Amaleq13

I'm choosing to consider a correction of mistaken characterizations of my statements to not constitute a violation of my sacred Dogma vow.

If this refers to the story of Pilate offering amnesty to a seditionist, it is an inaccurate characterization of my position. Without a precedent or extrabiblical support, this story is entirely unbelievable as history. While it is true that there might be folks who are willing to accept it as true anyway, they are not doing so, IMO, on the basis of a rational consideration of the evidence.

This is also inaccurate. bfniii's argument assumes that early Christians were making these claims and I have noted that there is no evidence for that assumption. There is no basis for the attempt to shift the burden nor is there, apparently, any basis for accepting the claim.

bfniii

I’m hoping you will provide support for these assertions instead of just making the general statements.

A person doesn’t necessarily have to leave behind written records of themselves in order to be known. You state that no one who knew Him left any record of Him which is untrue. That’s the whole point of the gospels.

What about the fact that there are books/websites that claim the apostolic authorship is genuine? I don’t think name dropping is going to get us anywhere. For what reasons should other people believe what you have read?

I take it you have a problem with that. Should everyone else as well?

anonymous? How did they know who wrote them?

What makes you say this?

As I have stated to ameleq, you are unable to quantify that statement until you have interviewed every scholar, everywhere. Second, the majority is not always right.

Is there a reason why you state this or should I just take you at your word?

And you know this how?

What is it about his claim that is fictional? You said that the empty tomb story didn’t appear until 40 years after the alleged crucifixion. The bible says differently. Why is your version more historically correct?

How so?

How do we know the author is anonymous? The book has a name on it.

evidently they didn’t do such a good job because the book contains info mark and q don’t

Are you saying that finding a parallel there indicts the book?

This is all beside the point that I made. You assert that the resurrection claim didn’t appear until 50 years afterwards. However, the very book you cite says differently.

Why do you believe the claim by papias to be wrong?

Then what tomb were the romans guarding?

How about anything eventually written in the bible?

You asked where I got the information from. How is the gospel narrative historically inaccurate?

You aren’t replacing them with anything? Are you serious? So there was no history whatsoever? When did history begin? Respectfully, if you claim one is false, there has to be some other that you believe by default unless you believe time for humans began after that point. Besides, I have been instructed in this thread that the burden of proof rests on the claimant. Well, since you claim the bible is false, let’s hear your proof.

I think we’ve covered/are covering that now.

How do we know anything from that time period?

Not all jews and Christians left Judea. Those that came in contact with each other had plenty of opportunity to interact with regards to Christian claims. They weren’t segregated from each other so certainly they were familiar with each other’s claims. That has nothing to do with the significance of Christianity. It’s just logistics.

I have already not only provided examples of this but also addressed your assumption that every single person and every single record of life in Judea before the war was wiped out by the romans.

How would the Christians have had an effective testimony if people were successfully refuting their claims? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Is there a reason to think the story was contested? According to the bible, the miraculous events weren’t denied. Whether it was recorded or not is really irrelevant as stated above.

And you know for sure that there weren’t any such lists at that time?

Wow. I can’t fathom how you can consider that a reasonable method of verifying reliability. Taking a document that is known to have errors and is not above reproach and using it as a template against another work. please explain how you consider this a reliable method of determining historical veracity.

I think you missed what I was saying. I was not referring to a lack of corroboration. I was referring to a hypothetical contradiction, one that could possibly be found in the future. If it did exist, it could have been forged.

therefore, if a contradictory report did exist, there would be no way to tell that it wasn’t forged, as in the TF. In conclusion, a contradictory testimony would be inconclusive and the issue would need to shift to whether the eyewitness testimony is inaccurate or false on it’s own merits.

Solid to whom? Not everyone agrees with that analysis. For example, not everyone agrees on the alleged seams in john. Therefore, the matter is inconclusive because the case is built on conjecture.

I’m not sure how that addresses the previous point I made. Perhaps you could help me here.

I guess that depends on whose scrutiny you’re referring to.

Unless he believed there was more than one way to heaven which is not an uncommon belief. I am certainly not advocating that the TF was written by josephus. On the other hand, I do believe that reconstruction of what he wrote is speculative at best despite what skeptics claim.

Where do you get this information from?

Is there a reason to reject the traditional authorship attributions?

Where do you get the year 85 from?

Is that so? Where do you get this judgment from?

The quote I provided did not say that. It didn’t qualify ANY of it as discernable, despite your claim to the contrary that at least some of it is eligible for judgment.

How so? I’m asking skeptical questions regarding the “independent� attestation. Is this waive of the hand response supposed to exonerate your position from having to answer the questions or are you just unable to answer them?

Which apparently is the skeptical assertion for people who witnessed Jesus post resurrection.

So there has never been a document that had no titular subscription and the author was known? I would like to see you prove that. What about pennames? Are there really people who have those names and the author was just lying about writing the work? How could that be proven?

I have provided a reason why for my case. You don’t however. Should I just take you at your word?

How do you know? You can’t prove it.

And as I have asked several times, what reasons are there for rejecting that tradition? Where did those people in the second century get their info?

As I have pointed out, being written in the first person is not a requirement for eyewitness testimony. So what are these other reasons you cite?

Will a new thread cure you of your generalities and hand waiving?

bfniii

whatever it is that is written in the gospels.

you've got to be kidding, right? let me make sure i'm getting this right. you are saying that he knew everything? how far away from jerusalem did his omniscience extend?

i understand you feel that way but perhaps you could provide a reason for everyone else to accept that.

curious. in what verse does luke use the word "immediately"?

by what standards? purely naturalistic ones, i presume you are going to reply. who is to decide that there are no supernatural phenomena in the universe, you? i suppose you can prove this as well, right?

the bible claims a miracle was done by an omnipotent being. how is that impossible?

precedent. i guess you don't have one. the point is what other religions does josephus discuss? why should we expect him to?

bfniii

oh i understand how skeptics think it works. statements you made earlier amounted to something like this:

"i don't know what happened in history, i just know that whatever you say is wrong"

"even if 'independent' sources are flawed, it's still ok to use them to bash the bible"

"if josephus didn't know about it (the infanticide), it didn't happen"

i realize those are paraphrases, but i'll be glad to cut and paste the original posts if you like.

here's the skeptical position:
1. assuming other first century works are more accurate than the bible and therefore can be used against it.
2. assuming that because some people perceive there are contradictions in the bible, they are irrefutable and not the product of misinterpretation.
3. assuming there can be proof of miracles (which are outside the purview of science)
4. assuming that it's reasonable to expect contemporaenous corroboration of biblical claims but it's unreasonable to expect contemporaneous refutation of the same

maybe not in evidence right this minute, but in the first century?

well, why did you type it in capital letters before? that makes all the difference in the world.

the fact that you call them fables presupposes you bear the burden for that claim. i see you have no proof so what should people think about your claim?

bfniii

are you kidding? these basic misinterpretations are all cleared up by a simple internet search. i thought you had something original.

do your repeated charges of contradiction erase all the books and websites that explain them?

even people who didn't witness them? how would that be considered reliable? even if witnesses did write about them:
1. How is it above reproach?
2. How is it trustworthy?
3. How do we know it wasn't doctored?
4. If it corroborates the claim, it wouldn't be independent. Therefore, wouldn't that constitute an appeal to numbers?

i'll cut and paste my response to ameleq on this point:
I don’t disagree that it is inherently unlikely that some corpses rose from the grave and walked around Jerusalem. The first problem with speculation on this verse is the use of the word “many�. How many is that? There is no specification, nor is any needed to get the point across. In what part of the city were the graves that opened up? More importantly, how many people did they appear to and where in the city? What if they appeared to mostly women whose testimony was considered inadmissible? There aren’t enough specifics to say that someone, particularly josephus, would have written it down. In all, lack of extrabiblical verification doesn’t seem all that probable. Furthermore, we see no evidence of anyone claiming to be present with a person who claims to have seen such and refuting them. Making an overly skeptical statement about the account is without sufficient basis.


do you use this word whenever you don't want to respond to something? at least show HOW it's sophistry.

ok, what qualifies as independent?

i realize you are typing this generality again, but that doesn't provide any more specifics nor does it make your point any more true.

bfniii

that's not what i said, if you're referring to me. what i said is that the alleged contradictions are explained all over the internet and in multiple books.

worthless? then how do we decide anything is true from antiquity?

Diogenes the Cynic

bfniii

I don't have the energy for another line by line rebuttal so I'll just hit some high points:

1. There is no proof that anyone ever claimed to have witnessed the physical resurrection of Jesus.

2. The first known, unambiguous assertion of such a claim is in the Gospel of Matthew written at least 50 years after the crucifixion by a non eyewitness dependent on multiple secondary sources.

3. The first known assertion of an Empty Tomb is in the Gospel of Mark written at least 40 years after the crucifixion by a non-eyewitness. The tradition that Mark was a secretary of Peter is no longer accepted by scholarly consensus.

4. The Empty Tomb is not found in Paul or Thomas or Q, all of which are earlier than Mark and all of which should be expected to mention it.

5. Thomas and Q also do not contain a resurrection which is puzzling indeed if such a tradition was part of the earliest Christian movement.

6.Paul quotes a preexisting hymn about "appearances" but it is very unclear what he means by them or whether it was meant to be spiritual. Paul says little to nothing about historical Jesus and does not quote him even when it would behoove him to do so.

7. In short, we have no documentation before Matthew that anyone made an unambiguous claim to have seen a physical resurrection and Matthew was not a witness, nor did he know any witnesses.

8. The gospels are riddled with contradiction and error and we know that they were not written by their traditional authors. The case against traditional authorship is too long tp present in one post. I have asked if you would like to devote a new thread simply to the question of traditional authorship. I would be willing to address contradiction and error as well. You say there are "explanations" for all those contradictions. Many of us are familar the apologetic attempts to reconcile these contradictions and we can take them one by one and dissect them if you wish.

Since your entire argument in this thread is predicated on an assumption that the Gospels represent eyewitness accounts, I am offering to start a new thread to address that one question. Are you interested?

bfniii

i guess this response means you don't have such information.

another unanswered question.

they did? well, then those contradictions must be true! why didn't you say so before? is everything skeptics type true?

that's funny. peer reviewed science literature. and what literature would that be rlogan?

care to count how many questions have gone unanswered by skeptics throughout this thread?

how is my belief in miracles relevant to discussion of evidence?

responds rlogan while ignoring another question.

BlessNot

Ethics such as hating your parents, brothers and sisters and taking up weapons?

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one Luke 22:36

And that's just the tip of the ice berg for the alleged biblical Jesus, he didn't even respect his own mother.

"Woman, what have I to do with thee" John 2:4

Why Jesus?: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php

Josephus was an historian but the short paragraph he alleged wrote appears to be a forgery even by most biblical scholars. Not a very reliable defense for the life of the alleged biblical Jesus.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel2.html#josephus

bfniii

ameleq says "Absent that evidence (precedent for offering amnesty to a criminal), it appears to me to be a specious attempt to support your faith." this quote clearly underlines the subjective nature of your judgment. please explain why your analysis is the only "rational" one.

not an assumption

ever heard of the NT?

yes, yes, the old burden of proof excuse. let's review:
christians-burden of proof required for their claims to be true
skeptics-no burden of proof required for their claims to be true

yet no skeptics are guilty of burden shifting.