bfniii

Perhaps you could refresh my memory on when and how I did so?

I don’t believe that I misrepresented your statement. I was using it because I agreed with it and I was wanted to show amaleq that even a skeptic thought so. At any rate, I understand that the two of you did not like that so I apologize. I will desist from further such quotations.

bfniii

Curious. I still don’t see specific examples. If you feel this should be taken up in another thread, just let me know where and when…….

I haven’t done so. If you read back through the threads, I feel confident that you won’t find one example of me stating “because it says so�. If you do find such an example, please inform me so I can clarify.

You may not be aware of this, but even biologists debate the veracity of evolution and specifically the fact that it is NOT represented in the fossil record. I can certainly provide some names for you if you like. BEFORE I GET ACCUSED OF INTRODUCING A TANGENT, please let me explain. By using evolution as an analogy, I mean to say that even though there is no tangible, physical evidence of macroevolution, it is considered scientific fact by certain people. In other words, when someone who doesn’t believe in macroevolution states that the lack of evidence is itself a form of evidence, the proponent declares it to be a sound theory given the circumstances as has been the case in this thread. But the very same people take the opposite stance in regards to the bible. Please explain how this is not a double standard.

All of which are easily dismissed by doing some google searches on the internet.

As I have stated to other people:
1. even if it did exist, how would that not be appealing to numbers?
2. what would that “conspicuous evidence� be? I mean to say, what type of evidence does a miracle leave behind?
3. whose definition of conspicuous are we using?

To answer your question, I don’t believe that the lack of refutation is the only basis for belief just as skeptics don’t believe the argument from silence to be completely conclusive. Given that we have purported eyewitnesses to the events and we lack refutation of the same events, it seems unreasonable to doubt their veracity.

Amaleq13

bfniii,


You need to be much more careful in your quote attribution. You attributed words to me in the previous post that I did not write. This is apparently the second time you've attributed words to the wrong individual.

Contrary to your post, I did not write this:
"even if the christians were guilty of this practice, there is no way they could have destroyed every copy of every attack from every person in the world. if you disagree with this assertion, provide an explanation of how such an ecumenical practice could have been realized."

In fact, I think this was your statement.


If we don't have the original text, how could this claim be made?

You tell me. You're the one who insists we should expect some sort of written refutation of early Christian claims. If you don't think such a refutation is possible, that contradicts your argument.

Since I don't consider the TF reliable, you've got nothing to support your assertion regarding Josephus. He describes several Jewish sects but doesn't mention Christianity. What is your evidence that Philo was knowledgeable about Christianity?

Do you have any evidence that anyone was so motivated by the beliefs of others that they went to the trouble of conducting an extensive investigation into evidence supporting them?

Please note that the passage from Tacitus contains very little detail about Christian beliefs even though he may very well have obtained his information from Christians. I've been referring to Tacitus and Pliny throughout this discussion as evidence that very little was known about Christian beliefs by early opponents. These two dealt directly with Christians yet they clearly were not "knowledgeable".

To the point of mounting an extensive investigation to create a formal, written critique? What is your evidence supporting that such people "had" to exist? Do you know of even one example of a 1st century written critique of the factual basis of any new religious movement?

Where is your evidence that Christianity was initially opposed because of rational opposition to its claims? The evidence from Piny indicates it was opposed because Christians refused to pray to the Emperor.

Your own Gospels claim the Jews refuted the resurrection by claiming the body was stolen yet we don't find that written in any Jewish texts. That is exactly what I've been arguing. There may have been folks who directly opposed early Christian claims but there is no reason to expect them to have written their opposition down.

Since I have explained this repeatedly, I don't understand your confusion. It directly contradicts your claim that opponents knew enough and were motivated enough to create a formal, written critique of early Christian claims. It directly supports my claim that very little was known about the specific beliefs of the early Christians yet they were disparaged and dismissed as superstitious fools. It should go without saying that you have to take someone seriously to conduct an investigation and write a formal critique against their beliefs.

You are moving the goalpost. You asserted that no one refuted early Christian claims. Your Gospels say otherwise. You seem to be suddenly eager to specify what constitutes a refutation after refusing to do so until now. You aren't creating an ad hoc definition simply to eliminate the one your own Bible contains, are you?

Clearly it is true because, somehow, the apparent Jewish refutation in your Bible doesn't qualify. There is nothing unreasonable about requiring you to define the terms you use in your assertion.

That makes no sense. Why would people automatically believe the opponents over the Christians if neither side had any evidence? Especially if they believed the Christian apostles could perform miraculous healings?

It is possible that those who refused to convert suspected trickery or they may have suspected demonic powers were at work. The point is that you seem to have this weird idea that people in the 1st century were interested and knowledgeable enough to conduct some sort of formal, skeptical investigation. Where is your evidence that this was done in the 1st century? Where is your evidence that this was done by anyone who knew Christian beliefs? Your entire argument appears to rely on silence but you lack any good reason for anyone to expect anything except silence.

Unless an author explicitly states or otherwise makes clear that he is attempting to record history, you have no reliable basis for the claim.

It is quite apparent that none of them chronicle the life of Jesus. Only two bother to describe anything except his ministry which appears to be the actual focus of all. Though some describe it as lasting three years while another describes it as only a year in duration (or is it the other way around?), I do not deny that all four authors have created a story about the ministry of Jesus but only the story attributed to Luke claims to be a record of history. Expressing their theological views of Jesus, however, appears to be the primary purpose for the efforts.

You provided reasons why you consider that to be reasonable. I provided reasons why I do not consider those reasons credible.

How does the notion that Josephus has been altered by Christians suggest that the whole of his work should be doubted for failing to support other Christian claims?

I agree as I think you would know if you were reading my posts since I've said this very thing. As there does not appear to be any textual evidence requiring any reference, that is why I tend to consider the whole thing a fabrication.

It is obvious to me and, apparently, a great many Christian scholars.

It requires faith to believe they are adequate to establish the Gospel depiction of Pilate as historical.

That is a gross oversimplification of what I have written and I'm not interested in repeating myself.

Your quote from Crossan did not support your point. As my own quote established, he reaches the same conclusion I do. Bowman's position seems to be the same as yours and the Josephus story doesn't appear to be anything like the situation in the Gospels so the connection is flawed. Pilate acted inconsiderately of Jewish sensibilities and threatened violence when they got upset. When they called his bluff, he backed down. The pattern is:

Pilate's disregard of Jewish beliefs
Jewish anger
Pilate's threat despite knowing that slaughtering a bunch of his charges would not look good to his superiors
The Jews call his bluff
Pilate backs down

In other words, Pilate's own actions started the problem and his bluff didn't work so he backed down.

This does nothing to make it more likely that Pilate would offer clemency to a convicted seditionist at Passover nor that he would be willing to convict a man he considered innocent. The pattern the Gospels describe is:

Pilate accepting a conspiracy by Jewish leaders to have an innocent man executed.
Pilate respecting Jewish beliefs by offering clemency to a convincted seditionist
Jewish leaders able to convince enough people to choose Barabbas over Jesus even though Jesus has been earlier described as being quite popular.
Pilate continuing to allow an innocent man to be executed

In other words, Pilate is depicted as little more than a puppet for the Jewish leadership. This is entirely contrary to everything written about him elsewhere including the story referenced. There is no true parallel with the information in Josephus. That story is entirely consistent with everything we know about Pilate. That he was unwilling to commit a mass murder that would likely have resulted in consequences from his superiors doesn't make the Gospel story more credible at all.

According to Josephus, Pilate was far from more lenient or considerate during Passover. Instead, he stationed more guards to control and intimidate them during this potentially volatile event.

Since the example is inadequate to establish the claim, I need no "counter-example".

Read Josephus. He describes numerous guards placed above the area during Passover specifically to stop any disruption like the one described in the Gospels.

More relevant to your claim, does it mean we have any reason to think anyone was interested in obtaining evidence to either accept or reject early Christian claims? No.

You are quite confused. It is your claim that the absence of written attempts to refute early Christian claims is significant. That makes it your job to describe what you mean and your job to defend the assertion. When will you quit trying to shift the burden?

It is an inappropriate analogy because 1) it involves subject matter for a different forum and 2) is factually inaccurate. You are free to pursue the second in the other forum.

bfniii

the bible would seem to provide some examples of that.

Let’s say that there were many such group hallucinations (one for each miracle in the bible witnessed by more than one person). There are times when certain people who witnessed the miracle did not convert to “the way� but there is no evidence of any of these people disputing the claims of the eventual Christians. Indeed, some miracles were done in public gathering places. To respond by saying that people were gullible and believed almost anything miraculous only applies to people outside of Judea who were not present at the miraculous events. Some of the miracles were witnessed by people who outright opposed Jesus and His followers. If there was at any time, one of these people speaking up to oppose the testimony of a Christian, the Christian witness would have been undermined and impotent right then and there. I’m looking for someone who said “I was present at miraculous event X and that is NOT what happened�.

If this situation did exist, Christianity wouldn’t have been able to win converts. Is there any historical basis for your assertion?

I’m confused. We have established that there were alleged eyewitnesses. Now I’m asking you why you believe these purported eyewitnesses were not indeed eyewitnesses.

Interesting point. I don’t see how it answers the question. do you know of any specific refutations of miraculous events?

According to whom?

“more or less�? is that supposed to be scholarly proof? Where is it that he perpetrates this? I was unaware that he “had Jesus do things�. What brings you to that conclusion?

Prove that they were educated. While you’re at it, would you prove that they were unknown?

For starters, john was apparently a rugged fisherman. It is unreasonable to think that a fisherman from that part of the world would have had the opportunity or the means to be provided an education.

So should we start throwing out names and see who is more guilty of appealing to numbers? I also noticed that you didn’t respond to the specific points I made:
• Lack of proof that biblical claims are untrue
• Evidence does exist to verify biblical claims
• Arguing that the bible is false or unreliable without proof of such

Interesting. I didn’t realize being in the minority was equal to being wrong. Besides, I don’t think you can quantify your statement, especially in regards to bible scholars. Unless you have taken a census of every scholar everywhere and recorded their views, stating that something is “mainstream� is untenable. I agree that the anti-christian sentiment is more popular right now. It makes the news more often.

Really? I have read the opposite about ancient documents. That there were many anonymous and pseudonymous works. Even authorship of works as late as Shakespeare are doubted. On what do you base this statement?

Curious. You don’t answer the question. If one part of the antiquities is altered, how do we know any of it is to be trusted?

If they witnessed the same event and discussed it among themselves (which I would imagine happened many times), why wouldn’t they share phrases?

Wow. What is this proof?

that there will even be evidence in a desert is debatable. There is evidence, but it is not clear yet. Also, there is evidence that can’t be examined due to certain governmental restrictions (as in the photographed chariot parts at the bottom of the red sea). Additionally, digging hasn’t stopped so we still have an incomplete picture.

bfniii

asking for additional verification is not the same as claiming it is false.

what kind of additional verification. would you be looking for?

if additional veritication existed, what would that prove?

that is an oversimplification of the case i have been making.

i believe we have already covered how the bible differs with ancient myth or fiction.

if this is the case, why have the said verses been linked to the rest of what we today call that particular book?

i see you typing generalities, but i see nothing specific to support your assertions.

i have never disagreed that some parts of the bible are difficult to believe. however, difficult does not equal false.

first, that's not entirely true. second, i asked some questions at the outset of this post that i hope you will cover.

what evidence would you require?

reasonably is a subjective value, therefore epistimologically unsound.

i don't disagree here. however, there are clearly two dichotomous values present.

bfniii

It can be stated ad infinitum, but that doesn’t change the fact that “meaningful� is subjective and not proof.

Back to myths again. I thought we had covered this. Could you point me to the “santa claus scrolls� so I can investigate the claims of eyewitnesses to the origins of his vocation?

It would be difficult to deny. However I really like that you asked me to support your case for you. Is there a possibility that even this extrabiblical verification could be unsound? For example, who is to say that, if we could travel back in time, the things I witnessed weren’t either a hallucination or a mistake or my part? This is the claim made by skeptics regarding the alleged eyewitnesses of the time. One more eyewitness would just be an appeal to numbers. Who is to say that the time travel wasn’t rigged so that a predicted outcome would be observed?

I don’t look at the situation that way. Regarding events that can’t be currently verified, it is untenable to state “the event didn’t happen� without irrefutable proof. No one will ever be able to deny someone stating that they believe or doubt that something didn’t happen. That’s a subjective opinion and any person has the right to state so and the reasons why they formed such an opinion. however, incumbent upon them would be to respect others' opinions just as they would want theirs respected. ridiculing them for the crime of being in the minority seems intolerant and unpolitic.

The reasons for apostolic authorship are no less underwhelming than the phantom rule that a book must be written first person/claim to be an eyewitness in order to be truly authentic eyewitness testimony.

As this is an oversimplification of the biblical situation, am I allowed to introduce pertinent elements to your hypothetical situation?

I was merely asking what you believe is pertinent from josephus’ silence on biblical matters.

You stated that “Josephus doesn’t make claims about raising people from the dead and other supernatural phenomenon�. If you believe this, wouldn’t this be precedent for expecting him to not include other phenomenon such as the risen saints?

Farewell. I have found our discussions stimulating.

bfniii

The eyewitness accounts preceded my belief in the conclusion. If there were NO evidence whatsoever, I would agree. However, I have been laboring to show that is not the case.

I disagree. I find it not unreasonable to accept the historically reliable position that there were eyewitnesses to said miraculous claims coupled with no proof otherwise. Skepticism is healthy to a certain extent. Unfortunately, it can cause a distorted rationale. I have been hoping to establish that not accepting the reliability of the bible is analogous to not accepting the reliability of any work from antiquity. There is no proof that authorship can be attributed to any work of antiquity. What we know is from evidence external to that work. With unbridled skepticism, we could claim that these verifications were either fabricated, mistaken, legendary or a combination of all. indeed skeptics require faith that the information they base their conclusions on is absolutely correct. to doubt that a biblical miracle happened is to have faith that the "personal experience" of the skeptic is genuine, trustworthy, ecumenical and immutable. to believe that the eyewitness accounts are false is to have faith that one speculative injunction is superior to another.

i have been accused of faithful bias in this matter. however, i have observed that distrust of past influential christians in concert with individuals acting outside the mandate of christian doctrine has caused a bias against christian historical authenticity.

Diogenes the Cynic

What exactly is this "eyewitness" evidence you're referring to? Are you under the impression that the NT contains eyewitness accounts?

Amaleq13

How is "proof" less subjective than "meaningful"?

Why do you persist in this backward thinking when it has been shown to be logically problematic? What "irrefutable proof" can exist that an event didn't happen? No, the only reasonable approach is to require evidence supporting the affirmative claim. Depending on the nature of the claim, an absence of evidence can warrant outright rejection or just agnosticism. Highly unlikely claims (eg I am capable of levitation) may be denied quite reasonably absent evidence.

What do you mean when you say you wish your opinion to be respected? It seems you mean that it should be treated as though it is just as likely to be correct. Given the arguments you've put forth, that just ain't gonna happen.

As far as I'm concerned, your arguments should be rejected because they do not conform to the actual evidence and are largely based on flawed reasoning. If you consider that rejection to be "ridicule", I doubt there is anything I can say to change that perception. That your conclusions are supported by such a small number of devoutly faithful scholars is not as important as the fact that so many respected, professed Christian scholars disagree. This is only relevant in that it clearly eliminates any suggestion that the conclusion is the result of some sort of anti-Christian bias.

When only a small group of scholars who share a profound faith accept certain conclusions, it is only reasonable to question whether their decision to accept those conclusions has more to do with that faith than a rational consideration of the evidence.

Amaleq13

I had thought you had said earlier that you only considered the evidence after you converted but you seem to saying here that you were convinced the accounts were written by eyewitnesses before you became a Christian. If that is the case, I think your standards were too low because the evidence is far from sufficient. And, yes, that is my subjective opinion but it is also the subjective opinion of a large number of respected Christian scholars. You might ask yourself why they would fail to embrace this conclusion if the evidence were as compelling as you think.

And we've been trying to explain that the Bible should be treated just like any other ancient text making similar claims.

Ah, the return of the Strawman. None of the arguments offered against your positions have been based on "unbridled skepticism".

I thought you wanted the Bible to be treated like any other ancient text? The opinions of past influential historians are not treated as inherently special and the concept of doctrinal mandates is a source of bias, not a way to avoid it.

It sure took you a long time but you finally acknowledged the true reason you reject the conclusions accepted by so many Christian scholars. It is not because they are not based on the evidence or on poor arguments. You reject them because you consider those conclusions to be contrary to Christian doctrine.