patcleaver

We should not believe statements that we hear or read unless we have good reason to do so. Otherwise, we are just being dishonest with ourselves. Crackpots, who believe everything and every rumor they read in the tabloids, will of course disagree.

Independent verification is not our sole source for verifying the statements of others. In addition to independent verification, there are lots of other examples of good reasons to believe something you hear or read. For example, you may depend on someone's trustworthiness where you have good reason to trust them. When you have good reason to think that someone values their reputation for honesty, and they claim something that could be easily verified, then you can usually trust those claims. When someone says something publicly, that others would likely dispute if untrue, and nobody disputes it, then you may be able to trust it.

Jeffrey Gibson

Like the belief in witches in 1692 (which, note, is different from the claim that a particular person, like Rebecca Nurse, was a witch) ?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

May I just double check that I have understood what you posted above?

That you cannot see any particular reason why people seeing Jesus after his death, Jesus walking on water and raising the dead are not historical events?


May I also double check what sort of historical events - are they explainable using naturalistic scientific methods or do they require some form of miracle for example by the intervention of a god? Other explanations? Psychology?

Is part of your understanding of a historical Jesus in line with orthodox Christian belief that he is the Son of God born of a virgin?

thedistillers

The sound you just heard was my jaw hitting the desk.

gstafleu

It just seems to me that most scholars do indeed agree there is a lot of what I call FBI to be found in the gospels (and in the other docs, but the gospels contain by far the most history-like material). Take e.g. Jesus. The impression I get from that page is that while most scholars agree there is some historicity to be found, and hence posit an HJ, they also agree that there is a lot of FBI.

Take our own () Jeffrey Gibson. His article on the Wilderness temptation clearly shows FBI in action: he shows how the passage came to be constructed--and it wasn't as a historical report. In another article by him I read (I hope I remember this correctly) he talks about the passage where Jesus berates the disciples about forgetting the bread--the leaven of Herod business. He shows that this should be seen as a political (my word, not his--as I said, I'm reconstructing from memory here) message, to wit that Jesus' message can be handed out to everyone, including the gentiles, without loss to anyone: just like the bread at the feeding of the multitudes increased rather than diminished. Certainly this does not indicate a historical report?

So yes, I'd say there is good reason to assume that there is a lot of FBI.

Gerard Stafleu

patcleaver

Good point Jeffrey, we ought to be skeptical of the claim that someone would dispute something if it were untrue. Yet, this is why I believe some of the things that I believe.

stonewall1012

What I cannot believe here is the lack of coherent reasoning... This is a systemic problem: understanding what is proven by certain assertions.

Because no one "objected" to a particular person being called a witch it does NOT follow that it is evidence that witches existed. Which is what these two are implying.

It is only evidence that they didn't obviously disbelieve that a particular person was a "witch". It does not mean they believed it or that she was or was not, it most certainly would not prove or disprove that witches existed or not.

What I have been able to gather so far is that "independent attestation" is someone outside the "mythology" claiming that what the mythmakers claim is untrue....

Let me get this straight... if we had a Roman procurator claiming that Jesus did not rise from the dead but that his disciples stole the body. That would be proof that the gospel accounts are true... ?

Your telling me that we wouldn't hold up this "independent attestation" as COUNTER proof of the gospels claim?

I ask again what would "independent attestation" look like that "verified" the "gospel" account? This should not be difficult as this is what you are asserting is lacking.

Keith&Co.

What? No. But if it was verified to be a 1st Century procurator, discussing (thumbs up or down) events recorded in the gospels, it would bolster the idea that the contents of the gospels were not something invented in the second century.

Well, what evidence would the Procurator offer that supports his claim? Why did he write it? Was he assuring Rome that he didn't need help with a rebellion that used charlatan tricks to foment unrest? Or was he trying to downplay the reports of religious rebels that had a demigod among them, that could raise zombies to walk in the streets and had angels showing up in tombs?
Wouldn't really be able to tell until this hypothetical letter was produced, really.

I dunno. What non-christain contemporary writers of history were around at the time of gospel events, and what did they have to say about them? If you, or anyone else, is offering the gospel as history, what collaborative works do you have available?
Anyone mention the slaughter of innocents in the history of Herod, for example?
Anyone doing a study of eclipses mention the darkness at the crucifixion?

stonewall1012

DID I say the gospel accounts were historical? NO. Did i say they should be considered historical? No. What did I ask? I asked what would "independet verification" look like. What are we looking for that can verify whether the gospel accounts are valid or not? How hard is that? It's your demand... You just demanded that I produce "independent verification" but still have not provided what that is supposed to look like, who, what, when, where? All I have seen so far is: this isn't it... that isn't it...
What does IT look like?

Toto

If you are not claiming that the gospels might be historical, why are you asking about independent attestation? Is there a point to this thread?