bfniii

if a miracle did happen, is there a reason why i should devote my life to mohammed?

bfniii

the position that no one can know what happened during any one particular period of antiquity and therefore no one can say whether an event really hapenned or not. that person would base their decisions on lack of historical facts from a particular place or time.

what is continually escaping you that i am pointing out is that you are making historical claims and this response proves it. alternate versions of history represented here are that people don't come back to life after death or that the person didn't even exist in the first place. although you can't see it, you are advocating alternate versions of history. one is that if there was a Jesus, He wasn't crucified or that He was crucified and didn't rise. another would be that there wasn't a Jesus.

why do you ask for proof or evidence of a miracle? what form would that proof come in?

that's not what my statement said. what i said is that the fact that you question one particular version of history presupposes that you favor another, otherwise the questions would never even come up.

what are these contradictions?

how long is long?

why do they have titles today?

you know this for a fact?

what would these errors be?

as i asked in the beginning of this thread, what reason do we have to believe otherwise?

i have asked why you think it is mythological. i have asked if the bible is false, what is true?

is it accurate to compare homer's work to the bible?

this is an incorrect inference. you infer that the bible recounts the impossible which is not the case. the bible claims that an omnipotent god performed miracles which is certainly not impossible. the question then becomes why you do or don't believe in a supernatural god, not the credibility of the bible.

the fact that you presume it to be fictional is the reason why your claim should be questioned.

that of asking for proof (that even you haven't shown can exist) and then claiming your claims don't require proof. what's even worse is that you can't even admit that your claims are claims.

certainly

bfniii

if that's the case, then how did christians get the idea that the gospel authors and paul saw Jesus resurrected?

i'm not sure 50 years is accurate. even so, why is that a problem for you?

i take it you have proof that matthew didn't have first hand knowledge of the account.

are you saying the bible is true?

is it sound to:
1. require proof of miracles
2. claim the bible is false but then say you're not making a claim
3. misinterpret the bible and then claim it contradicts itself
4. claim that because you perceive errors and contradictions exist, they can never be clarified by apologists
5. assume that what other first century authors wrote is reasonably true but what the authors in the bible wrote is false

how do you know what josephus wrote is true? if you don't, why use his work to determine if the bible is true?

besides, what is considered proof? how true is true? i have seen several people use "reasonably" as a qualifier. how is that not subjective?

how so?

no specifics? is that because you have none?

1. How do we know the author is reliable?
2. How do we know it is trustworthy?
3. How do we know it wasn't doctored?
4. If it corroborates the claim, it wouldn't be independent. how would that not constitute an appeal to numbers?

what archaeological evidence could exist of the resurrection?

what impossible claims does the bible make (not counting miracles since god is certainly capable of performing them)?

what other than the gospels would you expect from eyewitnesses?

corroboration by definition is not independent. even if it did exist, skeptics could claim it was trumped up.

this is supposed to be sound methodology? this is a historical indictment?

Diogenes the Cynic

Ok, I'll start a new thread later tonight examining the case for eyewitness testomony and historical credibility in the NT.

This isn't really true. We certainly can prove whether some things did or didn't happen. But if a part of history is unknown (and some parts of the gospels are provable fictions not just unproven history) then assertions about it must be proven...especially when those assertions include the fantastic and the impossible.
I haven't offered an alternate version of anything. I'm only pointing out that your version doesn't hold water. I haven't asserted that Jesus didn't exist, I've said only that you haven't proven he existed. I've also pointed out that there are no first hand or contemporaneous accounts for the resurrection. You can't prove that single human being ever claimed to have seen this particular dead guy come back to life.
What kind of ridiculous question is this? Do you just automatically believe any and all miraculous claims without proof? If the answer is yes, then I must tell you that Jesus appeared to me in my corn flakes this morning and told me he wanted you to send me all your money. Do you believe me or do you want proof?

By the way, some independant corroboration for things like the zombie assault on Jerusalem would help the credibility of those claims. Kind of funny that nobody ever noticed that at the time.

It means no such thing. It means only that I don't believe your version. I have a choice between A and "unknown." A is demonstably false so we are left with "unknown."
I will enumerate some in the new thread.
Between 40-70 years after the alleged crucifixion, at a minimum.
2nd century tradition.
Yes.
See the new thread later tonight.
Myriad contradictions, demonstrable fictions, errors, anachronisms, and claims of fantastic and impossible events.
What is true about what? Be more specific. If Homer is mythological, what is true?
Absolutely.
This is a laughable tautology. You can't get yourself out of the impossible box by inventing a creature who can do the impossible.
That's not a presumption, it's an informed conclusion. There's a huge difference.

Diogenes the Cynic

The Gospel writers didn't say anything about Paul but the Pauline corpus may have been the basis for the more elaborate Appearance fictions. More specifically, Mark wrote first one and the rest copied Mark.
It's not a problem for me it's a problem you....specifically for your assertions that there were any contemporary, first hand accounts of the resurrection.
First of all this is a backwards demand for evidence. It is you who wants to attach a specific name to an anonymous book, so it is you who must prove it (can you prove the book was not written by Barney of Fife?).

However, as it happens, there is some pretty strong evidence that Matthew was not an eyewitness and none whatsoever that he was. He doesn;'t even make that claim for himself. More on this in the new thread later.
Huh?
Yes.
I'm not making a claim for an alternate story to the Bible, and none is required to show that the proffered one is false.
How have I "misinterpreted" the Bible. There are definitite, irreconcilable contradictions. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
I'm hoping you can bring some of these apologies on in the new thread. I doubt you've got any new ones but it's always fun to take a little batting practice.
I've made no such assumption.
Josephus is corroborated by other physical and documentary evidence.
You don't, necessarily, but overall reliability isn't an issue when it comes to independent corroboration.
How is this different from question 1?
The onus is on you to show that it was doctored.
You don't seem to understand what independent corroboration means. If two authors both mention something independently of each other - if they were not aware of each other - then you've got yourself some independent corroboration.

Haven't I already explained this?
In this case, you wouldn't expect much archaeologically, more like documentary.
Miracles are, by definition, physically impossible events. If they are natural events, they can't be miracles. And conjecturing a powerful, magic fairy to perform your impossible feats does not make them less impossible.
You don't even have gospels that were written by eywitnesses. I'd be happy to examine any eyewitness testimony of Jesus you can find. I'm not picky. There is no such testimony in the Bible, though.
Don't use terminology if you don't know what it means. I have explained the meaning of independent corroboration twice already. You should understand it by now.
Sound methdology, yes. I have no idea what you mean by "indictment."

bfniii

i haven't insisted anything. i'm just asking why anyone should listen to a skeptic when they snipe at the bible without having the guts to provide their own version of events and some facts to back it up. I’m really asking a skeptic to prove anything. Anything at all.

what kind of evidence of the resurrection could exist?

Even if they legitimately claim that, is it correct? I can see someone being agnostic and saying there isn’t enough facts to know for sure or someone saying x isn’t as plausible as y for z reasons, but not both as you state here.

And I can cite people who don’t say that, so we’re name dropping which gets us nowhere. Let’s figure out what is true and why.

I have done no such thing. I merely pose the question why anyone should take any stock in such an unfalsifiable approach.

This is what I mean by agnosticism. If you believe this, then NO account is verifiably true to you, biblical or not.

Maybe they should

But that’s not what has been done here, especially by Diogenes or rlogan.

I guess the “inanely stupid things� is what is in question.

As I have stated, the miraculous claims of the bible are beyond the purview of science because they are not repeatable in a controlled environment where they can be qualified/quantified. Therefore, they should be excluded from historical consideration. The people who make the accounts are a different story. They certainly can be scrutinized. In this case, do you have reason to believe the authors in the bible are lying or mistaken? Furthermore, the miracles are more subject to metaphysical analysis than historical.

Why is it that you say Christians can’t use historical analysis to prove a biblical claim, but skeptics can use historical analysis to refute it? Skeptics point to lack of extrabiblical corroboration but Christians can’t point to lack of equal but opposite refutation.

I disagree.
1. how can we be sure they even wrote what is attributed to them?
2. how can we be sure their works weren’t altered?
3. how can we be sure they weren’t mistaken?
4. in the case of identifying one particular event, if they both agree on that specific event, they aren’t opponents and therefore aren’t “independent�.

Your assumption that this is an indictment is unnecessary. They can still be historically accurate, reliable and trustworthy.

So say some

by certain people

Not necessarily for above listed reasons.

This type of critique is quite subjective. Who decides whether an author is being objective or not?

That’s funny. My bible says matthew, mark, luke and john

Assigned by whom? Where did they get their info from?

What other first century works ascribed to this practice?

According to whom?

What if I told you not everyone believes that?

How is that a problem? who decides how much impact He should have had?

Really? What failure would that be?

Should they have? We’ve been over this one a lot throughout this thread. It’s been shown that it would have been out of character to do so.

How so?

Does the bible give you reason to believe there should be that type of evidence? Is there any other reason why there should be that type of evidence? So far, archaeology has been a good friend to the bible despite what finkelstein conjectures.

I have observed many assumptions in your post. Maybe you should question what you have read and been told a little more.

bfniii

perhaps you could point out where the misrepresentation is

he has? maybe you should read back through this thread and show me where i mistakenly derived these ideas from.

no response to the challenge? pity.

is there a reason you come to a debate and don't debate, just insult?

Diogenes the Cynic

bfniii,

Just a word to let you know that my Gospel critique thread is in the workshop and will be finished sometime tomorrow.

Family Man

Why should anyone listen to a skeptic even though we can't "prove" an alternative version of events? Because it isn't necessary for us to prove anything at all. All we have to do is to demonstrate that your version of events are impossible or highly unlikely. If you claim that you had lunch with aliens and had 500 anonymous eyewitnesses to back you up, I don't think too many people would demand that we provide an "alternative scenario". Your claim is clearly insufficient.

Actually, that's why history doesn't include supernatural events as historical ones: there can't be evidence by normal standards.

That's why I said "fairly certain". I'm not claiming that history can claim anything with absolute certainly; I'm merely claiming that supernatural events such as the resurrection cannot be claimed to have happened as a historical event. Believe it if you must, but please don't pervert the historical method to do so.

I just made an offer. I doubt that your names are little more than apologists, but I have no problem with your approach.

You have done such a thing, by "merely posing the question." And the methodology is not unfalsifiable. All you have to do is to find some evidence that backs up the biblical account. The fact that such evidence doesn't exist is your problem, not ours.

You are clearly misunderstanding my position. Please look at the world I bolded. There are accounts that are verifiably true for many ancient accounts; your problem is that the gospel accounts are not one of them.

Then it would be your burden to show that they should, don't you think? In the mention, adopting standards just so you can think that the gospels are true doesn't strike me as the soundest of methodologies.

You mistake my meaning, I fear. By plausible explanations, I don't mean exact accounts that describe exactly what happened. I mean that we can imagine ways that are more likely, and that fit within the realm of human experience, than the problematic accounts being considered.

No, it isn't. That people come to believe inanely stupid things is rather obvious. That a small group of people could come to falsely believe that a charismatic preacher is a resurrected god is no more implausible than a small group of people believing that by committing suicide they'll be instantly transported to a spaceship hiding behind a comet. Just the fact that people routinely stupid things is enough to suggest that there are other possibilities for resurrection belief other than the given gospel accounts. The same is not true for many other events reported in ancient sources.

There is no difference between saying that "miraculous claims of the belief are beyond the purview of science" (though that ought to be historical analysis) and the people who make such claims. You can't separate the two. Any claim made in any book is made by a person.

And, yes, I do have reason to believe that the gospel writers lied, though they wouldn't have seen it that way. They reported events that no one could have possibly witnessed. Consider the birth narratives: anyone who witnessed that would have been dead a long time by the time the gospels were written. And there is clear evidence of embellishments: stars hanging out over mangers (that no one else in the world seemed to have noticed), the wise men themselves, Herod's slaughter of innocents (again, not noticed by anyone else), strange and unnecessary movements to other cities for tax collection purposes, not to mention virgin births, all of which suggest embellishment. And this is just one example. Oh, yes, there are many sound reasons to distrust the gospel narratives.

You can for ordinary biblical events, but you can't for supernatural ones, because that's not history. But even for ordinary events, it is only the positive claim that can be evaluated. If I claim to have eaten Post Toasties this morning, and this happened to be important, it would be my burden to demonstrate that I did. It would be unreasonable to demand that you "refute" such a claim since you have no access to evidence one way to another, and it would be unreasonable for us to expect you to find any. Your demand for "equal and opposite refutation" is silly and not a demand of historical analysis.

Ah, a hyperskeptic I see. Have you considered the consequences of this demand on the biblical position? Essentially, you could kiss any hope of demonstrating biblical accuracy right there if you really made such demands.

But let's clear one point up. Historians don't doubt everything that written. They combine the standards I described with what is written to come up with a judgement on the accuracy of the work. In other words, they wouldn't doubt that Caesar wrote his Histories unless they have a good reason to doubt that he didn't -- i.e. some of the standards I mentioned were regularly violated. Some benefit of the doubt is usually given, just not to the demand that Christians want. I suspect an overwhelming majority of historians would agree that Jesus was crucified, even though the evidence is poor. However, the resurrection would not be considered to be historical. Claims have to be judged on an individual basis.

But, in fact, historians can and do answer your questions. I'm not an expert on this, but I think the answer would be these:

1. Caesar and Cicero were very famous men who were commented and quoted by many other people. That their works reflect what we know of them for other sources is enough to establish their authorship.
2. Textual analysis reveals this. That's how we know that Josephus was altered.
3. They were all mistaken? Now you're getting silly.
4. Would not even be a consideration. A democrat and a republican agreeing that George Bush was elected president in 2004 hardly makes them allies.

If this was the only problem with the gospels, you'd have a point. It is not the only problem, and the lack of independence is a consideration.

There is considerable and serious scholarship that demonstrates that Matthew and Luke is a rewrite of Mark and that John is historically useless. These are not crackpot, atheistic theories, however much you'd like to imply that they are.

Of course they're subjective. This is history, not science. That is why there are standards and scholarly debates. But, generally speaking, when a source is clearly promoting a point of view rather than reporting events is a red-flag to the historian that maybe the claim ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Do you seriously suggesting that such a standard is unreasonable and can't be applied reasonably?

More hyperskepticism. I've read several texts on the subject, as well as a college level course, and there is a clear, scholarly consensus that the titles of the books were added in the late second century. Although the books were clearly quoted in earlier works, none of them were ever identified by names. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are just names, not the real authors.

Then I'd tell you that those people need to brush up on their critical thinking skills and read more carefully.

It's a problem because it makes the evaluation of the claims about him much more difficult to accomplish. We have reams of materials about famous Roman figures, but very little about Jesus.

For example, his preaching in Galilee produced much skepticism and little support. Even his family rejected him. And, of course, he was crucified. It was only the post-mortem spin that was a success.

If there were no Christian religion, Jesus would have remained anonymous. And, no, the Christian religion is not evidence that Jesus was what the gospel writers claimed he was.

No, it doesn't matter whether the bible gives me reason to believe something or not. You asked for standards. This is one of them. The lack of archeological evidence is not a point in favor of the gospel accounts.

Well, that's rather ironic coming from someone who clearly takes his gospels at face value. You've observed nothing but sound reasoning and accurate reflection of scholarship in my posts, your hyperskepticism notwithstanding. The fact remains that there are standards that historians use (which you conveniently clipped) and that the gospel stories don't meet them. And that's your problem, not ours.

bfniii

All of the participants?

Given the fact that only a limited number of people agree that there are contradictions and failed prophecies, I would say that the reasonableness of the explanations is in question.

Is that necessary? If so, why?

Your starting point is that the gospels are fiction. If so, how do we know anything from that time period is true?

You’re moving the goalposts. What I mean is that whatever year Christians claimed He was crucified, “he was crucified 3 years ago� for example, it could be shown that at that time He wasn’t even in Judea.

You are stating here that apologists fail to mention refutations which is not true. Even your own response acknowledges that they respond to the very criticism you cite, evolution. I ask again, which ones do apologists ignore?

Now come on. This seems a stretch. I doubt very seriously that you could show this to be absolutely true.

I have illuminated this tautology before. Christians didn’t completely preserve arguments of opponents. We know this because they don’t exist. They don’t exist because Christians didn’t preserve them. Perhaps you could show me if I’m missing some details in this unfalsifiable position.

These councils didn’t decide canon, canon was already de facto existing. They merely codified what was already known to be true.

Is there a reason why that book should be canonical?

Considering so few people were actually writing historical accounts in the first and second centuries (as compared to current media overload), it would seem they did a pretty good job.

You are assuming that the story was propagated no further than the eyewitnesses themselves. If the eyewitnesses did indeed interact with other people, as the bible suggests, then it shouldn’t have been too hard to find them. It has long been understood that the Christian message was disseminated fairly rapidly. “the way� may have started small, but it didn’t remain so for very long.

These have been my responses:
1. since miracles are not scientific, they are excluded from indicting the bible as erroneous.
2. apart from the miracles, how is the bible less credible than any first century work when standard historical analyses are applied?
3. if the gospels are untrue, how do we know any first century work is true?

Perhaps you could show a picture of a current map that has the word “Babylon� on it. I can’t seem to find one.

Is there a reason why you take this prophecy, the Canaanite language, to be literal as opposed to figurative? Most prophecies are not literal.

Again we see you taking a literalistic approach to the phrase “never be found again� which would more properly be rendered in today’s vernacular, “not ever the same as it was�.

I can see where you derive so much confusion over biblical prophecies. You seem to be looking for whatever semantic derivation shows the prophecy didn’t happen.

The entire book was completed afterwards, or just the prophecy against tyre?

So far, that’s all that has been demonstrated.

That’s the point of the entire thread.

Would that have been necessary for that fact to be known?

In this thread, which is certainly the case

You gave a general statement, that of Farrell till. I’m asking for a specific.

How did anyone ever get the idea that they are eyewitness accounts? Why has that been a long-held belief? Evidently, many people think that they are. I’m asking you why you think they aren’t.

This response doesn’t answer the question asked. Christianity developed from the alleged events of Jesus’ ministry. The bible is supposed to be a chronicle of that development. If so, why wouldn’t the bible be the basis of Christianity?