bfniii

how would additional verification:
NOT be an appeal to numbers
NOT be subject to falsification or unreliability

that there isn't doesn't prove the events didn't happen. secondly, according to other skeptics here, christianity was too obscure and too foolish to garner mention.

are there examples of "extensive documentation" of anything from that time? we see 4 different accounts of Jesus surviving today. what more would be needed to qualify as extensive?

one problem i have with this assertion is that when skeptics criticize any biblical verification (number of people who saw Jesus after resurrection, number of gospel accounts, etc) it is an appeal to numbers. but here you are advocating just that.

being difficult to believe does not mean the events didn't happen. "reality as we know it" does nothing to prevent an almighty deity from performing miracles. in addition, we don't see evidence of people successfully refuting miraculous biblical events.

there is some posturing going on in this response. not everyone is of the opinion that all we have is a mere 7 verses and that there was a separation of 200 years between them and what we have today.

if you're going to make general statements, should they not be supported by specifics?

in what way are the biblical testimonies not reliable?

how so?

correct me if i'm wrong, but earlier you advocated additional verification. would that not be hearsay?

i guess we disagree here.

an omnipotent God could do these things, yes.

i notice you didn't cover the specific points i posted.

i believe this question to be on topic. we're talking about lack of evidence being evidence. i'm asking you what constitutes evidence?

a purely naturalistic explanation does not satisfy all possible explanations.

apparently there were people who were aware of the situation. would you expect someone to write about it and why?

it was a general statement regarding what people place value on in the context of this topic.

Amaleq13

My advice would be to not waste your time with this thread. IMO, you would be better off joining this one since your position is more directly relevant. Or you could just wait a bit until yet another debate on the historicity of Jesus breaks out and get in on the ground floor. This one hasn't realized it is dead yet and I am clearly to blame because I keep plugging the damn iron lung back into the socket to keep this horse alive.

<click>

No, I consider that to be "compelling evidence". The notion of "proof" seems to me to suggest that no refutation is possible and I consider myself, as I have already stated, obligated by my reliance on reason to treat my conclusions as provisional (ie subject to change given sufficient evidence).

This is as meaningless as it is irrelevant to my position. No such thing as "irrefutable proof" is necessary to deny an inherently unlikely event occurred if there exists no reliable evidence that it did.

More directly relevant to the OP, I find that there is insufficient evidence supporting many Christian claims and that this insufficiency is, in and of itself, enough to deny those claims as being true.

I thought I made it clear earlier that I consider the conclusions of either side to be, ultimately, the result of a subjective judgment of the evidence.

There is nothing subjective, however, about recognizing that the logical approach of assessing claims by considering whether the evidence supports the affirmative is demonstrably more reliable than assuming the claim true and seeking contrary evidence sufficient to deny it.

That seems pretty obviously true for anyone considering your conclusions.

That is an irrational requirement. I encourage you to write directly to any of your preferred scholars and ask them if they consider, for example, their belief in eyewitness authorship of the Gospels to be a minority view among scholars who profess themselves to be Christian. To my knowledge, none of these scholars claim to be anything but in the minority with their views though some may redefine "Christian" so that anyone not agreeing fails to qualify. If you don't feel like asking them, directly, take a peek at the professional journals and see what is being claimed.

As I said before, I see no reason to suspect that sources like The Catholic Study Bible have any reason to fabricate such a claim about the nature of the scholarly consensus so I will continue to accept their assessment of it since it is consistent with my personal experience with the relevant scholarship.

I referred to Christian scholars so "Christian opposition" doesn't appear to be relevant. In addition, I'm not talking about what is "in the news". I'm talking about the consensus view of professional scholars and the fact that many self-professed Christians are part of that consensus. I offer this fact not as an argument for the truth of that view but as compelling evidence against any notion that the view results from an anti-Christian bias.

I cannot admit to what seems to me a misuse of the term "faith". I do not think Christian scholars who find the evidence to suggest that the Gospels were originally anonymous to base that conclusion on "faith". The notion appears to make no sense. Instead, they seem to me to be compelled by reason to accept that conclusion. "Faith" seems less appropriate than "confidence" in such a context.

I agree that such a claim is certainly inaccurate but, since I haven't made it I fail to see the relevance. What I have stated repeatedly is that there is no single "Christian view" of the evidence but a significant discrepancy that appears to have more to do with theological beliefs than the actual evidence. That I have repeatedly appealed to the fact that even Christian scholars accept these conclusions makes it clear that any claim of "anti-Christian bias" is wholly without merit.

bfniii,

You are free to have the last word because I solemnly promise, with my hand on my DVD copy of Dogma, not to beat this horse's corpse any further. :wave:

Sparrow

An appeal to numbers, or more accurately, an appeal to popularity, is claiming a proposition is true because a large number of people believe it to be true. Having multiple pieces of evidence is NOT an appeal to numbers. having multiple copies of the same document is not multiple pieces of evidence. All I’ve said is that IF there were more independent pieces of evidence (of the historicity of Jesus), the claim would be more likely to be true. As it is, we have very few pieces of evidence and the quality of that evidence is questionable. A case can be made that there is insufficient evidence to believe that Jesus existed. A different case could be made that there was an actual man named Jesus who possibly was a preacher, but he was not involved in any miracles, not resurrected and not the son of a god. And then there’s the common belief, which you appear to hold, which might be true, but the evidence is all questionable. By questionable I simply mean that if it were irrefutable, we would not find that 2/3 of the world’s population is non-Christian.
As I’ve said before, lack of evidence does not PROVE events did not happen. But we are reasonable to expect that miraculous events would get some notoriety. Speaking specifically about the birth narrative, did wise men come to the manger to bring gifts to the baby messiah? If so, why did none of them write about it?
Whether we have 4 different accounts or not is up for some debate.
No, I’m not. I honestly don’t understand why you can’t see that a single story claiming Jesus was seen by fifty people is different from fifty stories from people claiming each witnessed the event.
You seem hopelessly stuck on “it could have happened, therefore it did�.
That’s what I’ve seen from Christian sources. Feel free to do the research and report back. You can view images of P46 and P52 online. Take a look and find us a complete copy of any book of the new testament before 200CE.
[QUOTE=bfniii] if you're going to make general statements, should they not be supported by specifics?
You’re the one claiming they are eyewitness testimonies written immediately after the events. All I’m saying is that eyewitness testimony is not particularly reliable even if your claim is true ( and I don’t believe it is).
The accounts themselves do not contain a claim of eyewitness. The names of the ‘authors’ were, according to Christian sources, added in the fourth century. While it remains possible the gospel stories are eyewitness accounts, we cannot say for certain.
No, it would not be hearsay just as a result of being an additional point of evidence. It would be hearsay only if it contains a claim that cannot be independently or directly verified.
I know you think God could, but the question was did He (it)?
What specific points?
What is evidence for or against a claim depends on the nature of the claim. We generally find evidence from a source with no bias to be stronger than evidence from a potentially biased source. What evidence does exist for the story of Jesus was largely, if not entirely, under the control of those claiming the story was true. Not particularly strong in my view, but I recognize you feel differently.
I don’t understand this response.
Oh let’s see. A particular cultuire’s holy book suggests there will be a commin messiah. There’s a star parked over the city to lead the faithful to the place of birth, a manger, to bring gifts and offer their adoration. Why indeed would we expect someone to write that down if it happened?

bfniii, I also invite you to have the last word. It would seem that you have some sort of blockage to understanding the basic rules of logic and that makes it very difficult for me to engage you in any meaningful discourse. Instead of conversing over whether 2 + 2 = 4, we seem to be at odds over how addition is even performed. I'm not interested in repeatedly trying to clear up the same problems, making no progress. Best wishes, Sparrow

DramaQ

What WOULD you take as good evidence? Without the storyline provided by the gospels - well just Mark, really - you have bupkis. Thin air. No history. No evidence. Nothing on which to even hang the "may have been" on.

This is the "lack of evidence" that I find compelling. My position is to join the camp that sees the whole "biography" as an imaginative piece of fiction.

dq

bfniii

That they are discussed in forums does not mean that there aren’t reasonable explanations for them.

When peter addresses the crowd during Passover, he mentions that the people present witnessed the miracles that had happened, yet no mention is made of them being Christians. In fact, they are stupefied at the speaking in tongues. Other examples would be certain times when Jesus crossed paths with the jewish leadership. There were miracles performed, yet they remain opposed to Him. One example would be when they tried to stone Him, yet He evaded them.

The assumption seems to be the problem. How do we know that anything from first century documents is historically accurate?

But there are facts we know such as the presence of pilate. The bible mentions specific places of several miracles. Could you clarify what you meant by specified location?

I’m not so sure that’s true. Even after Jesus was gone, the bible asserts that the apostles continued performing miracles to many.

Christians actually preserved arguments of opponents and continue to do so. I’m having trouble figuring out why you make this statement.

Curious. I was unaware of any such failures.

Even if they were written decades later, many eyewitnesses would still be alive. Wouldn’t you agree?

The original question posed was why you believe they weren’t eyewitnesses.

There are many people who read the bible who do believe the prophecies came true and I could introduce them to you so it is incorrect to say that anyone who reads the bible thinks they are false.

Forgive me for not visiting the website. There are many websites that claim just the opposite of what that one claims. We would be reduced to name dropping. You just tell me which ones went unfulfilled and we’ll discuss it.

Incorrect. Matthew does not mention the word both in regards to what Jesus rides on. The accounts may differ, but they don’t contradict. Matthew merely mentions one more detail than the other two.

Is that supposed to prove something?

That is a misrepresentation. I read through my previous post and I assert that the gospel writers were unable to engineer circumstances to fit well known prophecies.

Do you dispute the traditional belief that matthew was a tax collector which certainly would have presupposed some sort of education?

If we’re talking about the apostle john, is there reason to believe he wasn’t the fisherman from galillee?

Evidently, he later became educated in such a concept. I’m not sure invoking it is stealing.

Whoa. I must be blind because I missed where you proved such. Would you mind refreshing my memory?

Wow. I see that you keep repeating that the bible is erroneous, but I keep missing where you show it. All I have seen so far from you is a couple of quotes from a website that misquotes and misinterprets a bible verse.

bfniii

I’m not talking about 80 years afterwards. I’m talking about the Jews who knew of Jesus and His apostles' claims that He was the messiah. That shouldn't have been too hard.

Bones probably wasn't the best term. Burial site, grave and remains would have been better. If they did know this, there would be no need for a theft hypothesis.

I see where you are coming from. You are assuming that the gospels made up such stories and are asking how someone would retroactively prove the story was made up. I will try to meet you on your own ground. How about Jews providing records that Jesus was actually in Galilee cutting the ribbon at the brand new bazaar on the day He was supposedly in the temple overturning tables?

Certainly any interested Jews could have asked a gentile to request such information. I’m confused by the second part of your sentence. A Christian would not want a record of there not being a Jesus crucified to exist.

What constitutes as evidence?

It’s disappointing that you can't understand that your "inherently unlikely" is a subjective value that not everyone agrees upon.

"I'm not sure how appropriate "reasonable" is in the context of personal experiences". It would seem that this statement made by you would not agree with the above response. Could you elaborate?

The independent corroboration is what I wish to address.
1. How is it above reproach?
2. How is it trustworthy?
3. How do we know it wasn't doctored?
4. If it corroborates the claim, it wouldn't be independent. Therefore, wouldn't that constitute an appeal to numbers?

So how do we know the author of any first century work? There are many works that we don't have the original manuscript of.

I see a question mark at the end which means I am asking you a question, not trying to put words in your mouth.

And I am trying to point out that a story can be written by an eyewitness if it is not in the first person. Therefore, the gospels can be authentic testimony.

Could you make a case why only your brand of common sense is applicable to everyone and why anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is incorrect?

Stating that because I don't conform to your brand of common sense causes little hope of having a rational discussion would seem to advocate a form of intolerance.

There hasn't been one time during this thread when i claimed "because the bible says so" or "because I believe it". Therefore, your statement about my faith is not applicable. Additionally, I have pointed out times when you are accepting certain skeptical positions on faith. Additionally, I don't recall evading any arguments put forth by skeptics during this thread so i don't see how I’m not recognizing evidence.

I’m sorry you feel this way. I have merely tried to undo some misconceptions about Christianity and the bible.

johntheapostate

Why should I believe any of the claims of the New Testament when it has been shown to be in error about something as crucial as the second coming of Jesus. I have 2000 years that say the NT authors were deluded.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no evidence that Jesus or his apostles ever made any such claim. Neither Jesus nor any disciples have left any written record of what they thought. Nothing in the NT was written by anyone who ever knew Jesus.
There was no empty tomb story until 40 years after the alleged crucifixion and the first claim was made outside of Palestine to a Gentile audience. Ther was nothing for "the Jews" to refute. The first unambiguous claim for a physical resurrection did not occur until the Gospel of Matthew, 50 years after the crucifixion.

"The Jews" would not have known where Jesus was buried anyway. They're not the ones who buried him, the Romans were.

Where are you getting this stuff about anyone claiming the body was stolen, by the way? There was certainly no contempory claim for that by "the Jews" or by anybody else. Nobody was going around making any claims of a physical resurrection until decades after the crucifixion and there is no evidence that anyone who actually knew him ever made such a claim.
This is a backwards burden. It is you who is making the assertion, it is your burden to back it up. Your temple story has no default presumption of "truth" which must be "disproven" or overcome with negative evidence. If you want to claim some guy went beserk at the Temple before a specific Passover two millenia ago, then it is incumbant on you to prove it. This is your burden alone.
There were no records. Jerusalem had been destroyed. There was nothing to request. The Jews had just fought a war with the Romans and had either been killed or dispersed. Everything about your scenario is absurd.
Why would there be a "record" of someone NOT being crucified?
[quote]It’s disappointing that you can't understand that your "inherently unlikely" is a subjective value that not everyone agrees upon.[.quote]
No, some things are objectively impossible , like "miracles."
It isn't.
This is the same as your first question and the andswer is that it doesn't matter. It isn't being evaluated for any truth value on its own. I'll explain more below.
There actually are ways to tell this, including linguistic and stylistic analysis, philosophical/religious/ political consistency with whatever else is known of the author, telltale "seams" of redaction or interpolation, historical anachronism (if you see an allegedly undiscovered Shakespearean sonnet which makes a sudden mention of cell phones, you know you have yourself a forgery), etc. We can tell with very little effort, for instance, that Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is at least partially, if not totally forged.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term "independent" in this context.

If two or more sources are "independent," it means that the authors are not aware of each other- that one source did not get the information from the other.

Th more independent sources you have for a historical claim, the more likely it is ti be true. The overall "trustworthiness" of an individual source doesn't matter. What matters is that if two or more sources make the same claim without being aware of each other, the more likely it is that neither of them is making it up.
They sign their work. They say who they were. In the case of Josephus, he had widespread publication in his own name.

Not one of the four gospels names its own author. They are anonymous. Not one of those authors tells us what his name was.
Except they can't be for reasons other than narrative person. The reasons we know they cannot be eyewitness accounts are legion but even if they were not, there is still no reason to make prima facie assumption that they represent eyewitness testimony if they make no such claim for themselves.

rlogan

As far as I can tell you've established a new standard for cloaking the inane with vapid rhetorical bluster.

There is a thread going on "eyewitness testimony", an assertion so dear to you throughout this one.

Why don't you come on over and try something new - submit positive evidence for a claim instead of the vacuous "prove it didn't happen" routine.

bfniii

the people, for and against, who were alleged witnesses. that's who.

how much or little he knew is of no consequence. he knew about christianity. if that's the case, how much more did people know who lived around judea?

mass act? the murder of as little as 10 babies in a small rural town would hardly seem to qualify as the ecumenical act you make it out. besides, josephus wasn't prone to mentioning things that didn't have to do with wars or political manuevering.

not sure where you're going with this sentence.