buckshot23

No. The level of certainty displayed here about authorship is not justified. One can have an opinion upon the subject but please do not try and suggest that it is an objective fact. We just do not have enough evidence.

buckshot23

I think you are getting it.:thumbs:
Maybe not.:down: Maybe you shouldn't have written it if it is the dumbest thing you have ever heard.
The evidence is too fragmentory and speculative to have any level of certainty.
Check the grassy knoll!
Thank goodness I didn't say that.
Consensus is meaningless in actually explaining what actually took place. Fathermithras seems to think that because the consensus states something that I should accept that consensus because it is the consensus of scholars opinions. Sorry that just isn't good enough. Especially considering the fragmentory level of the evidence and the level of speculation involved. This isn't mathematics folks.
Who is doing this!? Not me. This accusation is misleading at best,....
Who said "there is a chance they may be wrong!"?
I'm not saying that the consensus is wrong just that consensus does not = objective truth.
Equating biblical scholarship and "rocket science" is outright absurd. One is much much more speculative than the other. If a "rocket scientist" is wrong the rocket blows up. When a biblical scholar is wrong...not much indicates his/her error.
No just express the level of certainty accurately.

Angrillori

Oh boy. And there it is. "Opinion." As if all "opinions" are equal, and as if labeling something an opinion makes it unworthy of any consideration.

Clearly not all opinions are equal. And clearly not everything labeled an "opinion" is an "opinion."

"Vanilla tastes better than chocolate" is an opinion.
"Traditional authorship of the gospels is wrong" is a belief based on evidence.

Now when comparing beliefs the justification for the beliefs becomes important. One justification for the belief "tradional authorship of the gospels is wrong" is that it is in agreement with the consensus of those people who have most extensively studied the items and issues in question, those who have spent the most time with the most access to the evidence surrounding the items and issues in question.

That's a pretty good justification, and a justification we use for beliefs in every other area of our lives. To assert that the conclusions of the people who most study, and most analyze, and have best access to the evidence surrounding an item in question are "worthless" is just silly.

Furthermore, you're doing just what you're saying you're not doing! Saying that unless omsething is an objective fact, then it's just an opinion, and thus "worthless." Thereby setting up the false false false dichotomy of "objective fact" and "worthless opinion." Obviously there is a whole continuum of levels of certainty to match the amounts of evidence we have for a subject. So, stop pretending it's a question of "absolutely objective true fact" and "worthless opinion." It's not. Where does a belief with significant justification fall in there?

Llyricist

Actually, in the context of the original discussion that you butted into and derailed long enough to let the original Christian poster skate, it is not worthless, because the original discussion was about what the concensus is, not whether the concensus is correct.

This tag team tactic, and the fact that people here fall for it, bothers the hell out of me.

TomboyMom

That's right. The OP, from Richbee, was: This turned out to be false, as the g.c. of m.s. does not accept his assertions as historical fact. So what we have is:
If the OP was true, that would support Christianity.
But since it isn't, that doesn't undermine Christianity.
Hey, buckshot, it was the Christian who elevated the question of the consensus, not the atheists. We were just pointing out that he's wrong. However, if the truth of his statement would tend to indicate that the gospel is true, then the falsity of it tends to indicate that it's not.

Thus, this thread neatly illustrates two of my annoying habits of theists:
1. <edit>.
2. special pleading, which I call "Heads I win; tails you lose," argumentation.

buckshot23

I don't believe this.
I agree with the former and I am confused by the latter.
See that is fine. Believe what you like and state that it is just that a belief. Most of my objections are the absolute language that people use in this forum. If they used this type of language this objection would melt away.
One could say the following also...
"Traditional authorship of the gospels is correct" is a belief based on evidence.
Have you ever "over thought" a test question and gotten it wrong? Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct answer. I think this could be the case with some of these theories.
Would you please address the level of speculation and the fragmentory level of the evidence, please?
Hogwash. I am saying that the consensus argument is worthless.
I do not think opinions are "worthless" I think the fact that if 51% of scholars agree on something that this should indicate anything about what actually happened and if that is used in a debate it is "worthless". Consensus has been wrong and especially considering it is based on this type of flimsy, and fragmentory evidence. The level of disagreement indicates this.

Angrillori

Well, it got the point across. So I think I should have written it, thanks. And that's not just an opinion, but a justified belief.

Says you. And is that a good enough reason to dismiss the consensus conclusion of experts?

Of course not.
And look who's there: buckshot!
Actually, you did. Here:
You misspelled "conclusions based upon study, and research."
And downright true at worst. Remember:
Who was equating. It was an analogy. Of course the analogy works magnificently, which is why you mischaracterized it like that.

When do we trust experts in the absence of countering observations/evidence:
In everything else.
When does Bucky think experts are absolutely worthless: When it contradicts his dogma.

FatherMithras

Bullshit. I stated that it's idiotic to simply hold a contrary position when there's no support for it. You keep asserting that the scholars merely have opinions, which shows your complete and utter ignorance of how conclusions are made on history.

okay, here goes. The Biblical account of the resurrection has no supporting evidence for it that holds up to scrutiny, but it's possible we may find something to indicate it is more than a made up story.

buckshot23

This may be a fair criticism. I assure you I wasn't trying to let anybody skate.
This is a totally unfair criticism. There is nothing to "fall for" because I wasn't trying to get anybody off the hook. Richbee is a total stranger to me. So I would like you to withdraw your veiled accusation.

FatherMithras

This is laughable. It's not a series of contrary opinions, with one simply being more popular. NO ONE is claiming we know for sure. What we're saying is that the evidence best points a certain way, as shown by the fact the people best educated to make conclusions on the evidence (NOT form OPINIONS about it) disagree with the resurrection.