calls the “material cause” of the man on fire, but it doesn't give you the full picture. You're missing the other forms of causality, such as:

- Efficient cause (“The man set himself on fire, as opposed to someone else doing it. He was the cause of the immolation.”)

- Formal cause (”He set himself on fire because he was a political activist and wanted to be a visible, provocative symbol. That was the cause of the fire.”)

The title of that article is "Atheists: What Question Would You Ask a Catholic Biblical Scholar?" So why is Brandon Vogt answering so many of the questions? Has he deemed those inquiries unworthy of attention from the Catholic Biblical Scholar?

OK I went ahead and posted a question on Strange Notions, we'll see if it "makes the cut."

"...We know almost nothing about (Jesus); and of the little we know, what is most certain is that he was wrong - this last referred to his putative belief that the world would quickly come to an end."
- Huston Smith, The World's Religions

There are several passages where Jesus warns that some in his audience would see the kingdom of God in their lifetime. What are we to make of these incorrect predictions 2000+ years later?

LanDroid, that may be be a valid question-so, ask Brandon, or comment.