DramaQ

True. But it's also true that I was getting drawn into more general religious questions.

However.... I did forget to cover THIS little beauty:

Another clear indicator that you’ve spent NO time trying to understand the Argument from Silence that you’re objecting to. Or, for that matter, the material in the book(s) your belief system is founded on.

Or do you think Paul, for instance, is full of references to all those miraculous events like walking on water, turning water into wine, raising people from the dead, feeding thousands with a few loaves, etc etc etc…..?

dq

bfniii

i don't disagree. but doubting is completely different than saying the bible is in error or christianity is based on lies or that christians doctored historical documents. the doubts of a skeptic are neither a form of evidence nor are they any more reasonable than the affirmation of the faithful.

that's not exactly what i said. i said that i see no reason to doubt that they're false given that we have purported eyewitness accounts that are not disputed by contemporaneous authors or disproven by any other means. there has been no proof that shows them to be in error. the opposition to these specific miraculous claims comes conveniently well after the fact when their refutations are unfalsifiable. it seems that if skepticism is going to wait 2 or 3 thousand years to start criticizing, then the refutation needs to have some incredible evidence to back it up, which clearly it doesn't.

why should i not? i understand that your personal experience leads you to believe that those things don't happen. however, that's far from proof that it didn't happen and your experience differs than that of others'.

of SOME people. not all.

sorry. usually doesn't cut it. even you aren't sure about that otherwise you would have used the word never. the substantiation is the eyewitness accounts. if someone believes that they are in error, let them prove it. And whose knowledge of how things work would you be referring to?

and i find the opposite. claiming that john "appears" to have been written by more than one author is far from proof. reading into the text to find seams is a contrivance.

i have provided reasons why it is unreasonable to expect proof of miracles. i have asked what kind of proof you would require.

fallacy of the excluded middle. i am free to dismiss apathetically.

even if you have unequivocal proof, i can dismiss your claim. such an approach is irrational. however, if i am to dispute you, i will need to provide proof that your claim is in error. otherwise, my position is unsupportable. without proof, the best i can do is doubt.

they why should i listen to you when you claim your personal experience leads you to believe that the bible's claims are untrue? clearly, that is special pleading.

I must have missed the part where you presented “evidence�. I’ve seen “reason to doubt� but not evidence. even the doubts are subjective at best and not very compelling.

Smuggled-in authority. it is untenable for you to claim that Christianity requires more evidence than it already has in order for it to be believable and then claim that your subjective speculations are “substantiation� (when you refer to why you don’t believe the bible to be truthful). What is even funnier is that you don’t have evidence supporting your position, you rely on “absence of substantiation�. That seems like shaky ground.

My point is that it doesn't seem possible, much less reasonable, to expect proof of miracles. any such proof would be subject to explanation and rationalization, if such a proof could exist anyway.

interesting. am i supposed to just accept it because you so it's so or should i wait for you to provide an explanation?

(but not impossible nor false)

If those documents did exist, skeptics would claim Christians doctored them when Constantine came into power. This is irrefutable because that situation exists with other contemporaneous documents. Your example is faulty. Please provide another. Your second example is an appeal to numbers which you have stated is a logical fallacy.

Absent evidence, you require faith that your position is correct.

According to you.

And I observe the same regarding the arguments of skeptics. I guess we are at an impasse here.

I provided an article.

It is interesting that you did not answer the question. the passage in question has not been shown to be referring to His place of birth, but His residence.

how do we know josephus is reliable at all? skeptics use the fact that he didn't mention certain biblical events as reason to show the bible is unreliable. josephus doesn't mention christians either. why is josephus, or any document from antiquity to be trusted at all in any matter? the same charges aimed at the bible can be leveled against any document from that time (aside from the miracles). if one part of the antiquities could have been altered, how do we know that all of it wasn't?

you have asked for contemporaneous affirmation of the miracles. the above is a reason why even if we had it, it could be explained away, just like the TF.

are you referring to the fact that they are occasionally in agreement?

i have read them. i said jewish not herodian. do we know that josephus listed all crimes by herod, especially those that reflect a small number of people (possibly as little as 10) in a miniscule town? i have found that the crimes josephus does mention are usually political or military in nature.

i don't see any numbers mentioned in that quote nor a reason why josephus should have mentioned it.

or it's just as likely that josephus was convinced of what he wrote (at least to my non-functioning brain). it seems that only bias would prevent a person from examining alternatives in a scholarly manner. I also don’t believe precedent should always be relied upon as a determining factor.

are any of those articles using anything more than speculation?

if the TF can be doctored, any of it can be doctored. this response does nothing to refute that fact.

which doesn't mean it didn't happen. and even if he did, skeptics would be able to say that just because more people mentioned it, doesn't prove that it happened.

dominating the copying does not equate to non-christians not being able to perpetuate their own texts. just because christianity was dominant does not mean that they were able to find, much less destroy, every copy of anything they didn't like. we see evidence that even the crusades to the middle east didn't eliminate islam which contains some discrepancies with christianity. furthermore, destroying texts are different than destroying memories. people knew about first and second century opposition to Christianity. How do you destroy memories?

You have stated that it’s unreasonable to expect first century opposition to Christianity because no one had heard of it. You have also stated that Christians maliciously destroyed whatever existed. You here seem to advocate that miraculous claims couldn’t be falsified anyway. It seems that your position is inconsistent. Besides, the first two statements are incongruous.

Even if we did have extrabiblical corroboration, skeptics could claim they were doctored by Christians who came into power. Additionally, if those documents existed they could be written off as an appeal to numbers which you have pointed out is a logical fallacy.

It’s interesting that you evade the issue. The veracity of the bible is measured against other first century works. Unfortunately, these works are less than perfect themselves (for example, the TF taints the antiquities). How is this justifiable? How is this not special pleading?

I was unaware that such a rule existed. Perhaps you could point me to your source.

Papias in ad 130 asserts that matthew “compiled the oracles� which are known as the sayings of Jesus. Do you have contradictory information?

I do notice that you don’t respond to the post. Do you deny that skeptics make those opposite claims? At least show me how this is a strawman by illuminating where I made up or twisted the responses of skeptics.

How so?

Which is what?

A simple internet search will reveal clarification of this apparent contradiction. Judas hung himself, then then he fell.

I think there is some confusion. I don’t mean to bring the jews into this. I meant synagogue in the context of the Christian worship services.

And these statements made by you are compelling? This is actual evidence?

Throwing out names again? Isn’t that an appeal to numbers? I have a bible that lists 52 respected biblical scholars who all have a doctorate in philosophy and theology who claim the opposite of meier. I have analyzed the issue and provided reasons why apostolic, eyewitness authorship in the cases of matthew and john are reasonable.

Vorkosigan

It's unreasonable and absurd, and no one would even think about it unless it was a specific doctrine of bible-idolating Christianity. The mainstream view is that none of the Gospels were written by witnesses. No evidence has come forth in the last 200 years of analysis to challenge the mainstream view. I don't know why Amaleq is even wasting his time on this, except that his patience is extraordinary. :notworthy

You seem highly confused as to how both historians and skeptics behave. In the skeptical view the early Christian writings, including those texts incorporated into the canon, should be treated like any other human-produced text. That is, in fact, the scholarly view; skeptics and scholars speak with one voice here. There is no double standard -- Herodotus and Josephus and Ssa Ma Chien take it on the chin just as hard. In fact, most of the "skeptics" here rely on scholars from all parts of the spectrum. For an excellent view of the problems of historical skepticism, see Van Harvey's classic The Historian and the Believer.

That Christians altered and doctored the documents in their possession is well-known. See, for example, Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (Journal for the Study of New Testament Supplement Series) or any serious textual commentary such as Wieland Wilker's or Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. How else do you think we got two versions of Acts, one 8-9% longer than the other? The Gospel of John is cobbled together from at least three different authors, one of whom tells us in the text that he is not the original author? Why do you think scholars are totally divided on such issues as whether the phrase "Son of God" was originally written in Mark 1:1? Was the Bethsaida section originally part of Mark? The adulterous woman part of John? Isn't Christianity replete with forgeries -- the deuteropaulines, the pastorals, 3 Corinthians, Acta Pilata, Jesus' letter to Agbar, etc?

There are sound reasons for scholarly doubt here, bfnii.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

With regard to claims of a miraculous nature, not really. I consider 100% certainty to require faith and all of my conclusions are conditional given the possibility of new evidence but my doubts about the truth of the miraculous claims in the Bible are approximately 99.99%. In other words, I can quite reasonably conclude they are not true given their inherent unliklihood and the absence of any supportive evidence.

This isn't my position.

This is a fairly well-established fact but I doubt you are willing to do the reading necessary to learn the truth of it.

Repeating the same flawed reasoning and unsubstantiated assertions does not make them a more reliable basis for a conclusion. You have no eyewitness accounts. Your appeal to nonexistent critiques is meaningless. Assuming the conclusion and requiring evidence to counter it is an unreliable method of testing that conclusion but a really good way of retaining it even if it is wrong.

As far as I can tell, they were always unfalsifiable. That is why the argument is meaningless. That is also why I asked you for specific examples of how opponents might have provided falsification of the early Christian claim that Christ had risen and appeared to many. It was to get you to understand your argument was based on an unreasonable expectation.

When did I claim I could prove to you that these things didn't happen? I strongly suspect that your faith is too strong for any evidence or argument to overcome.

More backwards reasoning. The claims are inherently unlikely so the default position is that they are untrue. The burden lies with anyone claiming otherwise. It is inherently unlikely that I have a dragon in my garage. Therefore, the default position is that I don't. The burden lies with me if I want anyone to believe the claim despite its unlikely nature.

My next door neighbor, of course. I'm starting to realize that you think your opponents have some sort of obligation to convince you that they are correct. Sorry, that's more backwards thinking. You are on your own to believe whatever nonsense you wish. Just don't try to convince me otherwise unless you bring some evidence.

If I thought you were familiar with the scholarship, I might be interested in your opinion of its conclusions.

Why would you ask for something you don't think is reasonable? Why would you assert a book is entirely reliable when you know you can't prove all of its claims?

Do you really not recognize your own reasoning applied to a different claim? I am assuming my conclusion and expecting opponents to present evidence to prove it wrong. Just like you. If there is a fallacy involved, I got it from you.

I get the sense that your "doubt" here is less than the doubt I described at the beginning. When the claim is that I levitated or that I have a dragon in my garage, amigo, you can quite safely and reasonable conclude that those claims are not true if I can't offer any substantiating evidence.

When did I say you should listen to me? I thought you were attacking the basis for my conclusions. We could have cut this short. You are hereby free to go on your merry way believing whatever you want. You can even believe that I levitate and that I have a dragon.

I agree. The evidence to which I referred is your Bible.

Does that conclusion follow from a logical argument or from the fact that you have no substantiation for the miracles you believe?

If the miracles took place in this universe and, therefore, involved some sort of interaction with physical reality, it seems reasonable to expect some sort of evidence of the event might be generated.

Not if there was no evidence to suggest such a possibility. Now, can you explain how a star can pinpoint a precise location?

Apparently, you didn't understand the nature of the fallacy. An appeal to numbers is when you assert a conclusion is true because of the number of people who believe it. What I described above is obtaining support for a claim from an extrabiblical, independent account. This is how good historians and good reporters confirm a claim is reliable. They find someone else, unrelated to the original claimant, who makes the same claim from their own sources.

Actually, my loss of faith corresponded with the increase in my understanding of the evidence.

I did answer the question and attempted to clear up why we should expect Bethlehem to be mentioned. I pointed out that the notion that Jesus was the Messiah is doubted because he came "from Nazareth". Whether it was assumed it was his birthplace or his residence is irrelevant to the fact that asserting he was born in Bethlehem would have countered the expressed doubt. It works with either.

"How can he be the Messiah? He's from Nazareth."

"He was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of the prophecy, knucklehead."

Get it?

Even if we assume Josephus is unreliable, you are still left with no substantiation for the claim. How do you think this helps you?

The functioning of your brain aside, it does not appear likely at all that Josephus was a Christian. In fact, he makes it pretty clear that he was a Jew. Some scholars even think he hints at believing Vespasian fulfilled certain messianic prophecies. Aside from the passage in question, do you know of any evidence in his writings that suggests he was a Christian?

I agree. I reached my conclusion after just such an examination.

Why not visit and read them for yourself? Aren't you the same fellow who suggested above that one should examine the alternatives in a scholarly manner?

Absolutely true but any such claim will require evidence to be accepted.

That is not correct. Given the number of times I have written it, I can't understand why you don't have it right by now. What I have said is: The evidence of the earliest opponents to Christianity (eg Tacitus and Pliny) suggests they did not know the specific claims you insist would be disputed (despite being apparently unable to offer an example of such a disputation) in written records.

That is quite the selective memory you have. I also said they simply chose not to copy many texts. Over time, any such text would cease to exist.

No, I'm just waiting for you to provide an example of the sort of refutation of early Christian claims you think it is reasonable to expect.

Not if there was no evidence that Christians had control of it.

Common sense. We've got four anonymous versions of a story set in the early 1st century. Where else should we seek substantiation than texts written by known authors from that same time period?

Common sense again. If the story were written from a first-person perspective, that would constitute supportive evidence of eyewitness authorship. It wouldn't necessarily establish it conclusively but it would certainly be supportive. That the story is not written in that way fails to provide that support. Do you really need this written down in some rule book to understand it?

In what language does Papias say these sayings were compiled? I have to rely on the experts for this but the vast majority consider Matthew to have been originally written in Greek. As much as I understand their arguments, they appear sound to me. In addition, our Matthew does not appear to me to resemble a compilation of oracles. It is possible Papias is referring to a collection upon which the existing narrative was based but that wouldn't help your claim of eyewitness authorship.

It is a strawman because I don't make those claims. I've already stated that I'm not interested in defending the claims of others.

Papias describes his sources as either disciples of the apostles or disciples of the disciples of the apostles. It is unclear which he meant. The apparently false information is the described death of Judas. That you are capable of squishing the two different Gospel accounts into a single sentence does not eliminate their discrepancy nor does it change the fact that Papias offers a third version.

It is a reference to a widely respected scholar who writes under the expressed consent of the Catholic Church. The point you seem to have missed is that he reached a conclusion that appears contrary to any suspected potential bias. I would expect him to make every effort to preserve the tradition of eyewitness authorship if he thought the evidence warranted it. That he does not impresses me a great deal. That he is not alone as a Christian scholar reaching such a conclusion suggests to me that this is a fairly reliable conclusion. That you can list several other, presumably, Christian scholars who claim otherwise is neither surprising nor impressive.

rlogan

Sadly, this has been seven pages of juvenile posturing. Draped in a more "mature" vocabulary, to be sure.


How should an adult respond to someone who incessantly smirks behind the "prove God isn't a Hoary Toad" reasoning?

You walk away. Because this is not an adult debate. It is merely more sophisticated vocabulary for "nya nya nya".

Didymus

Lack of evidence can certainly be a form of evidence, and as such is admissible in courts of law. As you suggest, such "negative attestation" rarely constitutes a "smoking gun," and it's often exculpatory, but it is evidence nonetheless. A well-known example is the report of a medical examination of a rape victim. A negative report - "no evidence present" - is certainly admissible as evidence, and as such can be very formidable indeed.

As with all evidence, the strength of negative evidence is highly variable. In the case of Jesus' historicity, an example of weak negative evidence would the lack of Roman records of his execution. We don't have ANY Roman logs of such executions; unless it can be shown that we SHOULD have a unique Roman record specifically regarding Jesus' crucifixion, the lack of such a record can't be regarded as significant.

OTOH, there is negative evidence that some scholars think constitutes very strong evidence that the Jesus of the gospels didn't exist. For example, Paul's lack of historical and geographical references regarding Jesus - Herod, Galilee, Pilate, the Trial, etc. - and his direct quotation of Jesus only once. Why are these such glaring omissions? Several reasons:

1. Of all Christian writers, Paul lived closest in time and place to the period during which Jesus was believed to have lived. He lived in the vicinity and had a strong interest in Christianity and Christians - he supposedly even persecuted them! Surely he could have spoken with witnesses to Jesus' life had he wished to. But he never once hinted that he had done so. Nor did he share any accounts or stories about Jesus.

2. Paul said he met individuals (John, Peter, James) who were later said (in the gospels) to have been Jesus' companions. He was the only Christian writer who claimed to have spoken with these apostles. Not only did fail to share their stories about Jesus; he didn't even mention that they had been Jesus' companions! (Or more likely that role was imagined only later, with the writing of the gospels.)

3. References to the words and deeds of Jesus would have served Paul's purpose, that is, to promulgate Christian teachings. Quotes attributed to Jesus would have supported his theology; descriptions of events in Jesus' life would have served as examplars for his congregations and supported his arguments regarding a proper Christian life. Despite all that, not once did he remark upon Jesus' ministry in Galilee, and only once did he quote Jesus by name, and then in a highly ritualistic, ceremonial context (the Eucharist).

So it's fair to conclude that there IS evidence of absence; if Jesus really existed, there are many reasons to believe that there SHOULD have been references to his life and teachings in Paul's extensive writings. But there are none.

As with the lack of a Roman crucifixion record, if there were a convincing explanation for the "Pauline Silences," we might regard the gaps as inconsequential. The traditional theories put forth by Christians are highly conjectural. ("His concerns were more theological." "His congregations already knew about Jesus' life and teachings.") But nowhere does Paul give us any hint that he is deliberately omitting anything about Jesus' life or teachings; nowhere does he suggest that his far-flung congregations are knowledgeable about those things. And there's no independent evidence of such knowledge. So these explanations are really grasps at straws. There isn't anything to back them up.

Aside from the standard apologistic recitations, is there a more plausible explanation for such puzzling omissions?

The only scenario that accounts for all the facts and all the glaring omissions is ahistoricity, that is, that Paul didn't tell us about Jesus' life on earth because he had no knowledge of a Jesus who had recently lived on earth as a man. Most likely, Paul viewed Jesus as having lived - and been crucified - in one of the lower, earth-like heavens. This Pauline Jesus delivered a message of faith, sacrifice, atonement, and redemption, not through the teachings and works of an earthly sage, but through revelation, that is, by means of proper interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures and though direct appearances of the Risen Christ. This mystical vision comports with the theology of Paul's fellow Hellenists, many of whom followed the teachings of the Dionysian and Osiran mystery religions.

Only later, with Mark's gospel ca 70 CE, did Christianity evolve from Paul's mystical, spiritualistic faith into the "historical" religion of the gospels, one that followed the Hebrew tradition of gritty, opinionated earthly prophets and an anthropomorphic, interventionist god who took an active role in the affairs of mankind.

Didymus

Didymus

You seem to be on a fishing expedition.

If you knew anything about Josephus, you'd know that your questions make no sense. (That doesn't keep you from speculating about the answers, however!)

There's plenty of information about Josephus on the web and elsewhere. Perhaps you should do some basic research before presenting us with nonsensical "What if?" questions.

Didymus

Didymus

There's no evidence that the story of Jesus' life was in circulation prior to the gospel of Mark, ca 70 CE. At that late date, all the purported witnessess were either very elderly, dead, or scattered. And it would have been impossible to "disprove" a vague, undated account such as the Passion narrative. Who aside from a few named - and almost certainly dead - individuals would have been able to say that those things didn't happen?

What "epistles" are you referring to? Paul's epistles did not include narrative accounts of Jesus' life or of the Trial and Crucifixion. Bible 101.

Many things are possible, but in fact we have no evidence that such "investigations" were conducted. We have no writings by eyewitnesses or accounts of interviews with such people. A mere "possibility" is evidence of nothing.

It seems likely that Mark and the other gospel authors accurately identified Pilate as the Prefect of Judea. Authors have always supplied plausible contexts for their stories.

Didymus

Vorkosigan

Actually, Tacitus got the title wrong. In any case, Pilate is known from an inscription found in 1961. Pilate's existence isn't disputed; but his involvement in this tale is suspicious.

Vorkosigan

bfniii

since we have no way to determine what was lost (other than waiting on future discoveries), we don't know if the missing information is relevant or substantive. how do we know we're missing something in the first place? from what i have read, origen preserved all of celsus' oppositions to christianity.

What would such a refutation prove? We haven’t established that the miraculous can be proven or disproven and we haven’t established that said refutations wouldn’t themselves be scrutinized.

josephus and philo were not only capable, but had the means to do so. they were knowledgable about christianity and their own religion was at odds with christianity which also gave them motive. christianity spread into many civilized parts of the empire which decreases the odds that there was no one capable, motivated or knowledgable enough to mount such a refutation. if the christians could have traveled outward, surely someone could have traveled to judea for such a purpose.

i realize at this point you might respond by stating that no one would want to because christianity was too obscure to do so. this doesn't seem supportable since even tacitus is aware of the events surrounding pilate and the crucifixion of a certain judean rabble-rouser in ad 66. also, If people were serious enough to convert to Christianity, there had to be a somewhat proportionate number of people who would feel the opposite.

this response doesn't address the fact that the church allowed these oppositions to continue to exist. eliminating some but not all would just perpetuate the fact that there were people who rationally opposed Christianity thus fueling further adversity.

One of the problems that I have with the response is that it omits the jews who were intimately aware of specific Christian claims. Why are they missing from your consideration?

I’m not sure how this helps your point. being unable to physically put together an investigation does nothing to show the jews couldn’t have done so themselves. That they chose not to conduct a formal refutation does nothing to obviate biblical claims nor does it mean other people didn’t attempt it either.

Jewish gossip is hardly a refutation.

This is untrue. I have provided an example of the thousands of people who flocked to Jerusalem during the Passover. They would have had direct contact with Christians as in the biblical example in acts. It would have taken no effort to speak up and provide a contradictory eyewitness testimony. Christianity would have been dead in the water at that point.

Not by all people, or else anyone who came in contact with a Christian would be ineluctably converted which is not the case.

Why does an author have to make the claim in order for their document to be historical? Is it not apparent that the other 3 meant to chronicle the life of Jesus?

i provided reasons why apostolic authorship is reasonable in the cases of matthew and john. There are also reasons why the other two were dictated from eyewitnesses.

Because of the skeptical position that the TF is doctored.

“reconstruction of what Josephus wrote is necessarily speculative.� British New Testament scholar R.T. France.

So being in the minority is wrong? I hope you’re not appealing to numbers. Obvious to whom? Not everyone agrees on the issue and not everyone has the same standard of “obvious�.

The quotes and depictions of pilate I provided don’t require faith to believe.

Interesting. In opposition to the various points I made, you merely extrapolate that because pilate was cruel, the biblical account is false. How is that “more than enough�?

I provided reasons why the biblical depiction is reasonable

1. quote from crossan
2. quote from bowman
3. josephus’ example of the occupation of pilate’s troops in jerusalem
4. pilate being wary of jewish unrest

according to josephus, the jews were willing to die over the issue. That is an example of pilate acquiescing to the jewish mob thus corroborating the gospel story. Do you have some counter-example or should I just take you at your word?

You don’t give a reason why or how pilate or guards would even be aware of such an act.

It is likely that the roman guards had to keep some distance from the area where the moneychangers were because the Sanhedrin didn’t want there to be an opportunity for them to loot the temple treasury. In such a case, the fracas may have ended before any guards arrived (if they arrived at all or if they were even aware of such an event). The objection that pilgrims wouldn’t have allowed such an occurrence makes no sense whatsoever. they had come to pay penance and this event would have prevented them from the very purpose they traveled to the temple for. Jesus was teaching that they were free from such shackles thus eliminating the need for the sacrificial rites.

Interesting.
1. he provides no “evidence� whatsoever. Merely speculative conjecture
2. I provided a clear and concise argument as to why he is incorrect at each and every point, yet you don’t respond to it. you just take his word on faith.

First, I have provided reasons why it isn’t “common sense� that it is doubtful. Second, who decided that extrabiblical corroboration is “necessary�?

He doesn’t. however, does that mean that they weren’t free to seek such evidence? No. does that mean such evidence didn’t exist? No. does that mean that he opposed such an undertaking? No.

By preserving the first century refutations that Christians destroyed. By the way, I do notice that you are trying to get me to do your work for you. Since the skeptical position is the one that needs such refutation, why don’t you come up with how it might have been attempted?

It’s an analogy, not a tangent.