Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ercatli · 12-13-2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

All this debate over a historical Jesus seems pretty silly for Christians to worry with then.

The whole enterprise of apologetics can be seen as a disingenuous ploy to give an air of intellectual credibility concerning matters that are irrelevant to saving faith.

I'd be interested to know why you say this Zenaphobe. It doesn't seem a logical conclusion to me.

Let me share my perspective. Long before I ever came on atheist forums and discussed historical Jesus (or anything else), I had to decide for myself. I didn't want to believe something that I couldn't honestly think was true, and I still don't. So I have always taken an interest in these matters - they are important to me. The same points then become useful in discussing with those who see things differently. That's how it is for me, though of course it may be very different for someone else.

Wouldn't the same be true for you in your disbelief?

aa5874 · 12-13-2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

.... Many things in John are independently attested elsewhere, in archaeology or in the other Gospels, many things indicate a familiarity with geography and culture, but whether that is enough for a historian to state they are definitely historical, I don't know. I think cautious historians would withhold judgment on some matters, but accept others. But again of course, any of us can have an opinion, a belief or a disbelief.

What things about Jesus and the disciples are independently attested in archaeology?

What things about Jesus and the disciples are independently attested in the other Gospels?

The resurrection!

spin · 12-13-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Some of the Gospel sources are independent of each other.

That's inaccurate and misleading. Some of the speculative, theoretical sources for the Gospels may have been independent of each other but their actual existence has not been confirmed.

You've actually got only one Gospel you can argue is entirely independent of the others (but not of Paul)

Oh, Really? Do you mean to suggest that it is even possible that all the agreements between Mark and Paul are the result of Mark using Paul as a source? For instance, how is it reasonably possible that Mark could make Mark 14:58 out of 2 Corinthians 5:1? That the texts are related is evident, that Mark is here dependent upon Paul seems absurd.

"[A]bsurd"? maybe, but only if one assumes direct dependence. How many transmissions of tradition took place between the time of Paul's ministry to that of the writing of the first gospel? And the answer is of course that you simply don't know. Each new telling is naturally shaped by each new teller.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

and a fourth that may or may not be.

Doesn't seem quite so impressive when you describe the evidence accurately.

I think you have been reading too many of the broad dismissals on this board and are ignoring pretty substantial evidence.

I have been asking for years for some courageous soul to produce that substantive evidence and so far none have come forward with the goods. The request for the substantive evidence has been ignored to the point that the impression is that there is no substantive evidence whatsoever. Why do text manipulators get offended and clam up when their up-to-now unsubstantiated claims are questioned, rather than getting down to the substance?

ercatli here has been big on quoting opinions as evidence. Others have worked from unfounded assumptions such as embarrassment (not realizing that this is based merely on modern retelling). Yet others think that they can mix and match texts without ever contextualizing them so as to show their relevance. When you ask for someone to date the texts they are using in an effort to contextualize them, you get assumptions rather than tangible response.

So, if you actually have some substantive evidence, you should be the first to present it.

spin

ph2ter · 12-14-2009, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That's inaccurate and misleading. Some of the speculative, theoretical sources for the Gospels may have been independent of each other but their actual existence has not been confirmed.

You've actually got only one Gospel you can argue is entirely independent of the others (but not of Paul)

Oh, Really? Do you mean to suggest that it is even possible that all the agreements between Mark and Paul are the result of Mark using Paul as a source? For instance, how is it reasonably possible that Mark could make Mark 14:58 out of 2 Corinthians 5:1? That the texts are related is evident, that Mark is here dependent upon Paul seems absurd.

Peter.

Interesting parallel between the Jewish Temple made with hands and another, not made with hands exists also in the epistle of Barnabas. The author doesn't seem to be aware of Mark:

Quote:

Chapter XVI.—The spiritual temple of God.

Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the Lord speaks, when abolishing it: “Who hath meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I?” “Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me, or what is the place of My rest?”
Ye perceive that their hope is vain. Moreover, He again says, “Behold, they who have cast down this temple, even they shall build it up again.” It has so happened. For through their going to war, it was destroyed by their enemies; and now: they, as the servants of their enemies, shall rebuild it. Again, it was revealed that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be given up. For the Scripture saith, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheep-fold and tower, to destruction.” And it so happened as the Lord had spoken.

Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God.
There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How?
Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How?
His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man, but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-14-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

So, why should I change my belief?

Is that an attempt to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof? You might as well ask a skeptic who you just met "why aren't you a Christian?" Well, why aren't you a Deist? Why aren't you a Buddhist? Following your same line of reasoning, it would be acceptable for anyone to say "why should I change my worldview?" When early Christians started to proselytize, they presented their cases for Christianity. They did not go around asking skeptics why they (the Christians) should give up Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to ercatli: What first century, non-bibilical sources do you have regarding the miracles that Jesus performed? The Gospels alone are not sufficient to confirm that Jesus performed miracles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Why are the Gospels alone not sufficient? The Historical method, as summarised on Wikipedia, includes this criterion: "If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased." Some of the Gospel sources are independent of each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It cannot be shown that there are any independent Gospel sources that are historical.

We can go through each main event in the Gospels with respect to Jesus.

1.The conception of Jesus.

2. The temptation by the Devil for forty days and nights.

3. The miracles where Jesus healed people by spit and raised the dead.

4. The transfiguration.

5. The trial and crucifixion.

6. The resurrection.

7. The ascension.

No Gospel source can be shown to be independent and to be credible.

And once the Gospels are questioned, they cannot be corroborative sources of themselves.

Now, please name the independent source of any Gospel writer and the veracity or credibility of the independent source?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Yes, ercatli, please back up your "independent sources" argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Hey Johnny, this thread is supposed to be about you explaining things to me, not the other way round. So before I answer, how about you offer your views.

What is your conclusion about the Gospels and independent sources?

In the opening post, you said "So, why should I change my belief?" If you wanted to stick with that question and not make any claims, you should have done so. However, you did not stick with the question, and you have made many claims, some of which aa5874 replied to. It is certainly appropriate for skeptics to ask you to back up your claims.

Let's get back to the following comments that you made:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Hey Johnny, this thread is supposed to be about you explaining things to me, not the other way round. So before I answer, how about you offer your views.

Christians are the claimants, not the other way around. The same goes for Muslims, Hindus, etc. It has been my experience over several years at these forums that Christians are notorious for trying change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. I have actually seen Christians tell skeptics "prove that the God of the Bible does not exist."

You obviously do not want to take the responsibility of stating "your" case for Christianity, even though the Bible says that you should. In the NASB, 1 Peter 3:15 says "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence."

In part of spin's post 413, he said the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have been asking for years for some courageous soul to produce that substantive evidence and so far none have come forward with the goods. The request for the substantive evidence has been ignored to the point that the impression is that there is no substantive evidence whatsoever. Why do text manipulators get offended and clam up when their up-to-now unsubstantiated claims are questioned, rather than getting down to the substance?

Ercatli here has been big on quoting opinions as evidence. Others have worked from unfounded assumptions such as embarrassment (not realizing that this is based merely on modern retelling). Yet others think that they can mix and match texts without ever contextualizing them so as to show their relevance. When you ask for someone to date the texts they are using in an effort to contextualize them, you get assumptions rather than tangible response.

So, if you actually have some substantive evidence, you should be the first to present it.

Indeed, providing substantive evidence is "your" responsibility because of "preexisting" claims in the Bible.

Regarding your question "So, why should I change my belief?," what that really meant was "So, would you skeptics like to be the claimants?"

Johnny Skeptic · 12-14-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

I am not an expert, in either the historical facts or the interpretation or contextualization of the facts, so I rely on experts.

Experts? Well, no skeptic expert believes that Jesus rose from the dead. Why do you suppose that that is the case? Don't they generally know much more about the Bible than you do?

Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman are two of the most prestigious skeptic Bible scholars in the world, and have written many books. Do you believe that they are honestly searching for the truth? If so, why haven't they found it? Do they need to read some more books that were written by Christians? Do they need more education?

Since Ehrman used to be a Christian scholar, you cannot call him biased.

Amaleq13 · 12-14-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You've actually got only one Gospel you can argue is entirely independent of the others (but not of Paul)

Do you mean to suggest that it is even possible that all the agreements between Mark and Paul are the result of Mark using Paul as a source?

No. I mean to suggest one would find it quite challenging to argue that Mark is independent of Paul.

Quote:

I think you have been reading too many of the broad dismissals on this board and are ignoring pretty substantial evidence.

I think you are somehow misunderstanding my position. There is no "pretty substantial evidence" that contradicts anything I've written.

But feel free to offer what you think does.

ercatli · 12-14-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Is that an attempt to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof?

No. The "burden of proof" is a concept with different meanings in different contexts. I take it that here it means that if I make a proposition and I want you to believe it, I should offer reasons/evidence to you. But in the OP I didn't ask you to believe anything, so I was attempting to prove nothing and I had no "burden". I had made statements and offered evidence on a previous thread, and thought a different approach might make for a better discussion.

Quote:

You might as well ask a skeptic who you just met "why aren't you a Christian?" Well, why aren't you a Deist? Why aren't you a Buddhist?

This thread is under the general topic of "Biblical Criticism and History", so why shouldn't I ask questions about the historical Jesus?

Quote:

Following your same line of reasoning, it would be acceptable for anyone to say "why should I change my worldview?"

I would have thought that was quite acceptable, In fact, I would welcome it.

Quote:

In the opening post, you said "So, why should I change my belief?" If you wanted to stick with that question and not make any claims, you should have done so.

All I have done is respond to some of the replies.

Quote:

You obviously do not want to take the responsibility of stating "your" case for Christianity, even though the Bible says that you should.

What you regard as obvious is in fact erroneous. But if you don't like the topic of this thread, I'm sorry - it seems to have attracted many other people.

Quote:

Regarding your question "So, why should I change my belief?," what that really meant was "So, would you skeptics like to be the claimants?"

OK. You don't want to answer my question. Fair enough.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-14-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

So, why should I change my belief? Any takers?

For one thing, because no one should accept Christianity unless Christians provide reasonable evidence of independent Gospel sources. Consider the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Why are the Gospels alone not sufficient? The Historical method, as summarised on Wikipedia, includes this criterion: "If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased." Some of the Gospel sources are independent of each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5874

It cannot be shown that there are any independent Gospel sources that are historical.

We can go through each main event in the Gospels with respect to Jesus.

1.The conception of Jesus.

2. The temptation by the Devil for forty days and nights.

3. The miracles where Jesus healed people by spit and raised the dead.

4. The transfiguration.

5. The trial and crucifixion.

6. The resurrection.

7. The ascension.

No Gospel source can be shown to be independent and to be credible.

And once the Gospels are questioned, they cannot be corroborative sources of themselves.

Now, please name the independent source of any Gospel writer and the veracity or credibility of the independent source?

Why isn't it appropriate for you to reply to aa5874's post?

Johnny Skeptic · 12-14-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

I am not an expert, in either the historical facts or the interpretation or contextualization of the facts, so I rely on experts.

But no skeptic expert believes that Jesus rose from the dead. No skeptic expert believes that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. No skeptic expert believes that Jesus was born of a virgin. No skeptic expert believes that Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind.

What is it that skeptic experts claim that you rely on?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.