Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Akhenaten]

Seem to agree with you on everything above, so am just replying to this. Why is Matthew's dating better? It isn't to any significant degree, but the fact that Luke's account seems to place it during Herod's rein makes me think that both authors reckon that was about the time he was born. Even with the wildly divergent accounts, they both seem to think that Herod was around at the time.

Despite coming in here claiming that your Historical Method™ was the be-all and end-all in terms of sorting fact from fiction you have at least as many vague, wishy-washy opinions about the way things 'seem' as DOC, Geisler, Turek and Sir Ramsay.

Of course, this isn't "proof". It's not even a convincing argument, but Jesus had to be born at some time, and why suppose he was born 2AD and both authors somehow managed to get every detail wrong, rather suppose he was born 5BC and they got the basic timescale correct?

Why suppose anything at all? What does the evidence say and when will you be presenting it?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

No, it is much less than that. I think it is likely that John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. I think it is likely that John the Baptist new Jesus. I also think that the reason stated for John's execution in the gospels (he had questioned the legitimacy of Herod's marriage) is more likely than the reason given by Josephus (he had many followers and was seen as a threat).

"Likely" isn't evidence.


GB

 

[phelix]

Hence your circular argument. Adding some woolly phrasing and extra words don't give much cover to your circular reasoning.

How is the reasoning circular? It involves identifying the nature of the sources > Applying the historical method > Finding the sources are often insufficient to warrant belief. This is the standard approach when trying to ascertain historical facts.

Your continuation of this False Dichotomy and the Straw Man after it has been called out, either displays dishonesty on your part, or your inability to follow logic.


GB

The false dichotomy was called out as the possibility that faking history 2 or 3 sources back would not be identified by the nature of the writing we have. I accept that, but the argument still applies to the original source of the fake, even if all we have is commentary on this fake.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

We have done a few cases before. I have said what my position on most will be (sticking with the majority, but more towards the liberal/skeptical).

The accounts of the resurrection are likely all false. There is possibly something to be gained from the empty tomb claim though. The four sources available disagree on who, when and why, but all reckon that a woman/women discovered an empty tomb. The differences in the stories rules out collaboration, so it seems all the authors reckon that a female found an empty tomb.
I cannot argue that this is a claim with any probable basis in fact, because it fits the story so nicely. Maybe a woman found an empty tomb because she went to the wrong one? Maybe a woman found the tomb empty because the body had been stolen? Maybe a woman dreamt about the tomb being empty, told her husband, and the whole thing got wildly overblown. All possible, none beats the others for probability. Of course there is one possibility that can be ruled out, and that is the resurrection, because historians are not allowed to draw on supernatural explanations when natural ones are present.
But past that, we just cannot say with any confidence one way or the other.

We can confidently say that you have provided no evidence for the veracity of the NT or the historicity of Jesus.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

... but Jesus had to be born at some time,

Not if he didn't exist.


GB

 

[phelix]

The main problem here, is that the "Accredited" Bible Scholars who disagree with your "Accredited" Bible Scholars, are more right than yours to point out that Jesus is a myth, even if they are wrong on the details.

And the "Accredited" Bible Scholars you agree with (some of whom I like too), are wrong to use the Bible as evidence of Jesus' historicity, or as evidence of the veracity of the NT.

You do not need to put accredited in quotation marks. I suspect you have done that so as to put the people who doubt Jesus' existence (none of whom are able to get jobs at accredited universities, contrary to your previous incorrect claim) in the same category as those who do not.

If the only people to have been right are the ones who are unable to fit into academia, then this unusual fact would need to be accounted for.

I am totally ok with your point of view that the sources in the NT cannot be used for historical analysis. It is just that doing this would wipe out a large chunk of history, and I do not want to do that.

Sorry, you don't get to set up the rules of debate on this thread. You asked for Biblical Scholars from "Accredited" Universities who don't believe in the Historicity of Jesus. And Akhenaten was nice enough to provide you a list.

I provided a list of several Philosophers of Religion, and a number of Biblical Scholars who started out as avid Christians who became Atheists and Agnostics; and who question whether Jesus actually existed.

Some of those had a hard time letting go, and still look for the elusive "Historical Jesus." But most of them know there really is no "Historical Jesus," so they are very careful not to stick their heads out too far (all those probablies, maybes, and most likelies). The Biblical Scholars you hold so dear, play similar word games.

And no, you are not being "nitpicky." You are being flat out dishonest.

Your "clearly defined scope" is nothing more than a sham to cover up the fact that you can't provide a Comprehensive list of Every Single Bible Scholar (in the world) from an "Accredited" University and poll their views. I know you can't do that, and YOU know you can't do that.

If you admitted that fact, you'd have to retract your unsupported and sweeping assertions. The fact that you continue to bluster and play the martyr card after we have called your bluff, demonstrates your dishonesty.

GB

I cannot provide a list of every single bible scholar in the world, correct...
I don't really see what your argument is from that.

 

[phelix]

"Likely" isn't evidence.


GB

Correct. Likely is a conclusion. We use history to find what likely happened at any given time.

 

[nvidiot]

I'm not sure why but you seem to have inadvertently missed responding to this phelix...

And another thing whilst I'm sufficiently annoyed by brain dead customers to have the balls to say it out loud, you seem to have the strange idea that lying for jeebus isn't a common, everyday occurrence by people who may well be very sincere in their belief. I can assure you that if there is any chance of ingratiation with a supernatural (in other words, non-existent) being by spreading the word through "economical truth distribution, there will be many who will think it their duty to do so.

Put more politely now that I am home and have my cats in a suitably worshipping position around my person: You are aware that people are white happy to lie for religion to "spread the word"? In fact this seems to be a disturbingly common event.

Shouldn't that make you perhaps a little bit, dare I say it, skeptical about the tales told by the anonymous writers of the synoptic gospels?

 

[phelix]

Actually it is an extremely productive request. The fact that you can't back up your assertion with a poll of ALL "Accredited" Biblical Scholars demonstrates that your bluff has been successfully called.

Are you actually serious? The fact that nobody is able to find a counterexample is not a sufficient reason to think the claim is probably correct?
There seems to be an underlying idea that only mathematical or logical proofs constitute sufficient reason to believe something. If there is the possibility of a counterexample, even if nobody has been able to find one (and finding one would probably be easy) then the claim can be totally dismissed.

It's in inverted commas to demonstrate that your bogus attempt to so narrowly define Biblical Scholarship is a fallacy, designed to allow you to discount any Biblical Scholars which don't agree with you.

It's not really that narrow. It's very common for biblical scholars to teach, and publish in peer reviewed journals.

None of which counts as evidence for the veracity of the NT and the Historicity of Jesus.


GB

What exactly would you consider to be "evidence for the veracity of the NT"? The veracity of the any source at all cannot be established unless it says nothing new. Does the fact that the gospels expand on Josephus' information regarding John the Baptist have any sway? Or do we say that Josephus is informative while the gospels are not.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I am totally ok with your point of view that the sources in the NT cannot be used for historical analysis. It is just that doing this would wipe out a large chunk of history, and I do not want to do that.

Why?

I cannot provide a list of every single bible scholar in the world, correct...
I don't really see what your argument is from that.

You are deliberately being obtuse. Provide a Poll or retract your bogus claim.

GB

 

[Akhenaten]

You do not need to put accredited in quotation marks. I suspect you have done that so as to put the people who doubt Jesus' existence (none of whom are able to get jobs at accredited universities, contrary to your previous incorrect claim) in the same category as those who do not.

I see it as more of a nod to your use of the term "accredited" to mean "people of whom phelix approves".

If the only people to have been right are the ones who are unable to fit into academia, then this unusual fact would need to be accounted for.

No.

I am totally ok with your point of view that the sources in the NT cannot be used for historical analysis.

In other words there is no evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Let DOC know, will you?

It is just that doing this would wipe out a large chunk of history, and I do not want to do that.

If the sources in the NT are the only sources, and they can't be used for historical analysis, then what is it exactly that constitutes this large chunk of history that you're so attached to?

I cannot provide a list of every single bible scholar in the world, correct...
I don't really see what your argument is from that.

That turn about is fair play and you should probably stop making similar demands for lists of people that fit into your arbitrarily decided categories.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Correct. Likely is a conclusion. We use history to find what likely happened at any given time.

"Likely" isn't a conclusion. "Likely" is a weasel word people use when they don't have evidence.

You need a better dictionary.


GB

 

[dafydd]

Are you actually serious? The fact that nobody is able to find a counterexample is not a sufficient reason to think the claim is probably correct?
There seems to be an underlying idea that only mathematical or logical proofs constitute sufficient reason to believe something. If there is the possibility of a counterexample, even if nobody has been able to find one (and finding one would probably be easy) then the claim can be totally dismissed.



It's not really that narrow. It's very common for biblical scholars to teach, and publish in peer reviewed journals.


What exactly would you consider to be "evidence for the veracity of the NT"? The veracity of the any source at all cannot be established unless it says nothing new. Does the fact that the gospels expand on Josephus' information regarding John the Baptist have any sway? Or do we say that Josephus is informative while the gospels are not.

The gospels are not informative,just stories.

 

[phelix]

I'm not sure why but you seem to have inadvertently missed responding to this phelix...



Put more politely now that I am home and have my cats in a suitably worshipping position around my person: You are aware that people are white happy to lie for religion to "spread the word"? In fact this seems to be a disturbingly common event.

Shouldn't that make you perhaps a little bit, dare I say it, skeptical about the tales told by the anonymous writers of the synoptic gospels?

Terribly sorry. I do actually remember reading that, so I don't know why I didn't respond. I usually just ignore some of the less productive comments.

People are quite happy to lie for Jesus yes. When analysing various stories, this has to be remembered. "lying" is a positive claim though, so it is preferable to use the word "wrong" in many cases. Did Jesus walk on water? No, and it's unlikely that anyone could be fooled into thinking he did, so this is likely a lie (at some point, possibly by the authors). Did people see Jesus after he had died? No, and lying about this seems possible, but it is quite likely that some grieving people thought they had seen him, so I would be happier saying this isn't a lie, but it is wrong.
Also remember that "lying for Jesus" wouldn't be the same sort of thing that would be going on if every source for the existence of Jesus involved faking. "Lying for Jesus" becomes morally acceptable if the person believes it will lead to salvation. To lie for the existence of Jesus wouldn't be that easy, and the original liars would likely be turning against whichever gods they genuinely believed in.

 

[phelix]

The gospels are not informative,just stories.

In large part yes. Would you consider the example I gave of John the Baptist one in which the gospels probably provide extra historical information?

 

[Akhenaten]

Not if he didn't exist.


GB

I'm not sure that we're accredited to suggest that possibility.

 

[Akhenaten]

Correct. Likely is a conclusion. We use history to find what likely happened at any given time.

What a load of cobblers.

"Likely" is no more than the sum of all your "maybes".

History is a collation of the evidence.

Got any?

 

[Aepervius]

Correct. Likely is a conclusion. We use history to find what likely happened at any given time.

Likely also IMPLY that there is a chance it did not happen. It does not mean sure-fire-100%-undubitable-everybody-saying-it-did-not-happen-is-a-crackpot.

Heck, WW2 *DID* happen. JEsus Christ LIKELY existed.

Grasp the difference ?

I have YET to find you or DOC or anybody using that word ready to admit that indeed the existence of Jesus was not PROVED, but is only LIKELY.

 

[phelix]

Likely also IMPLY that there is a chance it did not happen. It does not mean sure-fire-100%-undubitable-everybody-saying-it-did-not-happen-is-a-crackpot.

Heck, WW2 *DID* happen. JEsus Christ LIKELY existed.

Grasp the difference ?

I have YET to find you or DOC or anybody using that word ready to admit that indeed the existence of Jesus was not PROVED, but is only LIKELY.

Then consider this an admission. That is all I have ever been aiming to argue for.

 

[Akhenaten]

What exactly would you consider to be "evidence for the veracity of the NT"? The veracity of the any source at all cannot be established unless it says nothing new. Does the fact that the gospels expand on Josephus' information regarding John the Baptist have any sway? Or do we say that Josephus is informative while the gospels are not.

You seem to have completely misunderstood the whole point of this thread.

The OP claimed a number of things as evidence that the NT is true, and most especially that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected as decribed in the gospels.

It is the majority view here that this is fish piss and we have, for the last 20000-odd posts, been asking to see the evidence on which one might legitimately make a claims for NT truthiness.

Do you have evidence that the life and times of the Jesus as described in the gospels constitute a true story? Do you have evidence that Jesus performed miracles? Do you have evidence of Jesus' resurrection? Do you have evidence, in short, that Jesus is who and what christianity claims him to be?

Do you have evidence that will convince the participants in this thread that the New Testament belongs in the non-fiction section at the library?