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

[Akhenaten]

.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[phelix]

I set the requirement for fact here:
which can only be named, "fact," by,[eta]which has not been offered.[/eta]

As mentioned, the biblical evidence is sufficient that not a single biblical scholar at an accredited university doubts the existence of Jesus.

No, you couldn't. You could use the term, "disputed, but unprovable either way, theory," or, "disputed, but unprovable either way, possibility."

To name the existence of Jesus as, "undisputed," is irrational logic.
The OP insinuates absolute truth and having the evidence to prove it, which has been done by neither DOC or you.Rubbish, as was pointed out earlier by ddt.

I've said what the evidence is. It is applying the historical method to the sources available. Every relevant scholar at an accredited university who has done this concludes that Jesus existed. For this reason I call it undisputed.

I think he meant that as a way to say we haven't proven a dubunking of his claim that there aren't any; although, that's ludicrous. GB's post about a specific biblical scholar more than doubles as proof that there is at least one.

Contrariwise, GB hasn't posted a single biblical scholar at an accredited university who doubts the existence of Jesus. He is now trying to ignore this point, and vaguely implying that my standards are too high. The biblical scholar on the top of his list (who does meet the criteria) is currently working on a book aiming to debunk the Jesus-as-myth theories, so he shot himself in the foot a bit.

 

[phelix]

The assertion that Jesus^TM existed as a historical fact is laughable almost to the point as dismissing your assertion unreservedly. Aside from apologists, evangelicals, the faithful and bare faced liars, nobody with any decent level of education ('o' level or higher) believes this to be true. To assert that Jesus^TM is an historical figure is to assert that 2000 odd years ago some geezer:
Surfed without a board.
Fed 1000's with a fish sandwich.
Dodged his round at a wedding.
Was the best MD that Lazarus had ever consulted.
Was a whizz at reversing ear-ectomies.
Could perform post-mortem appearances.

Or are you saying some guy travelled about the desert, preaching a new kind of religion that may or may not have been called Jesus.

I think most people would say that Jesus^TM is a crock, but Jesus may, just may have existed.

Actually, as I have stated, every relevant scholar at an accredited university believes it to be true. And obviously none of the things you list happened. I am indeed saying that some guy travelled about preaching who was called Jesus. I don't actually think he was preaching a new religion. I think he was preaching Judaism in a new light, and this has been distorted.

 

[phelix]

Just as Moby-Dick is quite the best source of evidence that Moby-Dick is true.

As I have already said, many parts of the NT are sincere history. Moby Dick is not sincere history. The gospels are accounts from "believers" and thus are skewed in favour of Jesus, and we need to use the historical method in order to find out what likely happened and what likely didn't. We treat the sources in the same way we would treat sources about other minor philosophers (and even some major ones). Our sources for Apollonius of Tyana are shockingly bad, and written by people who claim he could perform miracles, but when we read them it is clear they are sincere historical accounts and need to be treated as such.

 

[pakeha]

Ok then: Jesus knew John the Baptist
The sources we have available are close to the events.
The sources include independent testimony even though some had the others available.
The event fits the historical context, and rough social standing.
Christians are unlikely to have made up Jesus associating with an apocalypticist as they knew the apocalypse hadn't happened.
Christians are unlikely to have made up Jesus associating with a baptist who worked for sinners, as Jesus wasn't a sinner. (The counterargument to this that Jesus died for our sins wasn't actually Christian doctrine until later. The initial idea was the forthcoming end of the world.)
Thus it seems likely that Jesus knew John the Baptist.

These are are simple assertionswith no evidence to back them up.
Please post up the evidence, phelix.
Why have you simply repeated your earlier example of John the Baptist?
Is it really your best case?
Still-
Where is the evidence Jesus and John the Baptist had similar 'social standing'?
Where is the evidence of 'independent testimony'?
Remember, this thread is about evidence.

I don't understand why you have rephrased my argument as "all or nothing". Are there any alternatives to a part of the NT being sincere or being a fake? Keep in mind that sincere doesn't mean "true" yet. But yes, the fact that parts are presented as sincere history means they should be studied as such, because the idea that they are fakes is highly unlikely. With regard to Jesus' trial, they are sincere historical accounts, but when the historical method is applied, they turn out to be of very little historical value.

You don't?
The sincerity of the NT writings has yet to be demonstrated, especially in light of the fact they include known forgeries.
Why do you assert something presented as sincere history should be studied as such?

It seems I worded myself too confusingly. We do not know who the authors are (apart from Paul really), but we know which are different.

And we know none of them gave an account of Jesus' trial which is even remotely plausible.
What do you mean 'which are different'?

 

[phelix]

If you mean his latest: Forged which I'm halfway through,all he has to say is that most of the writings in the N/T are forged and not by who is claimed as the authors. The synoptics for example were all by anonymous writers, only much later given names such as Mark, Luke etc. Around half the Pauline writings were actually written by Paul, the rest are forgeries written in his name so as to be taken seriously by the readers. That goes for the "acts of the apostles" as well.

I didn't mean forged no. He is working on a book called "Did Jesus Exist" which isn't out yet, and which debunks the Jesus-as-myth hypothesis. I have read Forged and it was pretty good. Pretty standard stuff, though he is in a minority with his dismissal of Acts. My favourite Ehrman book is "Jesus, Interrupted" which documents and discussed the contradictions in the NT, why they're there, and what they mean in terms of historical study. Highly recommend

 

[Akhenaten]

If you have any evidence that followers of Apollonius of Tyana, or the followers of Pythagoras, were telling the truth, I would like to see it.

Build a better thread and the world will beat a path to your door.

This one, however, is about Jeebus and pizza.

For low-importance historical figures, the only sources we often have are from the followers. These cannot be dismissed or we are left with nothing, so they have to be worked with.

We most certainly can dismiss unreliable reports from the agenda-driven, and if that leaves us with nothing then so be it. Why are we under any compulsion to use dubious and unverifiable information to fill in the gaps?

We use historical criteria to find out which of the stories are likely to be true and which are not. Criteria like earliness, plausibility, corroboration and dissimilarity are used.

Application of which all lead us to believe that the New Testament writers were lying their arses off.

These historical criteria have not been replaced by anything else, because they are the best we have. Of course there are problems with each one, but historians have to find out what the preponderance of evidence points towards.

When will you be presenting this preponderance of evidence on which we might base a conclusion that the New Testament writers were telling the truth?

In the case of certain things, such as Jesus' existence, Jesus prophesying the imminent end of the world, Jesus' death by the Romans, relevant historians have come down near-universally on the side of truth. With regards to his existence, it is total agreement.

Instead of going on and on and on about this alleged total agreement that you're so fond of, how about simply anteing up the evidence that nobody has apparently been able to bring themselves to dispute?

 

[pakeha]

A Red Flag for me, O Pharoah.
Nice one.

...With regards to Jesus' birth, that's an interesting point that I've talked about in this thread. The presence of wild contradiction doesn't actually mean that the stories can be dismissed. It makes the stories much more interesting.

It makes the stories much less believable, phelix. Especially when they contradict each other.
Even more so when it is clear they were written to push along a particular theology.

... My argument in general would be that there is much more historical reporting than in myths. The writers frequently give us what day of the week something happened, or will mention an upcoming festival, to give us a frame of reference in time. It could still be historical background to a fictional story, but this becomes less likely.
The other point is the agreement among independent sources. If one author makes up that Jesus had 12 disciples, then how come the other authors all think so too? Not to mention paul thinking this was the case as well

Could we have some examples of that historical reporting?
Who are these independent sources?
We all know about the symbolism of the 12 disciples, phelix.
What IS your point in posting here?

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't really understand what you mean by "this thread is a search for truth via evidence, not a speculative debate".

That's probably because you're basing your understanding on the mangled English of the thread's title and not on any kind of understanding of the actual discussion that's been going on here for the last 2½ years.

 

[phelix]

These are are simple assertionswith no evidence to back them up.
Please post up the evidence, phelix.
Why have you simply repeated your earlier example of John the Baptist?
Is it really your best case?
Still-
Where is the evidence Jesus and John the Baptist had similar 'social standing'?
Where is the evidence of 'independent testimony'?
Remember, this thread is about evidence.

The sources are known to be close to the events for a whole variety of reasons. A key point in this is the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Luke appears to have known about it while Mark does not. Another means by which scholars identify the date is how relevant the material would have been at the time. Jesus is always getting annoyed at the Pharisees, but doesn't seem to care about the Sadducees. Why? Well, they didn't exist after 70AD, so what would be the point of Luke recording whatever it was Jesus said about them? The dating mostly agreed on is Mark 65-70, Matthew 70-100, Luke 80-110 and John 90-110.
We have some indication about Jesus' life from Paul, who is earlier, at around 50 onwards, but these are limited to things like "he had a brother called James" and "there was someone who knew him called Luke" and aren't very helpful. Our best sources are still the gospels.

There are places where the sources are known to be independent because they contradict.

Jesus and John the Baptist were the same social standing as they were both poor Jews.

I don't know why you challenged the bit about Christians being unlikely to make up the association with John the Baptist on the grounds that it would appear to label Jesus a sinner? Do you expect me to prove that Jesus wasn't a sinner? The point is a theological one - Christians believe that Jesus wasn't a sinner, and so it seems an unlikely friendship to invent.

You don't?
The sincerity of the NT writings has yet to be demonstrated, especially in light of the fact they include known forgeries.
Why do you assert something presented as sincere history should be studied as such?

They include known forgeries yes. These have been identified and known for quite some time. It is because we have eradicated the forgeries that we know which aren't forgeries. Luckily for historians, this includes the four canonical gospels. Something presented as sincere history should be studied as such once the option of forgery has been ruled out. Note that sincere history can still be 100% wrong, and that the historical method would be able to find that. The book of Exodus contains sincere history concerning the Jews escaping from Egypt, and when tested historically we find that absolutely nothing like that happened.

And we know none of them gave an account of Jesus' trial which is even remotely plausible.
What do you mean 'which are different'?

Correct. Plausibility is a factor that comes into play a lot in the NT. With the trial, it is difficult to take anything of historical value from the sources.
By "which are different" I meant the authors are different from each other. It is not the same person writing Luke as writing Mark. It is not the same person writing Mark as writing Thesallonians.

 

[Mojo]

The sources are known to be close to the events for a whole variety of reasons. A key point in this is the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Luke appears to have known about it while Mark does not.

The fact that Mark doesn't mention the destruction of the temple in a purported account of events which took place around 40 years before the destruction of the temple does not mean that the author was not aware of it. We've been over this repeatedly.

 

[phelix]

It makes the stories much less believable, phelix. Especially when they contradict each other.
Even more so when it is clear they were written to push along a particular theology.

Correct. This is the reason why we cannot really say "Luke's account is right and Matthew's is mistaken". It is most probably "Neither account has much historical value".

Could we have some examples of that historical reporting?
Who are these independent sources?
We all know about the symbolism of the 12 disciples, phelix.
What IS your point in posting here?

With regards to historical reporting, just reading the gospels should be enough. The intro to Luke. Luke 22:1 and 22:7. This general style of giving a time and place as a frame of reference.
We do not know who the independent sources were.

With regard to the 12 disciples, I don't get what you mean by symbolism? It is linked with the 12 tribes of Israel, but this is a point in favour of its historicity, as the 12 were supposed to rule over heaven when the son of man came. At the time of writing the gospels, the authors knew this hadn't happened, so why make up such a damning failure? Also, if we do consider this "symbolic" because of the tribes, then how did all our sources decide that such symbolism was a good idea?

 

[phelix]

The fact that Mark doesn't mention the destruction of the temple in a purported account of events which took place around 40 years before the destruction of the temple does not mean that the author was not aware of it. We've been over this repeatedly.

That's fine. It's just that given Luke's inclusion, and the events prominence, it has struck many as unlikely that Mark was written after the event. Even if it was, it doesn't buy that much time. We can maybe squish it up to 80AD with the other gospels at 90, 100 and 110, before the church fathers begin making reference to them.
But then, what's the point? We'd been enraging biblical scholars by dating the gospels a couple of decades too late, and they would still be pleasantly early sources from a historical point of view.

 

[amb]

I didn't mean forged no. He is working on a book called "Did Jesus Exist" which isn't out yet, and which debunks the Jesus-as-myth hypothesis. I have read Forged and it was pretty good. Pretty standard stuff, though he is in a minority with his dismissal of Acts. My favourite Ehrman book is "Jesus, Interrupted" which documents and discussed the contradictions in the NT, why they're there, and what they mean in terms of historical study. Highly recommend

I have that here. Agree it's a great book that even laypersons like me can get their teeth into it. But let's not forget that Bart was once a fundamental christian. It is ingrained in him that there actually existed a historical Jesus. He takes it as the default line for the historicity of Jesus as do most other babblical scholars. None have started their quest for a HJ with a blank piece of paper, most carry baggage in their scholarship.
There is not one scrap of evidence for such a scenario as a HJ from any eyewitness. The earliest source of the tale are Pauls writings around two decades after Jesus so-called crucifiction. All we have a copies of copies of copies. From this it's not certain there ever was a HJ.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Indeed. There are none. Two people have now claimed that there are, and then failed to name a single one when challenged.

We don't have to prove anything to you (even though I did). The burden is on you to provide evidence for your claims.

1) Prove that you are an atheist
2) Prove that you are actually qualified to decide who is a Biblical Scholar
3) Prove the NT is true without using the NT (or the Tanakh too for that matter)

Like most Theists you come in puffing smoke and Pseudo-Philosophical rubbish, and huffing about some sort of "historical criteria" (contrivance more likely) You seem slightly more intellectual than DOC. What Rhetorical device will you use next? Maybe The Undistributed Middle or something equally blithering no doubt?

Sorry, you don't get a pass to use the Greek First Principles of Rhetoric (which are nearly all tautologies and fallacies in themselves). That won't fly here. Neither will your faux indignation. Nor your willful inability to comprehend the distinction between a compilation of texts copied and reedited over hundreds of years, and Conspiracy Theory.

You probably think you're some hotshot with a couple of semesters of philosophy 101 under your belt, and thought that you were going to dazzle us with your wit.

You'll have to do better than pretending that you're Socrates, and pretending that you're an Atheist. We've seen it all before. This is probably the longest running thread in internet history, so we know what babble looks like.

The next time you try to prove the Bible is true with the Bible, I'll ask Akhenatan to trot out his Circular Argument Wheel.

GB

 

[Akhenaten]

A few pages ago I could name no biblical scholars at accredited universities that question the historicity of Jesus. I still can name none...

You seem to think this is such a compelling argument that it you can ignore any and all requests to present some actual evidence but it's not going to work.

WE question the histriocity of Jesus, and WE are your readership.

WE demand evidence.

 

[phelix]

I have that here. Agree it's a great book that even laypersons like me can get their teeth into it. But let's not forget that Bart was once a fundamental christian. It is ingrained in him that there actually existed a historical Jesus. He takes it as the default line for the historicity of Jesus as do most other babblical scholars. None have started their quest for a HJ with a blank piece of paper, most carry baggage in their scholarship.
There is not one scrap of evidence for such a scenario as a HJ from any eyewitness. The earliest source of the tale are Pauls writings around two decades after Jesus so-called crucifiction. All we have a copies of copies of copies. From this it's not certain there ever was a HJ.

Not certain, but incredibly likely. We have to be more lenient with our requirements for evidence when it comes to history from the time period, because the sources will never be as good as for modern history.
The earliest sources for many many characters (especially minor philosophers and religious figures) come centuries after their deaths, and the fragments available are copies of copies of copies. The historical method is the best tool we have for analysing these sources.
Ehrman likes referring to the generation of the canon being like a game of telephone. One child tells the next a sentence, he tells the next, and so on and so on, and at the end it's a totally different sentence. In reality, it is more likely to have worked like the development of lore.
If you hear "A scientist at Lenfordshire University bought a 1litre bottle of JankenPop and tested it and found it contained 5 species of living parasite!!!"
what can you take from this? It is highly unreliable, as it is clearly the sort of thing that has been passed on as a rumour, but you can regardless extract some historical knowledge from it:
1 - There is probably a place called Lenfordshire which has a university
2 - There is probably a drink called JankenPop which comes in 1litre bottles

You've probably heard things like this before. They were common in my primary school. Important is that they were all wrong, and yet none of them was totally devoid of historical value.

Eta:
Is it not a bit harsh to consider people like Ehrman have a level of delusion by virtue of their past? Do we really have to wait until someone who has been atheist their entire life comes along before we consider the work authoritative?

 

[amb]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Look at with an open mind.

 

[phelix]

We don't have to prove anything to you (even though I did). The burden is on you to provide evidence for your claims.

1) Prove that you are an atheist
2) Prove that you are actually qualified to decide who is a Biblical Scholar
3) Prove the NT is true without using the NT (or the Tanakh too for that matter)

Like most Theists you come in puffing smoke and Pseudo-Philosophical rubbish, and huffing about some sort of "historical criteria" (contrivance more likely) You seem slightly more intellectual than DOC. What Rhetorical device will you use next? Maybe The Undistributed Middle or something equally blithering no doubt?

Sorry, you don't get a pass to use the Greek First Principles of Rhetoric (which are nearly all tautologies and fallacies in themselves). That won't fly here. Neither will your faux indignation. Nor your willful inability to comprehend the distinction between a compilation of texts copied and reedited over hundreds of years, and Conspiracy Theory.

You probably think you're some hotshot with a couple of semesters of philosophy 101 under your belt, and thought that you were going to dazzle us with your wit.

You'll have to do better than pretending that you're Socrates, and pretending that you're an Atheist. We've seen it all before. This is probably the longest running thread in internet history, so we know what babble looks like.

The next time you try to prove the Bible is true with the Bible, I'll ask Akhenatan to trot out his Circular Argument Wheel.

GB

I wasn't asking you to prove anything, but you did say that you could name a bible at an accredited university who doubts the existence of Jesus. I think you were lying at that point.

The other argument you have brought up is that the truth of the NT cannot be ascertained from within the NT. This is incorrect for many reasons. Firstly, the NT is not one book with one author, but represents multiple sources. You are essentially asking me to prove the validity of the historical sources of something, without using any of the sources we have. There are non-canonical gospels but I'm guessing these will not count on the grounds that they too were written by Christians. That is where we hit a bump. If I asked you to prove the existence of Pythagoras, without using any sources from people who followed Pythagoras, you would find it impossible. Likewise, if you expect to work out information about a fairly unimportant Jew, without being allowed to use any sources written by his followers, you have been set an impossible task.
Your response to this has been that the weakness of Pythagoras evidence does not make the Jesus evidence strong. This is true. It does mean though, that to be consistent, you must be willing to say "Pythagoras probably didn't exist" if you are willing to say the same about Jesus. I am not sure you would be willing to say this.
The second point is that, even if we only had one source (as we do for some historical characters) that would still be enough. If all we had was the gospel of Luke, this would still be enough reason to believe that Jesus probably existed. This historical method will always extract such truths from documents that are likely to represent sincere history.