Killer Mike

You raise some interesting points. But we must remember the followers of Jesus were most likely illiterate and stories about him would have been handed down thru oral tradition. I personally would not "expect" to find things written down in the way you describe. Most Christians initially at the time Jesus existed and immediately following his execution also believed the world was coming to an end soon and the Kingdom of God was at hand. If this was their mindset, there would be no reason to write anything down (even if they were literate) to preserve his teachings. We must also remember we only have documents/copies that have survived for over 2000 years. The majority would have been lost or destroyed. So I dont think it unreasonable not to expect any documents that would prove Jesus existed.

bfniii

when trying to show one historical account is inaccurate, you are by default advocating another set of events. here's an example: the people who allegedly saw Jesus post resurrection were hallucinating. do you see how that works? the skeptic claims that they did not see a resurrected Jesus, but were delusional probably because of grief. now, to believe a skeptic's assertion in this matter, it would be completely unreasonable to not ask them to prove it. to do otherwise would be to accept what they say at face value without any skepticism of their claim.

ameleq, respectfully, you are wrong on this issue. the only shifting done in this thread has been by the skeptic. the skeptic makes the claim (the bible is false), states they don't require proof of their claim, defends an unfalsifiable position, and then cowardly doesn't even attempt to provide an alternate explanation. how in the world can you or any other skeptics consider this scholarly? why should anyone listen to anything a skeptic has to say with an approach like this?

i offer this challenge to anyone with the courage to answer. please explain:

what constitutes as historical evidence?

how do we know that anything from any first century writer is true?

how can there be proof of the miraculous claims of the bible since they are beyond the purview of science? since there can be no proof, explain why the miraculous claims are being considered by skeptics an indictment against the bible.

Diogenes the Cynic

You are still presuming too much. You still have to prove that anyone ever claimed to have seen a "risen" Jesus. I have never seen any good proof that a single person ever made that claim. The claim of a physical resurrection is not found in any Christian literature until 50 years after the alleged crucifixion in the Gospel of Matthew who had no first hand knowledge of anything.
This is a completely false statement, and it's not even about "skepticism," it's about sound methodology. Nothing is accepted as true without proof. It's just that simple and it's the same for any ancient book not just the Bible.
This is an utter misstatement of the facts.
All kinds of things, none of which exist for your resurrection fable.
Corroboration - by other writers, by archaeological evidence, things like that. None of which exists for your resurrection story.

We also tend to assume that impossible claims are impossible. For instance, nobody believes Herodotus' claims about giant ants mining gold in India.
They're not considered an "indictment against the Bible," (this idea that scholars are out to get the Bible is a complete fantasy of conservative Christians. The Bible is a text like any other text. There's nothing personal about it. Most of us who study it do so because we are interested in it not because we hate it) they're just assumed not to be historical. That assumption is made because they're prima facie physically impossible, because they have no eyewitness evidence or independent corroboration and because they so clearly follow common mythological motifs. Empirically speaking, there is no more reason to believe the miracle stories of the Bible than to believe the ones in Homer's Odessey.

Family Man

You're right that when one historical account is inaccurate that another narrative is suggested; you are wrong, however, in insisting that the skeptic needs to prove that alternative account. In order to demonstrate that, there needs to be evidence, and in the case of the resurrection that does not exist. It is perfectly legitimate for historians to say "we don't know what happened, though we can be fairly certain it didn't happen the way it is claimed." In fact, I can refer you to Christian historians who say very much the same thing we do here: the resurrection is not a historical event.

Ameleq is right on this issue. It is absurb to demand an alternative accounting when there isn't enough evidence to know exactly what happened. Historians don't demand that. All that needs to be shown in a case like this is that other plausible explanations exist, and in the case of the resurrection, the willing of people to believe inanely stupid things is more than plausible, even if we don't know the exact details.

OK.

1) Is the account about natural, human events?

History is about humanity's past, not about gods. If you read modern historical analysis, you'll find that descriptions of supernaturals events are always discounted. Heck, as Diogenes points out, even the merely absurb (giant ants mining gold) is not believed. Right there, the resurrection has to be considered non-historical. (Note: I'm not saying this disproves that it happened. I'm saying that the Christian can't use historical analysis to prove that it did.)

2) Are there independent accounts?

And by independent accounts I mean people working from different perspectives. Both Caesar and Cicero, for example, wrote proligately about the events of their times, and were political opponents. Thus, when they both say something happened, we can be fairly confident that that happened.
The trouble with Christian sources is that they are all working under the same tradition and community. Luke and Matthew copied extensively from Mark, and John is widely considered to be a theological gospel with little historical content. If there were Roman records that Jesus was crucified, that would bolster the Christian story (though not the resurrection account).

3) What do we know of the authors and what axes were they grinding?

Historians do not accept everything that is written down in ancient texts. Julius Caesar generally accepted credit for his victories but tended to fob off defeats on his underlings. Guess what? Historians don't buy that. The sources we have for ancient history are well known and the biases of the authors taken into account when their work is analyzed. Where they appear to be writing dispassionately and objectively, we credit their accounts more highly than when they are pushing an agenda.

The problem with the gospels is a) we don't know who the authors even were. The authorship wasn't assigned until well into the second century, and were assigned using the ancient practice of using famous people from the past. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as described almost certainly weren't the authors of the gospels. And b) they had a huge axe to grind. They weren't writing history; they were writing hagiography with the view of promoting their religious beliefs. A historical work with virgin births, walks on water, feedings of multitudes, resurrections of the dead, is not going to get a lot of credence in the historical community. It doesn't work that way.

4) How does the described events fit in with other events of the time?

This is a little harder to understand, but one event tends to ripple through to other events of the time. The rise of the Caesars, for example, makes little sense without the Roman Civil War. The problem with the Christian accounts is that Jesus had very little effect during his lifetime. (In fact, the gospel stories record a remarkable failure, making is post-mortem success all the more suspect). None of his contemporaries sees fit to mention him, and later mentions of him (as sparse as they are) could probably be better explained by the existence of the Christian religion than by the existence of Jesus himself. Christians are right to claim that the development of their religion in the first century is prima facie evidence that there was a charismatic religious leader called Jesus who was crucified (though the case is weak). They are wrong, however, in insisting that this implies that all the gospels stories are true. They can't be considered so, for reasons already mentioned.

5) Is there archeological evidence supporting the events?

For example, archeologists have been able to visit areas where Caesar had his battles and uncover artifacts that Caesar described in his accounts. That is powerful evidence that things happened as described. There isn't a single bit of archeological evidence that supports any of the events of Jesus's life.

What ought to be clear, bfniii, is that, by historical standards, the evidence for the life of Jesus is very poor, and there are Christian scholars who will tell you the very same thing I'm telling you. And I haven't even gotten into some of the other problems with the accounts where historians believe that much of the events were mined from OT accounts to fit the authors preconceived notions. The problems with the gospel accounts are myriad, and beyond the capabilities of a interested amateur such as myself. There are, however, good books on the subject I can suggest if you're interested.

There can't be proof. That's why Christians are supposed to have faith, remember?

rlogan

I agree completely. That is why those who doubt the Easter bunny are remiss in their failure to provide the evidence that the bunny is doing something else while the eggs are being hidden.

respect requires that you not misrepresent a position like you do immediately after making this patronizing remark.


It is interesting that seemingly normal people can be so delusional. They pay their bills on time, have a drivers license, work a full time job, etc.

But then they live a fantasy life too. Like your straw man world where you bravely take on this bizarre fictitious "skeptic". You are not quoting anyone here because there is no such person present - and Amaleq13 in particular has disabused you of this falsity.

Cowardly? That's pretty funny.

This from fellow who has gone a dozen pages with the cornerstone of his entire argument being that there were eyewitness accounts, and failing to provide even the tiniest shred of evidence.


It really is pretty amusing to watch this now. Initially I was annoyed. Courage? So I guess you see yourself as a swash-buckling skeptic-killer in a dashing outfit and matching sword sheath.



Hilarious. It is impossible to discuss things rationally with someone who just claims science has no "purview" over fantasy.

Duh.

Sparrow

I’ll go along with the majority of the followers being illiterate and thus passing down information in the oral tradition instead of writing. Of course we know how unreliable oral traditions are for detailed accounts. I can accept that there might be a human at the source of the stories, even if one is sure they are embellished. But stories like the star in the east would have been visible to non-followers, right? The Chinese kept detailed records of their astronomical observations and never saw such a star in the east. Why is that?

That some followers might have thought there was no need to commit the events to writing because the end was near might explain why there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, but if enough of them choose to avoid pointless writing, would not shepherding and agriculture also have been pointless? Might someone, not a follower, have written ‘I just got two goats from a guy who thinks the world is about to end.’? Not finding such items is not conclusive proof of the non-existence of Jesus, but leads one in that direction.

Even so, as I said earlier, I cannot say for certain whether or not Jesus existed. But mere existence is not much.

Killer Mike

The Gospels are neither biographies nor history. Rather they are reflections of the stories that had accumulated initially thru oral tradition. There was no star because this story is myth. Likewise, we also know Jesus was never buried in a tomb. It does not fit what is known about Roman history. It was common practice for the Romans to let crucified bodies hang for days following executions and let the body slowly rot away. The Romans did this to intimidate and remind people of the penalty for not following Roman authority. This would explain why there are no astronomical records of a star in the east. The Gospels are largely myth. With the dozens of messianic prophets, Im sure many were claiming the end was near. Why were'nt any of them written about? Jesus was not the only one where there are no written sources to confirm his existence. Most probably thought Jesus was just another "crackpot". He was probably just ignored.

bfniii

1. you are muddling skepticism with historical agnosticism. to claim to be skeptical is to say one particular thing is not believable because of certain reasons. where did those reasons come from? things that are perceived to be more believable.
2. any such questions presuppose that you do indeed have a preconceived notion about how historical events transpired, otherwise why ask the question?
3. any criticisms are the result of prima facie assertions already made by you. by assessing the believability of an event, you are doing so from a preexisting base, whether you have outlined it or not. otherwise, you would have no frame of reference from which you are drawing from.

whether you physically type out your version or not, it's there whenever you assess the historicity of a particular narrative. if you do not do so, you are agnostic toward history and therefore exclude yourself from judging the account.

unless you want to defend an unfalsifiable position and take potshots at everyone else.

according to whom? by what standards?

Diogenes the Cynic

WTF is "historical agnosticism?"

No, I am talking about empirical methodology. You want to assert against all evidence and logic that a dead guy came back to life 2000 years ago. Since it is physically impossible for dead guys to come back to life it is incumbant upon you to provide some pretty good evidence for such an absurd assertion. Thus far you have presented no evidence at all that this dead guy even existed, much less that he came back to life. Therefore, as it stands, you made an assertion and failed to support it. I have made no counter assertion, I've only pointed out that you've failed to prove yours.
Yoiu seem to have the notion that we are both looking at a real historical phenomenon (ie. people who said they saw a dead guy come back to life 2000 years ago) and that we are discussing possible explanations for that event. You are mistaken in that presumption. We are looking at a story in a book (actually, four contradictory stories) written long after the alleged facts by unknown authors who did not witness this alleged event and did not know anyone else who witnessed the event. Beside the numerous contradictions between gospels there are also a number of demonstrable fictions, factual errors, historical errors, geographical errors, legal errors, and historical anachronisms.

It is your position that all four of these stories are somehow literally historically true (even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff) and my position is "prove it."

I am not offering an alternative explanation for your "resurrection" event. I'm saying you have not yet proven there WAS a resurrection event. Demanding an alternative explanation for a mythological event is silly. Do you believe that Athena guided Odysseus on his way back to Ithaca? If not, then how the heck did he make it back home?
Yes, I assume that the physically impossible is physically impossible until proven otherwise. This is not just rational but necessary to empirical method.
It is not necessary to formulate an historical alternative to a fictional story.
What unfalsifiable position have I taken?
I've offered several times to start a new thread debunking the historical credibilty and traditional authorship of the gospels. Are you interested?

spin

Stop offering. Do it!


spin