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

[phelix]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Look at with an open mind.

I've started reading, but it is tough work. It quotes the woman from the zeitgeist movie on the side, says "non-christian sources? not even born in 30AD!" as if that is at all unsurprising to historians, and has just claimed that Nazareth didn't exist.
I will keep on going, but this does have a strong feel of pseudohistory.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, though that wording applies they were lying, which also may not be the case. They were probably wrong though.

You haven't meant Wilbur yet, have you?

I have said what the evidence is: the application of the historical method to the sources given.

It may well be that this historical method of yours has put you in possesion of some actual evidence, but we're never going to find out, are we, since all you want to do is keep banging on about why we have to believe you and your accredited academics at recognisable universities or whatever?

Parts of the NT are sincere historical sources because they are presented as historical sources.

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

Thus they are either sincere historical sources, or total fakes. The idea of total fakes is quickly ruled out due to the known different authors with corroborating yet unique reports.

Are we going to see them in this lifetime or the next?

 

[tsig]

You mean like this?


Why do you always take vacations before you post again?
If you have some new "evidence" let's hear it now. Then we can debunk them before we go to sleep tonight.

GB

Constipation?

 

[Akhenaten]

Parts of the NT are sincere historical sources because they are presented as historical sources.

Will he go 'round in circles . . ?

Yes, yes he will.

Fancy that, eh? All this time DOC has been using the historical method and nobody realised.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Me and Aberhaten and most of the rest of the crew here, I reckon.

Who's bringing the beer to the pizza-party?

It better not be coming in the same truck as phelix's evidence or we're all gonna die of thirst.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I've started reading, but it is tough work. It quotes the woman from the zeitgeist movie on the side, says "non-christian sources? not even born in 30AD!" as if that is at all unsurprising to historians, and has just claimed that Nazareth didn't exist.
I will keep on going, but this does have a strong feel of pseudohistory.

That's odd! I get a strong feel of pseudo-history every time you post.

GB

 

[tsig]

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.

Could it be that they were both trying to prove that Jesus fulfilled a prophesy?

 

[phelix]

Could it be that they were both trying to prove that Jesus fulfilled a prophesy?

Indeed. This what I think is likely to be the case. In fact, the virgin birth was an attempt to fulfil a prophecy that wasn't even made. It was a misreading of the original text. It is for this reason that the birth narratives have little historical value.

 

[phelix]

That's odd! I get a strong feel of pseudo-history every time you post.

GB

I have laid out the mainstream historical criteria that are used to evaluate sources from this time period. If you consider this to be pseudohistory, then I would be interested to know what alternative criteria you personally would use?
Do you have a mechanism by which you would be able to believe in Apollonius but not in Jesus, or do you choose to deny the history of both?

 

[Akhenaten]

Indeed. This what I think is likely to be the case. In fact, the virgin birth was an attempt to fulfil a prophecy that wasn't even made. It was a misreading of the original text. It is for this reason that the birth narratives have little historical value.

But the walking on water - that was true, right? And the resurrection? And the money changers in the temple, and the loaves and fishes and . . .

 

[amb]

Oppressed people looking for a way out will invent tales of a saviour who will break the bondage of oppression and set in a new kingdom. Such were the woes of the first century Jews that they began looking in their scriptures for just such a servant of god, and they found it in Isaiah and other verses. Hence the birth of christianity. But it wasn't called that until Paul of Tarsus came along and he had his well know hallucination on the road to Damascus.
If the ramblings of a schizophrenic are to be believed, the Hubbard should also be believed, or Joseph Smith for that matter. At least Smith had a dozen signed affidavits that saw the golden tablets.

 

[amb]

Double post.

 

[phelix]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Look at with an open mind.

As a follow up to my previous post, this has some nice debunking of popular myths, but tops them off with more rhetoric than argument. A good example is the article on the 12 disciples. It debunks the death legends surrounding the 12. Great! Scholars have known these to be popular myths for a long time. It points out the contradictions in the Judas death stories. Great! The majority of Scholars say that Matthew was probably wrong, and Acts is more likely to be right. Some say both were wrong, and only a handful try to crowbar them into fitting together.
The problem is on top of things like this, it includes claims that are just indefensible. Judas is a 2nd century legend? Then how come you're about to quote a death story from 70AD? The 12 disciples represent the zodiac? Then why are the only symbolic references concerned with the 12 tribes of Israel, which was around before the zodiac?
Finally, it tops the whole thing off with a constant implication "the 12 disciples were a complete fabrication" without ever making any logical argument for this.
On Nazareth, the author points out how unlikely the "rejected in his homeland" story is, given how small the town of Nazareth was. He seems to imply that this means Nazareth didn't exist which is an absurd leap.

 

[tsig]

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.



Who's bringing the beer to the pizza-party?

I thought he had his old man magic up his round.

 

[phelix]

Oppressed people looking for a way out will invent tales of a saviour who will break the bondage of oppression and set in a new kingdom. Such were the woes of the first century Jews that they began looking in their scriptures for just such a servant of god, and they found it in Isaiah and other verses. Hence the birth of christianity. But it wasn't called that until Paul of Tarsus came along and he had his well know hallucination on the road to Damascus.
If the ramblings of a schizophrenic are to be believed, the Hubbard should also be believed, or Joseph Smith for that matter. At least Smith had a dozen signed affidavits that saw the golden tablets.

Agreed totally with the first part. The Jews were hoping for a saviour, so when Jesus came along and started chatting about overthrowing the Romans and the forthcoming apocalypse and how his disciples would rule over Israel, you can imagine how this would be very popular. But then he was destroyed... squished like an ant... What then?
If you read the gospel of Mark, it is difficult to be sure "what then". Read it without the last few verses which are forged, and you have a story which is a very bumpy ride and ends abruptly with no clear happy ending. Paul of Tarsus was very good at rectifying the situation. He came up with a very appealing theology, and managed to turn Christianity from failure to fairy tale. My guess is 99% of modern Christians don't realise that their religion is based on the beliefs of Paul, not of Jesus or anyone else.

For the second part, it depends what you're working with. "schizophrenic" draws up images of a dude shaking back and forth and talking about aliens he just met and how the radio is telling him to burn things. Paul and Hubbard are not anything like that. Hubbard was a fraudster. Once you know that, any historical value is reduced to almost zero. I know nothing about Smith past the fact he founded Mormonism so I can't really comment on that one. But Paul can be thought of more as a troubled but intelligent man. When he talks about seeing Jesus, he is definitely wrong, but probably sincere (unlike Hubbard). When he talks about meeting James, this is thought to be more likely.
I tend to imagine Paul as a grieving widow. She says she just saw her husband in the clouds and you pat her on the back and think nothing of it. She says she had tea with her Nephew last week and you don't go "You're talking craziness. Everything you believe is a hallucination".

 

[tsig]

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.

It's not really that interesting. It's the same historical method that is applied to other sources of the time, and it doesn't find especially exciting facts.


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.


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.

As discussed, the only alternative to parts being sincere historical sources is them being fakes, and conspiratorial fakes at that given the cross-source agreement on many points. This is very unlikely.

Argument from incredulity.

They were pushing a belief not writing history sincere or otherwise.

 

[tsig]

You don't get to just gloss over this bit.

Where multiple people are describing the same event and their accounts differ we are entitled to point out that at least some of them aren't telling the truth.
Aren't we?





All of what? You haven't provided any evidence yet, for biblical Jesus, for John the Baptist or for their multiple meet-ups.

That something strikes you as being either likely or unlikely has no bearing at all on our considerations of likelihood, and whether the whole fairytale benefits from the inclusion or otherwise of various sidebar stories is also irrelevant in terms of their veracity. That's argumentum ad consequentiam, I think.





Just like religious apologetics.





Piffle.

Flat-out lying for Jeebus is a far more viable explanation. Dog knows, there's enough of it about.

C'mon big A, you know the drill by now. Where the NT writers agree that's evidence they told the truth, where they disagree that's evidence they were truthful.

 

[welshdean]

I thought he had his old man magic up his round.

Yeah, fair does and all that, but, if you're in a boozer and you find a twenty, then that's just a freebie. It's still your round next!

 

[welshdean]

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/PizzaMenu.jpg​

Ring Ring, Ring Ring...

Welshdean: Hello! Is that Aberhatens Pizzas?
Aberhatens: Yes sir. What can I get you?
Welshdean: I ordered a pizza ages ago and it hasn't arrived.
Aberhatens: Sorry about that sir, what did you order?
Welshdean: Uhh, a 12" Geisler, 9" Red Flag and an 18" Evidence. I ordered them nearly 3 years ago and I'm still waiting.
Aberhatens: Sorry again about that sir, I'll find out what's happened to your order, please hold.
Aberhatens:Hello! Hello sir.
Welshdean: Hello!
Aberhatens: I'm afraid it's bad news sir. The Geisler has been discontinued, apparently too many customers have choked on it. The Red Flag has been waived and I'm afraid we've got no Evidence and it appears we never did have any anyway. Can I get you a free replacement on the house?
Welshdean: Oh FFS I'm starving! Ummm do you have that new pizza, the uhhh, oh what's it called, the uh, uh. The Historical Jesus! Do you do them?
Aberhatens: Yes sir, it's just been added to our range, I should be able to get some to you in about 20,000 posts or so.
Welshdean: Oh Jeeebus!

 

[phelix]

Argument from incredulity.

They were pushing a belief not writing history sincere or otherwise.

I'm not sure I understand your position here. Could you clarify why you think certain parts of the gospels were included? Was it that the authors were making it up, and the level of agreement is through coincidence/conspiracy? Or were the authors reporting what they believed to be the truth?

Or possibly something other than these?

C'mon big A, you know the drill by now. Where the NT writers agree that's evidence they told the truth, where they disagree that's evidence they were truthful.

This is incorrect. When the NT writers agree, that's one criterion ticked off among many. The NT writers agree that Jesus healed the sick, and we know this didn't happen, so agreement is not sufficient for labelling a story as accurate.
Where they disagree, this is not evidence of truthfulness. For Jesus' birth story, the stories disagree, and this (among other things) means we know that both authors were fabricating at this point. It is seen as evidence against conspiracy though.