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

[Larechar]

Yup. My first post in this thread was in agreement with that one

So you agree with the notion that you're not providing any founded evidence even though you continually portray that you believe you are?

 

[phelix]

So you agree with the notion that you're not providing any founded evidence even though you continually portray that you believe you are?

You what? I have done for a number of things. The existence of John the Baptist for instance.

 

[Larechar]

You what?

Huh? I anything..? I was never mentioned in the comment I posted.

I have done for a number of things. The existence of John the Baptist for instance.

I must have missed the post you made that provided founded evidence that established that as, "fact."

 

[welshdean]

Not at all. I just emphasise the difference between mathematical proof, logical proof, even scientific evidence, and historical evidence.
With the first two, only 100% certainty (or near as damnit) is good enough.
With scientific evidence, you can be pretty sure of something with less than that. 99% certainty is good enough. It has the advantage of being able to repeat the test.
With history, you cannot do this. You have to work with what you're given, and all you can ever conclude is probability. The Spanish civil war probably happened. It's not as certain as much in science which can be tested and so on, but it's extremely unlikely that it didn't happen. If you go back in time further, you have to rely on less and less evidence, so we become less certain in our probabilities. Did Jesus exist? Probably, but it's not the same level as the Spanish civil war by any shot. Did Pythagoras exist? Probably, but it's not the same level as Jesus. Did Homer exist? Maybe. We don't really know.

prob·a·bly   


–adverb in all likelihood; very likely




Why do you insist on using this word. As you can see from it's definition, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

May I suggest you do a 'find-replace' and use 'It is highly unlikely, but can't be ruled out absolutely' for all of your 'probably' Jeebus, the empty tomb and Luke's eyewitness' existed nonsense.

 

[phelix]

Huh? I anything..? I was never mentioned in the comment I posted.

I must have missed the post you made that provided founded evidence that established that as, "fact."

You are asking a different question now. The evidence regarding John the baptist is a mixture of the NT and Josephus. Ancient history doesn't tend to declare "fact".

 

[Larechar]

You are asking a different question now. The evidence regarding John the baptist is a mixture of the NT and Josephus. Ancient history doesn't tend to declare "fact".

I didn't ask a question.

 

[Larechar]

You are asking a different question now. The evidence regarding John the baptist is a mixture of the NT and Josephus. Ancient history doesn't tend to declare "fact".

I suppose the biggest issue with your idealism is that you're promoting probability on a scientific forum.

 

[phelix]

prob·a·bly   


–adverb in all likelihood; very likely




Why do you insist on using this word. As you can see from it's definition, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

May I suggest you do a 'find-replace' and use 'It is highly unlikely, but can't be ruled out absolutely' for all of your 'probably' Jeebus, the empty tomb and Luke's eyewitness' existed nonsense.

No, and I get the impression you aren't following my positions on various things/are unaware of the common academic views. I don't think Luke had an eyewitness, and I would be unable to say one way or the other where the story of the empty tomb came from.
With regards to "Jesus", if you mean Jesus' existence, then yes it's a probably. "It is highly unlikely but can't be ruled out absolutely" is the state of the one-faked-source model.

 

[Larechar]

No, and I get the impression you aren't following my positions on various things/are unaware of the common academic views. I don't think Luke had an eyewitness, and I would be unable to say one way or the other where the story of the empty tomb came from.
With regards to "Jesus", if you mean Jesus' existence, then yes it's a probably. "It is highly unlikely but can't be ruled out absolutely" is the state of the one-faked-source model.

Whatever gave you that idea?

 

[phelix]

I suppose the biggest issue with your idealism is that you're promoting probability on a scientific forum.

Maybe, yes. I've said, if people want to rule out historical beliefs based on historical probability, then that's fine. It's really just a difference of perspective regarding the level of likelihood required for different beliefs.
It could become something of a boundary in attempts to get the religious (and people in general) to adopt a more rational outlook though. If someone comes across atheism and begins discussing things with atheists, then I am a bit optimistic but I think that would generally lead to a conversion to atheism. However, if the person discovers that the weltanschauung also involves disbelief in Pythagoras, Socrates or Galileo, then this could well lead to dismissal.

 

[Agatha]

No that's nonsense. Try proving the validity of the battle of hastings sources... without using the battle of hastings sources...
If you rule out every available source, then how can any argument be made at all?
All I've been doing is applying the historical method to the sources available. What sort of argument would you expect me to make?

Phelix, let me put it this way. What we are doing in this thread is trying to find evidence that the NT writers told the truth. To use your Battle of Hastings analogy, that would be akin to trying to find evidence that the makers (or commissioners) of the Bayeux Tapestry told the truth.

To do that, we have to use sources other than the Tapestry itself, because it's the truth of what is in the Tapestry we are trying to establish. Saying "Alfgyva was at the meeting between Harold and William, and we know this because the picture in the Tapestry shows it" doesn't establish the truth of the meeting, it establishes that it's in the Tapestry. We need extra-Tapestry sources to confirm why Alfgyva (if it is she) is in the Tapestry at that point.

We're not ruling out all the available sources, we're ruling out Biblical sources, because it's the truth of the Biblical sources we are trying to establish.

 

[phelix]

Whatever gave you that idea?

He was implying I believed that Luke probably had an eyewitness, and that Jesus' tomb was probably empty.
Edit: By "not following" I meant "not being fully aware of"

 

[Larechar]

Phelix, let me put it this way. What we are doing in this thread is trying to find evidence that the NT writers told the truth. To use your Battle of Hastings analogy, that would be akin to trying to find evidence that the makers (or commissioners) of the Bayeux Tapestry told the truth.

To do that, we have to use sources other than the Tapestry itself, because it's the truth of what is in the Tapestry we are trying to establish. Saying "Alfgyva was at the meeting between Harold and William, and we know this because the picture in the Tapestry shows it" doesn't establish the truth of the meeting, it establishes that it's in the Tapestry. We need extra-Tapestry sources to confirm why Alfgyva (if it is she) is in the Tapestry at that point.

We're not ruling out all the available sources, we're ruling out Biblical sources, because it's the truth of the Biblical sources we are trying to establish.

Maybe, yes. I've said, if people want to rule out historical beliefs based on historical probability, then that's fine. It's really just a difference of perspective regarding the level of likelihood required for different beliefs.
It could become something of a boundary in attempts to get the religious (and people in general) to adopt a more rational outlook though. If someone comes across atheism and begins discussing things with atheists, then I am a bit optimistic but I think that would generally lead to a conversion to atheism. However, if the person discovers that the weltanschauung also involves disbelief in Pythagoras, Socrates or Galileo, then this could well lead to dismissal.

Your conflagration has been extinguished. Cease with the reincarnation of its cohorts. Provide non-falsifiable evidence.

 

[phelix]

Phelix, let me put it this way. What we are doing in this thread is trying to find evidence that the NT writers told the truth. To use your Battle of Hastings analogy, that would be akin to trying to find evidence that the makers (or commissioners) of the Bayeux Tapestry told the truth.

To do that, we have to use sources other than the Tapestry itself, because it's the truth of what is in the Tapestry we are trying to establish. Saying "Alfgyva was at the meeting between Harold and William, and we know this because the picture in the Tapestry shows it" doesn't establish the truth of the meeting, it establishes that it's in the Tapestry. We need extra-Tapestry sources to confirm why Alfgyva (if it is she) is in the Tapestry at that point.

We're not ruling out all the available sources, we're ruling out Biblical sources, because it's the truth of the Biblical sources we are trying to establish.

We can find numerous times when the various books in the NT are likely to have been correct, owing to other books in the NT, and sources from outside it. The thing is that isn't always especially productive, as only fairly unimportant bits can be verified (the existence of John, the status of Felix and Festus as procurators). I have talked about this to some extent, but it's mostly fruitless as the likely truths are already garnered from Roman governmental sources.

 

[phelix]

Your conflagration has been extinguished. Cease with the reincarnation of its cohorts. Provide non-falsifiable evidence.

In history, non-falsifiable evidence is impossible

 

[Larechar]

In history, non-falsifiable evidence is impossible

Thank you. Thread=complete.
Until DOC finds more.

 

[The Don]

We can find numerous times when the various books in the NT are likely to have been correct, owing to other books in the NT, and sources from outside it. The thing is that isn't always especially productive, as only fairly unimportant bits can be verified (the existence of John, the status of Felix and Festus as procurators). I have talked about this to some extent, but it's mostly fruitless as the likely truths are already garnered from Roman governmental sources.

In the latest season of Dr Who there was a storyline about Richard Nixon (whose existence can be verified from other - non Dr Who sources), Cape Canaveral (whose existence can be verified from other - non Dr Who sources) and a bunch of aliens (whose existence cannot be verified from other - non Dr Who sources). So an element of verifiable truth in a story does not make the whole story true.

The Dr Who stories of late have been largely internally consistent (but like the bible, there are major inconsistencies in earlier episodes) so finding Daleks in series 10 AND series 15 does not mean that they really exist. So finding verification within a multi-episode story does not verify the story itself.

There is a lot of Dr Who fan-fiction which also contains the same "facts" as the core Dr Who stories. Finding reference to Daleks in fan-fiction and Dr Who does not make Daleks true. Finding verification in partial sources does not verify the story itself.

That's why it's important to verify the KEY points from independent sources. In the case of Jesus' life, there simply isn't enough evidence from independent sources to validate the key claims of:

- Son of God
- Rose from the dead
- Performed miracles

There may not be enough evidence to conclude that he existed at all

 

[phelix]

In the latest season of Dr Who there was a storyline about Richard Nixon (whose existence can be verified from other - non Dr Who sources), Cape Canaveral (whose existence can be verified from other - non Dr Who sources) and a bunch of aliens (whose existence cannot be verified from other - non Dr Who sources). So an element of verifiable truth in a story does not make the whole story true.

The Dr Who stories of late have been largely internally consistent (but like the bible, there are major inconsistencies in earlier episodes) so finding Daleks in series 10 AND series 15 does not mean that they really exist. So finding verification within a multi-episode story does not verify the story itself.

There is a lot of Dr Who fan-fiction which also contains the same "facts" as the core Dr Who stories. Finding reference to Daleks in fan-fiction and Dr Who does not make Daleks true. Finding verification in partial sources does not verify the story itself.

That's why it's important to verify the KEY points from independent sources. In the case of Jesus' life, there simply isn't enough evidence from independent sources to validate the key claims of:

- Son of God
- Rose from the dead
- Performed miracles

There may not be enough evidence to conclude that he existed at all

I've covered the parallels with fiction already. As for key points, it really depends what you consider to be "key". The claims you have brought up are theological ones, which can never be validated by history as historians are not permitted to draw on the supernatural. Thus it is paramount that a distinction is drawn between the historical importance and the theological one. It may well be that the NT gives us more accurate historical information concerning John the Baptist than it does concerning Jesus, even though he isn't the centre of attention at all.
What are the key claims of our sources for Mohammed? Him being God's messenger? Him flying to Mecca on a winged horse? No. From a historical point of view it would more likely be the battles he fought in. They would (I'm guessing here) find some of the battle accounts to be likely, some to have been exaggerated, and some to be unlikely. But the theological baggage isn't what historians are concerned with.

 

[Aepervius]

We can find numerous times when the various books in the NT are likely to have been correct, owing to other books in the NT, and sources from outside it. The thing is that isn't always especially productive, as only fairly unimportant bits can be verified (the existence of John, the status of Felix and Festus as procurators). I have talked about this to some extent, but it's mostly fruitless as the likely truths are already garnered from Roman governmental sources.

About the underlined : there is next to no source outside the NT which evrify the key point of the NT. trivial details, sometimes, but nothing important. heck even the trivial details are inconsistent sometimes which what we know of history.

Bolded : That is the whole point isn't it ? The trivial bit can sometimes be confirmed, but the bulk cannot. To jump from that to "the NT wrote the truth" is there for fully unwarranted. The same could be told for many other fictions !

Also I feel like watching "groundhog day" a lot , a trully lot of what you said was discussed critized in the first 100 pages.

 

[Agatha]

Phelix, let me put it this way. What we are doing in this thread is trying to find evidence that the NT writers told the truth. To use your Battle of Hastings analogy, that would be akin to trying to find evidence that the makers (or commissioners) of the Bayeux Tapestry told the truth.

To do that, we have to use sources other than the Tapestry itself, because it's the truth of what is in the Tapestry we are trying to establish. Saying "Alfgyva was at the meeting between Harold and William, and we know this because the picture in the Tapestry shows it" doesn't establish the truth of the meeting, it establishes that it's in the Tapestry. We need extra-Tapestry sources to confirm why Alfgyva (if it is she) is in the Tapestry at that point.

We're not ruling out all the available sources, we're ruling out Biblical sources, because it's the truth of the Biblical sources we are trying to establish.

We can find numerous times when the various books in the NT are likely to have been correct, owing to other books in the NT, and sources from outside it. The thing is that isn't always especially productive, as only fairly unimportant bits can be verified (the existence of John, the status of Felix and Festus as procurators). I have talked about this to some extent, but it's mostly fruitless as the likely truths are already garnered from Roman governmental sources.

We can't use other books of the NT to confirm the truth of the NT - that would be like looking at the scene of Harold's journey to Normandy in the Bayeaux Tapestry and using it to confirm the historicity of Harold rescuing soldiers from quicksand. What we can use are other sources of information about the events surrounding the Battle, for example the works of Orderic Vitalis or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. If we can get broad agreement, we can say that these events did happen. What we can't say is that if something is in the Tapestry and in no other source, that event (for example Alfgytha's appearance) is likely. It might have happened, it might be pure invention, or it might be something allegorical which has since lost meaning.

Might have, likely and probable are not enough for evidence of truth.