Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

Umm...if you are limiting yourself to the written records of the NT, you are correct. However, if you are casting your net a bit more broadly, we do have evidence that runs counter to the NT narrative. But you reject that evidence out of hand (or at least you have in the past).

What first century evidence counters the the NT claims about Christ?

That depends entirely on the nature of the "documentation." Do we have a body of work from the authors that establishes their reliability? Do we have any original works? Can we verify authorship? Historians would look at all of these issues to establish their level of confidence. I would as well. If all of these check out, then it wold strengthen the claim that "Jesus rose from the dead."

This is how history works, Seer: evidence presented either strengthens or weakens a historical claim. The level of "absolute knowledge" you claim to have is not consistent with historical methodology.

This is why it is completely arbitrary. First there are really no original works in ancient history. The New Testament has better manuscript evidence closer to the originals than other great works: https://www.josh.org/wp-content/uplo...e-08.13.14.pdf

So that requirement is silly. Second, even if we had what you required do you think some one like Tass would suddenly believe that Christ was raised from the dead? And to be honest Carp, I doubt if you would either, because at that point you would play the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" card. So any supernatural claim is rejected out of hand.

[seer]

No

Well of course, why would an atheist believe any supernatural claim? Whether this one was valid or not?


Right, it is hard to believe that Paul's death would not have been recorded if it was a later work. The point is Luke, Acts the writings of Paul were done by companions of the Apostles (that is what the texts claim). Are you denying that Paul was a companion of the Apostles? And the fact that the majority of the NT was written well within the lifetimes of the Apostles and early disciples. So there were plenty of people around (500 in Paul's day) who met the risen Christ.

[carpedm9587]

What first century evidence counters the the NT claims about Christ?

I didn't say "first century evidence," I just said "evidence." You are the one narrowly constraining it to "first century evidence."

This is why it is completely arbitrary. First there are really no original works in ancient history. The New Testament has better manuscript evidence closer to the originals than other great works: https://www.josh.org/wp-content/uplo...e-08.13.14.pdf

So that requirement is silly.

No - it's not silly. The fact that original documentation doesn't exist is simply a fact. I know it's a fact you do not like, and so you want to dismiss it, but it is a fact. And the statement "there are really no "original" works in ancient history is simply false. We have extensive bodies of original work in Eqypt, Rome, and many other places. Usually they have been carved into stone. But for evidence that was written on papyrus or other early forms of paper, you are correct that very little exists - which is why historians will hold those ancient claims as "weaker" than claims for which there IS an original body of works. It is why we see history as "murkier" and "more subject to change" the further back we go.

Second, even if we had what you required do you think some one like Tass would suddenly believe that Christ was raised from the dead?

So, first, it is not what I require - it is how historical methodology works. Any decent historian will affirm what I am saying. It's historical methodology 101.

Second, what Tass does or does not believe and who does or does not accept various types of evidence is of no matter to me. It is Tass' problem just as your insistence that you can make solid historical claims about Jesus is your problem. I'm not trying to convince you, Seer. I'm pointing out that you cannot adequately substantiate your historical claims about Jesus. Ergo, your historical claims about Jesus are about at par, for me, with someone who claims to know what Julius Caesar ate for breakfast the morning he was killed. The claims are inadequately unsupported.

And to be honest Carp, I doubt if you would either, because at that point you would play the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" card. So any supernatural claim is rejected out of hand.

You seem to keep wanting to come back to the supernatural, and I can understand why. It's solid ground for you. You can play the "natural/supernatural" cards all day long and I cannot prove you wrong: beliefs that were arrived at without recourse to reason cannot be refuted using reason. But I have continually told you that I am not going to defend an argument I have not made in this conversation, no matter how often you want to try to drag me there. What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant.

The argument I am defending is the claim that "you cannot adequately defend/support your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth." I don't need the supernatural discussion to show that you cannot adequately support these claims. I can simply point to the pages and pages of direct quotes attributed to Jesus, and you cannot provide anything but assumption and speculation to show that Jesus actually said those words. It is also true that you cannot provide anything but assumption and speculation to show that Jesus actually performed miracles.

You see, Seer, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm pointing out that you cannot prove yourself to be right! That is apparently not comfortable ground for you - because you keep wanting to shift the onus on me to prove my belief t be correct. It is a discussion tactic you use repeatedly. I'm not falling for it. I am defending one statement and one statement only - the rest is tangential.

[seer]

I didn't say "first century evidence," I just said "evidence." You are the one narrowly constraining it to "first century evidence."

Well then why would it be relevant concerning what the first century Christians believed?

No - it's not silly. The fact that original documentation doesn't exist is simply a fact. I know it's a fact you do not like, and so you want to dismiss it, but it is a fact. And the statement "there are really no "original" works in ancient history is simply false. We have extensive bodies of original work in Eqypt, Rome, and many other places. Usually they have been carved into stone. But for evidence that was written on papyrus or other early forms of paper, you are correct that very little exists - which is why historians will hold those ancient claims as "weaker" than claims for which there IS an original body of works. It is why we see history as "murkier" and "more subject to change" the further back we go.

Not the point Carp, I listed major historical works that do not have anywhere near the manuscript evidence that the New Testament has, and they are widely accepted as accurate and reliable. And that is a fact!

So, first, it is not what I require - it is how historical methodology works. Any decent historian will affirm what I am saying. It's historical methodology 101.

Second, what Tass does or does not believe and who does or does not accept various types of evidence is of no matter to me. It is Tass' problem just as your insistence that you can make solid historical claims about Jesus is your problem. I'm not trying to convince you, Seer. I'm pointing out that you cannot adequately substantiate your historical claims about Jesus. Ergo, your historical claims about Jesus are about at par, for me, with someone who claims to know what Julius Caesar ate for breakfast the morning he was killed. The claims are inadequately unsupported.

Tell me Carp, how does the historian decide if a miracle really did happen, even when he had independent attestations?

You seem to keep wanting to come back to the supernatural, and I can understand why. It's solid ground for you. You can play the "natural/supernatural" cards all day long and I cannot prove you wrong: beliefs that were arrived at without recourse to reason cannot be refuted using reason. But I have continually told you that I am not going to defend an argument I have not made in this conversation, no matter how often you want to try to drag me there. What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant.

The argument I am defending is the claim that "you cannot adequately defend/support your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth." I don't need the supernatural discussion to show that you cannot adequately support these claims. I can simply point to the pages and pages of direct quotes attributed to Jesus, and you cannot provide anything but assumption and speculation to show that Jesus actually said those words. It is also true that you cannot provide anything but assumption and speculation to show that Jesus actually performed miracles.

You see, Seer, I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm pointing out that you cannot prove yourself to be right! That is apparently not comfortable ground for you - because you keep wanting to shift the onus on me to prove my belief t be correct. It is a discussion tactic you use repeatedly. I'm not falling for it. I am defending one statement and one statement only - the rest is tangential.

It is not shifting anything, the supernatural would never be accepted or historically confirmed, no matter how many independent references marshals. And like I said from the beginning you have not presented one good reason not to take the NT at face value. Which I will continue to do.

[carpedm9587]

Well then why would it be relevant concerning what the first century Christians believed?

It is relevant if it is related to whether what they believed can be substantiated as historically accurate.

Not the point Carp, I listed major historical works that do not have anywhere near the manuscript evidence that the New Testament has, and they are widely accepted as accurate and reliable. And that is a fact!

It is a claim, Seer - one you have made often. It is not a fact. No historian would take a written document(s) from a single source with no other supporting documentation and assert: "we now know for certain that this event happened as described." Although you have not named any other than the Gaelic Wars, I strongly doubt you can show a single instance of that kind of assertion by historians.

Tell me Carp, how does the historian decide if a miracle really did happen, even when he had independent attestations?

Presumably, they would apply the same criteria they would apply to any other historical claim, if they are being consistent: how many independent claims are they, can they be shown to be objective, what other evidence is available to support the claims, is the authorship of written claims known, can the author of written claims be shown to be trustworthy in their claims, is there any contrary evidence to the claim, and so forth.

It is not shifting anything, the supernatural would never be accepted or historically confirmed, no matter how many independent references marshals. And like I said from the beginning you have not presented one good reason not to take the NT at face value. Which I will continue to do.

You are free to do so. My point is not that you cannot believe what you want to believe, Seer. My point is that you have to assume it to be true to believe it - because you cannot support the historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth using standard historical methodology. So instead of doing what true historians do, and ask if you have adequate evidence to support the claims being made, you "accept the texts at face value" and wait for someone to prove you wrong.

True historians don't work that way - hence my observation that you are engaging in special pleading for the claims made in the NT. And I note that you skipped right over my observations about the quoted words of Jesus of Nazareth and went right back to the supernatural issue. Interesting...

By the way, related to the claims about Jesus of Nazareth's spoken words, one of the pieces of evidence that informs me is the modern science surrounding how memory works. There is an excellent treatment of the topic here that you can either listen to or read. It casts significant shadow on the claims that even the memories of the so-called eyewitnesses, never mind those of the authors supposedly documenting the claims of the eyewitnesses (which also cannot be shown to be true), can be counted on to be historically accurate. It turns out that memory is far more malleable than the "perfect recording device" model that your historical claims assume.


ETA: aren't we WAY off the topic of this thread?

[seer]

It is relevant if it is related to whether what they believed can be substantiated as historically accurate.

So what is this evidence that counters the NT claims about Christ?

It is a claim, Seer - one you have made often. It is not a fact. No historian would take a written document(s) from a single source with no other supporting documentation and assert: "we now know for certain that this event happened as described." Although you have not named any other than the Gaelic Wars, I strongly doubt you can show a single instance of that kind of assertion by historians.

You mean they don't take Herodotus' History, Thucydides' Athenian war, Demosthenes' speeches as historical?

Presumably, they would apply the same criteria they would apply to any other historical claim, if they are being consistent: how many independent claims are they, can they be shown to be objective, what other evidence is available to support the claims, is the authorship of written claims known, can the author of written claims be shown to be trustworthy in their claims, is there any contrary evidence to the claim, and so forth.

Again Carp how many independent claims would it take to show that Christ rose from the grave? Is there a non-arbitrary number?

You are free to do so. My point is not that you cannot believe what you want to believe, Seer. My point is that you have to assume it to be true to believe it - because you cannot support the historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth using standard historical methodology. So instead of doing what true historians do, and ask if you have adequate evidence to support the claims being made, you "accept the texts at face value" and wait for someone to prove you wrong.

Well I'm glad you agree that there is no evidence showing that the NT writers were mistaken.

True historians don't work that way - hence my observation that you are engaging in special pleading for the claims made in the NT. And I note that you skipped right over my observations about the quoted words of Jesus of Nazareth and went right back to the supernatural issue. Interesting...

Tell me again Carp, how many independent sources would the true historian need to conclude that Christ came back from the dead?

By the way, related to the claims about Jesus of Nazareth's spoken words, one of the pieces of evidence that informs me is the modern science surrounding how memory works. There is an excellent treatment of the topic here that you can either listen to or read. It casts significant shadow on the claims that even the memories of the so-called eyewitnesses, never mind those of the authors supposedly documenting the claims of the eyewitnesses (which also cannot be shown to be true), can be counted on to be historically accurate. It turns out that memory is far more malleable than the "perfect recording device" model that your historical claims assume.

Carp if you had a friend who died and came back to life would you ever forget that? Ever?

[carpedm9587]

So what is this evidence that counters the NT claims about Christ?

Nope. Not going there. You keep trying to get me to defend the claim, "the stories in the NT are not all historically accurate." While that is indeed what I believe, it is not the argument I am putting forward here. I am putting forward the argument, "Seer cannot substantiate the historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth." That is a meta discussion about the application of historical methodology to the historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. That is the discussion I am interested in having. We can have a discussion about my beliefs concerning the NT at another time/place.

You mean they don't take Herodotus' History, Thucydides' Athenian war, Demosthenes' speeches as historical?

AFAIK, confidence in these is fairly high because there are several pieces of standard historical methodology present. Each of these authors is well known, they each have a body of writings that attest to their reliability, many of the things they claim are verifiable through secondary and tertiary independent sources (e.g., archeology, etc.). They are also part of an extended historic tradition that was part of Roman historiography, in which formal histories were put down. I doubt any historian would ever say "we know for certain that these things happened exactly as described." History doesn't work that way. We can't even do that for a recounting of an event that happened three weeks ago! Historians express their level of confidence in the truth of the claim. hey don't speak in absolutes.

Again Carp how many independent claims would it take to show that Christ rose from the grave? Is there a non-arbitrary number?

It is impossible to "show that X happened" with certainty when you are speaking of a historical event. The further back you go, the harder it is to do. Historians don't speak in absolutes - they speak in degrees of confidence concerning their claims.

Well I'm glad you agree that there is no evidence showing that the NT writers were mistaken.

You do this a lot, Seer, and it truly is intellectually dishonest. You know I said no such thing. And I will not be baited into defending my beliefs about the NT. I have the exact same problem you have: I can make no definitive statements about what happened because the evidence is simply not there. That is my point: you cannot substantiate the claims you make about the historical accuracy of your claims concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

Tell me again Carp, how many independent sources would the true historian need to conclude that Christ came back from the dead?

See above.

Carp if you had a friend who died and came back to life would you ever forget that? Ever?

I suggest you review the the link I gave you on memory. I also point out that your question is largely irrelevant. You have to assume the event happened in order to ask this question. You have to assume the presence of witnesses at the time of writing and the best you can do is note that they could have been alive. You have to assume that the eyewitnesses correctly remembered the events and that their biographers correctly captured the story. You have to pile assumption on top of assumption to arrive at your beliefs. They are not rooted in what can be historically shown - they are rooted in (presumably) your need/desire to have the beliefs.

At this point, Seer, you have dodged the core issue pretty much consistently. I suspect it it because some part of you knows that you cannot defend your historical claims, so it is easier to push the shoe onto the other foot and require the other person to defend their claims that the NT stories are not historically accurate. I suspect that part of you knows that you can win that discussion because I can no more make accurate, definitive claims about Jesus of Nazareth than you can. Diverting the discussion to me frees you from the need to confront that reality. But those are just suspicions. Only you know why you continually avoid the core issue.

However, going around yet again is likely to be pointless. If you address the core question instead of diverting, yet again, to an argument I am not making, I'll respond for sure. If you just divert again, I probably won't.

[seer]

Nope. Not going there. You keep trying to get me to defend the claim, "the stories in the NT are not all historically accurate." While that is indeed what I believe, it is not the argument I am putting forward here. I am putting forward the argument, "Seer cannot substantiate the historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth." That is a meta discussion about the application of historical methodology to the historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. That is the discussion I am interested in having. We can have a discussion about my beliefs concerning the NT at another time/place.

Hey bro, you brought this up! This other evidence...

AFAIK, confidence in these is fairly high because there are several pieces of standard historical methodology present. Each of these authors is well known, they each have a body of writings that attest to their reliability, many of the things they claim are verifiable through secondary and tertiary independent sources (e.g., archeology, etc.). They are also part of an extended historic tradition that was part of Roman historiography, in which formal histories were put down. I doubt any historian would ever say "we know for certain that these things happened exactly as described." History doesn't work that way. We can't even do that for a recounting of an event that happened three weeks ago! Historians express their level of confidence in the truth of the claim. hey don't speak in absolutes.

But your claim was that because we did not have original copies the NT was suspect. So I guess original copies are not necessary after all. And there are literally hundreds of person places and things referenced in the NT that can be verified by independent sources.

It is impossible to "show that X happened" with certainty when you are speaking of a historical event. The further back you go, the harder it is to do. Historians don't speak in absolutes - they speak in degrees of confidence concerning their claims.

So you have no idea how many independent sources it would take to have, let's say, high confidence that Christ rose from the dead? Like I said, it is an arbitrary consideration.

You do this a lot, Seer, and it truly is intellectually dishonest. You know I said no such thing. And I will not be baited into defending my beliefs about the NT. I have the exact same problem you have: I can make no definitive statements about what happened because the evidence is simply not there. That is my point: you cannot substantiate the claims you make about the historical accuracy of your claims concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

Do what? This is not the Carp show. I get to present my position and make the point that I see no logical reason for not taking the texts as generally reliable. Despite what arbitrary standards a historian or two may apply.

I suggest you review the the link I gave you on memory. I also point out that your question is largely irrelevant. You have to assume the event happened in order to ask this question. You have to assume the presence of witnesses at the time of writing and the best you can do is note that they could have been alive. You have to assume that the eyewitnesses correctly remembered the events and that their biographers correctly captured the story. You have to pile assumption on top of assumption to arrive at your beliefs. They are not rooted in what can be historically shown - they are rooted in (presumably) your need/desire to have the beliefs.

I will ask again, since YOU brought up memory Carp. Would you forget if a friend claimed to be the Son of God? If he died and came back to life? You know the answer - and that answer is no, no matter how many years passed. There are certain seminal events that are etched into memory.

At this point, Seer, you have dodged the core issue pretty much consistently. I suspect it it because some part of you knows that you cannot defend your historical claims, so it is easier to push the shoe onto the other foot and require the other person to defend their claims that the NT stories are not historically accurate. I suspect that part of you knows that you can win that discussion because I can no more make accurate, definitive claims about Jesus of Nazareth than you can. Diverting the discussion to me frees you from the need to confront that reality. But those are just suspicions. Only you know why you continually avoid the core issue.

You can suspect all you like Carp, you have not presented any evidence to undermine my confidence in the general reliability of the NT.

However, going around yet again is likely to be pointless. If you address the core question instead of diverting, yet again, to an argument I am not making, I'll respond for sure. If you just divert again, I probably won't.

Why on earth do I have to follow your lead? Are you that arrogant?

[carpedm9587]

Hey bro, you brought this up! This other evidence...

But your claim was that because we did not have original copies the NT was suspect. So I guess original copies are not necessary after all.

This is the part you gloss over, Seer, or simply do not understand about historical methodology. No one part of the historical historical methodology is strictly "necessary." Each part, if present, contributes to an increase in confidence in the historical claim. The more parts you have, the greater the confidence. Extremely ancient documents often do not have the originals, which means that piece for strengthening the claim is missing. End of story.

And there are literally hundreds of person places and things referenced in the NT that can be verified by independent sources.

Yes, there are. And for those historical claims for which there is independent corroborating evidence, the confidence in their accuracy increases. That is pretty much the point. There is a significant amount of corroboration to the existence of Herod, Pilate, the cities and towns referenced, etc. The historical accuracy of these details, therefore, is usually seen to be pretty high.

So you have no idea how many independent sources it would take to have, let's say, high confidence that Christ rose from the dead? Like I said, it is an arbitrary consideration.

Historical methodology, Seer, is not an exact science. That is one of the things that makes your claims about certainty with respect to the historical details concerning Jesus' life to be so unsupportable - which is the argument I have been making all along.

Do what? This is not the Carp show. I get to present my position and make the point that I see no logical reason for not taking the texts as generally reliable. Despite what arbitrary standards a historian or two may apply.

What you do is claim I have said something I have not said. It's pretty dishonest.

As for presenting your position, by all means do so. The proposition is "Seer cannot adequate support the historical claims he makes about the life of Jesus of Nazareth." By all means state your position. I've been waiting for it from the outset. Instead, you continually try to turn the discussion to Michel having to defend his beliefs. I have not put forward my beliefs (here). I have nothing to defend beyond that statement, and I have put forward that argument already. Further, I readily admit that the historical evidence is lacking to substantiate my beliefs about "what likely happened" with respect to Jesus of Nazareth. I am familiar with historical methodology.

I will ask again, since YOU brought up memory Carp. Would you forget if a friend claimed to be the Son of God? If he died and came back to life? You know the answer - and that answer is no, no matter how many years passed. There are certain seminal events that are etched into memory.

I know nothing of the kind. I know that human memory is maleable. We form memories influenced by prior memories, and then they begin to shift an alter the moment we form them. A person can easily be convinced they participated in an event they were never party to. The science tells us this. The model of "human memory as recorder" is simply false. We have the science to demonstrate it. I suggest you give that audiocast a listen to or read the transcript. It covers the field nicely.

You can suspect all you like Carp, you have not presented any evidence to undermine my confidence in the general reliability of the NT.

Well - there you go again. Let's shift that shoe onto the other foot. Let's not even TRY to defend the historicity of our beliefs - let's just keep coming back to "you have to disprove them." Since the reason for my position that "Seer, cannot adequately defend the historical claims he makes about Jesus" is rooted in the fact that the evidence required to bring those claims to any level of confidence is simply lacking, you know I can not disprove your claims anymore than you can prove them. But it is easier for you to focus on the fact that I cannot disprove them than it is for you to deal with the fact that you cannot substantiate them - so the shoe continuously gets shifted...

Why on earth do I have to follow your lead? Are you that arrogant?

You are quite the piece of work, Jim. I made a proposition: "Seer cannot adequately support his historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth." You have been engaging with me around that proposition for pages now - yet for pages now you have pretty much dodged and danced around the proposition, trying with all your might to turn it to a different discussion, one you feel on firmer ground with.

If you didn't want to discuss the proposition, or address the statement, you should have said so pages ago, Jim. It would have saved both of us a great deal of time. Do you think I should take your lack of engagement and continual dodging as indication that you have no response? You seem to do that regularly. Is turn about fair play?

[seer]

This is the part you gloss over, Seer, or simply do not understand about historical methodology. No one part of the historical historical methodology is strictly "necessary." Each part, if present, contributes to an increase in confidence in the historical claim. The more parts you have, the greater the confidence. Extremely ancient documents often do not have the originals, which means that piece for strengthening the claim is missing. End of story.

Just stop Carp, I was dealing specifically with your claim about original documents. And originals are not necessary, or even available, for most ancient works. It was a red herring.

Yes, there are. And for those historical claims for which there is independent corroborating evidence, the confidence in their accuracy increases. That is pretty much the point. There is a significant amount of corroboration to the existence of Herod, Pilate, the cities and towns referenced, etc. The historical accuracy of these details, therefore, is usually seen to be pretty high.

Good...

Historical methodology, Seer, is not an exact science. That is one of the things that makes your claims about certainty with respect to the historical details concerning Jesus' life to be so unsupportable - which is the argument I have been making all along.

So now it is not an exact science, but if the NT doesn't conform to this inexact and often arbitrary methodology then it is suspect. Got it.

What you do is claim I have said something I have not said. It's pretty dishonest.

What is dishonest? Are you saying that there is evidence showing that the NT writers were mistaken? Yes, I'm baiting you a bit...Such is life on Tweb...

As for presenting your position, by all means do so. The proposition is "Seer cannot adequate support the historical claims he makes about the life of Jesus of Nazareth." By all means state your position. I've been waiting for it from the outset. Instead, you continually try to turn the discussion to Michel having to defend his beliefs. I have not put forward my beliefs (here). I have nothing to defend beyond that statement, and I have put forward that argument already. Further, I readily admit that the historical evidence is lacking to substantiate my beliefs about "what likely happened" with respect to Jesus of Nazareth. I am familiar with historical methodology.

I already told you my position a dozen times! I take the texts at face value until I have good reason to do otherwise. I certainly not need rely on an inexact and often arbitrary methodology. Do I?

I know nothing of the kind. I know that human memory is maleable. We form memories influenced by prior memories, and then they begin to shift an alter the moment we form them. A person can easily be convinced they participated in an event they were never party to. The science tells us this. The model of "human memory as recorder" is simply false. We have the science to demonstrate it. I suggest you give that audiocast a listen to or read the transcript. It covers the field nicely.

Carp, neither I, nor do I think anyone here, believes what you just wrote. That if a friend died and came back to life that you would misremember that. I have many memories that have not changed over decades. And can be confirmed by those who shared these experiences. I can sit here and remember just about every friend and loved who died and how they died. Are your mother or father still alive? If they are gone did you forget how they died?

Well - there you go again. Let's shift that shoe onto the other foot. Let's not even TRY to defend the historicity of our beliefs - let's just keep coming back to "you have to disprove them." Since the reason for my position that "Seer, cannot adequately defend the historical claims he makes about Jesus" is rooted in the fact that the evidence required to bring those claims to any level of confidence is simply lacking, you know I can not disprove your claims anymore than you can prove them. But it is easier for you to focus on the fact that I cannot disprove them than it is for you to deal with the fact that you cannot substantiate them - so the shoe continuously gets shifted...

What am I defending Carp? Did I not say from the get go that I take the NT at face value until I have good reasons not to? Have you offered those reasons?


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...nce-for-jesus/

[carpedm9587]

Just stop Carp, I was dealing specifically with your claim about original documents. And originals are not necessary, or even available, for most ancient works. It was a red herring.

No - it was part and parcel of the explanation for why that element of historical methodology was missing, eroding confidence in the claims.

Seer, you seem to be of the opinion that, if we can explain why one element of historical methodology is missing, it means its absence can be discounted. It doesn't. The fact that original documents are often lacking for ancient documents is one of the reasons why most claims about ancient history are weaker than most claims about modern history. That's how it works.

Good...

So now it is not an exact science, but if the NT doesn't conform to this inexact and often arbitrary methodology then it is suspect. Got it.

You can be ridiculous in your arguments if you want to, Seer. It's no skin off my nose. If you cannot support your historical claims, just say so and be done with it.

What is dishonest? Are you saying that there is evidence showing that the NT writers were mistaken? Yes, I'm baiting you a bit...Such is life on Tweb...

What is dishonest is what I said in my previous post. And no, I will not be baited into the discussion you want to have because you cannot respond to the proposal I have put forward.

I already told you my position a dozen times! I take the texts at face value until I have good reason to do otherwise.

So you cannot support your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth - because you cannot explain why anyone should take those documents "at face value." All you can do is assume that you can, and require others to prove to you why you shouldn't.

That's not a position, Seer. It's just a dodge.

I certainly not need rely on an inexact and often arbitrary methodology. Do I?

You either engage in historical methodology as historians do, or you do not. If you do not, then you have no basis for asserting that you have adequately supported your claims about the historical Jesus. "The bible says so and I believe the bible" is not a historical argument.

Carp, neither I, nor do I think anyone here, believes what you just wrote. That if a friend died and came back to life that you would misremember that. I have many memories that have not changed over decades. And can be confirmed by those who shared these experiences. I can sit here and remember just about every friend and loved who died and how they died. Are your mother or father still alive? If they are gone did you forget how they died?

That would not surprise me in the least. Anything science can tell us that might call into question the claims about the historical Jesus has to be discounted because it would call into question the entire edifice of your faith. But the science is what the science is. Human memory is not a dependable recorder. That has been shown countless times, both anecdotally and scientifically. Human memory is imperfect at the time of its creation, erodes over time, and can be fairly easily manipulated by any number of outside forces. It is even quite easy to "plant" a memory. The incidence of people incorporating into their memories events that happened to someone else, that they saw on television or that didn't happen at all is significant. I realize it is not convenient to your argument - but the evidence is there.

What am I defending Carp?

Frankly, not much of anything. You are repeatedly trying to shift the responsibility for defending to me - making it about my beliefs about the NT. It has become clear you have no mechanism for defending your own.

Did I not say from the get go that I take the NT at face value until I have good reasons not to?

Yes - you did - which is not consistent with any historical methodology. So your defense reduces to "the bible says it, so it must be so." That is not a defense.

Have you offered those reasons?

Actually, in many places and in many ways. But the bottom line is, one has to have reasons for accepting something at face value - or one will end up accepting anything at face value. You cannot justify why you have made this decision. Instead - you arbitrarily assert it must be so, complain that historical methodology is "inexact" and that excuses you from applying it in any way shape or form, and cling to your beliefs (about the historical Jesus) without any apparent justification. That is pretty much the point of this entire discussion.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...nce-for-jesus/

I've read it. Several times, actually. Craig makes many of the same mistakes and assumptions you make. He just does it a bit more elequently.

[Tassman]

Well of course, why would an atheist believe any supernatural claim? Whether this one was valid or not?

At all! And he lived in and around Jerusalem the entire time that Jesus existed.

The point is Luke, Acts the writings of Paul were done by companions of the Apostles (that is what the texts claim).

There are good reasons, already presented, as to why majority scholarship says this is not the case.

And the fact that the majority of the NT was written well within the lifetimes of the Apostles and early disciples.

No, what we have are narratives set down 20-70 years after Jesus died by believers, which are largely dependent on tradition and hearsay.

So there were plenty of people around (500 in Paul's day) who met the risen Christ.

he says that Jesus to them. Paul himself had a vision of Jesus and he uses the same verb to refer the appearance of Jesus to Peter, James, and the 500 as well as to himself. In short, the appearances of Jesus to everyone was as a vision according to Paul. Believers today claim to know Jesus - presumably they "know" him in the same non-literal way.

[carpedm9587]

What is dishonest is what I said in my previous post.

I can't believe I left that in my post. Talk about lobbing a softball...

[seer]

No - it was part and parcel of the explanation for why that element of historical methodology was missing, eroding confidence in the claims.

Seer, you seem to be of the opinion that, if we can explain why one element of historical methodology is missing, it means its absence can be discounted. It doesn't. The fact that original documents are often lacking for ancient documents is one of the reasons why most claims about ancient history are weaker than most claims about modern history. That's how it works.

Except the absence of originals does not seem to erode the confidence of Herodotus' history for instance. If it does what historians claim that the writings of Herodotus are suspect (in any sense) because we don't have the originals? Or are you just applying another arbitrary standard?

You can be ridiculous in your arguments if you want to, Seer. It's no skin off my nose. If you cannot support your historical claims, just say so and be done with it.

Which historical standard would that be Carp? The one you make up? I asked how many independent sources it would take for the historian to have high confidence that Christ did in fact rise from the dead. You have no answer, nor is there an answer. It would be an arbitrary number based on a subjective preference. So why would I accept or grant such a standard as valid?

So you cannot support your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth - because you cannot explain why anyone should take those documents "at face value." All you can do is assume that you can, and require others to prove to you why you shouldn't.

That's not a position, Seer. It's just a dodge.

It is not a dodge Carp, it has been my position from the get go. Better than jumping through arbitrary hoops...

[carpedm9587]

Except the absence of originals does not seem to erode the confidence of Herodotus' history for instance. If it does what historians claim that the writings of Herodotus are suspect (in any sense) because we don't have the originals? Or are you just applying another arbitrary standard?

Again, you seem to lack and understanding of how historical methodology works. When a claim is made about the past, historians look at the evidence, specifically looking for:

1. Existence of original documentation (if the claim is a written one)
2. Knowledge of authorship
3. Surrounding body of work by same author that can establish writing patterns/styles - and to establish the probability that the author "could have known."
4. Confirming evidence from independent sources
5. Lack of conflicting evidence

The more they find of these (and other) items, the greater their confidence in the historical claim. The fewer they find, the weaker the historical claim. So a claim that has all five is a very strong claim with significant confidence. A claim that lacks 1) but has the other four is still pretty strong and confidence will be high, just not AS high as confirmable, original sources.

You like to pick these apart and attack then one at a time. "Claim X doesn't have original sources, and you believe THAT one. You are being inconsistent." You ignore the fact that it is the combination that is your problem. You are making a claim that lacks original documentation, lacks certitude of authorship, lacks a surrounding body of work by the same author, lacks confirming evidence from independent sources (except for historical claims related to famous personages, cities, geography, and general culture - none of which are in question here), and there is a body of conflicting evidence. In other words - you're missing almost ALL of the requirements for high confidence in your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Ergo - your historical claims are weak, at best.

Which historical standard would that be Carp? The one you make up? I asked how many independent sources it would take for the historian to have high confidence that Christ did in fact rise from the dead. You have no answer, nor is there an answer. It would be an arbitrary number based on a subjective preference. So why would I accept or grant such a standard as valid?

This is a canard, Seer, and I suspect you know it. The study of history uses scientific tools, but it is not scientific in the same way. It is not "exact." It is about "what probably happened" and true historians think of historical claims in terms of "degrees of confidence." We have extremely high confidence that the details of Trump's last SOTU speech have been correctly recorded. We have very high confidence that the known details of the Battle of Gettysburg are accurately documented. As we move back further in time, and for historical claims with fewer of the elements listed above available, confidence drops. You seek to undermine historical process because it cannot deliver an absolute verdict. In so doing, you actually undermine yourself. If you cannot use historical methodology at all - then you are left with nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. If you do use it, you have to acknowledge that most of the historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth do not have adequate supporting evidence to be confident in their truth. Either that, or you have to give them special treatment, which is simply special pleading.

It is not a dodge Carp, it has been my position from the get go. Better than jumping through arbitrary hoops...

So your position is that you can hold any belief, and it is the responsibility of others to prove them wrong.

Congratulations, Seer, you just made my point. You lack adequate evidence to make the historical claims you are making about Jesus of Nazareth. If you had the evidence, you wouldn't have to sit passively by waiting for others to "prove you wrong." You would be able to defend your historical claims.

I see the game you are playing, Seer. I suspect some part of you knows that historical claims can never be 100% proven or 100% disproved. By shifting the responsibility to the other person to disprove your claims, you are in the position of being able to continually say "see - you didn't disprove it!" and cling to your positions.

It is no skin off my nose what you believe. Believe whatever you will. You simply cannot show that there is any reasonable basis for others to agree with your beliefs. You have chosen a book, arbitrarily decided it should be accepted "on face value," and leveraged the uncertainty of historical methodology to assert your historical claims are rock solid. It's not really much of a position. Realizing I was in that same place is what led me out of theism several decades ago now.

I think I'll leave the rest of this to you. The outcome of this discussion was largely a foregone conclusion. If you have something interesting to say or ask a question I have not already answered, I will probably respond. Otherwise, I think I'll move on.