Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 12-31-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

They are edited by Evans & Chilton.

Thanks for the clarification. They apparently have more than one entry for the book and the one I happened upon only identifies Chilton as editor. There are even different ISBN #'s for the books.

Quote:

That link sends me to a strange page.

It wouldn't send me anywhere but I fixed it.

Mountain Man · 12-31-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Just because that the gospellers weren't eyewitnesses doesn't mean that none of the events ultimately go back eyewitnesses.

What is there to show that their stories were not embellished along the way?

Quote:

The gospels betray many secrets that if you're not careful you may miss them.

They only betray reality. The only secrets are those created by believers.

Mountain Man · 12-31-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Four books reporting the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, were written, at the latest, sometime during the second century CE. That is a fact not in dispute. A possible explanation for that fact is that they record oral traditions about the actual trial and crucifixion of a Galilean preacher named Jesus. Therefore, the books are evidence that Jesus was tried and crucified.

No, they are not. They are only evidence that those people BELIEVED it was so.

Quote:

....The real debate over Christian origins is not whether there is evidence for one or another particular claim. There is evidence for all of them. The real debate is over which claim or set of claims the evidence shows to be most probably true.

So far all we have is evidence that many believe it happened. We have no direct evidence that any of it did.

Doug Shaver · 01-01-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

So far all we have is evidence that many believe it happened. We have no direct evidence that any of it did.

Point taken, up to a point.

I've used your argument myself against apologists from time to time. I agree that the gospels are direct evidence only for whatever was on the minds of their authors.

But then, so is any document. The question then becomes: If we assume that the author believed what he wrote, did he have a good reason to believe it? If it can be established that he did, then the document becomes evidence for whatever is claimed in it, insofar as the fact of F explains the existence of a document in which F is alleged.

The problem with the gospels is that although they technically are evidence, they are such poor evidence because of, among a few other things, (A) the anonymity of their authors and (B) the probable lateness of their composition relative to the events they describe. The actual occurrence of at least one of those events (e.g. the crucifixion) is one possible explanation for their existence. But, contrary to historicist thinking, it is just not the least bit unlikely that the gospels could have been written notwithstanding that nothing in them is true.

Chris Weimer · 01-01-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

What is there to show that their stories were not embellished along the way? They only betray reality. The only secrets are those created by believers.

Of course the stories were embellished. I'm not doubting that. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a core truth to the gospels.

And quite right, perhaps the secrets were created by early believers - but why are you so adamant on them not having at least something to do with history, regardless of time or place?

mikem · 01-01-2006, 09:35 AM

Not forgetting either that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark. It is not the case that we have four INDEPENDENT writngs here, which reduces further their usefulness as evidence.

Mountain Man · 01-01-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

.....contrary to historicist thinking, it is just not the least bit unlikely that the gospels could have been written notwithstanding that nothing in them is true.

They were just repeating what they were told. That one source they came from could, and likely did, make it up or at least embellished it greatly. Look at it while keeping in mind todays politics. It seems the bigger, and more outlandish, the story, the more people will believe it.

Mountain Man · 01-01-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Of course the stories were embellished. I'm not doubting that. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a core truth to the gospels.

But is that possible "core of truth" enough to base a whole life view on? I don't think so.

Quote:

And quite right, perhaps the secrets were created by early believers - but why are you so adamant on them not having at least something to do with history, regardless of time or place?

Why aren't you asking them why they are so adamant it's real?

Chris Weimer · 01-01-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

But is that possible "core of truth" enough to base a whole life view on? I don't think so.

Who knows? What have you used to evaluate this? There's a lot of speculation, but not a lot of actual research.

Quote:

Why aren't you asking them why they are so adamant it's real?

Are you kidding me?

Chris Weimer · 01-01-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikem

Not forgetting either that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark. It is not the case that we have four INDEPENDENT writngs here, which reduces further their usefulness as evidence.

Matthew and Luke also have material not from Mark which could be from a different tradition altogether.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-01-2006, 09:35 AM	#36
mikem Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: UK Posts: 278	Not forgetting either that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark. It is not the case that we have four INDEPENDENT writngs here, which reduces further their usefulness as evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.