Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[cj.23]

In reply to Akhenaton's sensible points

1 - [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]τέκτων (tekton) does not just mean carpenter, it can mean a builder, an architect, a planner, or anyone involved in the construction trades. 'General builder' is the best translation in modern terms I think. Given the Sepphoris building project four miles away, it is EXTREMELY likely: there is no need at all for Nazareth to require a specialist tradesman, and in fact every village would have a [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]τέκτων or two, though they may well raise crops or keep livestock as well. Remember this is an era of massive social dislocation, as tenant farming takes over from personal ownership and landless day labourers are a major feature.

The synagogue issue is even more easily answered -- but I will dig out my journals just to check my references before replying.

EDIT The Gospel writers reliability however is not so hot -- well we can talk about that later. Let's get the history straight first.
cj x
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Paulhoff]

Yes it's complete unmitigated bollocks, and a very rare example of Randi and the JREF promoting woo -- see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137026

The video appears to have been shot originally as a promotion for Frank Zwindler's American Atheist Press, who happen to publish Saim's book, and appeared on that website as an advertisement for said book. I wish the JREF would simply take it down or publish a retractiuon, as i have to put up with this drivel beng used as some kind of evidence. Randi is a wonderful chap but a biblical scholar or archeologist he is not.

cj x

Really, I will ask Randi about that today.


Paul

 

[secrets]

Thank you this whole website fascinates me, I love intelligent conversations.

Well, what I meant was that people say or assumingly beleive one thing and then go on to say another. Like the very topic this thread grew from, it seems the creator is an obvious devout christian, however they go on to say their Jesus was a drunk?
The topic itself is flawed and quite silly. How does the New Testament writers including "Embarrassing Details About Themselves" prove anything? It proves that they had little or no dignity is what it proves.

 

[Lothian]

I find other bits of the gospels more likely indicators that the writers were telling porkies:

1. Jeebus and his dad (Joseph, not the other one) were supposed to have been carpenters in Nazareth, however, the evidence points to the place not being big enough to be able to support this type of specialised trade.


2. Jeebus was supposed to have created a big ruckus at the local synagogue:




The evidence, however, says that Nazareth in those days was too small to have warranted its own synagogue.

​

Proof of carpenters and synagogues is not proof that Jesus existed and the story is true.

As Sir Ramsay (sic) says, archaeological evidence can not prove the essential ‘facts’ of the story.​

 

[cj.23]

Really, I will ask Randi about that today.


Paul

Please do. Many of us have tried without any response, including myself, but also great (atheist as it happens) historians -- GasukeiDon from FaithFreeForums and Tim O Neil from RichardDawkins forum and RationalSkepticism.org . It's often cited as "an embarassment to atheism" and "pseudohistory", and really it would be better to actully have a video discussing the facts. Randi has always admitted when he makes a mistake as far as i recall, and this would be a real benefit to common sense. Sure discuss the theory -- but avoid wild Conspiracy theories as promulgated in this video, where Ken Dark aand by inference the mainly Jewish archeologists of the Israeli Antiquites Units) are suggested ot be part of some bizarre Evangelical Christian cover up..

cj x
cj x

 

[cj.23]

Proof of carpenters and synagogues is not proof that Jesus existed and the story is true.

As Sir Ramsay (sic) says, archaeological evidence can not prove the essential ‘facts’ of the story.

Yep. The story makes logical sense though, and on the criterion of embarrassment the historical Jesus situated here makes even more sense for reasons outlined above - a mythical Jesus would have been a resident of Bethlehem, in line with messianic expectations...

Also, and critically note the inhabitants of Nazareth are portayed as soundly rejecting the Jesus depicted here; why mention it at all if the there was not a HJ from that place?

cj x

 

[paximperium]

This thread may finally actually get educational.

 

[cj.23]

The topic itself is flawed and quite silly. How does the New Testament writers including "Embarrassing Details About Themselves" prove anything? It proves that they had little or no dignity is what it proves.

Actually I think it does something else. Ever read any Sherlock Holmes stories? Watson, often the narrator as I recall, is depicted as a bumbling fool -- well not really that's more Rathbone and thingies portrayal, but certainly not as that sharp. I think this portrayal of the disciples as plain dumb is in fact just a literary device: it need not be factual. People forget the authors were telling a story, and use literary conventions.

cj x

 

[Akhenaten]

Proof of carpenters and synagogues is not proof that Jesus existed and the story is true.

As Sir Ramsay (sic) says, archaeological evidence can not prove the essential ‘facts’ of the story.

No argument whatsoever, especially, for once, with Sir Ramsay.

What would Jefferson do?

 

[kmortis]

Proof of carpenters and synagogues is not proof that Jesus existed and the story is true.

As Sir Ramsay (sic) says, archaeological evidence can not prove the essential ‘facts’ of the story.

Maybe not, but it can go a long way to establish the historisity of the gospels. Not that showing that any of the mundane facts are true has any bearing on the veracity of the supernatural. It would be nice to be able to winnow out the fact from fiction.

Personally, I don't have an issue of a 1st century preacher named Joshua having existed. He may have even run a foul of the local authorities by being something of a rabble rouser. None of that is so outlandish to be a priori silly.

Him being the Son of Gunderscored, OTOH, is outlandish. But, we haven't gotten to that yet, we're still covering the basics.

 

[secrets]

Actually I think it does something else. Ever read any Sherlock Holmes stories? Watson, often the narrator as I recall, is depicted as a bumbling fool -- well not really that's more Rathbone and thingies portrayal, but certainly not as that sharp. I think this portrayal of the disciples as plain dumb is in fact just a literary device: it need not be factual. People forget the authors were telling a story, and use literary conventions.

cj x

I don't understand, you're saying the bible is a story? with "literary conventions"? Isn't that in itself a contraditction?

 

[kmortis]

No argument whatsoever, especially, for once, with Sir Ramsay.

What would Jefferson do?

Jefferson would invoke the spirit of Ovid and write a treatise on the impact of competing religious thought in terms of the Enlightenment.

 

[cj.23]

I don't understand, you're saying the bible is a story? with "literary conventions"? Isn't that in itself a contradiction?

Hey secrets, the book we know as the Bible is a collection of texts written over a millenia or so by very different people. That the authors used what we could call ;literary conventions is beyond doubt the classic example is Wrede's work on the Messianic Secret in Mark -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret

That narrative/literary conventions are common tells us little: for example if I was to tell you about my trip to TESCO ( a supermarket) just now, I would use certain conventions. There is a huge amount of research dedicated to such things -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_analysis - should show my point here.

It does not tell us whether the account is true or not, but it does show how the account is "framed"

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Maybe not, but it can go a long way to establish the historisity of the gospels. Not that showing that any of the mundane facts are true has any bearing on the veracity of the supernatural. It would be nice to be able to winnow out the fact from fiction.

Personally, I don't have an issue of a 1st century preacher named Joshua having existed. He may have even run a foul of the local authorities by being something of a rabble rouser. None of that is so outlandish to be a priori silly.

Him being the Son of Gunderscored, OTOH, is outlandish. But, we haven't gotten to that yet, we're still covering the basics.

Hi there kmortis - yep, all sensible. Good discussion here --
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...ly-infer-about-the-historical-jesus-t219.html

cj x

 

[kmortis]

So, if I can sum up...
Nazareth - probably existed during the time period in which the gospels are set. Was more than likely a small town, what we'd nowadays call a suburb to Sepphoris (or maybe a feeder community would be better).

Jesus - There was certainly a man named Joshua at the time. It's a common Jewish name. There was certainly at least one that was a preacher of sorts. Whether or not he was the same as the one named in the gospels there is some debate. That he had any supernatural nature there is great debate.

Should we move into a literary criticism of the gospels (e.g. cover the "embarassing" information that Geisler "brought to our attention")?

 

[Simon39759]

I don't understand, you're saying the bible is a story? with "literary conventions"? Isn't that in itself a contraditction?

Not really, there are a large number of interpretation of the Bible, ranging from 'the pure, perfect and inalterable word of God' all the way to 'a collection of stories' (there even are some people that think that the new testament was entirely made up as an hoax).

Among this rainbow of views, a number can be accepted by mainstream Christians. Indeed, literalists actually are in the minority. Most people consider that the Bible was written by a large number of, mostly unknown, authors (and later mis-attributed to more famous names). Some Christians considered that God did inspire the writings to an extent, at least, "proof-read" the texts or inspired their inclusion/exclusion in the canons, but some Christians hapilly considered it a collection of faillible accounts of the Godly events.
While I don't want to put words in his mouth, it would seem that CJ.23 is closer to this later position...

 

[Paulhoff]

Please before we get Rule 11'd out of the thread, can we return to a discussion of the evidence?

cj x

There is no evidence of that city, end of that myth.

And even if there was, it still doesn't in anyway make the bible right about any bronze age god.

Paul

 

[kmortis]

There is no evidence of that city, end of that myth.

So the evidence that cj has put forth you are just ignoring out of hand?

And even if there was, it still doesn't in anyway make the bible right about any bronze age god.

Paul

That is very true. No one involved in this discussion has said that it does. Nazareth's existential state has no bearing on a deity's existential state. It can, however, serve as a starting point where a theist and an atheist can come to common ground as far as what is real and what is fiction in the gospels.

If you're going to take the position that since god is fictional, therefore all that's written in the bible is fictional, I don't see where you're going to get much out of this discussion. If you have evidence that what cj has presented is bogus, please present it. As of yet, you've brought in a single video clip. This is supposed to be a discussion, not just gainsay.

 

[Lothian]

Yep. The story makes logical sense though, and on the criterion of embarrassment the historical Jesus situated here makes even more sense for reasons outlined above - a mythical Jesus would have been a resident of Bethlehem, in line with messianic expectations...

Also, and critically note the inhabitants of Nazareth are portayed as soundly rejecting the Jesus depicted here; why mention it at all if the there was not a HJ from that place?

cj x

The story is plausible in bits. I have no problems with Jesus coming from Nazareth. The essential parts Ramsay referred to were the supernatural parts which he said can be found through faith alone. We may differ on whether those bits are logical.

Pretty much what Kmotis said.

Maybe not, but it can go a long way to establish the historisity of the gospels. Not that showing that any of the mundane facts are true has any bearing on the veracity of the supernatural. It would be nice to be able to winnow out the fact from fiction.

Personally, I don't have an issue of a 1st century preacher named Joshua having existed. He may have even run a foul of the local authorities by being something of a rabble rouser. None of that is so outlandish to be a priori silly.

Him being the Son of Gunderscored, OTOH, is outlandish. But, we haven't gotten to that yet, we're still covering the basics.

 

[cj.23]

There is no evidence of that city, end of that myth.

And even if there was, it still doesn't in anyway make the bible right about any bronze age god.

Paul

There is considerable evidence for Nazareths' first century occupation, but your second claim is correct. The evidence for Victorian London and 221b Baker St existing in no way substantiates the existence of Sherlock Holmes.

However no "bronze age God" here. From my blog --

The most likely dates for the redaction of the Book of Genesis is around the 950-450 BCE, with some material (the Patriarchal narratives) being based upon narratives from maybe 1200BCE. The LBA (Late Bronze Age) in the region is usually considered to have ended by at 1300 BCE, a century before the earliest suggested origin dates, which are based upon certain legal and cultural forms found in the Patriarchal letters which are known to us from Mitani sources. They may have an origin back then, but the material we have and the redaction is indisputably Iron Age, and not remotely Bronze Age. The earlier material also predates the tribal organization of the region, but I won’t get in to the cultural anthropology of the region unless you are interested – but the “bronze age myth” nonsense one hears repeated uncritically so often on sceptic sites merely shows the authors lack of familiarity with the history and archaeology of the region, which saddens me. I keep trying to point this out, in my truly pedantic manner!

cj x