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

[Akhenaten]

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?

What the hell is this fixation with John the Baptist all about?

It's starting to to look as though your answer to the question "Were the NT writers telling the truth?" is a fairly confident "Well, there was this one time . . ."

 

[ddt]

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.

I think you're all tearing a bit too harsh on phelix. He's no DOC. I mean, there are three basic positions on Jesus you have to distinguish.

1) The NT is the inerrant, infallible word on Jesus Christ. Mind the Christ bit. Everything in the NT is true, especially the supernatural stuff like the Resurrection. This is DOC's position, and Geisler's, and William Ramsay's and of all those other liars for Jeebus. "Liar" here is appropriate, as they willfully lie and twist and mince words to turn the contradictions in the gospels into confirming each other.

2) Historical Jesus: There's a kernel of truth in the NT, Jesus was a historical person; but apart from his baptism, his being an itinerant preacher, and his crucifixion, there's not much true, the rest is myth - especially all the supernatural stuff. No Resurrection, no Son of God, so no "Christ". This is phelix' position and of most biblical scholars. The fun begins of course when you ask them which sayings and parables of Jesus were truly his or not - then there aren't two with the same opinion on the whole set.

3) Jesus Myth: The NT is made up out of whole cloth and is myth; there never was historical person on whom all the stories were modeled at all.

 

[Aepervius]

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

If this what you aimed for you took a poor way. You started by saying atheist were dogmatic, you asked people to provide people with acredited university saying the contrary. Etc...

Well sorry, but once you see that it is only likely, and you realize that some of the criteria would give FALSE positive on fiction books, then you quickly come to realize it isn't a 99% chance either.

Now how far down the rabit hole are you ready to accompagny us ?

ETA: what you need to realize is that there are no evidence, only very weak indication. And that the likeliness of the existence of Jesus is assumed by scholar to be high, ONLY because there are many of such weak indication. Heck some of those weak indication indicate a false positive as said previously when used on a work of fiction.

The "Jesus likely existed" isn't so strong as you think.

 

[zooterkin]

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

In that case, your sights are in need of some adjustment. For example:

It is the other way around. The accuracy of some parts of the NT is why we know Jesus knew John the Baptist.

 

[Aepervius]

3) Jesus Myth: The NT is made up out of whole cloth and is myth; there never was historical person on whom all the stories were modeled at all.

If I remember other poster , this is actually not the only Jesus-Myth hypothesis (was it Kapyong?). Another one is that "he" was modelled after a mix of many persons as a sort of archetype, another is that it is a merging of previously known myth and a retelling. I am not sure if I am saying that correctely.

 

[phelix]

If this what you aimed for you took a poor way. You started by saying atheist were dogmatic, you asked people to provide people with acredited university saying the contrary. Etc...

Well sorry, but once you see that it is only likely, and you realize that some of the criteria would give FALSE positive on fiction books, then you quickly come to realize it isn't a 99% chance either.

Now how far down the rabiit hole are you ready to accompagny us ?

With regards to dogmatic atheism, that was a comment on the rampant response I got in comparison with my posting on other threads. That atheists often defend this fringe theory to the death can feel like one is up against dogma, even though a shrug of the shoulders and "ok, Jesus probably existed" changes absolutely nothing about the probable non-existence of God.

I don't get what you mean when you say Jesus' existence was "only likely". Isn't that sufficient? it has no major implications, just as the likely existence of anyone else from the time period changes nothing.
If a letter is found from, say, 20AD, which says "yesterday I went round to Joseph the tax collectors house and we ate some tasty tasty unleavened bread". I would say ok, there likely was a tax collector called Joseph... The letter could be faked, so I am not sure, but vehemently denying the existence of Joseph the tax collector seems a bit of a pointless and unwarranted stance to take.

 

[phelix]

In that case, your sights are in need of some adjustment. For example:

I guess you're implying that something can only be known if it can be proven? That's really just a philosophical game that I am not interested in playing.

 

[Aepervius]

If you poll the people on this thread, my gut feeling is that you would find that we would not care either way (whether he existed or not) and that most would say he likely existed, but there are no real evidence of it.

The battle which was fought ehre was not a battle against "jesus" but against the improper assertion that preacher like DOC come and state like "the NT writer told the truth" aka, to take DDT list, the population corresponding to criteria #1.

Frankly if tomorrow a tomb with an incription 2000 year old saying "jesus christ was here" and some indubitable archeological evidence was found, it would change nothing in my life, as you admitted this would change nothing about the made up story and myth.

On the other hand even if a tomb and the indubittable evidence was found, it does not change that apologist, geisler , sir ramsey and DOClike are using poor reasonning, bad logic, non sequitur, and worst. That is what is fought. Not Christianity but the utter badlerdash non-reason.

 

[Aepervius]

from the time period changes nothing.
If a letter is found from, say, 20AD, which says "yesterday I went round to Joseph the tax collectors house and we ate some tasty tasty unleavened bread". I would say ok, there likely was a tax collector called Joseph... The letter could be faked, so I am not sure, but vehemently denying the existence of Joseph the tax collector seems a bit of a pointless and unwarranted stance to take.

If it is a letter incidentally found, yes that would be unwarranted. But the bible isn't a letter randomly found. And that is where the whole edifice fall down on its face.

 

[phelix]

If it is a letter incidentally found, yes that would be unwarranted. But the bible isn't a letter randomly found. And that is where the whole edifice fall down on its face.

Apart from the 8 letters that were randomly found...

 

[Aepervius]

Apart from the 8 letters that were randomly found...

Which letter are you speaking of ? I think we are very quickly going to disagree on what is considered random here.

 

[phelix]

Which letter are you speaking of ? I think we are very quickly going to disagree on what is considered random here.

I know, I was being a bit flippant. I was referring to the 7 undisputed Pauline Epistles, and included Colossians as well, which could well be genuine. Would you say the degree of randomness involved with finding these letters is an important factor regarding the likely truth of any off the cuff comments found within? (comments such as the eating bread with Joseph the Tax Collector one I made up above.)

 

[Aepervius]

Not that is not what I would call random letter. That what I would call part of the NT.

 

[phelix]

Not that is not what I would call random letter. That what I would call part of the NT.

would you say this distinction is a profound one?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I think you're all tearing a bit too harsh on phelix. He's no DOC.

No, I actually prefer DOC. DOC may have presented pitiful excuse of so called evidence that was debunked in 30 seconds or just flat out lies for jesus but at least he produces something.

Phelix on the other hand posted 0 evidence so far.

DOC may have posted various appologetic crappy sources that were easily debunked as crap or flat out lying for jesus, but at least he gives some sources and their reasoning (even though he doesn't bother reading them).

Phelix keeps rambling on, but has again presented 0 arguments from his sources.

I actually prefer DOC

 

[phelix]

I'm not really sure which claims you want sources for?
If you read "The New Testament: A historical introduction" by Bart Ehrman and "A Marginal Jew" by John Meier you will have read most of the claims I am likely to make. The rest is just a defence of the historical method.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

No. It was a Jewish rabbi and commentator. As far as I'm aware he did not attempt to rewrite the story with his conclusion included as definitive. You would have done better to choose the story about the adulterous woman, which WAS added later. Naturally, various historical techniques identified this.

No, you would have done better to understand the example.
This particular chosing is a good one because it is done by a person writing an addition to an existing story and we know for a fact who said it and that he wrote hit many many many years after the original was written.

Clearly, he added the reasoning of why the bears were sent. He is adding facts to what one might percieve as history.

This is the form of fan fiction that religion has been using for years.

For example, on Moses's birth it is said that his mother thought he was "good".
Rashi said that when he was born, the entire room was filled with light.
Raba on the other hand, said that Moses was born prematurely and thus his mother was surprised he was even alive (read: good).

Both of these rabbies are basically adding facts to a known story.

No conspiracy involved period.
The stories expanded on the existing "gospel" while getting some details similiar and some details different.

None of this requires moses or elisha to have been a real people at all.

2) correct. 3) it seems likely that he did.


You're really introducing an unreasonable level of doubt, that would get us to the point of saying "we cannot know anything about minor historical figures". History has to work with what its given, and find out what is probably true.

On the contrary. It's exactly a reasonable level of doubt.
We have real life people today where we still question whether or not they really believe their crap or are just making it up.
Heck, we even have Poe's law.

If for something that happens in modern times you have far better information and documentation and still can't deduce it, you don't get to magically claim to do so when there are even less evidence involved.

If you can't tell if Rashi was really trying, at the very least, to teach other people what he thought was real history, then you can't do that on the writings of the NT. It really is that simple.

Number 3 seems incredibly unlikely, partly because they would all require similar sources and all be aware these sources are fabricated

Does it matter if Rashi knows if the bible is forged or not to write his fan fiction?

, but mostly because, when you come across multiple independent sources, the chance that "they're all lying" just isn't one historians bother with.

Exactly. Remember I mentioned the writings on Omri several pages ago?
That's an independant source. The NT is not an independant source.

 

[phelix]

No, you would have done better to understand the example.
This particular chosing is a good one because it is done by a person writing an addition to an existing story and we know for a fact who said it and that he wrote hit many many many years after the original was written.

Clearly, he added the reasoning of why the bears were sent. He is adding facts to what one might percieve as history.

Did he try to pretend that his additions were present in the original story? That would be the most important part.

For example, on Moses's birth it is said that his mother thought he was "good".
Rashi said that when he was born, the entire room was filled with light.
Raba on the other hand, said that Moses was born prematurely and thus his mother was surprised he was even alive (read: good).

Both of these rabbies are basically adding facts to a known story.

Well no they appear to be providing commentaries. That's hardly the same as altering a story. I do think the stories were altered in numerous ways but this is a terrible example.

No conspiracy involved period.
The stories expanded on the existing "gospel" while getting some details similiar and some details different.

Where the commentaries ever successfully passed off as present in the original? Also the gospels do not come from one source.

On the contrary. It's exactly a reasonable level of doubt.
We have real life people today where we still question whether or not they really believe their crap or are just making it up.
Heck, we even have Poe's law.

If for something that happens in modern times you have far better information and documentation and still can't deduce it, you don't get to magically claim to do so when there are even less evidence involved.

I don't consider a reasonable level of doubt to be one which necessitates dismissal of so much history. I do not claim to be able to deduce what definitely happened. You rightly say that this cannot be done even for much modern history. But even with less and less evidence we can still say what probably happened.

Exactly. Remember I mentioned the writings on Omri several pages ago?
That's an independant source. The NT is not an independant source.

Correct. The NT is multiple independent sources.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

This isn't my argument. We use historical analysis on the various sources contained in the NT because some of them constitute historical sources.

What we care about is why you call them "historical sources".
In other words, what makes you say that the NT is not fiction.

You claimed to use the historical method and other crap such as emberassing details to say which parts of the NT aren't fiction.

That is circular argument. But let's assume you are taking it back now.
What we want to know is what makes you say "some of them constitute historical sources".

The NT is not historical because we use historical analysis on it. Parts of it are historical because their presentation would lead us to certain conclusions around their origin.

You do realize to that as skeptics we don't just take up stuff because it is convinient?

Sure, the sound of an after life might sound "nice" or "comfurting" but without evidence to back it up it's crap.

Just because you don't have sufficient evidence doesn't mean you get to guess around without anything to back it up.

Guess what? We'll probably never know how the first caveman called himself unless we invent a time machine. If we do great, if we don't, the proper thing to do is to say "we don't know" and move on.

As mentioned, it is possible that a group of authors all decided to fake history, but this possibility isn't one that historians typically consider to have much import. For a start, it doesn't tell us anything.

How much it tells you is of no relavence what so ever.

Basically you're saying, a person was murdered. We don't have evidence for who is the killer, so let's just say X did it. Cause otherwise who else are we going to blame?

It's the end of the search. Saying "every source is faked" is to history what "god did it" is to the fossil search. Yes it's possible, but not likely, and not informative.

Sure, every source is fake is quite unlikely. Noticing contemporary stories over a large area about the same individual is quite unlikely.

However, we are not talking about every source here.
We are talking about a book that contains, as you have stated, false supernatural acts. It contains known forgeries and inconsistancies. The people who wrote it had clear cut cases to lie (they were part of a religion). Every other cult\religion in the world is based on the works of liers an it makes sense that christianity follows suite.

In other words, saying that this particualr source is fake is not so unlikely at all. Unless you have some evidence to back it up.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Did he try to pretend that his additions were present in the original story? That would be the most important part.

Yes he did actually. This shows that you haven't spoken to much orthodox jews . They quote his interpertations thinking it's part of the bible.

Whether he meant to or not, people concieve it as actual history.

Well no they appear to be providing commentaries. That's hardly the same as altering a story. I do think the stories were altered in numerous ways but this is a terrible example.

Not exactly. Sure they *start* as interpertations of what the word "good" mean, but what they are doing is adding a story to explain it.

That's the difference between "pshat" and "drash"
The "pshat" simply interperted the text, for example Rashbam said on the "good" issue that every mother consider her son to be good.
That is a simple explanation of what the word means.

The "drash" were inventing stories to fill up gaps. I just gave you the brief version. In the longer version, Raba said that moses's mother gave birth to a premature baby. She then talked to her husband who tells her that she should tell the egyptians her son was born dead. Thus she passes their inspection meanwhile sending the child down the nile.

Some of these stories were short, others were quite long.
Either way, this is a writing of a fan fiction story to expand the bible.

Where the commentaries ever successfully passed off as present in the original? Also the gospels do not come from one source.

As I said, yes.

I don't consider a reasonable level of doubt to be one which necessitates dismissal of so much history. I do not claim to be able to deduce what definitely happened. You rightly say that this cannot be done even for much modern history. But even with less and less evidence we can still say what probably happened.

Actually you can't. To say something is "probable" you are saying that it is happened to a greater possibility.

This is not a word you can toss around without providing evidence for.

And either way, your defense is that basically "if we admit for making this mistake for Jesus, then we have to admit it for a bunch of other people"
is laughable.

Correct. The NT is multiple independent sources.