bfniii

apparently this was the case as tacitus mentions the goings-on in judea in reference to pilate.

Diogenes the Cynic

WHAT alleged witnesses? There weren't any witnesses around anymore, that was my point.
He knew of a cult in the late 1st century. We already knew this cult existed in the late 1st century. His information about it is severely limited and likely came from the cultists themselves which renders it somewhat less than useful.
Josephus mentioned all the bad things he could about Herod. The slaughter is not corrobrated anywhere outside of Matthew, contradicts Luke and was allegedly precipatated by an act of supernatural prophecy. It's complete fiction concocted from Exodus.
I'm saying that as far as Josephus was concerned, Herod the Great was an extermely signicant historical personage while Jesus was a nobody and his cult was not worth taking notice of.

bfniii

I wasn’t aware I had ignored something you posted.

Here is where you again begin with the assumption that the bible accounts are false. how do we know any first century literature is true or not?

That is true of some events, but not all. So it remains that the biblical ones could be true, even by your own criteria.

Crimes, yes. But of this nature (not in relation to a war or some political machinations)?

Besides, I don’t think that anyone can qualify the statement that josephus was the best chance for verification.

I’m asking about critical inquiry. How did josephus get information regarding events he didn’t witness and why should we believe that those accounts are trustworthy?

Here you do not deny that the lack of precedent does not mean the account is false, merely that it is false to you. Thank you for acknowledging that not everyone adheres to overly skeptical standards.

By early do you mean first century? If the gospels were written in the first century, would that not constitute that Christians were indeed making those claims? If you then argue that the gospels were fabrications, we are back to trying to decide why anything from the first century should be considered historical.

This does nothing to show that Christians weren’t making messianic claims.

Wouldn’t this statement obviate your previous ones that Christians weren’t making miraculous claims?

The jews could have easily. “Jesus was whittling my cabinets during the time of the alleged crucifixion. Many people worked on the project and can testify to this.�

I have said before that I don’t know if evidence can exist of a miracle. What I was referring to is corroborating evidence such as Jesus taking part in a carpentry competition in philistia the day of the crucifixion meaning He couldn’t possibly have been in Jerusalem that day.

It is one factor that shows jews did not dispute the events that happened. If they had, even verbally, Christian claims could not have survived.

According to the gospels, there is. This puts us back to gospel reliability. Furthermore, Christian claims would not have fallen under the category of something josephus would have recorded.

Again, jewish gossip is not a refutation or disputation. I can say you didn’t type that response but in order for it to have any weight, I need to come up with some reason why I’m saying such. The jews didn’t come forward with any sort of damaging evidence whatsoever (different burial site, identifiable remains of Jesus, etc)

Pardon me for repeating myself, but the jews could have easily. I provided simple ways they could have. I realize you responded to them, but I provided further clarification after that.

Is one month too long?

The claims of those healers are not similar to Christian claims. If one breaks them down individually, they differ.

A minute by minute detail of His entire life is not necessary for them to have established that they were eyewitnesses. even if they wrote only about His ministry, does that mean they aren’t historical?

This is a switch. I have seen the gospels get bashed in this thread for being too alike. Here you say they aren’t alike.

A reading of the gospels should make it clear that they weren’t writing a harlequin romance. They were writing about events they believed happened. Concordantly, that quote does not equal “historically unreliable�.

I disagree. There are many books out there that are about Jesus’ ministry that have nothing to do with alleged historical events. If that were the case with the gospels, they wouldn’t have needed to include any particular events. The events themselves take up the vast majority of their writings.

I have been informed we need to take each one, one by one. Ok, we’re talking about josephus. My point all along has been that we are comparing known flawed works against the bible and condemning the bible thusly. That seems to be an illogical method. Show how all these other first century works are above reproach, and then they can be used as a water mark for the bible. Skeptics themselves complain that the TF was an addition so how do we know that there weren’t subtractions? The point is, we need to establish what constitutes reliability from that time.

I disagree. I have mentioned how it would have been out of character for him to have mentioned some of these biblical miracles. Second, even if he did, the Christians could be accused of tampering with the Antiquities for their own purposes. Third, even if he did, his account would no longer be “independent� by skeptical standards (because he would be admitting he believed a Christian miracle happened such as in the TF) and would therefore be an appeal to numbers.

So he notices a parallel. Does that mean he is historically unreliable? No.

I understand that you feel this way because
• Lack of extrabiblical corroboration
• Miraculous claims being unlikely

I have responded to both. Also, what you consider reasonable is not agreed upon by all.

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.

But not to all. It is clear that the issue is speculative at best.

There is no evidence whatsoever. We have a passage that skeptics think josephus shouldn’t have written and are unable to conclusively prove that.

Ok. We disagree. We have both stated our case.

Again we see the assumption that they were even present to represent their case.

As I have pointed out, no it doesn’t. a person can claim something all they want. You are free to accept, reject or dismiss as you see fit. The evidence is required only by you to make your decision. The quantity or quality of evidence you require is subjective based on your personal experience.

You are here committing a double standard. In the previous sentence you hold that the assertion requires proof. Then you yourself make an assertion, an equal but opposite claim, but don’t acknowledge that your assertion also requires proof. Without proof of your assertion, why should anyone believe your assertion? Maybe your assertion is biased, flawed or mistaken.

I have not disagreed with this. However, I acknowledge that not everyone is bound to your subjective, overly skeptical judgments on inherently unlikely claims.

The only shifting present is the fact that you acknowledge someone else’s claims require proof but yours don’t.

One of the biggest fallacies throughout this thread is that I have been accused of requiring skeptics to “prove a negative�. Here is why that is not so: by stating that I am asking for proof of a negative, skeptics are building the strawman that I am asking them to do the epistemologically impossible. The point that conveniently doesn’t get mentioned is that skeptics are not necessarily saying biblical events didn’t happen, they are asserting HERE IS HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED. If you are going to make that case, then yes, it is your case to prove!

I see no reason to believe the opposite, that the skeptical version of history is actually true. It is built on circumstantial evidence, speculation and conjecture.

No they don’t. but without proof of your position, why should anyone believe it? just because you say so? Because it’s more popular?

How so?

The particular claims may not have been known to the certain romans we mention, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t known to anyone, especially those closer to Judea. I was using that as an example of the fact that at least some knowledge had already reached that distance.

The gospels claim they were known. Please show why everyone should agree that your standard of extrabiblical verification is absolutely necessary.

You have asserted that there is no way to verify that a particular oral tradition preceded a written text. Therefore, your statement is unfalsifiable. This leaves us again at the point of why the gospels themselves should be considered to not be authentic eyewitness testimony.

rlogan

The amount of training you've had at this is remarkable, bfnii. It really is an art to camoflauge disengenuous nonsense with this pretense of "critical inquiry"

haw! yea - real critical inquiry into the Bible we see with you. Kind of an obscene level of double standard here, eh champ?


Immediately jumping to the worn-out "prove it isn't false" bfnii refrain. Really, how many forms do you think you can dress this up in?

It is also disengenuous to repeatedly make the false claim that we assume anything. It is a mountain of evidence, not an assumption.

Oh yea, pretend to be reasonable when comparing the superstitious screeds with say, battle accounts that have archaeological evidence and outside vectors.

Sure, whatever you say. Space alien abductions are just as likely to be true as, say, someone checking out a library book. Let's just pretend that there's no difference. You're obviously not bisaed at all. A real critical thinker.


Just an avalanche of hypocrisy, to offer such relentless support for superstitious gobbledygook and pretend to be so hypercritical about the best historical texts we know of.

Sheesh. A quadruple negative!

Long ago I noted the use of the double negative/ambiguity tactic by the disengenuous debater.

It pretends to deliver criticism of a position without needing to actually defend one itself.

That is, you won't say that some preposterous biblical claim is true. Instead, it might not be false.

heh. Well it might not be false that pigs can sprout wings.

Why are you wasting bandwidth?


This is a type of camoflauged circular reasoning. By substituting "not all people" for "fundy Christians" it imbues this circularity with a pretense of validity.

So why waste the bandwidth? Christians believe in Christ. So?


prove the negative. Sheesh.


Haw! How can anyone take you seriously?

Prove Jesus was doing something else. What a hoot! hey - nobody can show Santa was sleeping Christmas Eve. And nobody saw the Easter Bunny at Joe's Bar and Grille last Sunday.


I see. Outstanding logic. Assume the event happened. Since no one argued it didn't happen, then it must have happened.

An assumption can't be your conclusion.


it's just a tautology, mister. You assumed it happened. Nothing more. So what? The mormon's golden tablets. Native American myths. This claim can be made of every stupid superstition.

So how do you prove yours over the half-naked illiterate jungle tribes in the Amazon? Hmf. You can't.


Sure. The tactic of changing a reasonable statement into an absurd straw man charicature. "Minute by minute". yea. That's what he's asking for. Second by second.


"Oh, I'm so confused! I can't understand." Haw.

Oh, there's just too much of this, and I still see you AWOL from the "eyewitness" thread...

bfniii

Very interesting. I wouldn't have thought that at all. by observable and repeatable, I meant something akin to nuclear reactions, chemical reactions, second law of thermodynamics, newtonian laws, etc. I find it difficult to believe that you are able to reduce these things to compelling evidence as opposed to scientific fact.

I trust that you will agree that the repeatable and observable is indeed epistemological fact as much as can be to us. as such, a miracle would not fall under this category. By observable, I mean that the repetitions are able to be called up at will and observed, i.e. scientific experiments. If this is the case, how is it reasonable to expect proof of a miracle (I’m delaying the discussion of divine shyness)?

I am unable to see how your description of reason is not faith.

If you can't prove that an event did or didn't happen, how is that not subjective? Keep in mind that if you deny a biblical event, you are advocating a different set of events occurring. Are you able to prove your version of history? You are not. Then why should anyone believe your version?

What you consider sufficient is not applicable to everyone. Other people find that the skeptical position misinterprets certain alleged historical events as I have pointed out throughout this thread.

I don't disagree. I do disagree with the overly skeptical habit of unnecessarily reinventing history to suit the desires of non-christians, ala finkelstein.

Anyone is free to disagree with the christian version of history all they want. Just prove that your version is true and we'll have something to talk about.

I completely disagree. That term is so misused that it is considered acceptable and used to show an a priori truth to an argument. I hope to bring visibility to this problem.

From what I have read, they don’t claim that. They just support their position. Skeptics are the ones who put so much emphasis on these semantics.

The catholic church has been notorious for acting outside the mandates of Christianity. Therefore, whatever position you are referring to is not immune from flaws. Because you agree with it does not increase it’s veracity.

What I mean is that even alleged Christians are susceptible to such trends.

That you repeatedly use the majority for what you consider compelling evidence does not make the case any more scholarly or true. Any number of scholars are just as capable of shading historical events towards their current spiritual belief, or lack thereof. I realize that you yourself are not referring to what is in the news, but the people you reference are indeed influenced by it.

The fact that you cannot prove your version of history any more than what you perceive Christians can means that you are faithfully relying on what you have been told by other skeptics.

As I have stated previously, not all Christian scholars do accept skeptical conclusions. Disagreement and imperfection within the Christian religion does not reduce the truth of Christianity or Christian claims. Using them as a means to reach a conclusion is flawed since they are not immune to error. It would be an interesting study to find out how many of these so called scholars are indeed orthodox Christians. Indeed, there are many “Christians� who believe and claim things that are not within the realm of Christian doctrine.

jonesg

Interesting indeed.
This hair splitting is too deep for my simple mind, my brain hurts.

I had to go back to the original post to recall what this was all about.
Oh yeh, Jesus.

A lot of atheists agree with the jesus story, in that they don't deny he lived. Seems obvious to me that someone lived and introduced a new interpretation of the old LAW.
I find , when I stick to the sayings/teachings of Jesus and leave the minutae of which town did or didn't exist etc, I can ask myself more honestly exactly what those teachings mean.
A spiritual freind/guide of mine tells me ' if a person could love enough, in its purest form, as Jesus taught, that person would be the most powerfull person on earth.'

To me, the bible is about our state of being, the history references are incidental and not meant to be peer reviewable science papers, its really about God working in our lives and how to use the examples in our lives.
It boils down to the Psychology of God in my mind and how to get more of the same for a peaceful life....free from FEAR.

bfniii

the first issue with this statement is what you consider to be evidence. the second is that in the case of biblical events, witnesses either agree or disagree that the event happened. if they agree, which would be the extrabiblical verification skeptics claim is needed, then that would merely be more people who testify that the event happened and thus an appeal to numbers. in other words, the veracity of the event being supported by how many people witnessed it.

if you are referring to the gospels, the fact that they are not identical would seem to support that they are not the same document.

again, what would that evidence be?

these are subjective statements. what you consider "few" and "questionable" is not agreed upon by everyone.

let's hear it.

what form would irrefutable proof come in? is the fact that only 1/3 of people being christian what makes christianity untrue?

apparently, they did because we are discussing them now.

what causes you to believe we should expect that?

i can't understand how you don't see that statement you just made as being an appeal to numbers. the skeptical position is that fifty people could be just as mistaken as 4 people could be correct.

i noticed that you don't respond to the specifics of my post; those being that naturalistic explanations do not satisfy all possibilities for these circumstances and the lack of successful refutation of these claims.

1: how does that compare with other works of antiquity that are considered reliable?
2. where did these fragments come from? in other words, why is it accepted that they came from what we know to be the NT?

i noticed that i asked a specific question and you gave another general answer. should i just believe what you say because you say it's true?

i've been over this one with ameleq. you can find my response there.

not the christian sources i read.

why not?

if the claim is agreed upon by someone else, say a non biblical author, how is that independent? they would be agreeing that a christian miracle happened and would therefore not be independent. even if that person made that claim, say josephus verifying a biblical claim, there would be no way to prove direct verification. we would have to take him at his word. interestingly enough, we have this situation with the TF which skeptics are quick to point out was a christian addition.

did He not? you may claim He didn't. ok so you have your own version of events. why should i believe your version?

asking for additional verification is not the same as claiming it is false.
what kind of additional verification. would you be looking for?
if additional veritication existed, what would that prove?
how would additional verification NOT be subject to falsification or unreliability

in the case of the TF, skeptics are quick to point out that josephus shouldn't have written such. what is to keep the skeptic from claiming that about anyone who wrote anything corroborating biblical claims?

please show how influential christians could have controlled every document ever written by anyone, anywhere thus making your statement true?

what i was saying is that the bible claims an omnipotent deity performed a miracle. is there a reason why that claim is false?

exactly who all did the star appear to? did it appear to journalists and historians like josephus?

i ask several specific questions that get generalized answers. therefore, i don't understand this statement.

wonderful! now we're engaged in true skeptical inquiry. hopefully, we can answer some of these questions i have asked together.

exile

Just a few points. I haven't the strength to read back through arguments and counter-arguments to finf out where the disagreements stemmed from.

4 contradictory accounts suggests no collusion - but suggests we should be cautious about what is being claimed. We would, in a court of law, regard inconsistencies in witnesses' accounts with suspicion. For instance - how many people went to Jesus' tomb? How many angels were at the tomb?

With regard to the rest -

Christians regard Gospel evidence of the resurrection reliable.
Those who regard Gospel evidence of the resurrection reliable are Christians.

Why should we not treat evidence of a miracle, drawn entirely from adherents of a religion, with scepticism?

Are you a Mormon?

If not, do you think the Angel Moroni appeared to Smith and showed him those tablets? Would you take Smith's word for it?

bfniii

The fact that the gospels exist would seem to obviate this point.

Why is Jesus leaving a written record of what He thought a requirement for you?

What makes you say this?

According to the bible, that is incorrect.

According to the bible, that is incorrect.

Written by the alleged eyewitness, right?

Just because they didn’t bury Him doesn’t mean they couldn’t have known the location. Even so, the romans aren’t denying it.

Matt 28:12-13

As I have stated, by denying the biblical account, you are advocating a differing account. In that case, you bear the burden of proof. Show why anyone should believe your version of historical events.

What proof, one way or the other, could exist about such an event?

By the romans. I was suggesting that they get the information from them. Regardless, this is an example of something similar that could have been done.

I disagree for reasons listed above. The destruction of Jerusalem did not kill every single person nor every single memory, written or not, of every single person. Therefore, it is not absurd.

If someone’s name did not appear on the list, that would seem to suggest that they didn’t get crucified. Wouldn’t you agree?

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Not to an omnipotent God.

Does it make sense to judge the reliability of one document with another that is not itself completely reliable?

No it isn’t. by above reproach, I mean that even if the document did directly contradict a biblical claim, even if an eyewitness claimed something contradictory, how would we know that it wasn’t altered by someone who opposed Christianity?

These analyses are speculative and inconclusive. From what I have seen, there are reasonable explanations to such analyses in regards to gospel authorship.

such as?

again, inconclusive such as in the case of john. A perceived seam may exist, but that does not prove that the authorship is not genuine.

do you know of a specific example?

“reconstruction of what Josephus wrote is necessarily speculative.� British New Testament scholar R.T. France.

1. How would it be proven that one author did not know of another?
2. how would it be proven that one or both sources weren’t altered?
3. how would it be proven that the people weren’t coerced or bribed to make the claim?

It is possible that would just constitute more people being mistaken.

Not necessarily.

And how can we prove that he wrote the antiquities?

Why do they have the names they have today?

Why is that important? We know who they are anyway.

Ameleq seems to think that first person is imperative. I’m glad I have this quote from another skeptic.

Wow. I can’t wait to hear them.

bfniii

Are you referring to the war with the romans? If so, that war did not wipe out everything jewish from existence. It is possible some eyewitnesses survived.

The fact that it exists is what makes it useful. That’s what I was trying to point out.

The “he could� presupposes that there were some things josephus didn’t know about.

How so?

This fact does not make it untrue.

What other “cults� does josephus mention?