Minimalist

But perhaps you might just take the opportunity to specify what historical evidence supports that position. The self-serving rantings of christians do not meet that standard.

mountainman

Dear John,

In answer to this rhetorical(?) question at your website, here is a quote from the Acts of John:

You should ask your debating partner what the author of the Acts of John had in mind when he wrote this.

Best wishes,


Pete

show_no_mercy

This is odd considering that he posted that the silence from Jesus' contemporaries isn't an argument against Jesus. If he accepts all of the gospel elements as true, then Jesus' overreaching popularity would be included. Which more than likely would have been mentioned by quite a few of Jesus' contemporaries.

The fact that he's not mentioned by any of his contemporaries means that - at the least - Jesus wasn't as popular as the gospels portray him to be. So he can't both accept *all* of the elements of the gospels as true and think that the silence from Jesus' contemporaries isn't a compelling argument.

spamandham

Holding is an apologist who thinks it's his job to defend the almighty from mortals of infinitely less intellect or power. What else would you expect from such a person?

Usually is not the same as always. If I were involved in this, I would demand they justify their assumptions. Obviously, 'history' is not the only genre of literature. Force them to tell you the intents of the authors, and to prove it reasonably. They can not reasonably make any claims as to historical evidence of the texts without first establishing the motives of the authors. That's so obviously fundamental, that anyone who disagrees discredits themselves. How many people would argue that the text of "Tom Sawyer" is evidence of a historical Aunt Polly? The intent of the author isn't just an aside, it's EVERYTHING.

Holding has manipulated you into accepting his hidden critical premise that the NT was intended by the authors to be objective history. You are now left on the defensive trying to argue that the authors, though well intentioned, were simply wrong. Yet, there is no reason to even suspect they were attempting to accurately record history.

spin

This is a shocking attitude ("shocking" in a literal sense). In a society where disinformation has been the staple diet, lies, hype, bias, spin, being the common fare, a person can state in all innocence that "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise". But this has been the case ever since text was used to move people. "Uncle Sam needs you!" to aid in the repression of some banana republic so its wealth can be fleeced. "Jews are christ killers" because they have lucrative financial dealings and we want to take advantage of them. "Woman was made from the rib of Adam" and so she is beholding to him.

People write text for self-aggrandizement, for group aggrandizement, to please patrons, to convince others, to inform others, to organize thoughts, too alienate people.

Text isn't evidence for anything until it can be shown to be evidence. To show its status, you need to be able to indicate when it was written -- which gives it the opportunity to represent what it was written about from direct knowledge --; you need to indicate where it was written; you need to deal with why it was written -- a harder concern, but just as necessary, because it will reflect on the ostensible content. You also need to consider if it was based on direct access to the purported information or whether it was mediated access through other sources.

The naivety level of "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise" is what allows media manipulation of unprepared populations for the aims of their governing powers.

You need to consider information as though you were going into a court of law, seeking a conviction based on it. You must be able to show its relevance or the court will reject its content without hearing it. Once you've validated your witness's testimony, ie turned it into evidence, then it can be evaluated. (The court is only an analogy to point out your responsibilities in prosecuting your case.)

You cannot seriously rely on simpleton claims such as "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise". It allows you to assume most of the job you have to do and dismisses your results as unfounded.


spin

dog-on

Good post, Spin.

John W. Loftus

Did you read through my arguments, all of them? Here they are bundled together (click to the right for the next one):

http://www.opposingviews.com/argumen...jesus-movement

Have you read through the other thread here on textual evidence?

And have you read agnostic Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet on the New Millennium?

What I have argued for stands squarely within the ovewhelming consensus of peer-reviewed scholars. We could all be wrong. It's possible that there never was a historical Jesus. I grant that. When it comes to textual evidence found in the past it is considered precious to historians. There is much more to be said about this evidence than a line or two that I wrote. And there is much I can agree with you about. We must verify that evidence, date it, and so forth. I think you are reading into my claim much more than I mean by it, and unjustifiably so.

In any case, first read through my argument and come back here if you want to dispute what I said. I learn from every honest critic.

John W. Loftus

Agreed. This is standard hermeneutics. It seems as though the intent of the NT writers and the way they were interpreted by the early church was that they were describing the acts of a real person. Just look at Luke's prologue and I John.

Holding has not manipulated me about anything. I don't like that scumbag.

They were wrong just like Benny Hinn's followers are wrong when they claim he does miracles. But that no more makes Hinn a mythical being than Jesus. Sure we can verify Hinn's existence. But what if we backed up his ministry to the first century CE? I just don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm willing to do the hard work of distinguishing truth from fiction rather than either accepting it all (like Holding) or rejecting it all (like Zindler).

Dutch_labrat

Quite true. I always ask myself "Who is telling me this, why are they telling me this and how the F* do they know?"

In most cases it is easiest to lie in written text. The writer has more time to construct the lies and more important there is no body language to give him away.

John W. Loftus

My view is the same as Jeffery Jay Lowder's on this issue. Textual evidence is prima facia evidence. If I said it was "good" evidence as quoted then I misspoke myself. Prima facia evidence is evidence "on its first appearance." If you found a very old looking note in the sand on the beach that said: "I, Pete the Pirate, buried my treasure here." You would accept it enough to want to dig down further, wouldn't you? That's what I mean. No one would say, "Naw, there's no treasure here" and walk away.

But my skeptical control beliefs would kick in if the note said, "On this spot Zeus was born." So I agree with you about those things in the NT that describe miracles. They didn't happen. But that does not mean there was no miracle worker who was believed to do miracles. That is a non-sequitur.