Nobody Dies for a Lie

[carpedm9587]

You are taking a list of "facts" and then coming up with a conclusion based on conjecture.

I can do the same:
1. Jesus actually lived
2. He did miracles
3. He rose from the dead
4. What appear to be miracles then and resuscitation of dead people can be reproduced by science today and probably even more so in the future.

Conjectured conclusion: Therefore Jesus must have been a time-traveler from the future who went back in time and fooled everyone using modern science.

According to you, my "theory" has evidence (#1-4) so it is completely plausible and not just made up.



That is what you are doing.

Well...1) is supportable. 2) is the matter we are debating and I consider not supportable. The same is true of 3). I would accept 4) as true.

So your conclusion is based on two premises that are probably true, two I assess as "probably not true," and your conclusion includes concepts not present anywhere in the premises (e.g., time travel is possible).

So I would evaluate your argument as very weak and largely unsound.

On the other hand my parallel argument is:

1) Many of the documents of the NT were written well after the events they relate
2) Most of the gospels and acts preclude a significant number of "eyewitnesses" existing at the time of their writing (based on life expectancy and lifespan)
3) The Christian community was widely scattered by the second half of the 1st century (based on the Epistles, and corroborating evidence)
4) Human memory has been widely shown to be malleable and unreliable (e.g., implanted memories, false memories, reorganization of memories)
5) The stories make extensive claims about miraculous activities that are widely shown to be errors/hoaxes when similar claims are made in the modern era.
6) Other religions make similar miraculous claims for their holy people/gods (I have not recently raised this point).

Ergo - we can safely say that the NT writings reflect the beliefs of the authors/communities at the time of their writings. We cannot safely say that they accurately reflect "what happened" during the years of Jesus' life.

[Sparko]

Well...1) is supportable. 2) is the matter we are debating and I consider not supportable. The same is true of 3). I would accept 4) as true.

So your conclusion is based on two premises that are probably true, two I assess as "probably not true," and your conclusion includes concepts not present anywhere in the premises (e.g., time travel is possible).

So I would evaluate your argument as very weak and largely unsound.

On the other hand my parallel argument is:

1) Many of the documents of the NT were written well after the events they relate
2) Most of the gospels and acts preclude a significant number of "eyewitnesses" existing at the time of their writing (based on life expectancy and lifespan)
3) The Christian community was widely scattered by the second half of the 1st century (based on the Epistles, and corroborating evidence)
4) Human memory has been widely shown to be malleable and unreliable (e.g., implanted memories, false memories, reorganization of memories)
5) The stories make extensive claims about miraculous activities that are widely shown to be errors/hoaxes when similar claims are made in the modern era.
6) Other religions make similar miraculous claims for their holy people/gods (I have not recently raised this point).

Ergo - we can safely say that the NT writings reflect the beliefs of the authors/communities at the time of their writings. We cannot safely say that they accurately reflect "what happened" during the years of Jesus' life.

1. My example was an exaggeration to show you how your "argument" is taking facts and then jumping to a conclusion without any evidence. It is conjecture.

#1 - "well after" is a relative term. Most were written within a few decades by the people who witnessed the events. That is much better attestation than we have for 99% of ancient historical claims.
#2 This is conjecture on your part.
#3 OK. So? This seems to support an early start to the church and it growing which would probably not have occurred if the events in recorded in the bible did not happen.
#4 Again, so? This is an unrelated "factoid" that you are shoveling into the mix to try to make a claim you have no evidence for. In fact, in oral societies like the ANE memory was very good and prized and much better than people have in modern times. They could memorize and recite entire books of information word for word without error.
#5 This seems to be an attempt to dismiss evidence based on fakery done in modern times. The two are not linked unless you have actual EVIDENCE that the miracles were faked. That is like saying "We have many examples of forged $100 bills therefore it is likely that all $100 bills are fake"
#6 This is similar to #5. Just because other people fake things doesn't mean that Christianity did without any actual evidence of which you have not supplied.

Taking all this you make a conjecture that it was all made up. But you have no actual EVIDENCE it was all made up. Just a loose line of connected "facts" that don't have any evidence to support your conclusion.

[carpedm9587]

1. My example was an exaggeration to show you how your "argument" is taking facts and then jumping to a conclusion without any evidence. It is conjecture.

The emphasized section is false.

#1 - "well after" is a relative term. Most were written within a few decades by the people who witnessed the events. That is much better attestation than we have for 99% of ancient historical claims.

I have documented the datings. The emphasized section is an assumption you have not shown to be true.

#2 This is conjecture on your part.

It is a conclusion about what is most probable based upon the timeline and the information we have about human longevity for that period.

#3 OK. So? This seems to support an early start to the church and it growing which would probably not have occurred if the events in recorded in the bible did not happen.

So it suggests a substantial community that never saw/witnessed the events of Jesus' life. The bolded part is an assumption you have not substantiated.

#4 Again, so? This is an unrelated "factoid" that you are shoveling into the mix to try to make a claim you have no evidence for. In fact, in oral societies like the ANE memory was very good and prized and much better than people have in modern times. They could memorize and recite entire books of information word for word without error.

This is a commonly made, but unsubstantiated claim. There is no reason I have found the believe that the people of any given period are exempt from basic memory function in the human mind. If memory is malleable, then the accuracy of testaments written decades after the events they purport to report is questionable.

#5 This seems to be an attempt to dismiss evidence based on fakery done in modern times. The two are not linked unless you have actual EVIDENCE that the miracles were faked. That is like saying "We have many examples of forged $100 bills therefore it is likely that all $100 bills are fake"

We don't have "many" examples, Sparko. The VAST majority of "miracle claims" have been debunked over the course of history. Miracle claims permeate all religions, and serve as a basis for claiming divinity or support by divinity. Most religions reject the religious claims of other religions, except their own. This is not a sustainable position.

#6 This is similar to #5. Just because other people fake things doesn't mean that Christianity did without any actual evidence of which you have not supplied.

See all above.

Taking all this you make a conjecture that it was all made up. But you have no actual EVIDENCE it was all made up. Just a loose line of connected "facts" that don't have any evidence to support your conclusion.

Actually, I provided the evidence that is the basis for my beliefs. You continue to use "evidence" in a way I do not recognize. My argument is not intended to convince you, Sparko. I realize that is not likely to happen and it is not my objective. I am simply articulating why I believe as I do.

[Sparko]

The emphasized section is false.

based on your personal definition of "evidence"

I have documented the datings. The emphasized section is an assumption you have not shown to be true.

Oh so you can just throw out "facts" but if I say something I have to provide actual evidence? Can you say double standard? We know that Paul's letters and Acts was written around AD 50-60 within 30 years of the Crucifixion and written down as the events in them actually happened. The gospel of Luke was written close to or at the same time as Acts, and interviewed eye witnesses. Mark was written around 70 and Matthew after that. This is very close to the events and within the lifetime of the witnesses.

It is a conclusion about what is most probable based upon the timeline and the information we have about human longevity for that period.

no it is your conjecture based upon your assumptions of what the timeline was and various other conjectures about the lifespan of people in that time without citing any facts whatsoever.

So it suggests a substantial community that never saw/witnessed the events of Jesus' life. The bolded part is an assumption you have not substantiated.

Again, you expect me to substantiate my claims when you never did yours. Amazing Carp. I am literally sitting here shaking my head at your antics.

This is a commonly made, but unsubstantiated claim. There is no reason I have found the believe that the people of any given period are exempt from basic memory function in the human mind. If memory is malleable, then the accuracy of testaments written decades after the events they purport to report is questionable.

It is a fact, carpe. This is how the societies worked in that time before widespread literacy and books. Go read some information on the times instead of just trying to handwave it away.

We don't have "many" examples, Sparko. The VAST majority of "miracle claims" have been debunked over the course of history. Miracle claims permeate all religions, and serve as a basis for claiming divinity or support by divinity. Most religions reject the religious claims of other religions, except their own. This is not a sustainable position.

Most have not been "debunked" but "dismissed" And this is just a reverse ad populum fallacy argument. It is NOT EVIDENCE. It is speculation. Evidence would actually address the miracles Jesus performed and show actual evidence that they were faked. Like an eye witness report at least.

See all above.

ooh. good response.

Actually, I provided the evidence that is the basis for my beliefs. You continue to use "evidence" in a way I do not recognize. My argument is not intended to convince you, Sparko. I realize that is not likely to happen and it is not my objective. I am simply articulating why I believe as I do.

Evidence to support your claim would need to actually address the events themselves, not a list of rationalized and generalized "facts" with conjectured conclusions. You would be laughed out of any court of law if you presented those "facts" to prove your conclusion.

[carpedm9587]

based on your personal definition of "evidence"

No - based on the Merriam Webster definition: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Oh so you can just throw out "facts" but if I say something I have to provide actual evidence? Can you say double standard? We know that Paul's letters and Acts was written around AD 50-60 within 30 years of the Crucifixion and written down as the events in them actually happened. The gospel of Luke was written close to or at the same time as Acts, and interviewed eye witnesses. Mark was written around 70 and Matthew after that. This is very close to the events and within the lifetime of the witnesses.

We actually don't know that. Acts is believed to be have been written concurrently with John's gospel and is dated to the late first (90s) or early second (100s) century. Luke/Matt are dated to the 80s. and Mark is the only one we agree on (68-70 AD). Even the earliest gospel is 30 years removed from the events it reports. So consider the challenge of writing down, accurately, a conversation you were not present for that occurred in 1988. That is what is being claimed (for Mark). Before 1978 is being claimed for Luke/Matt, and before 1968 for John/Acts. The idea stretches credulity.

no it is your conjecture based upon your assumptions of what the timeline was and various other conjectures about the lifespan of people in that time without citing any facts whatsoever.

I actually linked most of the sources I was using in my earlier posts.

Again, you expect me to substantiate my claims when you never did yours. Amazing Carp. I am literally sitting here shaking my head at your antics.

Back to the emojis? They aren't really much of an argument. See my earlier posts for the links. I believe I linked all my sources.

It is a fact, carpe. This is how the societies worked in that time before widespread literacy and books. Go read some information on the times instead of just trying to handwave it away.

Then you will need to substantiate that memory functioned differently 2,000 years ago than today. Until you do, I'm going to go with modern science.

Most have not been "debunked" but "dismissed" And this is just a reverse ad populum fallacy argument. It is NOT EVIDENCE. It is speculation. Evidence would actually address the miracles Jesus performed and show actual evidence that they were faked. Like an eye witness report at least.

I do not think we are going to agree on this point. I have no basis for believing "miracles" are real, or were real at any time.

ooh. good response.

Evidence to support your claim would need to actually address the events themselves, not a list of rationalized and generalized "facts" with conjectured conclusions. You would be laughed out of any court of law if you presented those "facts" to prove your conclusion.

As you wish...

[Sparko]

No - based on the Merriam Webster definition: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.



We actually don't know that. Acts is believed to be have been written concurrently with John's gospel and is dated to the late first (90s) or early second (100s) century. Luke/Matt are dated to the 80s. and Mark is the only one we agree on (68-70 AD). Even the earliest gospel is 30 years removed from the events it reports. So consider the challenge of writing down, accurately, a conversation you were not present for that occurred in 1988. That is what is being claimed (for Mark). Before 1978 is being claimed for Luke/Matt, and before 1968 for John/Acts. The idea stretches credulity.

So now you are using an argument from incredulity? That is a fallacy, not evidence. Carp, you are just guessing and using your modern experience to determine what happened 2000 years ago. Back then people remembered and told stories and scripture word for word and passed it down from generation to generation without loss. They practiced memorizing stuff. They didn't have modern distractions and conveniences like cell phones. I can see someone 100 years from now scoffing that people in the 20th century could remember 50 phone numbers because they didn't have cell phones to store them in and didn't carry around phone books. This is the same chronological snobbery. Also, how do you know they didn't keep journals or notes during the time they spent with Jesus and just write them down as the gospels later? You assume what you do because you want an excuse to doubt the historical accuracy of the gospels. That is your motivation and your argument is your rationalization.

I actually linked most of the sources I was using in my earlier posts.

I must have missed them perhaps you could point me to them or repost them?

Back to the emojis? They aren't really much of an argument. See my earlier posts for the links. I believe I linked all my sources.

see above.

Then you will need to substantiate that memory functioned differently 2,000 years ago than today. Until you do, I'm going to go with modern science.

see above. Do a google search on oral tradition societies.

[carpedm9587]

So now you are using an argument from incredulity? That is a fallacy, not evidence. Carp, you are just guessing and using your modern experience to determine what happened 2000 years ago. Back then people remembered and told stories and scripture word for word and passed it down from generation to generation without loss. They practiced memorizing stuff. They didn't have modern distractions and conveniences like cell phones. I can see someone 100 years ago scoffing that people in the 20th century could remember 50 phone numbers because they didn't have cell phones to store them in and didn't carry around phone books. This is the same chronological snobbery. Also, how do you know they didn't keep journals or notes during the time they spent with Jesus and just write them down as the gospels later? You assume what you do because you want an excuse to doubt the historical accuracy of the gospels. That is your motivation and your argument is your rationalization.

This claim about memory in the ANE has been repeated over and over again, but I have never seen it substantiated. As for your comment about journals and notes, we little/no zero evidence that any of that occurred, so the existence of such things is pure speculation, this time without much evidence. The closest you can come is the exegesis of Mark, Matthew, and Luke that suggest they all contain elements of an older source called the "Q" source. But we know little about this source, and we can only surmise its existence on the basis of comparison of the texts we have. There is no other evidence, I am aware of, of notes or journals.

I must have missed them perhaps you could point me to them or repost them?

see above.

see above. Do a google search on oral tradition societies.

Sparko - I'm going to let you go find them. At this point, the time spent to re-support my positions just does not seem worth it to me, and I have things to do. So as you noted on "oral traditional societies," (which I actually have done), I suggest you google memory studies, google dating the NT, google life expectancy in the ANE, and so forth. You will find all of the resources I have used in the formation of my beliefs. If they convince you, so be it. If they do not, so be it. I am more concerned about the accuracy of my beliefs than I am about the accuracy of yours. Your beliefs are, ultimately, your business.

[Sparko]

This claim about memory in the ANE has been repeated over and over again, but I have never seen it substantiated.

it is accepted historical fact.

As for your comment about journals and notes, we little/no zero evidence that any of that occurred, so the existence of such things is pure speculation, this time without much evidence.

Funny that is exactly what I said about YOUR claims and you have no problem with them. You demand evidence from others but supply nothing yourself. You conjecture based on what you claim are "facts" and that is perfectly fine and you supply no actual evidence, yet you are quick to jump on someone when you perceive they have done the very same thing. Yes, it was conjecture, but we do know they wrote the gospels and I merely tossed it out as an alternative explanation of how it could be accurately recorded since you handwaved away oral tradition. I was just showing how you have not considered all alternative explanations.

Sparko - I'm going to let you go find them. At this point, the time spent to re-support my positions just does not seem worth it to me, and I have things to do. So as you noted on "oral traditional societies," (which I actually have done), I suggest you google memory studies, google dating the NT, google life expectancy in the ANE, and so forth. You will find all of the resources I have used in the formation of my beliefs. If they convince you, so be it. If they do not, so be it. I am more concerned about the accuracy of my beliefs than I am about the accuracy of yours. Your beliefs are, ultimately, your business.

fine but I fully expect you to just handwave away any support I give you as not good enough. That is why I told you to do your own search.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._oral_history/
http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliab...al-traditions/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-10-000-years/

[carpedm9587]

it is accepted historical fact.

That you accept it as "historical fact" is clear. I'm sure that there is a community that does so as well. I do not find evidence that this belief is widely held. Indeed, this appears to me to be a JPH special.

Funny that is exactly what I said about YOUR claims and you have no problem with them.

Yes, I am aware you made this assertion.

You demand evidence from others but supply nothing yourself.

Since I have linked to my resources, this is untrue.

You conjecture based on what you claim are "facts" and that is perfectly fine and you supply no actual evidence, yet you are quick to jump on someone when you perceive they have done the very same thing.

Same comment.

Yes, it was conjecture, but we do know they wrote the gospels and I merely tossed it out as an alternative explanation of how it could be accurately recorded since you handwaved away oral tradition. I was just showing how you have not considered all alternative explanations.

I actually have considered alternate explanations. I suspect you will reject that assertion, but it remains true nonetheless. Also, we don't even reliably know who wrote the various texts of the NT (with the exception of the epistles). It is widely believed, based on the literary style, that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, and that he was likely a physician. It is not know, beyond that, who he was. Luke, Mark, and John are the same. We can postulate which community they were likely written in/from, but not who the author was.

fine but I fully expect you to just handwave away any support I give you as not good enough. That is why I told you to do your own search.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._oral_history/
http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliab...al-traditions/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-10-000-years/

I have actually already reviewed each of those sources. Hopefully, you will do the same with the various sources I lined earlier, or with your own searches. But whether or not you do, that is about you and your beliefs. You have to work that out for yourself.

[Sparko]

That you accept it as "historical fact" is clear. I'm sure that there is a community that does so as well. I do not find evidence that this belief is widely held. Indeed, this appears to me to be a JPH special.



Yes, I am aware you made this assertion.



Since I have linked to my resources, this is untrue.



Same comment.



I actually have considered alternate explanations. I suspect you will reject that assertion, but it remains true nonetheless. Also, we don't even reliably know who wrote the various texts of the NT (with the exception of the epistles). It is widely believed, based on the literary style, that Luke and Acts were written by the same person, and that he was likely a physician. It is not know, beyond that, who he was. Luke, Mark, and John are the same. We can postulate which community they were likely written in/from, but not who the author was.



I have actually already reviewed each of those sources. Hopefully, you will do the same with the various sources I lined earlier, or with your own searches. But whether or not you do, that is about you and your beliefs. You have to work that out for yourself.

I am calling BS on that. You just happened to have reviewed each of my sources previously. right. What a coincidence. And yet you came away with the impression that Oral Tradition is not a reliable form of information transmission. wow.

And I am still waiting on those sources you claimed you posted earlier. I didn't see them. a link would be nice.

But you still have the problem of using "facts" and just stringing them together and coming to a conjecture not evidence of what actually happened. Merely your theory on what MIGHT have happened if such and such happened and such and such is true etc. Much like my "theory" that they kept journals. It is nothing but guesses.

Basically your argument seems to be:
IF the gospels were written late, and people had faulty memories, and they died young, THEN the gospels are unreliable. Even if everything in that chain is true, it doesn't prove the conclusion.

[rogue06]

There's plenty of Fake News even in the present day. Just because someone somewhere knows the truth, doesn't mean other people elsewhere aren't perfectly capable of writing things that are not true.

But it never would have been accepted by the group that actually knew what happened. And many of them were still around.

[carpedm9587]

I am calling BS on that. You just happened to have reviewed each of my sources previously. right. What a coincidence. And yet you came away with the impression that Oral Tradition is not a reliable form of information transmission. wow.

Yes, but not this time around. This discussion has been had several times, Sparko, and I do make an effort to review what others link me to. I recognize these sources from previous discussions.

And I am still waiting on those sources you claimed you posted earlier. I didn't see them. a link would be nice.

I suggest you go back to my original post. Or not. The choice is yours. You can easily find a wealth of information with the searches I outlined.

But you still have the problem of using "facts" and just stringing them together and coming to a conjecture not evidence of what actually happened.

You apparently see that as a problem. Since the "facts" are all related to the subject at hand, I am not having that problem.

Merely your theory on what MIGHT have happened if such and such happened and such and such is true etc. Much like my "theory" that they kept journals. It is nothing but guesses.

Unlike your theory about journals, these are all substantiated pieces of information that relate to the subject at hand. That you reject them as such is clear. I do not.

Basically your argument seems to be:
IF the gospels were written late, and people had faulty memories, and they died young, THEN the gospels are unreliable. Even if everything in that chain is true, it doesn't prove the conclusion.

"Proof" is a tricky thing. If you are looking for a scientific/absolute proof, you will be disappointed. History is about "what most likely happened." No one can "prove" anything about history conclusively. The information provided suggests that a) the gospels and Acts were written well after the events they documented, b) lifespan/life expectancy in that era strongly suggest that the community, at the time of this writing, was largely comprised of non-witnesses to the events, c) many of the events reported are events the author could not have been privy to (e.g., the birth narrative, private conversations, etc.), d) many of the stories provide a level of detail that is implausible to have been retained over decades, especially by people who could not have been there, and e) they make amazing claims about miraculous events that have largely been debunked when claimed in times since. Ergo, the gospels ARE reliable, as testaments of what the early Christian community believed about Jesus of Nazareth. They are NOT reliable as sources of "what actually happened."

[Starlight]

Otherwise you have to admit Jesus was who he said he was.

A prophet?

Jesus in the gospels seems to mostly see himself as a God-ordained prophet whose task is to guide the people of Israel through a difficult time like the prophets of the OT. The very very few statements in the gospels that saw more than that are pretty much universally regarded by critical scholars as words put into Jesus' mouth by the later church which had deified him a lot more. Jesus preached about the Kingdom, whereas modern evangelicals have discarded his message and preach about Jesus himself instead.

[Starlight]

But it never would have been accepted by the group that actually knew what happened. And many of them were still around.

I don't see much reason to think that people who knew what had happened were still around. Jesus' followers mostly scattered when he was crucified. It's unclear how many of those that knew him during his life stuck around in the group after his death. And then it's unclear how many of them subsequently died from diseases, or old age, or conflicts between different religious groups, or in the sporadic and brutal actions of the occupying Roman forces, or how quickly this happened. Furthermore we can presume that the vast majority of them lived in Jerusalem.

Whereas the Jesus-group, under the influence of people like Paul, spread all across the Roman world, so presumably the vast majority of towns and cities it spread to contained zero people who had ever met Jesus in person. The gospels were written in, and for, communities like those, full of people who had never met Jesus and who probably knew nobody who ever had. While I personally think the gospels probably have more than 50% overall historical accuracy, the people in these communities wouldn't have been able to tell 0% historical accuracy from 100%. Remember there was no internet where the last eyewitness living in Jerusalem could have magically known that some Christian group in Syria had wrong beliefs and could then correct them.

[Doug Shaver]

it is accepted historical fact.

You say so.