Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

But the persons who authored the new testament didn't say it was fiction. Otherwise, nobody would believe it and you wouldn't have chuch fathers defending the faith as early as 100 AD. Most people would be writing phrases such as "Yeah, that Christianity is such a stupid crock o' crap. Rising and dying savior give me a break."

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Because what we are hearing is a subsection of a longer argument, I think. It is unfortunate that the full argument is rarely made, since frankly without it those atheists who go down this route run the risk of being considered to be arguing from convenience -- ignore this, ignore that, ignore anything inconvenient -- and this charge is indeed made and in some cases indeed justified.

I will have a go at the full argument, but of course I welcome corrections! This is what *I* think it is.

1. We want to find out what if anything happened at the start of Christian origins in the early first century.
2. We can ignore all Christian texts on the basis that they are written by Christians who are or may be biased. Only texts written by pagans or Jews can be considered unlikely to be biased towards Christianity.
3. We can ignore all non-Christian texts, if we can find any excuse to suppose Christian influence, or construct any speculation which would suggest that they are inauthentic.
4. Therefore no evidence about Christian origins exists.
5. Therefore Christian accounts of their own origins are untrue.
6. Therefore Christianity is untrue.

and in the case of the intellectually dead:

7. Therefore Jesus never existed.

I hope we can all see that every stage of the argument after #1 has some horrible fallacy in it, and that the whole argument looks very like a rationalisation of a desired conclusion.

I think that the reason why #2 and #3 alone are stated, and the rest insinuated, is firstly that the atheists who make it haven't actually got the argument clear in their minds themselves. But they make this part of it, because it sounds reasonable since everyone wants unbiased evidence, and so the demand for it (as a pretext to ignore data) sounds impressive to themselves and others while involving them in negligible effort.

As Vinnie has remarked, the way you actually do any kind of historical investigation is to gather all the evidence, and see what it says. Finding reasons to ignore bits is NOT what you do. If I wanted to know about Mani, I certainly wouldn't ignore Manichaean sources (nor, indeed, anti-Manichaean sources). On the contrary; they are liable to be very well informed.

I wonder if I may say that I have never, myself, seen why some atheists adopt this argument? Surely it is liable to discredit them? There can be no real doubt that some chap with a beard on a soapbox was going around at the time saying "I am the way," and that this kicked the whole thing off. Why? Because that's how all human movements tend to start, as all of us know.

Whether his claims about himself, and his friends claims about him, are actually true is quite a different question, of course. But that the account that the Christians give of their origins is substantially correct seems beyond question to me, since that is how such movements tend to arise. The attempts to manufacture alternatives seem rather shabby, and do atheism no favours whatever.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I hope you checked all those "quotes" yourself? Got the reference, found the text, checked whether or not it actually says that, and whether that is what the author was saying or a bit of quote-mining. <hint>
All the best,
Roger Pearse

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I said to ask specifically for "extra-biblical evidence" is silly because the term Biblical should not arise in historical discussion. All Christian sources need to be evaluated individualy. Assuming a canonical dimension to ancient Christian writings is theology, not history. The title "Bible" or description "biblical" carries theological connotations. Historians don't work under the assumption that these texts were inspired by God and are inerrant or simply that they serve the purpose for which God intended them. That is theology, not history. I have no qualms with systematic theology but it is not history. It steals some of its methods but is largely constrained by theological propositions.

Originally Posted by Vinnie

.... Treating texts historically allows us to separate myth from fact, fiction from truth. It turns out that the "good news" about Jesus lies somewhere in between legend and history, containing both elements intertwined. That is what historians have determined, contra the fundamentalists and hyper-skeptical mythicists out there.

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

Atheists first must explain why we CAN'T trust the New Testament writings. They are writings and mentionings, are they not?

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

For example, when we read the New Testament, atheists ask "where's the evidence OUTSIDE the New Testament?" This is begging the question.

Originally Posted by Vinnie

n its formative years Christianity was a blip on the radar so in all likely hood, we will only obtain information about it through Christian writers.

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

The evidence all this is true is the Gospels themselves. I don't know how one can read all the letters of the New Testament, the book of Acts, and the Gospels, and Paul's letters and say with a straight face "Yep, all this is fiction. Nothing happened. Nothing was going on in that first century."

Cmon, Who's foolin' who here?

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

. . .
Why do atheists INSIST on evidence OUTSIDE the Gospels? :huh:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Treating texts historically allows us to separate myth from fact, fiction from truth. It turns out that the "good news" about Jesus lies somewhere in between legend and history, containing both elements intertwined. That is what historians have determined, contra the fundamentalists and hyper-skeptical mythicists out there.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Why do ajedists insist for evidence outside of the original trilogy?

For example, when we watch The Empire Strikes Back, ajedists ask "where's the evidence OUTSIDE The Empire Strikes Back?" This is begging the question.

Ajedists first must explain why we CAN'T trust The Empire Strikes Back? It is a documentary of a civil war that happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, is it not?

When one watches the original trilogy and asks, "why did NO ONE document Skywaker's battle against Vader?" The answer is they did document it and you're watching it right now with your very eyes!

Why do ajedists INSIST on evidence OUTSIDE the original trilogy?