The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Yes, I do appreciate your further clarification on that. In your late opinion where do you believe that BT would fit properly?
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed
- Thread starter Kapyong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david fitzgerald
- Status
Yes, I do appreciate your further clarification on that. In your late opinion where do you believe that BT would fit properly?
David, I have no idea what the above means (language barrier?). However, the problem with the biblical writing is that it's very nature, as a chain of anonymously written hearsay, makes it so utterly unreliable as to be ruled out of consideration of being fit even to place before a Jury for any consideration at all.
That does NOT mean that the jury will be allowed to hear selected parts of it! The whole of any testimony produced on that sort of anonymous hearsay basis is ruled out completely and entirely ... because it is far too unreliable to be heard at all.
Now that's very clear, and I have drawn attention to the implications elsewhere. The Bible is an integral mass of falsehoods such that it will not submit to critical analysis, and should be treated like hearsay evidence before a jury, as if much or most ancient history didn't consist of hearsay by persons often anonymous and usually of whom we know very little. Almost none of it could be put before a jury, and that's just as well cos juries have to determine things beyond reasonable doubt. Students of ancient history don't and atheist examiners of religion don't either. They leave certainty beyond reasonable doubt to the faithful.
IanS, you are entitled to these views, but you are not entitled to insist that other people should adhere to them. If people want to examine evidence derived from critical analysis of the NT, then they are entitled to do so. What juries are properly required to do in democratic societies is not the same thing. Others are not so well entitled not to even read the arguments derived from this evidence, and then to say that no evidence has been produced. The proper course would be to say, I've read this, and it reject it, for reasons x, y or z.
I have asked elsewhere, and I will take this opportunity to ask again. Do you agree with dejudge's view that the entire NT is a fictional fabrication concocted by miscreants for unstated purposes centuries later than the dates of the events it relates? If you don't agree with this, what do you propose as a hypothesis regarding its origin?
I don't insist at all that you must adhere to what I have said.
What I am saying is that you should take that very seriously into account. Because it shows why evidence of this is sort is never allowed to be heard as any form of consideration by a jury. And for the very good reason that it is completely unreliable to the point of being seriously misleading.
Just on the point of Juries arriving at a decision on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt". That "reasonable doubt" refers to their verdict, not the nature of each witness testimony offered as evidence. The courts does allow evidence which may very easily raise very considerable doubt as to it's truth or otherwise, but that is left as a matter for the jury to decide upon.
What is not left for the jury to decide is the type and quality of evidence they are allowed to hear. And they are most definitely not allowed to hear evidence of hearsay from witnesses who cannot even be named let alone produced in the court.
As far as the rest of ancient history is concerned, apart from the biblical history of figures like Jesus - for non-religious figures, I'd be very interested to know of any historical figure who upon comparable evidence, is believed by historians to be actually real. And I have asked that several times now when others have made this same point that you are making. So ...
... which historical figures are believed by genuine historians (not bible scholars talking about religious figures) to be real, upon evidence which is known solely and entirely to come from -
1. Unnamed anonymous writers who never knew the person they were talking about.
2. Who could only say they had heard the stories from earlier unknown, unnamed anonymous sources, who also had never known the figure but were said to have believed that some other people had once been disciples of Jesus
3. But where none of those people could ever be produced to confirm a single thing that was written, and where the anonymous author (eg of g-Mark or g-Mathew etc) could not actually quote any named informant telling him any such stories at all.
4. Where the stories have turned out to be packed from start to finish with impossible fictional claims in almost every significant act claimed for the figure.
5. Where even the anonymous hearsay writing itself is not known from the claimed original writer, but only known to come from the copyist writing of religiously partial copyists writing several centuries later.
6. Where not one single historian of the time mentioned Jesus at all
7. Where there was actually no contemporary writing by anyone of that time (non-Christian historian or otherwise) that even mentioned the figure at all.
8. Where it has been conclusively shown that the religious anonymous writers who are the only known primary source of the stories were taking the stories from what had already been written centuries before in books of ancient religious prophecy.
9. Where the religious authors themselves (ie Paul and gospel writers) actually said that they were indeed obtaining their stories from what was written in those much earlier books of religious prophecy.
10. Where there are no physical remains or artefacts of any kind to support any part of any of the stories.
11. Where the figure himself (eg Jesus) apparently never left any personal writing, and was not even said to have left any such personal written or other evidence.
Which other figures in ancient history (or even more modern history) are only known from evidence like that, and where genuine historians nevertheless believe on that sort of evidential basis that the figure really did exist? Can you name anyone?
Because I would say that an evidential basis as poor as that is not credible nor reliable enough to form any positive belief in the figures likely existence.
If you check the other thread I think you will find I answered that some hours ago.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
I will try to be clearer.
Neither Carrier nor most of the people who are discussing with you here believe that the Bible is reliable or should be trusted, as you seem reproach us. We believe the Bible is full of legendary and contradictory stories. But we think through their dark points is possible to draw some historical truth that refers to some fact or some belief that the Bible hides. I will pick up the example you used: A lawyer that is questioning a suspicious witness does not believe in that he relates. But he knows through the contradictions and the failed acts he can force him to reveal the truth behind his falsehoods.
Therefore, when you speak about reliability of the Bible you aren't answering to your interlocutors in this forum. We don't trust on the Bible in the same way that the lawyer doesn’t trust in the witness. But both intend to seek the truth through the falsehood.
So I think you are using a wrong criticism.
(Sorry for my English. When I'm in a hurry it may be awful. I know).
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Pythagoras. Plato. Aristotle. Socrates.
That is a good way of putting things. Even a hostile or confused witness can be a source of useful information, as long as the testimony is carefully elicited and examined. To say this is not to say that the witness is regarded as trustworthy, far less infallible. Propaganda produced by dictatorships, even if mendacious, can yield useful information. The Soviet wartime publicity machine, let us say, starts talking about the heroic deeds of the victorious Red Army in Smolensk. Defeating the nazi hordes. Maybe yes. Maybe no. But at least we know the Germans are in Smolensk. A newspaper photograph is suddenly reissued with one of the figures airbrushed out. Why? Useful information can be obtained from undependable sources.
Because I am a human being who is frustrated by dejudge's irrational dogmatic nonsense, so I feel no need to take him seriously.
Helpful in this instance is anything that gets him to slow down and take a good look at himself.
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Okay, I can see that. I appreciate your response.
OK, well first - no problem about the English
, I just could not easily tell for sure what your objection was 
.However, it seems your objection was in fact the one that I thought it was, and the one I responded to earlier. Namely, you are saying that although you accept that the bible is not reliable as evidence, you think we can overlook the most obvious errors such as miracles and then consider what is left, and then as you put it -
" ... draw some historical truth that refers to some fact or some belief that the Bible hides. "
But that is the complete opposite of what I just explained to you lol
. The legal position on anonymous hearsay testimony like that is that NONE of it is fit to be put before the consideration of the jury at all. NONE OF IT!
Why? Why is none of it admissible? Because the very fact that it is hearsay from an anonymous witness who cannot be identified or produced before the court, makes the whole entire story from any such witness inadmissible, ENTIRELY.
So when you say above -
" I will pick up the example you used: A lawyer that is questioning a suspicious witness does not believe in that he relates. But he knows through the contradictions and ..."
The answer to that is ABSOLUTELY NOT! No you cannot do that in court with testimony of that unanimously agreed inadmissible nature. The whole thing is ruled out entirely … there is no possibility of any lawyer starting to question the suspicious witness as you say, because (a)the suspicious witness is in this case is ANONYMOUS and cannot be found to appear in any court! And (b) his written statement is entirely and completely inadmissible before the jury anyway!
If you, like many others here, wish to believe that although the biblical writing is highly unreliable (so unreliable that in law it would never be allowed at all … as it certainly would not), but you still think you should try to find something believable in there, then that is up to you. But in that case what you are doing is admittedly relying on wholly discredited unacceptable witnesses who are unfit to be trusted in what they say in any reliable measure at all. I think you should reject that proposition, and ask for some other evidence instead which is reasonably reliable.
What evidence are any of those three known by?
Please quote the evidence which historians use to argue that those three figures were real.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
The "legal" argument is a fallacy. The HJ is not being put on trial for some crime; the question is simply whether the historical record as it exists is sufficient to conclude that the HJ existed, and if so with what degree of certainty. This question has been studied for a long time by a great many scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, and their consensus is that the HJ almost certainly did exist. Bart Ehrman himself said as much as recently as 2011. I don't know what caused his change of heart, but he's swimming against an overwhelming tide.
davefoc
Philosopher
I agree the "legal" argument is not valid.
For good reasons juries are prevented from hearing weak evidence. The duty a jury is charged with is making a beyond a reasonable doubt decision and evidence that is only weak is not substantially probative with regard to that kind of decision.
However, that is not the kind of issue here. The issue here is to determine roughly the likelihood and nature of an HJ. Even weak evidence can be evaluated for the possibility that it might suggest a possibility or that it might be stronger or weaker than it is generally assumed to be.
What evidence are any of those three known by?
Please quote the evidence which historians use to argue that those three figures were real.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
Could someone please quote this for IanS, because he doesn't read my responses.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
What do you mean by, "HJers deny that their HJ was the Christ"? Do you mean that they deny that Jesus was really sent by God as an agent of salvation?
Are you referring to the writers who maintained that Mary had lived in a state of perpetual virginity all her life, and that therefor James couldn't really be Jesus' biological brother? So what?
Have you actually looked at this information? (In case you haven't realized, that underlined bit of text is a link that you can click on.) It's far from the cut and dried issue that you present it as.
Just like we argue that the writings of Joseph Smith point to him being a con-man even though his followers describe him as a messenger of the truth about God and the nature of human life.
The same can be said of millions of other people.
Like I said, you really need to share this earth-shaking revelation with all the New Testament scholars arguing the plausibility of an historical Jesus. If only they'd been aware of this stunning, previously unknown fact, they'd have never proposed an historical Jesus in the first place. Go! Go now and publish this finding as soon as possible, so that you can be properly recognized as the most brilliant New Testament scholar of all time!
And? Did an historical Jesus even have an inner circle of twelve, or was that something made up in the oral traditions between the crucifixion and the earliest writers. Did they actually make any impact on the spread of Christianity, or did their account get lost while Paul's flourished? We don't know.
Well, he claimed to hear from him. But I suspect he was most likely delusional. How about you?
I think there's some radiometric dating involved there too, but so ******* what? Josephus' oldest extant textual witnesses are from the Middle Ages. Continually repeating this debunked objection over and over only serves to give the impression that you are so determined to never admit error, that you're willing to cling tenaciously to a stupid argument because it's all you've got.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
I agree with everything you write, but:
For what it's worth, we do have some ancient texts dated to at the latest the 1st Century (possibly earlier), of a religious community following a "Righteous Teacher" who had an inner circle of 12 righteous men and three "Pillars":
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm
They were also having problems with a "Liar" who was telling people that Justification was possible without the Law of Moses. They were not happy.
Thanks.
Well I have answered that objection several times before. We can’t keep going around in the same circles. But claimed evidence like that is ruled out entirely in courts, because it’s too unreliable for use by any Jury.
And it’s too unreliable for serious consideration here too, for all the same well established reasons that have been so carefully decided in law.
No. This is not a court.
No one is being asked to prove anything "beyond reasonable doubt".
- Status