Family Man

And Christians are expecting Christ to return. Should we presume from that that Christianity is an "incomplete religion", whatever that means?

Jack the Bodiless

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. We already know that the Bible contains a mixture of verifiable truths, verifiable falsehoods, and unsupported assertions that can't be settled either way. That's why individual claims need to be judged on their merits.
As it isn't, this appears to be irrelevant. It seems that you're trying to justify specific claims by asserting that "the Bible as a whole is inerrant".
As previously noted, this statement is false. At the risk of provoking a derailment: unlike the Bible, evolution IS "inerrant", in the sense that abundant evidence supports it and no evidence that contradicts evolution has ever been found. However, even "evolutionists" have been mistaken about specific claims within evolution (e.g. Piltdown Man). It would be a mistake to support a specific scientific hypothesis by appealing to the "inerrancy" of evolution as a whole.
But skeptics HAVE disproved numerous Biblical claims! You may prefer to believe otherwise, but here you seem to be arguing that skeptics haven't managed to disprove ANY Biblical claims according to their own standards. In other words: unless I've misunderstood you, you're arguing (erroneously) that the lack of confirmation of certain unverifiable Biblical claims is the only basis for our lack of belief in the Bible's 100% inerrancy!

Conversely, your own belief in inerrancy is the only basis for your belief that the unverifiable events in the Bible actually happened at all.

So, do you wish to continue discussing whether certain specific events happened at all, or do we really need to tackle the "inerrancy" issue next (maybe in a different thread)?

Vorkosigan

Texts are neither "innocent" nor "guilty." They are texts. The historian, to use Harvey's nice summary of Collingwoord, confers authority on the witness. Thus the first and most important posture of the historian is doubt -- doubt is the basis of critical thought. As Harvey writes later on in The Historian and the Believer, on the subjectivity of historical judgment

"....only when the process of judgment is understood does it become clear why the basic but unspoken issue between the historian and the believer is the difference concerning intellectual integrity, the morality of knowledge."(p47)

..or as another of my favorite books put it "Doubt is chastity of the mind."

DramaQ

I’ve never said “the lack of refutation means the biblical claims shouldn’t be believed�.
You’re the only one who is putting weight on refutation.
The presence or absence of refutation tells us NOTHING about the original claim. A claim can lack refutation for a number of reasons, which we’ve been over (and over).
I pointed out at the first that you can find many examples of writers defending their faith in the first two centuries. To name a few: “Theophilus of Antioch�, “Athenagoras of Athens�, “Epistle to Diognatus�, “Tatian’s Apology to the Greeks�.
And rather than simply waving a dismissive hand (as you did before) because these attacks on Christianity no longer exist, suppose you tell me:
If there wasn’t widespread skepticism about and attacks on Christian claims, why did these early Christians feel compelled to adamantly defend their faith?
Your whole position that there was a “silence� on the part of critics of Christianity early on is without basis. There were skeptics right from the start. There was no great wave of “truth� that overwhelmed absolutely everyone.
The words of the critics themselves may not still be extant, but their existence can be seen in the apologies of the faithful.
I’ve never denied that there were Christians in the second century. Only that there’s nothing substantial to back up their claims.
Yes, more so. But again, it’s moot. There were refutations.

I understood that. But you were doing so by appealing to the presence of prophesies. Many belief systems had and have prophets and “seers� as part of their structure.

It’s not unique to Judaism or Christianity.

And it is still supernatural. People can’t see into the future. Isaiah didn’t. Nostradamus didn’t. Your appeal to it fails to impress me. It certainly doesn’t make your belief system any more believable because it has prophetic claims.

Very well. Then why do you stick with a religion that’s only followed by a sixth of the population? If there’s authority in numbers of believers, you’re not on the “winning� team.
<sigh> Do you suppose this trip around the merry-go-round I’ll manage to

get the brass ring?

“Isn’t it possible?�

Isn’t it possible that a rogue star momentarily defied the laws of physics. Isn’t it possible that all the air molecules in the room randomly went to the same corner at once, killing everyone in it? Isn’t it possible that I win three lotteries in a row? Isn’t it possible that some future time traveler traveled back in time to tell the prophets what to say?
The “prophets� correctly predicted the life and death of Jesus for one of three reasons.

1)Goddidit. He imbued these individuals with the ability to see into the future and caused the to write vague, widely dispersed references that only made sense after the fact.

2)Lucky, lucky coincidence. They wrote a bunch of things (that the may or may not have intended as “prophecy� and lo and behold events happened that matched the predictions. (Subject to interpretation ala Nostradamus)

3)The writers of the later story based the events on those predictions (or what they perceived as predictions)
If I had to put my money on which of those was more likely, I’m thinking 3) is in the lead.
Oh but I do. They claim a guy walked on water. I say “pshaw�. They claim a guy turned water into wine. I say, “Yeah, right�. They claim a guy brought a dead person back to life after 4 days. I say “Uhhhh… that don’t happen.�
I’m not going to go out of my way to “disprove� those things. I don’t need to! But as long as you keep claiming them without any kind of evidence beyond stories in an old book, I’ll keep doubting them.
I’m not trying to convince others it’s untrue. Only challenging you to convince me that it is.
And if I wanted to debate ghosts I’d go find a Ghost Skeptics forum.
However:
Believers in ghosts haven’t organized into a religion that is trying to influence the lives of others.

Believers in ghosts don’t maintain that their brand of “truth� is superior to all others.

Believers in ghosts don’t claim to have the authority of an all powerful god.

Believers in ghosts don’t use that self-appointed authority as a way of exerting power over others.

Please don’t leap to conclusions like that. You don’t know me or what my motivation or “purpose� is.
I haven’t spent one nanosecond learning about this stuff for the “purpose of dissuading christians [sic]�.

As a matter of fact, I spent 12 years learning this stuff for the purpose of BEING a Christian.

The difference between now and then is that 1) I don’t automatically believe what authority figures in the church have told me, and 2) I’ve found that there’s a LOT more to be learned about the text of the New Testament than most people who call themselves Christians are even remotely aware of.
I “go to the trouble� because I want to learn for myself. Because I love finding actual answers instead of more “mysteries�. Because I find it an interesting piece of history. Because I have discovered I can learn 1,000 times more now that I am looking at the same material with an open mind than I ever could when I mouthed the words by rote every week.

Santa is real to some people. So is Elvis. Abductions by space aliens are “purported real events� claimed by some people. The only difference between these things and your belief system is who the believer is. Naturally you see yours as “right�. It wouldn’t be a belief system otherwise.

You see it more likely that someone really walked on water than it being just an allegory?

You see it more likely that a story whose events were predicted is because someone saw into the future rather than the story was made to match the predictions.
You see it more likely that a trial took place for a crime that wasn’t a crime, that a solemn panel of judges (akin to our Supreme Court) SPIT on a suspect, that a man was executed despite the better judgment of the roman leader in charge of him (who offered to free a prisoner based on no known precedent) – you see all this as far more likely than fact that all of these peculiar events which are at odds with history as we understand it and which just HAPPEN to have parallels in Old Testament stories – really happened.
And you find it strange that I think the simpler, more likely explanation is that some guy just made all that stuff up?

Amen.

Look, I’ll readily admit that the “Argument from Silence� is a tough thing to wrap your mind around, at least at first. I approached it just as skeptically as I try to approach everything. I did a lot of reading on it.

And I’ve certainly had plenty of opportunity to study the point of view of “the other side�.

If I come across to you as “intolerant� please allow me to disabuse you of that notion right now. I’m so tolerant I make myself sick.

I don’t lightly dismiss the claims of your belief system. My point of view comes from a lot of – pardon the usage – soul searching.

You ask for credence for something that is “not disproven [sic]�. Well I wouldn’t call “not disproved� a stunning endorsement for a claim.

The Argument from Silence is in addition to the fact that I have been given nothing concrete to believe in without unquestioning “faith�. It is not intended to stand by itself. Understanding the significance of that silence requires you to “step outside the box�. To put aside the assumptions you make (whether you realize you’re making them or not) and look at what the text is really telling you without factoring in what you are expected to believe.

That’s not intolerance. That’s objectivity. That’s “equal time�.

Then I would have expected NASA to publish those discoveries. Their failure to do so casts a big shadow of doubt that it happened.
Mr. X could have written hundreds of credible and even accurate stories and then wrote one clinker. Or a spoof. Or a joke. Or he went insane. Or he simply made a mistake.

The effects of nearby planets, again, would have been NOTICED by others. The failure of any of them to mention it IS the argument from silence.

But there’s not. You really really want there to be, but there’s not. If there was, none of us would be bothering with this debate. We’d look at this archaeological data and say “Oh yes. I see!� and be done with it. I know you think that’s not true. I can’t help that. All I can tell you is if you showed me such concrete evidence I’d say “Fine. You got a case there.� But that hasn’t happened yet.

Good grief, you KNOW you’ll have to do better than that! “There are certain facts� didn’t sit well with me in high school. What makes you think I’d be satisfied with a statement like that now?

I’ll be glad to go take a google at “the bible unearthed�. All I ask is that it be convincing.
I don’t know what more I can do to “respect other interpretations� other than to give it my time and energy to read it and see what it has to tell me.
If you mean that I only “respect� it by “accepting� it then we may have a problem. I will only accept it if it’s convincing.

<sigh> Very well. The BOOKS that are in the Bible claim that many people witnessed the events written in the BOOKS in the Bible.
Now whose playing with semantics?
It’s still a matter of the witness to the claim being PART of the claim.

Now here’s a splendid example of the kind of thing I learned much more about AFTER I drifted from “the faith�.
The Synoptics do NOT claim of themselves that they are written by eye witnesses.
Later on, church leaders may have come to that conclusion. But based on what? Nothing in the books themselves. It amazes me how easily believers cling to these traditions that are really not based on the books their supposed to be believe in.

Um… I’m sure they did. Many many years after the alleged events. I don’t want to derail this thread. That’s another topic.

Wow, you’re really confusing me with that one.

Let’s back track:

The Bible – no wait, sorry, the BOOKS of the Bible. No – let’s say the author of the Gospel of Mark (since he started) – wrote that crowds of people witnessed the miracles of Jesus. And thousands were fed with a few loaves of bread. And so on.

THOSE are the “witnesses� that saw those “events�. If the author made up the events, he could just as easily made up the witnesses!
A couple centuries later, some guys who were convinced that the stories were true (and decided to put them into a canon) are hardly witnesses to the events of the story!

And finally, the writings of people calling themselves “Christians� writing BEFORE Mark have NOTHING to say about those events. THAT’S the big piece of the puzzle.

What difference does it make? It’s “innocent until proven guilty�. Whatever it claims is “true� until you can prove otherwise to me.

Huh??

Why can’t it be dismissed after great consideration?

Back around again and – dang! – I still missed the brass ring.
Skeptics do not – DO NOT – DO NOT have to prove a bloody THING is untrue. We just have to sit back and wait (and wait and wait) to be shown that it IS true.

Maybe if I made up a song that would sink in better.

If I wrote 1,000 claims right now, and five of them were proven true, would that automatically make all 1,000 of them true?
No one I know of here has said “Not one single thing written in the bible actually happened�. Proof of part of it does not prove the whole thing.
But…. Others before me have said the same thing, and far more eloquently. I’m off to write a song about it. Meanwhile, further arguments of “some of it’s true therefore all of it’s true will be ignored.)

You’ve outlined what you’ve perceived as such. And have been shown that you are in error.

You are absolutely right! (You see? I can be convinced if you show me to my satisfaction.) You are NOT wasting my time and I was wrong for saying it.

I’M wasting the time on my own.

All right, more seriously. It’s true that I am choosing to continue this debate and for my own reasons. However, I do feel that is a waste of time to keep going over the same point again and again. Therefore, in the interest of saving time, the next time you argue something like “skeptics cite one absence as proof� or the poor logic of “the reverse is true� I will simply ignore it.

It’s true that sane, intelligent people become Christians. I was one of them. So was my dad. My mother still is.
And I am fully aware that there are reasons for this. But those “good� reasons have nothing to do with facts or history. The bottom line is, believers don’t CARE about facts. Theirs is a system based on “faith�. And trying to squeeze “reality� out of such things as virgins being impregnated supernaturally is pointless.

It would be more accurate to say that I needed answers that go beyond “faith�.

Answer me this honestly: do you see any difference between “claiming something is untrue� and “not claiming it IS true�?

But I don’t. I know Christianity exists. I know why having a belief system is important to some people.
I’m also aware of some serious potential problems with it.
A belief system that allows you to tap your inner strength is fine. A “faith� that focuses on the believer searching his own mind and personally reflecting is fine.

A belief system that’s founded on the idea that an all-powerful being is in charge of everyone’s life: yours, mine, the Native Americans, Buddhists, etc. is not so fine.

First one convinces himself that there is this all-controlling entity.

Then one believes that his (and only his) brand of relationship with this entity is “true�.

The next step is to position yourself as “superior� to any who don’t share this brand of faith. (ie “Judaism is an incomplete religion�)

Now it’s easy to justify a position of power over others, all in the name of this “faith�.

I’m not accusing you personally of doing this. I’m saying that this type of belief system lends itself to this and it has happened over and over and over again in this world.

It’s dangerous and it’s scary.

You’re right again. I shouldn’t have said “emotional posturing�.

For instance: “critics of christianity point to the lack of evidence in the writings of josephus, pliny the elder and egyptian history as proof that the claims of the Bible are false.�

You’ve made variations of this statement many times and many times have been corrected on it.

I will say it one last time and then ignore any future variation of this statement:

The silence of Josephus (and of many others) on events depicted in the gospels – in and of themselves – are not – NOT – NOT – considered proof positive or “stone cold fact� that those events didn’t happen.

The fact that you continue to say this underscores the notion that you really haven’t the slightest idea what the Argument from Silence is all about and that, quite frankly IMO, you haven’t the least intention of actually trying to see or understand what it says.

There are many many places where you can read about this more thoroughly than we have space for here and more eloquently than I could ever hope to write it.
Go and read the material that has been linked for you already, if you REALLY want to know how you’re misrepresenting the position.

Correct.

Again, this material has been covered over and over (and over). If you haven’t bothered to read this for yourself, why should I bother trying inasmuch as you’ve already demonstrated your refusal to study the conclusions you’re criticizing.

Then you’ve gathered incorrectly and without any basis.
You call me intolerant and yet you seem to be perfectly happy to believe that there are scholars out there whose sole motivation is to callously dismiss your belief system and find ways of undermining it. Or that they draw conclusions based on “what suits their fancy�.
Disagree. Even most Christian scholars agree it’s pretty spurious to have a passage where Josephus declares of Jesus “He was the Christ�. It doesn’t take an expert to look at that and go “hmmmm�.

As this is another example of “charged and answered�, I will answer and then put this one on the “ignore� list, too.
Josephus doesn’t make claims about raising people from the dead and other supernatural phenomenon.
I’m sorry if I came across as though I “seem to� advocate that. I actually am advocating that!
“Few passages�? We’re talking about a whole BUNCH of things. Plus, it’s not a matter of “not liking� the material. I’m sure it’s just swell writing. Very dramatic at times. Chock full of lots of irony and even a dash of humor, if you have the right eye for it. I “like� the image of a man walking across the water. It just didn’t happen.
The odd notion of a book being “innocent� or “guilty�, which – as has been pointed out over and over (and over) as being meaningless, will heretofore be ignored.
I was pointing out that once Christians came into power, they were in control of most of the texts. In that capacity they had free reign to keep or destroy any text they saw fit. Therefore it didn’t matter that they started out with no power.
Your response was: “If they weren’t in power, they wouldn’t have had the leverage to make their changes stick.�

This is completely illogical. Obviously the Christians eventually came into power! Through good marketing, schmoozing the right people, and lots of strong arm tactics. THEN they had the “leverage to make their changes stick�.
Or do you deny that Christians went from humble beginnings to eventually a position of power?
Huh??! I was under the impression that you believe it started with ONE MAN. Then twelve. I’d call that pretty humble and obscure.
And its humble beginnings IS irrelevant to its eventual power. An alligator is a big powerful creature. Can you dismiss its power now by saying it used to be a weak baby?
Are you saying that professions of faith from believers of OTHER religions are “lies�?
Perhaps its just that they’re just so bent on believing what they want (or need) to believe that they’re willing to delude themselves.
Tsk tsk.
The shame is that this “truth� is so fantastically subjective that there seems to be and endless variety of them. What’s true to Catholics isn’t true to Baptists who don’t always agree with Methodists. And none of them can see eye to eye with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Funny how “truth� can be so confusing that so many who apparently WANT to get it “right� can’t seem to. (In the opinion of others.)

Yeah, I’m not sticking to the facts because I can’t believe some supernatural being impregnated a young Jewish girl. Incidentally, have I (or anyone else who’s debated with you) ever referred to those claims as “lies�? AFAIK you’re the only one who has used that term. I don’t consider the claims to be “lies�. Metaphors, maybe. Symbols, often. Analogies. Dogmatic representations. Fanciful interpretations of older texts. Or maybe just plain Drama.

I go to see a play, I know it’s not “real�. But I don’t walk away calling it a “lie�.


DQ over and out

Ghost of Jeebus

Some archaeologists from Isreali and American schools who discuss (or discussed - I realize that some, such as Mazar and Yadin, are now deceased) the histroy of ancient Isreal are Benjamin Mazar, Yigeal Yadin, Yohanan Aharoni, Volkmar Fritz, Joseph Callaway, Moshe Kochavi, Amihai Mazar, Lawrence Stager, Shlomo Bunimovitz (the list is from Dever, "Who Were the Ancient Isrealites and Where did they Come From?", pgs, 144-149).

Baruch Halpern, whom you mentioned earlier, is a well known and fairly conservative Biblical scholar who said the exodus tradition "reflects a healthy admixture of fancy with whatever is being recalled" (see Dever pg 132).

Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeaology Review writes "Take, for example, the Exodus. We don’t need Professor Herzog to tell us that 2 million Israelites did not cross the Sinai on their way out of Egypt, despite the biblical implication as to this number (Exodus 12:37)." (full article is available at http://groups.msn.com/Sequitur/hershelshanks.msnw). Shanks' article is a conservative response to a previous article by Ne'ev Herzog. He discusses the possibility of an Exodus-like event (something I will discuss more below), but readily admits that the Bible has inaccuracies.

It certainly matters that archeaologists are discovering new things! That's the whole point to this discussion. In the early 20th century archeaology did seem to back up the Bible - however, new discoveries after the 1950's changed the picture considerably.

In my first post I was very careful to state that mainline archeaology rejects the Bible's version of the Exodus as a factually accurate account. This does not mean that there was never an event something like an exodus in which some escaped Semitic slaves became a part of "proto-Isreal"; Halpern suggests this, and that their story was later reworked into a story of national origins.

As for the website, I did check it out but I don't really see how it helps you. For instance, one of the main problems with the Biblical Exodus narrative is that the Isrealites were supposed to have camped at Kadesh-Barnea for around 38 years. There is however no evidence of occupation at this site from the 13th to 12th centuries (when most scholars date the exodus), which the website tacitly acknowledges in Table 9. Interestingly, they do not discuss this information in detail. They rather assume that the biblical exodus occurred at some other time since we have a hard time finding evidence for it at the time when scholars date it!

The website also briefly discusses the excavation at Ai by Joseph Callaway, which they at least acknowledge as problematic. Callaway was a professor from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who, after the excavations, concluded that "every reconstruction based upon the biblical traditions has floundered on the evidence from archaeological remains" (Dever pg 48). Callaway was not a minimalist out to disprove the Bible. He was a professor at a conservative seminary who ended up taking early retirement after the results of the excavation so he wouldn't embarrass the seminary! Back to the website, it seems that their response to the lack of evidence is that Ai's destruction should be interpreted etiologically rather than literally.

I think you missed my point. I don't want to take the discussion off-topic, though, and if you wish to discuss evidence for evolution there are plenty of posters on the Evolution board who will do that.

bfniii

These unsubstantiated claims, have they been disproven or are they just hard to believe?

Any particular claims that haven’t been disproven cannot lead to a person making the generalization that the bible is “not trustworthy�.

Given that outright evidence is not yet available, who’s to say it’s true or not? The reasons for denying those types of claims in the bible are just speculation. The doubts are not based on proofs, but conjecture.

I agree that apostolic authorship is debated. However, a reasonable case can be made for genuine eyewitness testimony especially in the cases of matthew and john. There are specific people who witnessed Christ both pre and post resurrection. They are not unknown.

There is nothing wrong with doubting the claims of the bible. Claiming they are untrue without evidence is indeed problematic. Claiming the bible is untrustworthy is just as problematic. I respect the fact that you appear to lean to the former as opposed to the latter two attitudes.

As you have stated above, I am free to doubt your claim. As of now, I have no proof that your claim isn’t true.

I understand. I do hope that you are tolerant enough to realize some people have alternate personal experiences that are just as reasonable.

I don’t disagree. In case you’re wondering why I make this response, I think it’s entirely natural to doubt these outrageous claims such as resurrection or parting the sea. But when I study these claims in conjunction with other elements of Christianity such as eyewitness testimony I begin to doubt the doubts. All the objections to the reliability of the bible that I have read are contrived and circumstantial.

I guess we disagree here.

What I mean is that reasonable explanations have been given for many biblical events

Several times you have accused me of using the term extraordinary or supernatural in conjunction with evidences. I’m not sure where this miscommunication started. I have tried to correct it but I have been unsuccessful. I do not claim to have proof of many biblical claims including supernatural ones. This, of course, doesn’t mean the bible is untrue.

Is expecting proof of miracles reasonable? What kind of proof do you require that a miraculous event happened? I noticed that I have asked this question before and the answer I get is somewhat generalized. You say that evidence must be proportionate to the claim but I would like to know about any specific biblical claims you don’t believe in. what would it take for you to believe the claims about the star of Bethlehem or the risen saints?

I do not disagree. I was merely pointing out that an event is harder to deny when more eyewitnesses are involved. I did not say the event is necessarily true. Concordantly, I hope we can agree that appeals to “mainstream� scholarship, likelihood of an event and extrabiblical literary corroboration are appeals to numbers as well. Furthermore, it is problematic to claim something is “mainstream� because it is difficult to quantify without an accurate cross-section of opinions from scholars. The likelihood of an event is based on the ability of an event to be repeated, thus an appeal to numbers. Relying on first century authors to corroborate biblical claims is an appeal to numbers.

That is an unnecessary leap you made for me. You yourself doubt biblical claims. Why can’t I doubt you levitated?

Just as it is your faith for which you claim the opposite.

That a skeptic can provide a contrived, strained attempt to drive a wedge between the two accounts does not obviate apologists clearing up confusion of the two passages by providing clarification.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/virgin.html

I’m not finding the word “born� in verses 43-51. perhaps you could clear up why you expect Bethlehem to be mentioned there. ‘from Nazareth� merely refers to His place of residence, not birthplace.

I will post there when I get a chance.

I guess we disagree. What are your doubts founded on?

I fail to see where the bible claims that the multitude is entirely made up of people who worshipped Jesus, thus them changing their minds.

Could you elaborate on this “too much wrong�?

Josephus never mentions Christians but we know they existed. What’s your point? How do we know these extrabiblical sources are correct? You once again fail to dispute that pilate, being afraid of a rebellion (just as the Sanhedrin were afraid of an “uproar�) which we know happened, acted as one would expect.

It would seem you have even less.

He also records with a jewish slant. Noting such a crime would not be expected. What crimes does he record that would make you expect to see it?

Not so. The town of Bethlehem was miniscule and probably had only 10 to 30 boy babies at that time. An insignificant event compared to the major battles and political atrocities in Jerusalem josephus usually records. This certainly wasn’t up his alley.

To whom? Go ahead and throw out some names appealing to numbers, a logical fallacy you have pointed out earlier.

Besides just claiming that it isn’t part of the original, what proof do you have?

Back to square one. Josephus is reliable in that he doesn’t mention an insignificant infanticide but unreliable that he mentions Jesus. Sounds like picking and choosing.

A group of annoying, insignificant, uneducated fishermen broke into his office and destroyed the records. Then they kidnapped his family thus ensuring he would never write about it again. Later, they brainwashed anyone who had ever previously read his works so that they would forget. In an astonishing turn of events, they were able to acquire alien technology to wipe the memories of anyone who had ever come in contact with anyone who had read his works. They left only origen’s contra celsus intact. BTW, this is exactly what happened in the cases of all first and second century writings not favorable to Christianity. Inexplicably, only writings favorable or neutral to Christianity have survived and no one anywhere was able to stop it.

Your response doesn’t answer the question. Are you saying that the Christians contemporary to celsus were more influential than he was? They had more means to permanently destroy his works than he had of preserving them?

Some of his works are preserved. Maybe the rest just hasn’t been found yet. How much more do we need? If we had more, how would we know that they weren’t doctored like the TF was as skeptics claim?

Ah but these other peoples were much more influential before Christianity came along which would have ensured their survival. I’m not referring to other religions. I’m referring to people like celsus whose writings were apparently known in the roman empire.

Constantine came along way too late for an empire-wide, comprehensive destruction of every copy of any literature not favorable to Christianity. Furthermore, there is no way to erase the memories of societies who had studied such works during the second century so that they couldn’t be reproduced or represented.

How did the Christians wrest josephus’ antiquities from the jews and suppress them so that they could be irrevocably altered? There is absolutely no evidence that even Constantine himself could have perpetrated such an act.

How interesting. The almighty roman empire impotent against what celsus termed “slaves, children, women and idlers�. Funny.

Finally! I have been asking you what kind of proof you need to believe in the miraculous claims of the bible. Here you ask me how to falsify them. Socrates would love this. I maintain that miracles are generally not meant to be reproduced or repeated. Expecting evidence of them is not realistic and even apparent evidence could be rationalized (such as the photographed chariot parts at the bottom of the red sea). I’m sure you will ask that if they can’t be falsified, why believe them. The reason is because we have reliable documents from the time of the events that are either written by eyewitnesses or being transcribed for eyewitnesses. Dismissing them because they were later included in the bible is bias. Dismissing them because they are hard to believe is unscholarly. Contriving literary reasons for dismissing them is not concrete refutation.

An appeal to numbers which you have said is not admissible regardless of intent; support or refutation. Whose standard are we to use to determine what is “independent and reliable�? I doubt there would be a consensus on this.

Skeptics approach the bible as “guilty until proven innocent� but do not treat other historical works the same (IE, any writer who opposes or fails to mention Christianity). That is a double standard. Historians should not be a factor. Historians report what they know from archaeology and extant writings. They should be impartial and report only the facts, not what their “experience� leads them to believe. Skeptics then take facts and read into them. “biblical claim X is likely or unlikely�.

Again, you seem to be saying “no good reason to believe� as opposed to the original topic “a form of evidence�. The former is an opinion whereas the latter is statement of fact.

This is lofty rhetoric. Neither of us can prove that the group we read is the “majority� or “mainstream�. I agree that the position of biblical criticism is more popular and more evident right now. But that doesn’t quantify the number of scholars who believe it, nor does it make it factual, nor does it matter one way or the other as you have so astutely pointed out in your invoking of appeal to numbers fallacy.

The fact that he witnessed the same events makes this point somewhat self explanatory and certainly does nothing to refute authenticity.

This is not a compelling argument. It is merely circumstantial.

Papias in AD 130 is not late second century.

No assumption is necessary.

You implied that where the gospels share a commonality, they are accused of not being unique and are therefore guilty of subterfuge. If they differ, then they're in disagreement about what happened and not reliable. Is this accurate or not?

Prove that is not the case. the christian at least has the word of papias.

Not in public, in synagogue. There is a tremendous difference. There is a theory that the authors were protected by not applying their names to the written form of their testimony which was circulating throughout the empire but that authorship was understood. This is not a stretch if one agrees that oral traditions did exist.

Amaleq13

As the adjective indicates, they lack substantiation. For the extraordinary claims, that is sufficient to justify doubting their truth.

I think I made it clear from the beginning that I agreed such a generalization was unwarranted. So is the opposite which is what you seemed to support.

Yet you feel free to assert that they are true?

Untrue. The doubts are based on the fact that the claims are contrary to personal experience and knowledge of how thing in the world usually work combined with the absence of any substantiation.

As I have said before, I have read them and find that they require faith to be considered compelling.

There are many people who have claimed to have witnessed a risen Christ and there are stories about people who knew a living Jesus.

You are missing the point and, thus, not understanding the flaw in your reasoning. You denied that it was reasonable to place the burden of proof on the one making the assertion. Instead, you felt it was reasonable to require the skeptic to prove the assertion wrong. My alleged dragon is the assertion. According to your faulty reasoning, the burden is on you to provide proof or else you must accept the claim. You are not free to doubt my claim given your reasoning. You are only free to doubt given the more rational approach of placing the burden on the claimant.

I'm not sure how appropriate "reasonable" is in the context of personal experiences but I fully understand that subjective experiences can be quite powerful.

As I've indicated before, I strongly suspect your perceptions are more the result of your faith than the evidence. Since you have never considered the evidence absent that faith, you can never be sure.

Absent evidence, they are speculations at best. The only apparent purpose for such speculations appears to be to preserve one's faith in the face of a distinct absence of substantiation.

It also means you are unable to establish that it is so what is your point?

It seems to me to be.

The star of Bethlehem is a problem for you since it is difficult to understand how a star can pinpoint a precise location. It would help your case, however, if you could identify ancient Chinese documents confirming this phenomenon. Likewise, any outside, independent accounts of dead folks wandering the streets of Jerusalem would be good support for that story.

I am free to doubt because I apply the rational standard of placing the burden on the claimant. You are apparently not free because you do not consider that standard to be reasonable. According to your reasoning, you have to prove that I didn't levitate. See how silly such an approach is?

Sorry to disappoint you but I actually lost my faith gradually and reluctantly as I learned more about the texts.

There is nothing strained nor contrived about Carrier's argument. I only observe that sort of thing when I read the efforts of apologists to deny what is plain to see. Perhaps you would care to specifically identify where you believe Carrier goes wrong?

The notion that the Messiah could come from Nazareth is doubted. That he was actually born in Bethlehem would directly refute any such doubts. That the author fails to make this clear is an obvious problem for your claim.

More than I have throughout this thread? No.

You seem to have lost track of the thread. I suggest you reread it. The point is contained with the passage to which you responded.

Again, see above and the earlier portions of the thread.

I have done better than dispute it. I have shown why we need not take it seriously enough to bother. It is clearly fiction.

I think you should read what Josephus has to say about the crimes of Herod for yourself. You are obviously unfamiliar with it.

It was a bit more than that:

"he slew all the male children in Beth-Lehem, and in all its borders" (YLT)

Anyone with a functioning brain. It contains statements that only a Christian could make (e.g. he was the Christ).

That is a subject for a thread all its own and it has been several times. You would benefit from visiting Peter Kirby's website to learn about the relevant evidence and arguments.

No, it sounds like taking its claim on its own merits. He doesn't mention a horrible act on the part of Herod though he clearly enjoys listing them and the reference to Jesus is obviously the result of Christian tampering.

Your lack of knowledge about the history of your own religion is disturbing. It is an unfortunate fact that, once they obtained sufficient power, Christians dominated the copying of written texts and felt free to alter or destroy or simply failed to preserve whatever they didn't like.

I do so only in response to your assertion that opponents of the early Christians would have done just that. If you cannot provide an example of how they might have falsified the claims of the early Christians, that pretty much renders your argument quite hollow.

You accused me of applying a double standard. As I've said before, I have no interest in defending the claims of others. Nothing you wrote appears to be true of me. Your accusation is false.

That the text is not written from a first-person view fails to support your claim of eyewitness authorship.

You need to read more carefully. Papias does not connect the text of the extant Gospel with the text he attributes to Matthew. That evidence is not found until the late 2nd century.

On the contrary, many are necessary to reach that conclusion. It is certainly not evident from the text, itself.

It is entirely a strawman and a pretty common one used by apologists.

You are trying to shift the burden again. It is your claim to "prove". At best, the Christian has the claims of Papias. Neither of the texts he mentions is clearly the extant Gospels. His sources are either second or thirdhand and he obtained at least some inaccurate information from them. Unless, of course, you believe that Judas really did swell up and get squished by a chariot despite the contradiction with both Gospel versions.

Not really. Especially given that the Jews weren't exactly the Christians' best friends and hardly likely to protect them.

There is really no end to wishful thinking so I'm sure you can create any sort of speculative "what if" but that isn't terribly compelling in the sense of actual evidence. When I read respected Christian scholars like Meier acknowledge that the texts are the anonymous products of early Christian communities, I tend to find speculations offered by more literal-minded believers less than convincing.

bfniii

celsus would seem to be an example of how this point is incorrect. apparently, he parroted many christian insults made by the jews. evidently they cared enough as well.

one reason why i disagree is that we see people like origen, justin martyr and Irenaeus preserve arguments from opponents. if the church wanted to eliminate these writings, they wouldn't have survived, not even in their present form. allowing them to survive would be a means of spurring on future generations of opponents enabling them to see that objections existed even early on.

do you have support of this claim other than the convenient argument that christians would have wanted it that way?

are you saying that the contra celsus completely invents a work celsus never wrote?

the closest thing we see to support your claim are the snipes made by malicious jews that Jesus was illegitimate or the weak, unsupportable claim that the disciples stole His body. there seems to be no refutation of the fact that miracles occurred or that biblical events actually took place.

i have provided the disposition of the jews especially in jerusalem. there were many that despised the christians and had perfect motive to do so. we see them snipe and jeer, but put forth no outright refutation of christian claims such as miracles. furthermore, tertullian acknowledges that by the year 197, christians in carthage "have filled every place among you— cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palaces, senate, forum." this is indicative of the growth of the religion throughout the empire. carthage is quite a long way from jerusalem. it stands to reason that growth closer to judea occurred earlier. origen, a trained philospher, supports christianity. justin martyr, a pagan philospher, becomes converted. from that we know that even enlightened people were becoming christians through familiarity with the religion. celsus opposed christianity on philosphical and social grounds (not factual) but is apparently well versed in the details of christian claims. in summary, we see ample evidence of familiarity with christianity both favorable and contemptuous. yet, we see no direct refutation of biblical events despite christian persecution, intolerance and disdain.

dramaq's point was that someone should have written about biblical miracles. well, someone did and those writings were preserved in the bible. furthermore, we see no counter-testimony from anyone else. not even of a calumnious nature. i realize that atheists don't like the fact that christians wrote those accounts, but that's not a scholarly reason to reject them. literary criticism and internal consistency charges have been trumped up to refute the gospels. unfortunately, in those charges lies no evidence and those misconceptions have been explained many times over.

i do agree that part of their agenda was theological. the other part was to record actual historical events. they are hard to believe at times, but there apparently exists no evidence refuting their eyewitness testimony. to claim they are untrue without such evidence is unscholarly. to doubt them is completely diffferent and not unacceptable.

i don't think we have to be suspicious of josephus or philo. them not corroborating biblical claims does not obviate the claim. the TF may or may not be authentic. the non-christian bears the burden of proof here.

i wasn't specific enough. what i meant is that judea was a problematic region for rome. instability was the norm and pilate was keenly aware of this instability as outlined by josephus. he was prone to test an issue to it's limit, only to abjure in the end. this seems to be the case in the biblical account.

not true. josephus outlines that he was fearful of such on more than one occasion. at the occupation of his troops in jerusalem, jews then demonstrated in Caesarea. he ordered them to desist under penalty of death but they did not. he then acquiesced. this is one example of his knowledge of the unstable milieu.

again, nowhere does the bible say that people who were present at events such as the palm sunday entrance were also present at the trial. it is highly likely that the rabbinical leaders had influence over plenty of people who would be willing to participate in the mob.

i just provided an independent, reliable, extrabiblical source (which you consider so precious) to corroborate the quote. i have met your additional criteria so perhaps now you can refute the point.

you seem to be claiming that pilate not only knew of, but would have taken interest in one backwater rabbi turning over a few tables in the jew's temple. why would you expect that? even the jewish leaders didn't take that action at that time even though they could have.

addressed above. crossan is again mistaken.

not exactly. crossan here misrepresents the source he quotes, that being josephus.

as we have discovered, the lack of mention of this apparent custom by extrabiblical authors does not mean it didn't happen.

according to whom? i completely disagree for reasons stated above.

are you saying that converts were completely unaware of the eyewitness testimony? that paul kept them in the dark about this? also, i recall that paul wasn't the only missionary. some were the apostles, correct?

is that also the case with josephus and philo not mentioning certain events? i hope so because otherwise, we've got another double standard. we will have also solved the original topic "is lack of evidence a form of evidence".

celsus and justin martyr. they were both intimately aware of christian claims.

i don't disagree. however, it's not unreasonable to think that a gate might be found in the future just as the same could be said of fossilized evidence of macroevolution. in the meantime, it has been shown that the word gate does not necessarily refer to a structure, but a place.

the word "puvlh" means "the access or entrance into any state" or even "the gates of hell". nowhere in that definition is the mention of a physical structure. i've even seen it defined as a porch. that should clear up the confusion for the last time.

but it is not commonly called a monument. if i said to you the vietnam monument or the monument of the vietnam war, you would not necessarily know what i'm talking about. you might even ask if i mean the wall. it is most commonly referred to as the vietnam wall.

it apparently is a big problem for you because even the simple references i make escape you. that definition above should be clear for even an elementary school student. i'm absolutely positive it will make sense to you that nain did not necessarily have a physical gate.

i'm trying to understand how any proof of oral tradition can be shown. it was stated that there appears to be no oral tradition for specific bible claim x. well, how can any specific claim be shown from oral tradition? therefore, it's unfalsifiable and epistimologically meaningless to state so. i do believe the biblical stories developed from an oral tradition. i just don't think it's a valid argument to try to deny any one specific claim because there is no link to an oral tradition.

i'm afraid my original quote was taken out of context. i was distinguishing christianity from the iliad and the odyssey in that it appears to be a fictional story with some real people and places as opposed to the oral tradion being the historical basis for judaism/christianity.

i agree that most people would supply the same definition. but that is hardly quantification. unless every scholar were on record for that particular issue, it shouldn't be used.

i find the exact same scenario when i read objections to christianity. they are contrived, biased and circumstantial.

bfniii

hmm. what would those be?

if you read my quotes you provided below, it will clarify that is not what i'm saying.

it has been noted, but not proven.

wow. i must say i have never heard this before. the fact that it is so hotly contested and debated would seem to vitiate your point. we'll have to take up the specifics in another thread. just let me know where and when.

specifics?

do you know of an example?

do you believe that lack of extrabiblical confirmation is a form of evidence that biblical events didn't happen?

not exactly. read my posts with amaleq.

Amaleq13

No, Celsus is an example of how criticisms of Christianity were not generally preserved the Christian copyists who controlled what was copied. We know his criticisms primarily because the Christian rebuttals were preserved as opposed to his original arguments. Celsus is also an example of when it is reasonable to expect formal written critiques and that is not until the mid to late 2nd century. This corresponds to the creation of the first "canon" of written Christian texts.

Portions of those arguments are preserved in their responses but not the arguments, themselves.

You really need to read more carefully. I'm offering a reason to doubt that any earlier written criticism existed. I consider the stronger argument to be the existing evidence that early opponents didn't know or care enough about specific Christian claims to create a written critique.

You are ignoring the evidence of Tacitus and Pliny who clearly know very little about the specific beliefs of Christians yet feel fully capable of dismissing them as superstitious fools. You bring up a good point, however, that the Gospels contain evidence of Jewish criticism of the central Christian claim. How you can not consider denying the resurrection to qualify as a refutation of a miracle is beyond me. Your assertion that the claim is "weak" and "unsupportable", however, appears to be little more than wishful thinking.

Except the apparent offered refutation of the central Christian miracle.

First, you have yet to describe how such a refutation might be constructed. Second, you seem to have a rather anachronistic understanding of ancient skepticism. Miraculous claims were accepted quite readily but that doesn't make them any more believable. That you apparently share their level of credulity, likewise, does not make it any more rational.

Prove it. The author of Luke is the only one to make such a claim.

Quit trying to shift the burden. There is no reliable evidence establishing any of these stories to be the product of an eyewitness author.

Yet you have felt compelled to question their reliability.

The evidence of Christian tampering is so blatant that the burden is on arguing otherwise. As you will learn if you visit Kirby's website, both Christian and non-Christian scholars acknowledge this fact. Your total disregard for the obvious in this matter is clear evidence that faith rather than reason is the primary guide to your conclusions.

With regard to the Gospel depiction of Pilate, it is clear that there could be no possible evidence that might cause your faith in the accuracy of the story to change. It is also clear that there is more than an enough evidence to question the historical accuracy of the event so your continued efforts to create "what if" scenarios to lend plausibility to the story are in vain. There is no good reason to take the story seriously enough to look for such speculative, plausibility-preserving scenarios. That the story depicts Pilate offering clemency to a convicted seditionist in honor of Passover is blatantly absurd, as Crossan recognizes, and more than enough to cast doubt on the whole scene.

It suggests that Pilate was willing to change his mind if the Jews failed to back down from his bluffed threat of violence. This has no apparent bearing on the Gospel story and does not seem to make it any more credible.

Creating a public disruption in the vicinity of the Temple during Passover? Damn right he wouldn't have tolerated any hint of rebellion. You are aware of what Passoever celebrates, right? Jewish freedom from oppression.

What is even more incredible about the story is the fact that we know the area was surrounded by Roman guards yet they are not depicted stopping him. More bad fiction, I'm afraid.

You'll have to forgive me for taking his views over yours. IMO, he is clearly the more knowledgeable of the two and, also IMO, more willing to follow the evidence rather than his faith.

True but it is necessary support for a claim that common sense, alone, suggests is doubtful.

Just answer the question: Where does Paul indicate that any evidence was required by his converts beyond a demonstration of miraculous healing and pointing to passages in Jewish Scripture?

Too late to be relevant to the early Christian opponents. I readily admit that the specifics of Christian claims were becoming more widely known by the end of the 2nd century. You have yet to explain how any earlier opponents might have attempted to refute Christian claims but I can't wait to hear how opponents in the 2nd century would have gone about it.

When and if that happens, I'll be sure to change my position. And quit trying to introduce an evolution tangent in a BC&H thread.

Why ask me? I've stated repeatedly that I know of no reliable methodology for identifying it from the texts.

Who is doing that?