Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-11-2008, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Historical sources must all be testable to some degree.

In what respect? We have a source that tells us what happened in Britain after 396. No other source tells us. I don't quite see why you think we should ignore that source.

Ignore? No. Use with any security? How on earth can you? It may contain valid information, but epistemology is the hurdle you must deal with...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I don't think the remainder of your comments amount to more than reiteration.

...You will always shirk your responsibilities, won't you Roger?

spin

spin · 10-11-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think that all regular posters on this forum are aware of the arguments, good and bad, that have been made against the authenticity of this material. They remain evidence, which has to be considered. In normal speech 'evidence' is not the same as 'conclusive evidence' or 'indisputed evidence'.

Evidence is a more than simple information. It is validated information used to support a position.

If for a moment we accept the information in the questionable passages as evidence, then you can weigh up its conclusiveness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I thought 'of one sort or another' sufficiently acknowledged the disputes concerning the weight to be given this material.

It was somewhat cryptic in its statement, but I can see your thought in the phrase now.

spin

Johnny Skeptic · 10-11-2008, 12:04 PM

Message to andrewcriddle: Since the Gospels are not very convincing on their own from a historical perspective, other than the Gospels, what Biblical and non-Biblical, first century evidence do you have that corroborates the claim that Jesus performed miracles? At least some supposedly eyewitnesses sources would be nice, as well as at least some named sources for second hand or third hand information. As far as I know, the miracles of Jesus are poorly attested to by Biblical and non-Biblical first century sources.

aa5874 · 10-11-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The canonical Gospels are obviously our main sources but we have evidence of one sort or another from non-Christian sources such as Josephus and Tacitus, NT books other than the Gospels such as Paul's epistles and Christian works (orthodox and unorthodox) outside the NT.

Andrew Criddle

Even if we accept the Jesus blurbs in Josephus and Tacitus as genuine, they're so terse that they don't really tell us anything about Jesus.

Actually,there are no Jesus blurbs at all in Tacitus.

aa5874 · 10-11-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is Andrew

This is the letter writer called Paul

There is no indication from the letter writers that they got any information about Jesus from the apostles or other so-called Christians.

The letters contradict the presumption of Andrew.

I think there are two points here.

a/ Paul in Galatians is emphasizing his independence from the Jerusalem apostles. Even in Galatians in 1:18 Paul mentions staying with Cephas for fifteen days and in 2:2 his discussion with the Jerusalem apostles as to the validity of his Gospel.

In letters such as 1 Corinthians, where Paul has other priorities, we have an account in 15:3-11 of the resurrection appearances of Christ which Paul is almost certainly claiming to have received from other Christians, and an account in 11:23-25 of the institution of the Eucharist by Jesus which IMO (on the basis of the technical language used) Paul is claiming to have received from other Christians. (I agree that the status of the account in 1 Corinthians 11 is less clear-cut than that of the one in 1 Corinthians 15.)

b/ I increasingly think that, as well as information from the Apostles on the one hand and private revelation to Paul on the other, we should recognise common knowledge as a source of Paul's ideas about Jesus.

When Paul is putting forward ideas about Jesus Christ which might be controversial to his readers, the question of the basis of Paul's information becomes important, and Paul will answer it in accord with the circumstances of the case.

However, when dealing with claims about Jesus such as that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem one Passsover, I don't think that Paul would have based these sort of claims on either private revelation or information from the Jerusalem apostles. Such claims would be the sort of thing accepted by followers of Christ, opponents of Christianity and mildly interested bystanders alike. Paul's answer if asked as to how he knew that Jesus was executed by crucifixion would IMO be 'everyone knows that' rather than giving a specific source.

Andrew Criddle

Your position on the letter writers called Paul cannot be corroborated.

It is extremely futile to use the letters of the writers to confirm the veracity of the very same uncorroborated letters.

Peter was a fictitious character in the gospels, the letter writers called Paul could not have seen or stayed with Peter for fifteen days.

The letter writers called Paul may have just read the memoirs of the apostles and as stated by Justin Martyr in conjunction with Revelations and then falsely claim they had revelations from Jesus in heaven.

There is no need for there to be an actual letter writer named Paul to have actually lived to produce the epistles, all that is needed is for writers to write the word Paul in the first verse of each letter.

It cannot be confirmed that anyone actually knew a letter writer named Paul and could identify him if they saw him or that he received information from any real person from the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius to the death of Nero.

andrewcriddle · 10-12-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to andrewcriddle: Since the Gospels are not very convincing on their own from a historical perspective, other than the Gospels, what Biblical and non-Biblical, first century evidence do you have that corroborates the claim that Jesus performed miracles? At least some supposedly eyewitnesses sources would be nice, as well as at least some named sources for second hand or third hand information. As far as I know, the miracles of Jesus are poorly attested to by Biblical and non-Biblical first century sources.

The Gospels are our main source for miracles of Jesus. If they are not regarded as convincing then I doubt that the other sources would be regarded as convincing either. However:
There are references in the Book of Acts to Jesus having worked miracles.
Our present text of Josephus refers to Jesus working miracles.
Early 2nd century writers such as Quadratus and Papias seem to have referred to Jesus working miracles. Their accounts seem legendary but may be independent of the canonical Gospels.

The most that this evidence can do is indicate that Jesus was regarded as a miracle worker independently of and prior to the written Gospels. The multiple attestation of Jesus working miracles within the written Gospels (Mark Q etc) probably establishes this anyway.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham · 10-12-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Actually,there are no Jesus blurbs at all in Tacitus.

True, but is there reason to think Tacitus is referring to a different Christ character when he refers to Christians?

Clivedurdle · 10-12-2008, 09:48 AM

Miracles being quoted in support of arguments that the gospels are credible history?

Hume - miracles are impossible. So someone allegedly doing them is on a continuum of herbal healer to charlatan.

But the model Jesi portrayed in the gospels are portrayed as ethical ones - doesn't the son of God understand thou shalt not bear false witness?

And whih miracles precisely are the good ones? Legion? Bethesda?

aa5874 · 10-12-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Actually,there are no Jesus blurbs at all in Tacitus.

True, but is there reason to think Tacitus is referring to a different Christ character when he refers to Christians?

Do you realise the word CHRIST predated Jesus of the NT, that CHRIST means "anointed", or the "anointed" of God?

And further, CHRIST is generally considered a title, and it is likely that many many persons before the stories of Jesus of the NT regarded themselves as or were called the "anointed" or the "anointed one".

A single mention of the word "Christus" by Tacitus is simply just NOT enough information to make any positive confirmation about the character.

It cannot be determined from the single mention by Tacitus if Christus was the first name or a title given to the character.

aa5874 · 10-12-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to andrewcriddle: Since the Gospels are not very convincing on their own from a historical perspective, other than the Gospels, what Biblical and non-Biblical, first century evidence do you have that corroborates the claim that Jesus performed miracles? At least some supposedly eyewitnesses sources would be nice, as well as at least some named sources for second hand or third hand information. As far as I know, the miracles of Jesus are poorly attested to by Biblical and non-Biblical first century sources.

The Gospels are our main source for miracles of Jesus. If they are not regarded as convincing then I doubt that the other sources would be regarded as convincing either. However:
There are references in the Book of Acts to Jesus having worked miracles.
Our present text of Josephus refers to Jesus working miracles.
Early 2nd century writers such as Quadratus and Papias seem to have referred to Jesus working miracles. Their accounts seem legendary but may be independent of the canonical Gospels.

The most that this evidence can do is indicate that Jesus was regarded as a miracle worker independently of and prior to the written Gospels. The multiple attestation of Jesus working miracles within the written Gospels (Mark Q etc) probably establishes this anyway.

Andrew Criddle

It is completely erroneous and mis-leading to claim that there are multiple attestations of Jesus working miracles in the written gospels.

The authors of the gospels are unknown, they all wrote long after the supposed miracles, and the miracles themselves are implausible and incredible.

It is NOT likely that any supposed miracles of the so-called Jesus could be ATTESTED.

To "attest" means to "bear witness to", it is hardly possible that anyone attested or witnessed Jesus walk on water, or ascend through the clouds.

And , it would appear the unknown authors of the gospels merely used a single source filled with the implausible and incredible stories about an unknown god called the son of the god of the Jews, even Josephus contain the legendary fable of an incredible UNATTESTED resurrection.

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

10-11-2008, 12:04 PM	#63
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to andrewcriddle: Since the Gospels are not very convincing on their own from a historical perspective, other than the Gospels, what Biblical and non-Biblical, first century evidence do you have that corroborates the claim that Jesus performed miracles? At least some supposedly eyewitnesses sources would be nice, as well as at least some named sources for second hand or third hand information. As far as I know, the miracles of Jesus are poorly attested to by Biblical and non-Biblical first century sources.

10-12-2008, 09:48 AM	#68
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Miracles being quoted in support of arguments that the gospels are credible history? Hume - miracles are impossible. So someone allegedly doing them is on a continuum of herbal healer to charlatan. But the model Jesi portrayed in the gospels are portrayed as ethical ones - doesn't the son of God understand thou shalt not bear false witness? And whih miracles precisely are the good ones? Legion? Bethesda?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.