The Gospels—History or Myth?

[Saquist]

Revolvr....
I think you're contending with the Brick Wall syndrome. IF he's not accepting the "claim" then he's obviously denying the claim. Which makes for another disingenuous statement all in the same post. Either that or he's insulting your intelligence.

Iasion, He did say some where hostile and some were not.
Are you agreeing with him or being obtuse?

 

[Saquist]

Just so you two are aware - what constitutes evidence in the legal system is NOT the same as that required for formal debate.
And this IS NOT a legal matter... but one of rationality and formal debate and following the SCIENTIFIC METHOD (this is a SCIENCE FORUM after all).

Would the claim that the Bible is historically accurate withstand a battering in a court of law? Yes - most probably.
But then so could any unsupported claim if there is not necessarily sufficient evidence to reject it.


In a western court - one is generally considered innocent until proven guilty.
i.e. one makes a claim (e.g. "I didn't do it") and the prosecution must break down that assertion - and failure to do so means the claim legally stands.

In SCIENCE - and formal debate - ANY CLAIM must be supported by evidence - or it holds no ground at all beyond confidence statement.


If you can not appreciate the difference then in such forums as this you will for ever have people requiring you to support your claim.

If you DO appreciate the difference - change your tone, change your approach and SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.


And remember - THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW!!!!


So - if you want us to accept the Bible as anything other than a collection of words - PROVIDE THE SUPPORT.

I understand, yet...

It might as well be a Court of Law, Sarkus...It has all the precursers, signs and the atmosphere of a prosecution. If it walks like a DUCK, quacks like a DUCK and looks like a DUCK then let us dispense with the trivialities. As such the burdeon of evidence lies with the prosecutor to present and execute his case against the accused.

Subsequently if you are not citing the scriptures in question with fiction posing as history, despite your words to the contrary...

A simple answer: no.

...then stand down and drop your charges. Otherwise we might as well proceed with the superior standard of Law and evidience gathering. The only other recourse is that it be implied that science has all the necessary instruments to make a conclusive decision between myth or history. Yet we know science is not a judicial system but a system of trial and error.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

But Christianity grew at an astonishing rate, even under severe persecution. This could not happen without strong evidence, first hand reports and even miracles. One must have a very powerful belief, down to the depths of the soul, to willingly submit to persecution and die for it.

Let's see if this is a good argument.
Let's try it with other movements :

But Scientology grew at an astonishing rate, even under severe persecution. This could not happen without strong evidence, first hand reports and even miracles. One must have a very powerful belief, down to the depths of the soul, to willingly submit to persecution and die for it.

But fundamentalist Islamic suicide bombers grew at an astonishing rate, even under severe persecution. This could not happen without strong evidence, first hand reports and even miracles. One must have a very powerful belief, down to the depths of the soul, to willingly submit to persecution and die for it.


Therefore, Revolvr's argument claims that Scientology is true.

And that fundamentalist Islamic suicide bombers are right in their beliefs.

Clearly, it's a useless argument.


Iasion

 

[iceaura]

In order for 1) and 2) to be true we MUST speculate on the existing evidence and why it is unreliable. Therefore, it MUST be a giant conspiracy of altered texts, forged documents, lies and deceit.

And there is no evidence I could show that can break through this barrier.

Sure there is.You could show that the apparent similarities between the stories you find reliable and other stories no one finds reliable are not accurately perceived by those who notice them, for example.

You could show that the forgeries are not forgeries, the texts were not altered, etc.

It's not at all a hopeless task.

I am simply saying that if these people knew it to be fictional (the writers of the New Testament), they would not have allowed themselves to be persecuted and killed for it. There is no gain. That to me is powerful argument that they did not believe it was fictional. They saw what they saw, experienced what they experienced. It was not a hoax.

But no one is arguing that the writers of the Gospels, say, necessarily knew they were writing fiction.

It is obvious they were not always writing from their own experience - Mathew never saw three wandering astrologers show up at the manger, Luke did not see John baptise Jesus - and when they might be it is not clear whether they knew what they were seeing. And that is assuming the accounts have been accurately and faithfully transcribed, translated, etc.

No hoax is necessary. There are several possible - the water into wine was a common magic trick, and getting Jesus down off the cross and safely into hiding for his "resurrection" would have been a good one - but none is necessary. The judgmetn that these are legends, not historical accounts, does nto depend on them being deliberately dishonest or not believed by their promulgators.

My appolgies but I feel strongly about maintaining a ridged factual approach to history

Strong feelings are appreciated, surely, but a little more effort put into execution would not go amiss. You have not dealt with the issues, here: what you are claiming as facts resemble, in every important respect, legends and stories of a kind commonly taken as non-factual in any other context. Can you dispell this obvious resemblence, somehow ?

 

[Myles]

I understand, yet...

It might as well be a Court of Law, Sarkus...It has all the precursers, signs and the atmosphere of a prosecution. If it walks like a DUCK, quacks like a DUCK and looks like a DUCK then let us dispense with the trivialities. As such the burdeon of evidence lies with the prosecutor to present and execute his case against the accused.

Subsequently if you are not citing the scriptures in question with fiction posing as history, despite your words to the contrary...



...then stand down and drop your charges. Otherwise we might as well proceed with the superior standard of Law and evidience gathering. The only other recourse is that it be implied that science has all the necessary instruments to make a conclusive decision between myth or history. Yet we know science is not a judicial system but a system of trial and error.

I think it's fair in your case to continue, if it thinks like a duck.

You are choosig to play the role of defendant in an atempt to place the burden of proof on those who disagree with you. However, if you wish to stick with your analogy then you must accept that its THE GOSPELS that are on trial. You are acting for the defence others for the prosecution. So let's hear your case and stop rambling on with your sad attempts at diversionary tactics. I disaree with you about the veracity of the Gospels. The onus is on you to prove me wrong.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Paul was not only a skeptic but a persecutor of the early Christians. This was prior to experiencing a post-resurrection appearance. Paul's experience caused him to immediately change from a nasty persecutor of Christianity to one of its most aggressive advocates. He claimed that this change came only after personally interacting with the resurrected Christ, and he willingly suffered and died for his testimony.

Paul did not willingly die for a fictional story.

*************
M*W: Paul did not exist. Neither did Jesus. It's all mythstory. Paul was apparently the Greek god Apollo. Why else was the NT written in Greek? Saul/Paul was abbreviated from Apollo to Paulo. He wrote nothing. That "bright light" he claimed to have seen on the Road to Damascus was simply the rising to noonday sun. It was an allegory and not the truth.

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:

"My earlier views of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." ~ Abraham Lincoln

 

[Saquist]

Strong feelings are appreciated, surely, but a little more effort put into execution would not go amiss. You have not dealt with the issues, here: what you are claiming as facts resemble, in every important respect, legends and stories of a kind commonly taken as non-factual in any other context. Can you dispell this obvious resemblence, somehow ?

Resemblence is perceptual. I can only give you facts.
FACT: The Christian Greek present themselves as personal accounts of Jesus's ministry. The perception of the events it portrays is completely subjective and a matter of opinion. To dispell an opinion is next to impossible. Yet I can say with confidence as to only the facts. That is the most important determination, that they are presented as history an not as stories within stories.

 

[Myles]

I hope everyone remembers that, in one of his early posts, Saquist reminded us that we are talking about things "beyond normal human understanding". So just let's accept that we are all out of our depth and that Saquist has abnormal (sic)human understanding.

I'd give him a cigar were it not for the fact that cigars are not mentioned in the Bible

 

[iceaura]

FACT: The Christian Greek present themselves as personal accounts of Jesus's ministry.

They also present themselves as personal accounts of his conception, at which they were not present, his birth, at which they were not present, several private conversations at which they were not within earshot, and circumstances of his death which did not include them.

In addition to including various descriptions which they had not means to verify - devils cast into swine, etc.

And the translation of all this into Greek, not the common language of Jesus ministry.

Among other obvious divergences from first hand experience.

The net result is something which resembles, in numerous and significant respects, legends and stories and myths of a common and frequently encountered kind.

Again: what basis do you have for denying the ordinary and standard interpretion of these circumstances, and insisting on a radical and extraoridnary one ?

 

[Revolvr]

Can you tell me where I have said that Jesus did not exist ? You are putting words in my mouth to ssuit your own ends. That is despicable.

No intent to be despicable Myles. Don't take this personally, but I am replying to other readers too, not just you. There are several similar hypothesis on this thread: the NT is fictional, the NT was written much later and not by eyewitnesses. None of the authors existed. Jesus didn't exist, Jesus did exist but was just a man who said some nice things. If the whole thing is fictional it really doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not in terms of my response. But it would be helpful if you guys would get your story straight.

If the NT was written by eyewitnesses to the events than one is bound to conclude they must be true. No one allows himself to be persecuted and murdered for a fictional story.

 

[Revolvr]

Can you now please tell me the source of the syllogism you attribute to David Hume . Was it his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding or from someone's interpretation of what Hume is supposed to have said ? I can tell you now you will find no such syllogism in Hume's writings. How do I know ? I have copies of his works which I have studied, Can you say as much ?

Myles,

You seem to be a little more widely read than your peers. That’s a good thing. Yes my comments were based directly off Hume’s Enquiries concerning Human Understanding.

But if you’ve read these I don’t see how you missed it. To you it may have sounded reasonable. To me it sounded circular. Obviously I shortened things considerably for a post. My bullets 1) and 2) under A) come directly from this work, Section X, Part II, roughly pages 117 to 128. He is describing the criterion used to affirm the occurrence of miracles. The term “firm and unalterable” is from page 114 where he defines miracles.

Clearly the criteria is impossible to meet. Hence the a priori belief miracles cannot occur.

If that is, one believes the presupposition.

 

[iceaura]

If the NT was written by eyewitnesses to the events than one is bound to conclude they must be true.

The NT was not written by eyewitnesses to the events.

No one allows himself to be persecuted and murdered for a fictional story.

Lots of people do. Everyone from lunatics to the conned to the believers in a "higher truth" have done just that.

 

[Revolvr]

I did provide the source: the bible. Why is it suddenly not good enough for you? How dare you sit there and talk of science while not once having shown anything even remotely resembling science in any of your 243 posts.

You use the bible to argue that a being featured within it exists. I use that very same book to show inconsistency and additions and all of a sudden the bible can't be used? Pfft.

This is got to be the most specious nonsense in this whole thread. I sure hope you don't deal with data or statistics for a living. You wouldn't survive working under me for 5 minutes. Put up or shut up.

 

[Revolvr]

Lots of people do. Everyone from lunatics to the conned to the believers in a "higher truth" have done just that.

Not a story they KNOW is false. The authors were eyewitnesses. If the story was false, they would be the ones who created the false story.

 

[iceaura]

Not a story they KNOW is false. eyewitnesses.

Yes, a story they know is false. You underestimate human psychological complexity.

The authors were eyewitnesses

No, they weren't. I described that above. Have you read the book? There are dozens of stories in there that do not even allow for the authors as eyewitnesses, everything from angels announcing Jesus conception to his mother and half the local sheepherders to Jesus taking a walk with the devil to the content of other people's dreams to conversations between a couple of people in a secluded place, neither of whom is the author.

Whether the authors of the Gospels, who in some cases were writing in Greek in a city about events and conversations that happened in Aramaic in the country on another continent, were themselves eyewitnesses to any of the events they relate is unknown. Luke almost certainly was not. Mark appears not to have been. Mathew might bave, some of them. John is a wild card - some of the people putting the Bible together wanted to leave his book out.

They were believers, not witnesses.

 

[Myles]

Myles,

You seem to be a little more widely read than your peers. That’s a good thing. Yes my comments were based directly off Hume’s Enquiries concerning Human Understanding.

But if you’ve read these I don’t see how you missed it. To you it may have sounded reasonable. To me it sounded circular. Obviously I shortened things considerably for a post. My bullets 1) and 2) under A) come directly from this work, Section X, Part II, roughly pages 117 to 128. He is describing the criterion used to affirm the occurrence of miracles. The term “firm and unalterable” is from page 114 where he defines miracles.

Clearly the criteria is impossible to meet. Hence the a priori belief miracles cannot occur.

If you read chapter 10 part 1 you will see that Hume is saying:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. He gives examples to make his meaning clear.

He concludes " The plain consequence is (..........) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it endeavours to establish. " He has more to say for those who care to read the passage I have cited. I see no circularity in Hume's argument.

Ps I do not need to be told I am well read and ,as far as my peers are concerned, I am not arrogant enough to assume that thy are less well read than I am.

 

[Saquist]

They also present themselves as personal accounts of his conception,

I must stop you here.
explain how you drew this as a fact.
I know that no such statement is made in any of the gospel accounts so I must ask you to explain how you know this as a fact of the gospels.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Iasion, He did say some where hostile and some were not. Are you agreeing with him or being obtuse?

Yes, I agree that some of the sources are hostile.
No, I do not think these sources are vindication of the Bible accounts of Jesus.

What Revolvr claimed was this :

In the first century we have:
* Cornelius Tacitus,
* Flavius Josephus,
* Pliny the Younger,
* Suetonius,
* Mara Bar-Serapion,
* Lucan of Samosata,
* The Jewish Sanhedrin (the most hostile as you might imagine)
All vindicate the Biblical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Revolver's claim that these writings are from the first century is false -
Only ONE of these sources is certainly 1st century - the disputed and corrupt Josephus.


Revolver's claim that all these writings vindicate the Biblical accounts is false -
* Josephus is corrupt, possibly forged in toto
* Suetonius is not about Jesus,
* Mara bar-Serapion is not certainly about Jesus,
* Tacitus merely repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs (and gets some details wrong).
* Pliny also repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs. He says nothing about Jesus himself.
* Lucian ridicules mid 2nd C. Christian beliefs - he does not even use the word Jesus.
* The Talmud tells completely different things about Jesus, using various names for him.


Apologists like to point out the Talmud is "hostile" and then pretend this provides vindication of the Bible.

But the Talmud accounts of Jesus are nothing like the Bible !

How can anyone claim THIS is a vindication of the Bible stories about Jesus :

* Jesus is a black magician
* Jesus is a bastard son of Roman soldier
* Jesus was conceived during menstruation
* Jesus learned black magic in Egypt
* Jesus stole the Egyptian magic by hiding it in a scroll hidden in a cut in his thigh as the magic guard-dog's bark cleared all memory
* Jesus worshipped a brickbat
* Jesus burned his food
* Jesus was stoned to death in Lydda
* Jesus had 5 disciples Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.
That's some of the stuff found in the Talmud and Toldoths.

Do you think that is vindication of the Bible accounts, Saquist?

What about you, Revolver?
Do you think that is vindication of the Bible accounts ?

Where does the Bible say Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier? Or stole black magic in Egypt ? etc., etc. as above.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

If the NT was written by eyewitnesses to the events than one is bound to conclude they must be true.

It wasn't.
Modern NT scholars agree - not one single book of the NT was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.

No one allows himself to be persecuted and murdered for a fictional story.

Scientologists are persecuted and murdered - therefore, according to your argument, Scientology is true.

Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted and murdered - therefore, according to your argument, their beliefs are true.

Muslim fundamentalists are persecuted and murdered - therefore, according to your argument, fundamentalist Islam is true.

Revolver,
people die for false beliefs all the time -
Suicide bombers, The Heaven's Gate cult, ancient pagans, the Cathars...

It proves nothing.

Why do you think otherwise?


Iasion

 

[Saquist]

Greetings,



Yes, I agree that some of the sources are hostile.
No, I do not think these sources are vindication of the Bible accounts of Jesus.

Then it is indeed a matter of belief than data.