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

[phelix]

Sorry about not using the "standard format of web posts"...
Also sorry about not searching for your other posts. There were two new pages since my post so I just control+f for my username and responded to people that way

You haven't actually made any counterargument at all, so there's not really much for me to put in this post. The Criterion of Embarrassment is not evidence no, but it is one of the devices used to check if a source is likely to be accurate or not. It is one of the reasons why Jesus being killed by the Romans is an undisputed fact among biblical scholars.

Edit: So as not to double post, Joobz,
DOC is indeed attempting to use historical analysis as evidence for the magical elements, which can of course never be the case, as for any evidence for a supernatural phenomena to be valid, it would need to rule out all possible natural phenomena. This is not something that can ever be done with historical analysis, as the possibility "that was made up" or "the creator was delusional" would always be more likely than "magic occured".
As for your opposition to the embarrassment criterion, it is not absolute proof, but it is adequate. Along with other criteria it works well to extract the likelihood of various claims at a time when many histories were littered with falsehoods. If we disregard the methods used for extracting the validity of things like the sincerity of Luke, the existence of Jesus, etc. in favour of conspiracy theories and a disregard for any dubious sources, then we end up wiping out our entire knowledge of the time period.

 

[Akhenaten]

Whyso? Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism was happy to use the idea of dogmatic atheism in this blog post: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10632
And he quotes someone equally ok with the term commenting on this very subject.

I personally am rather uncomfortable with it. Certainly, there is never an appeal to higher authority, which most dogma would rely upon, but when atheists dismiss the historical pursuit in favour of attacking Christianity as much as possible, it can be difficult to avoid the feeling that you are confronting dogmatism.

I'm guessing that this is response to my post which said:

I had no trouble whatsoever following your post up to this point.

Except that it's not.

Maybe it would be better if I didn't have to guess though.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry about not using the "standard format of web posts"...
Also sorry about not searching for your other posts. There were two new pages since my post so I just control+f for my username and responded to people that way

Instead of all this sorrow, maybe it would be better if you just stopped posting the first thing that comes into your head.

You haven't actually made any counterargument at all, so there's not really much for me to put in this post. The Criterion of Embarrassment is not evidence no, but it is one of the devices used to check if a source is likely to be accurate or not. It is one of the reasons why Jesus being killed by the Romans is an undisputed fact among biblical scholars.

Undisputed fact???

This is going to be good.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Sorry about not using the "standard format of web posts"...
Also sorry about not searching for your other posts. There were two new pages since my post so I just control+f for my username and responded to people that way

You haven't actually made any counterargument at all, so there's not really much for me to put in this post. The Criterion of Embarrassment is not evidence no, but it is one of the devices used to check if a source is likely to be accurate or not. It is one of the reasons why Jesus being killed by the Romans is an undisputed fact among biblical scholars.

Well, first it depends on whom you think are reliable Biblical Scholars. Some of them are quite bright, it is true.

Secondly, it's very hard to actually verify that Jesus existed at all, so what is considered to be an "undisputed fact among biblical scholars" is, in fact, disputable by Scholars who don't have residual attachments to Christianity.

GB

 

[phelix]

I'm guessing that this is response to my post which said:

​

Except that it's not.

Maybe it would be better if I didn't have to guess though.

It was a response to that. I assumed you meant "the suggestion that atheists can be dogmatic is enough reason to consider you insane for the purposes of this discussion" or something like that.

Instead of all this sorrow, maybe it would be better if you just stopped posting the first thing that comes into your head.

Undisputed fact???

This is going to be good.

Please do not resort to rudeness. And yes, undisputed fact. Can you name a biblical scholar at an accredited university who doubts this?

There may actually be one, but their existence is rare as to be unnoticeable.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

This is a very strange conspiracy theory for supposed skeptics to adopt. That, without any clear motive, a group of people decided to construct the most complicated and convincing historical lie ever, and succeeded to the extent that no significant biblical scholar thinks that it was a lie.

This is not a conspiracy theory anymore than your basic use of literature or marketing which have existed since ancient greece and probably before that. Adding silly things like embarassing details is what ficiton writers do all the time.

What is it with people shouting "conspiracy theory" every chance they get?

"In other words, cherry pick. Sorry, it doesn't go that way"
Yes it does. It absolutely does. Our sources for many people at the time are written by their followers, and it is the job of historians to identify what probably happened and what probably didn't happen. This is how we know Pythagoras was born in Samos, while dismissing the claims that he could time travel. For many people of the time there are histories with fantastical accounts, and a historian does not dismiss the entirety of a source because a few of the details are wrong. He analyses it and finds what's probably right and what probably isn't.

Actually... that's complete BS.
See, we know for a very strong probability that Omri really existed. That is because we have sources outside the bible that confirm it.
And that is how historians operate.

You don't get to just randomly pick and choose which parts of the story you like and which ones you don't without proper evidence. We don't take a fairy tale, remove the supernatural parts and suddenly declare the rest of it as real.

While of course there is nothing that says the non-supernatural elements are false, they aren't getting an automated "fact" labeled to them just because you like them. And burden of proof rests on the one making a positive claim.

So if you have evidence, by all means present them. DOC had several years and still fails to do so.

"Going by your logic, gone with the wind must be a true story"
No, because gone with the wind is written as a fictional story. The writing style is that of fiction.

And you think the bible isn't written in the form of fiction?
Interesting. Please elaborate what in the style makes you say otherwise.

If you choose a book that's written in fake biography style, then it might be harder in 2000 years to identify that it is a fake, but there are still ways.

Okay, so you are not completely as clueless as DOC to think you can't forge a biography. Good for you (note just to be clear, that's an actual compliment no sarcasm involved).

Now feel free to tell us about the ways you tell apart between a real biography and a fake one from 2000 years ago.

There is no respected scholar who seriously believes that the gospel writers were intending to write fiction. I mean, Richard Carrier doesn't even believe that...

You have got to be kidding me... Do you know how many parts of the bible are downright known forgeries?

And you do realize appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, right?
If you have evidence, present them.
If you have someone simply believing in it, that's not evidence. But if he has any, you are more than welcome to show his finding.

The bottom line is that there are lots of people said to be born of a virgin. There are lots of people said to have performed miracles. Did they? no. Does this mean they didn't exist? nope. The evidence for that needs to be evaluated independently of whatever lore has emerged about a character.

We actually agree on this one. So what evidence do you have?

Pakeha:
I don't understand why my use of mainstream historical criteria are seen as strange assertions, but anyway...
Greek and Egyptian myths are indeed a mixture of elements of fiction and fact, but massively more fiction, and pretty much anything with a God involved didn't happen.

How do you know that? For all you know, it's possible there was a man named Zeus who had an affair and as a result a real body builder named hercules was born who later went on to kill his wife and later a big reptile.

Why do you automatically discard story A as complete fiction and don't discard story B as complete fiction?

Later on in history you start getting more and more factual accounts. With Mohammed, the stuff detailed that is horrendous, he probably did. The stuff detailed that are positive but not amazing, he probably did. The stuff detailed that is amazing, are doubtful. And the stuff detailed that involve God did not happen.

Again, one could ask that about hercules. He did do some horrible things, he did do some amazing things and he did do some positive but not amazing things.

Heck, we can even say that about Luke Skywalker or Wolverine.
If your criteria tosses out false positives on known fiction, it's quite useless.

Doc's argument for the historical nature of the gospel is totally fine, but hardly ground-breaking. The methods he uses are also used to identify whether individual passages in a gospel are historically accurate or not. Have a look over things like the Criterion of embarrassment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

And this exactly why I called it BS to begin with.
First, notice how the entire passage you gave on wiki talk about Jesus?
Why only Jesus? Why is this criteria not applied for any other character in history? or even the bible for that matter?

Second, quoting from your link here:

The criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria

That's because what you think might be emberassing to someone might not really be embarassing to them. Not to mention, again, since ancient greece people were known to add emberassing details about their characters to make them easier to identify and assess the suspention of disbelief.

 

[Akhenaten]

It was a response to that. I assumed you meant "the suggestion that atheists can be dogmatic is enough reason to consider you insane for the purposes of this discussion" or something like that.

If I'd meant that, I would have posted that.

Please do not resort to rudeness. And yes, undisputed fact. Can you name a biblical scholar at an accredited university who doubts this?

Yes.

There may actually be one, but their existence is rare as to be unnoticeable.

No.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Please do not resort to rudeness.

I'm guessing (but I may be wrong) that you are fairly new to posting on internet forums.

My first time out I was bold enough to post an essay about the pagan worldview of CS Lewis on a site which was Majority Christian. The stream of invective that followed was quite overwhelming at first.

Then I discovered that a more combative verbal style was essential to making your case (whether the other side agrees or not). One has to develop a thicker skin and a lust for argumentation to survive. It is Verbal Combat after all.

Insults in themselves do not bother me, it fires me up and I tend to use better arguments as a result. The main things I expect though, are Honest Arguments, and the courtesy to not be rude to someone who has conceded the point.

GB

 

[phelix]

Well, first it depends on whom you think are reliable Biblical Scholars. Some of them are quite bright, it is true.

Secondly, it's very hard to actually verify that Jesus existed at all, so what is considered to be an "undisputed fact among biblical scholars" is, in fact, disputable by Scholars who don't have residual attachments to Christianity.

GB

I guess anyone who teaches the historical approach to the bible in an accredited university I would consider a reliable scholar. They all believe Jesus existed...
I guess the claim that they have "residual attachments to Christianity" was a way of getting around the fact that the atheist and agnostic biblical scholars all believe that Jesus existed too, but they have a "residual" attachment because they used to be Christian?

It is hard to give one proof that Jesus existed at all, yes. You can do this with very few things in history, if any at all. If I say Pythagoras did something, I might have to point to a source from Herodotus, and you could rightfully point out that Herodotus frequently made stuff up. I might have to point to a source from Aristotle, and you could rightfully point out that Aristotle also believed Pythagoras was a time traveller, so is unreliable. There is no such thing as a perfect source, so historians have to work with what they're given.

A nice example from Jesus' life is the birth narrative. Only told in two (Luke and one other, I forget which) and the two accounts contradict massively. There are huge discrepancies in where the family travels, where it stays, why they travel, where they go after the birth, etc.
Why is this? Well the common point in both stories is that Jesus came from Nazareth, even though he was supposed to be born in Bethlehem. A fair conclusion is that Jesus really was from Nazareth, and the two gospel writers fudged making him come from the correct place and ended up with wildly implausible accounts that contradict on many levels.
The conspiracy position would be that both authors made up the story even though it has no mythical significance, accidentally contradicted each other dozens of times, but still conspired together to make sure their stories mentioned how Jesus came from a small town that nobody had even heard of at the time.

 

[phelix]

If I'd meant that, I would have posted that.

Then what did you mean?

Yes.

Go on then?

I'm guessing (but I may be wrong) that you are fairly new to posting on internet forums.

My first time out I was bold enough to post an essay about the pagan worldview of CS Lewis on a site which was Majority Christian. The stream of invective that followed was quite overwhelming at first.

Then I discovered that a more combative verbal style was essential to making your case (whether the other side agrees or not). One has to develop a thicker skin and a lust for argumentation to survive. It is Verbal Combat after all.

Insults in themselves do not bother me, it fires me up and I tend to use better arguments as a result. The main things I expect though, are Honest Arguments, and the courtesy to not be rude to someone who has conceded the point.

GB

I'm fine with a "combative verbal style" whatever that might mean. But insults are kinda pointless in getting anywhere in a discussion.

This is not a conspiracy theory anymore than your basic use of literature or marketing which have existed since ancient greece and probably before that. Adding silly things like embarassing details is what ficiton writers do all the time.

What is it with people shouting "conspiracy theory" every chance they get?

It is a conspiracy theory if it involves multiple people pretending to present history when they're actually making it all up.

Actually... that's complete BS.
See, we know for a very strong probability that Omri really existed. That is because we have sources outside the bible that confirm it.
And that is how historians operate.

No. Historians don't operate by accepting non-biblical sources and nothing else There are quite a few people who are only sourced by their followers. Naturally, these followers embellish the story quite a bit. It is the job of the historian to identify likely embellishments and likely truths. Apollonius of Tyana is known only by sources from his followers 100 years after his death. We know he travelled to Iran, but the sources for this statement also reckon he was psychic (which he wasn't.) Our sources for Jesus are actually better than Apollonius. They are earlier, and we have more of them.

You don't get to just randomly pick and choose which parts of the story you like and which ones you don't without proper evidence.

Correct. You choose which parts of the story are real and which are not based on certain criteria.

We don't take a fairy tale, remove the supernatural parts and suddenly declare the rest of it as real.

Correct. Fairy Tales are identifiable by their language and presentation. We only look to extract truth from historical sources.

While of course there is nothing that says the non-supernatural elements are false, they aren't getting an automated "fact" labeled to them just because you like them. And burden of proof rests on the one making a positive claim.

I disagree totally with you here. There is a lot in fairy tales saying that the non-supernatural elements are false. The style of writing, the unlikeliness, the lack of support from other sources, etc.

And you think the bible isn't written in the form of fiction?
Interesting. Please elaborate what in the style makes you say otherwise.

You've referred to "the bible" as if it is one book, when it isn't. Certain books are written as etiologies, such as the book of genesis. These are clearly works of fiction. Other books are intended to be didactic, such as the book of chronicles. These are likely works of fiction. Other books are merely theological arguments, such as the book of Galatians. It is meaningless to label these as "history" or "fiction" as it's the same style as someone posting on this board. The historical background of these letters can be evaluated though.
Importantly though, there are a few books that are intended to be historical, such as the gospel of luke and the book of kings. These are the books that are frequently wrong, and frequently biased, but count as historical sources nonetheless.

Okay, so you are not completely as clueless as DOC to think you can't forge a biography. Good for you (note just to be clear, that's an actual compliment no sarcasm involved).

Now feel free to tell us about the ways you tell apart between a real biography and a fake one from 2000 years ago.

This would be tough. If we only had one single account of someone, then I'm not entirely sure there would be a way. If there were multiple accounts which differed from each other, this would push me more towards "real". If the person being detailed is actually kinda dull, this would push me towards "real". If there isn't anything clear to gain from faking such a biography, this would push me towards "real", and if the culture wasn't prone to producing fake biographies this would push me towards "real".

You have got to be kidding me... Do you know how many parts of the bible are downright known forgeries?

And you do realize appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, right?
If you have evidence, present them.
If you have someone simply believing in it, that's not evidence. But if he has any, you are more than welcome to show his finding.

Lots of the bible is known to be forged. For a start, many of the Pauline epistles are known not be written by Paul. Note that it is the same history which tells us which are forged that also tells us which are genuine. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but you must accept that "every accredited biblical scholar is wrong" is quite a big bullet to bite. Of course, they do have evidence, but evidence isn't the problem here. It's the understanding of how historical analysis of that time period works. Our sources for most people from the period are very very poor. Historians need to work through blatant biases, fantastical lore, and exaggerations, in stories that emerged 100 years after the person had died, and from which our earliest surviving copy might be several centuries later.

How do you know that? For all you know, it's possible there was a man named Zeus who had an affair and as a result a real body builder named hercules was born who later went on to kill his wife and later a big reptile.

Why do you automatically discard story A as complete fiction and don't discard story B as complete fiction?

In theory, there are many ways of differentiating: writing style, presentation, likelihood, etc.
In reality, 100% of people who studied story A consider it complete fiction. 100% of people who studied story B consider it partial fiction, and I go with the academic consensus.

 

[Akhenaten]

I guess anyone who teaches the historical approach to the bible in an accredited university I would consider a reliable scholar. They all believe Jesus existed...


<snip>

So did the New Testament writers. So what?

The thread isn't about what people believe; it's about presenting evidence for whether those beliefs are/were based in fact or not.

Will you be presenting any?

 

[Akhenaten]

If I'd meant that, I would have posted that.

Then what did you mean?

Exactly what I posted.

Yes.

Go on then?

Yes, occasionally.

 

[Aepervius]

Wow. And to think it annoys me when people say atheists are dogmatic...
Firstly, to GrandMasterFox:
"The smart thing a liar would do is use the most effective version."
This is a very strange conspiracy theory for supposed skeptics to adopt. That, without any clear motive, a group of people decided to construct the most complicated and convincing historical lie ever, and succeeded to the extent that no significant biblical scholar thinks that it was a lie.

Firstly most if not all biblical scholar agree msotly on only 1 things : it is likely that Jesus existed. Note that "likely" does not means it is a fact. That makes the probability of existence strictly above 50% and strictly below 100%.

Secondely when you look at what biblical scholar take out of the bible (practicaly the new testament is the only source) is that some guy Jesus existed around 0BC.
Practically nothing else is taken from the bible.

"That, without any clear motive, a group of people decided to construct the most complicated and convincing historical lie ever, and succeeded to the extent that no significant biblical scholar thinks that it was a lie."

Well you see the problem is that next to nothing is taken from the only source we have except "jesus existed". So that is funny when you say about complicated construct, because we are left with the "christ" part and that part is definitively not agreed upon. What is left are some very basic statement about an human.

So. Yeah. Basically we have a complciated story construct inconsistent, and due to some embarrassing details and a few textual analyzis the guy is said to be likely existing.

Now excuse me if I stay doubtful after such a masterful analysis, no matter how many people put Bart Ehrman and the other scholar on a pediestral.

As for dogma : Atheist have no tenets, no system of principle, no doctrine. Difficult to have a dogma in such case. What you can on the other hand tell is that some atheist might be stutborn to accept what other have accepted despite the flimsyness of the evidence.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I guess anyone who teaches the historical approach to the bible in an accredited university I would consider a reliable scholar. They all believe Jesus existed...

1) Actually no they don't "all" believe Jesus existed (and remarkably enough a Catholic priest who was interviewed by Bill Maher in the film Religulous flat out admitted that the Bible was just a bunch of stories. He never claimed to be a Biblical Scholar, but frankly, he was shockingly more honest than many of the more liberal theologians).

2) In any case, Belief does not count as evidence

I guess the claim that they have "residual attachments to Christianity" was a way of getting around the fact that the atheist and agnostic biblical scholars all believe that Jesus existed too, but they have a "residual" attachment because they used to be Christian?

1) I was actually talking about fairly liberal Christian theologians who come very close to being Agnostics, but can't quite go the distance.

2) No, all the Atheist and Agnostic Biblical Scholars do not necessarily believe that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Many of them are on this forum.

It is hard to give one proof that Jesus existed at all, yes. You can do this with very few things in history, if any at all. If I say Pythagoras did something, I might have to point to a source from Herodotus, and you could rightfully point out that Herodotus frequently made stuff up. I might have to point to a source from Aristotle, and you could rightfully point out that Aristotle also believed Pythagoras was a time traveller, so is unreliable. There is no such thing as a perfect source, so historians have to work with what they're given.

This is a false idea. Known historical figures have numerous contemporaneous sources and writings to confirm their existence and their ideologies.

A nice example from Jesus' life is the birth narrative. Only told in two (Luke and one other, I forget which) and the two accounts contradict massively. There are huge discrepancies in where the family travels, where it stays, why they travel, where they go after the birth, etc.
Why is this? Well the common point in both stories is that Jesus came from Nazareth, even though he was supposed to be born in Bethlehem. A fair conclusion is that Jesus really was from Nazareth, and the two gospel writers fudged making him come from the correct place and ended up with wildly implausible accounts that contradict on many levels.
The conspiracy position would be that both authors made up the story even though it has no mythical significance, accidentally contradicted each other dozens of times, but still conspired together to make sure their stories mentioned how Jesus came from a small town that nobody had even heard of at the time.

1) A huge gaping hole in your argument is that the writings alleged to be Luke's are not contemporaneous accounts, thus giving rise to the question of whether Luke existed at all.

2) The fact that two stories have one coinciding element only demonstrates that two authors wrote different versions of the same story; much like a film adaptation diverges from the original story in any number of ways.

3) A) You are committing a Straw Man fallacy by using the term "Conspiracy position."
3) B) Refer back to my point #2.


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Exactly what I posted.





Yes, occasionally.

I'm guessing you watch a lot of Monty Python!

GB

 

[phelix]

Exactly what I posted.

You're being oddly obtrusive and I'm not sure why. You said "I had no trouble following your post up until this point (the point where I indicated it was starting to feel like I was up against something resembling "dogmatic atheism").
Why was it hard to follow at that point?

Yes, occasionally.

Given your reluctance to name one, I will take this as a concession that your challenge about certain facts of Jesus' life being undisputed was unfounded.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm guessing you watch a lot of Monty Python!

GB

Ooh my wordy, lordy yes.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

You've referred to "the bible" as if it is one book, when it isn't. Certain books are written as etiologies, such as the book of genesis. These are clearly works of fiction. Other books are intended to be didactic, such as the book of chronicles. These are likely works of fiction. Other books are merely theological arguments, such as the book of Galatians. It is meaningless to label these as "history" or "fiction" as it's the same style as someone posting on this board. The historical background of these letters can be evaluated though.

Everyone here already knows this (possibly with the exception of DOC)

Importantly though, there are a few books that are intended to be historical, such as the gospel of luke and the book of kings. These are the books that are frequently wrong, and frequently biased, but count as historical sources nonetheless.

1) Yes! some bits are clearly intended to be historical or biographical.
2) That doesn't mean they are.

GB

 

[Akhenaten]

You're being oddly obtrusive and I'm not sure why. You said "I had no trouble following your post up until this point (the point where I indicated it was starting to feel like I was up against something resembling "dogmatic atheism").
Why was it hard to follow at that point?

At that point, it wasn't; after that point, not so much. It's been explained why, and you appear to have made some effort to correct the problem.

Now you just need to work on your presentation of the evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Given your reluctance to name one, I will take this as a concession that your challenge about certain facts of Jesus' life being undisputed was unfounded.

Please feel free to jump to as many conclusions as you wish.

 

[phelix]

1) Actually no they don't "all" believe Jesus existed (and remarkably enough a Catholic priest who was interviewed by Bill Maher in the film Religulous flat out admitted that the Bible was just a bunch of stories. He never claimed to be a Biblical Scholar, but frankly, he was shockingly more honest than many of the more liberal theologians).

Yes they do all believe Jesus existed. Name one biblical scholar at an accredited university who doubts that Jesus existed.

2) In any case, Belief does not count as evidence

True, but I'd say that 100% of relevant academics seems like a fair reason to accept something that is likely to have happened and requires no intellectual gymnastics...

1) I was actually talking about fairly liberal Christian theologians who come very close to being Agnostics, but can't quite go the distance.

2) No, all the Atheist and Agnostic Biblical Scholars do not necessarily believe that Jesus was an actual historical figure. Many of them are on this forum.

1) Ah ok, sorry for misunderstanding you there.
and 2) Interesting. What are their names? Why aren't they more famous than Robert Price?

This is a false idea. Known historical figures have numerous contemporaneous sources and writings to confirm their existence and their ideologies.

No they don't. You're probably thinking of kings and stuff. I've already mentioned Apollonius (100 years after death first source). How about Moderatus of Gades? (400 years) Pythagoras? (150 years). Choose any philosopher from that time and you'll get a similar sort of thing, unless they were literate, which it seems unlikely Jesus was.

1) A huge gaping hole in your argument is that the writings alleged to be Luke's are not contemporaneous accounts, thus giving rise to the question of whether Luke existed at all.

I don't know why you say "alleged to be Luke's". The author doesn't give his name in either of his books, so we call him Luke for the sake of ease. "Luke" did exist because... well the books need an author... We also know that Luke wrote the book somewhere between 70 and 100AD, which is very close for most historical source of the time. Finally, we know he was presenting his work as a history, and that he wasn't an eyewitness.

2) The fact that two stories have one coinciding element only demonstrates that two authors wrote different versions of the same story; much like a film adaptation diverges from the original story in any number of ways.

Correct, so you have to find out what the original story was. It is likely that Jesus did come from Nazareth, and that both the birth narratives were made up to account for this.

3) A) You are committing a Straw Man fallacy by using the term "Conspiracy position."
3) B) Refer back to my point #2.

I don't see how I'm committing a straw man fallacy by using the term conspiracy position, because that's the position being adopted - a group of people pretending to write historical accounts which they know are not true constitutes a conspiracy. It is forwarded by conspiracy movies such as zeitgeist, and by conspiracy writers with no appropriate qualifications, such as Acharya S, and it is totally disregarded and ignored among the scholars who study this stuff. It is a conspiracy theory...

Please feel free to jump to as many conclusions as you wish.

You're being ridiculous now. "I have evidence to support my claim, but I am choosing not to give it..."