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

[phelix]

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

We are in total agreement here. I think I would aim for a more subtle approach though:
1) Some bits are intended to be historical or biographical.
2) We have to find out to what level they are accurate or not.

Now. Virgin Birth:
detailed in two gospels
defies science
probably didn't happen

Jesus knew John the Baptist:
detailed in all gospels, and the non-canonical gospel of Hebrews
not exactly unlikely
probably happened

What is your main issue with this approach?

 

[Akhenaten]

No. Historians don't operate by accepting non-biblical sources and nothing else.

Are you sure about that? Which biblical sources do historians refer to when they're looking into mesoamerican history.

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.

It's quite astounding that we could have progressed so far into this thread without realising this.

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.

We have more and earlier sources for Osiris.


BTW:

Do you happen to know if this Apollonius feller bumped into Simon while he was in Iran?

 

[joobz]

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.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. Just because I think the criterion of embarassment to be llgically illfoundeddoesnt mean historical scholarship tumbles like a house of cards. Nor does it mean that it must be replaced by conpiracy theories. Further, I speak only of the truth of the information, not whether the authors were being sincere.

Inclusion of embarassing details doesn't provide any information regardinh the truth of the events.

 

[Akhenaten]

We are in total agreement here. I think I would aim for a more subtle approach though:
1) Some bits are intended to be historical or biographical.
2) We have to find out to what level they are accurate or not.

Now. Virgin Birth:
detailed in two gospels
defies science
probably didn't happen

Jesus knew John the Baptist:
detailed in all gospels, and the non-canonical gospel of Hebrews
not exactly unlikely
probably happened

What is your main issue with this approach?

Harry Potter knew Hermione Granger:
detailed in all HP books, all of the movies and all the fanfic
completely likely
almost definitely happened.

 

[phelix]

You are setting up a false dichotomy. Just because I think the criterion of embarassment to be llgically illfoundeddoesnt mean historical scholarship tumbles like a house of cards. Nor does it mean that it must be replaced by conpiracy theories. Further, I speak only of the truth of the information, not whether the authors were being sincere.

Inclusion of embarassing details doesn't provide any information regardinh the truth of the events.

If you believe all historical criteria that are used on these sorts of sources to be illogical, then we need to replace it with something equally able to distinguish the true bits from the false bits. There is something called Bayesian probability that is being hyped up a lot, but I don't know much about it so cannot really comment.
If the approach is to totally disregard the bible from the outset though, then historical scholarship from the time period does indeed tumble like a house of cards. How can we say Pythagoras existed when our sources for him are even more removed than the sources for Jesus? How can we say Apollonius existed when the sources also reckon he could bring people back from the dead?
People of the time were prone to believing philosophers could do little magic tricks. I suspect we'd have to chuck out all knowledge for a good number of them, if we are not to accept the historical analysis which says Jesus existed.

I do not see how the position of complete biblical falsehood can be maintained alongside the positions that the authors are sincere, and that there was not a conspiracy. How could so many people believe that someone existed, to the extent that they document the minutiae of his life in a detail far greater than any myth, when actually he didn't?

 

[phelix]

Harry Potter knew Hermione Granger:
detailed in all HB books, all of the movies and all the fanfic.
completely likely
almost definitely happened.

This has already been dismissed by the acceptance of point 1. Your debating has been thoroughly dishonest with your refusal to engage with any point, and when challenged for evidence on something you claimed you had it then refused to give it, making it clear that you are uninterested in the veracity of anything either of us says.

 

[Akhenaten]

If you believe all historical criteria that are used on these sorts of sources to be illogical, then we need to replace it with something equally able to distinguish the true bits from the false bits. There is something called Bayesian probability that is being hyped up a lot, but I don't know much about it so cannot really comment.

Thank heaven for small mercies.

If the approach is to totally disregard the bible from the outset though, then historical scholarship from the time period does indeed tumble like a house of cards.

If our approach was to totally disregard the bible from the outset then we wouldn't have had much to talk about for the last 499 pages, now would we?

How can we say Pythagoras existed when our sources for him are even more removed than the sources for Jesus?

Perhaps we can triangulate his position.

How can we say Apollonius existed when the sources also reckon he could bring people back from the dead?

The Apollonius that could bring people back from the dead didn't exist, just as the Jesus that could walk on water and kill fig trees with his heat vision didn't exist.

People of the time were prone to believing philosophers could do little magic tricks. I suspect we'd have to chuck out all knowledge for a good number of them, if we are not to accept the historical analysis which says Jesus existed.

Possibly. Since you haven't mentioned which ones you mean it's a little hard to say.

I do not see how the position of complete biblical falsehood can be maintained alongside the positions that the authors are sincere, and that there was not a conspiracy.

You personal incredulity is noted.

How could so many people believe that someone existed, to the extent that they document the minutiae of his life in a detail far greater than any myth, when actually he didn't?

Excellent PR and a few inquisitions.

I might just add, by the way, that your claim that anyone documented the minutiae of Jesus' life in a detail far greater than any myth is simply not true.

 

[Akhenaten]

This has already been dismissed by the acceptance of point 1. Your debating has been thoroughly dishonest with your refusal to engage with any point, and when challenged for evidence on something you claimed you had it then refused to give it, making it clear that you are uninterested in the veracity of anything either of us says.

You're rather enamoured of these bare assertion thingies, arent you?

 

[phelix]

The Apollonius that could bring people back from the dead didn't exist, just as the Jesus that could walk on water and kill fig trees with his heat vision didn't exist.

This is a bit of word trickery. The Apollonius described as bringing people from the dead is the same person described as the Apollonius described as travelling around Asia Minor. It's just that he didn't do the former and did do the latter.

You personal incredulity is noted.

How can this be achieved then. 4+ people writing very similar biographies and presenting them as genuine historical documents despite the fact that none of this happened, without these 4 people conspiring?

Excellent PR and a few inquisitions.

I might just add, by the way, that your claim that anyone documented the minutiae of Jesus' life in a detail far greater than any myth is simply not true.

Oh yes? It is here that you manage to drift even from the views of Robert Price.

 

[phelix]

You're rather enamoured of these bare assertion thingies, arent you?

I asked if you could name a biblical scholar at an accredited university who doubts Jesus' death. You said you could, but are refusing to do so.

You chose to mock the historical approach to the bible with a Harry Potter parallel, which had clearly been dismissed by one of the given presumptions.

You refused to engage on the point of how multiple sincere accounts could be produced without a conspiracy, labelling it as personal incredulity.

You refused to engage on the call to consistency with regards to the historical method, choosing instead to make a joke about mesoamerican history.

You are now again choosing to ignore arguments, instead declaring them to be bare assertions. There is just absolutely no place of interest a debate can go if one person refuses to put forward any material.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Apollonius that could bring people back from the dead didn't exist, just as the Jesus that could walk on water and kill fig trees with his heat vision didn't exist.

This is a bit of word trickery.

​

The Apollonius described as bringing people from the dead is the same person described as the Apollonius described as travelling around Asia Minor. It's just that he didn't do the former and did do the latter.

That reminds me . . . you didn't answer my question about Simon.

You personal incredulity is noted.

How can this be achieved then. 4+ people writing very similar biographies and presenting them as genuine historical documents despite the fact that none of this happened, without these 4 people conspiring?

Noting your personal incredulity was achieved by the simple expedient of reading where you wrote:

I do not see how the position of complete biblical falsehood can be maintained . . .

As to the rest of it, I would again draw your attention to the aforementioned fanfic, and further mention that since it's by no means certain that the authors of the synoptic gospels all knew each other or were even contemporaries it's pretty easy to conceive a non-conspiracy.

Excellent PR and a few inquisitions.

I might just add, by the way, that your claim that anyone documented the minutiae of Jesus' life in a detail far greater than any myth is simply not true.

Oh yes? It is here that you manage to drift even from the views of Robert Price.

No, he's drifted from mine.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

There is just absolutely no place of interest a debate can go if one person refuses to put forward any material.

How much of this thread have you actually read?

 

[TSR]

.
Is it 500 pages yet?
.

 

[Aepervius]

I asked if you could name a biblical scholar at an accredited university who doubts Jesus' death. You said you could, but are refusing to do so.

This is an argument of authorithy by the reverse. the question is not *WHO* is taking a certain theory as validated or not, but what are the vidence for it.

For example the reason 9/11 truther are stupid idiot, is not because they don't have accredited university behind them, but because their theory contradicted by fact and law of physic.

The problem is that the basic evidence presented could be construed from a good book (the embarassement criteria for example).

This becomes even more funyn when you see that those "4 authors" (more actually) copied from each others, and made their text many many decades after the alleged fact, and one of them actually plainly say he sees his stuff in dreams/visions.

You chose to mock the historical approach to the bible with a Harry Potter parallel, which had clearly been dismissed by one of the given presumptions.

You refused to engage on the point of how multiple sincere accounts could be produced without a conspiracy, labelling it as personal incredulity.

You refused to engage on the call to consistency with regards to the historical method, choosing instead to make a joke about mesoamerican history.

You are now again choosing to ignore arguments, instead declaring them to be bare assertions. There is just absolutely no place of interest a debate can go if one person refuses to put forward any material.

If you want to discuss the existence of JC I suggest on of the numerous thread existing.

This thread is about whether the new testament writer told the truth. And by seeing the amount of FANTASY , and the obvious problem already mentionned in 100 pages (400 are repetition from DOC) then it is quite clearly a resounding : NO.

 

[Aepervius]

.
Is it 500 pages yet?
.

Nope soon. And nearly 20000 post too.

 

[Akhenaten]

.

Is it 500 pages yet?
.

Nope soon. And nearly 20000 post too.

I can smell pizza cooking!

 

[Aepervius]

I can smell pizza cooking!

I am finishing watching an anime then going to get some barbecue stuff . BY that time we should be at the correct page.

 

[zooterkin]

How much of this thread have you actually read?

 

[phelix]

This is an argument of authorithy by the reverse. the question is not *WHO* is taking a certain theory as validated or not, but what are the vidence for it.

For example the reason 9/11 truther are stupid idiot, is not because they don't have accredited university behind them, but because their theory contradicted by fact and law of physic.

This is all true. The Jesus-as-myth theory is not definitely wrong because absolutely no serious academic accepts it. But that is definitely a tough pill to swallow in making the argument. As you have noted, there are university physicists who believe the 9/11 truther theory. I don't know if that's true or not, but if so, that means there are more relevant experts who believe 9/11 was an inside job than there are relevant experts who believe Jesus didn't exist. Hardly a fun position to be in.

The problem is that the basic evidence presented could be construed from a good book (the embarassement criteria for example).

This becomes even more funyn when you see that those "4 authors" (more actually) copied from each others, and made their text many many decades after the alleged fact, and one of them actually plainly say he sees his stuff in dreams/visions.

There is no problem that the evidence presented is in a "good book". The historical method still applies. To say that the 4 authors copied from each other is a bit of an exaggeration. (I assume you mean the gospel writers). Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source. They also have their own unique additional sources, and John is totally independent. This is the extent of the "copying".
The texts were made decades after the alleged fact. This is surprisingly good for historical sources of the time. After politicians, kings, and other such public figures, Jesus is probably the best attested figure from the time period.
Also I'm not sure which one you mean by the dreams/visions. Perhaps this is a reference to Paul. Paul was clearly a troubled and unstable character, but his letters are very valuable with regards to setting the historical scene. They come within a couple of decades of Jesus' death, and include off the cuff remarks about visiting Jesus' family and friends.

If you want to discuss the existence of JC I suggest on of the numerous thread existing.

This thread is about whether the new testament writer told the truth. And by seeing the amount of FANTASY , and the obvious problem already mentionned in 100 pages (400 are repetition from DOC) then it is quite clearly a resounding : NO.

Apologies, I wasn't aware of other threads. I just took this one where it seemed to be going. Did the new testament writers tell the truth? Not all the time no. As you rightly point out, the amount of fantasy makes it clear that they were not especially good historians, but they were definitely trying. The example I gave about the birth story makes it clear that the writers weren't too keen on changing the facts, to the extent that they invent ludicrous portions of narrative trying to get the facts to fit together. The answer is far from a resounding no.

 

[Akhenaten]

There is no problem that the evidence presented is in a "good book".

O rly?

How about the Book of Mormon then? Any problems there?