It’s been 9 days since your last post, for the record. Here is a hyperlink to that post:
And here is one to your profile showing the chronology of your activity:
You will note two posts tonight 4 hours ago, then the post prior to that is from 9 days ago.
There are THOUSANDS of 1st century manuscripts in museums and private collections throughout the world. Perhaps one the best known troves is " The Herculaneum papyri are more than 1,800 papyrus scrolls discovered in the 18th century in the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum. They had been carbonized when the villa was engulfed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD.
The papyri, containing a number of Greek philosophical texts, come from the only surviving library from antiquity that exists in its entirety.[2] However, reading the scrolls is extremely difficult, and can risk destroying them. The evolution of techniques to do this continues.
The majority of classical texts referred to by other classical authors are lost, and there is hope that the continuing work on the library scrolls will discover some of these. For example, as many as 44 works discovered were written by the 1st-century BC Epicurean philosopher and poet Philodemus, a resident of Herculaneum, who possibly formed the library, or whose library was incorporated in it. Wikipedia.
There even letters of complaint in another trove from a legionnaire in 1st century Jerusalem complaining about many things but the quality of the leather in his sandals in particular. There are also invoices etc. The minutia of daily life…but in all this wealth of resource…not a mention of your prophet of choice as a first hand account.
There are 13 other “messiahs” who performed various miracles, gained followers and were reputed (some of them) to be born of a virgin/sonofgod…ALL corroborated accounts/documents…your prophet? silence.
Please, if you do not understand this subject just ask questions, don’t make flat statements.
Historical method is the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past.
If one cared about objectively and rationally reaching the truth, and wanted to use such a method to evaluate antiquated claims for any deity, or anything supernatural, then one would at the very least have to start by objectively demonstrating that such things are possible as distinct phenomena. Especially when those claims are derived from an epoch of extreme ignorance of the natural world, where such superstitious beliefs and claims were ubiquitous among competing religions and the deities they have imagined.
Establishing that a person or persons made a claim or claims to have seen anything supernatural, if of course this could be done here, which it clearly cannot, is entirely meaningless in objectively evidencing the claim itself.
Indeed…here is a link to some recent progress in this area:
Yes, fascinating, is it not? I have been keeping up with this as, despite theists imagining that records of the 1st century are few and far between, that idea, (like most of their fancies) are simply not true.
We have written records from the ordinary folk to letters, orders, invoices, love letters, speeches written by the highest in rank.
One would think we would indeed, stumble across a piece saying something like, “there I was, in Jerusalem on this holiday weekend and it went dark, and next thing I know the streets are filled with long dead jews looking for the relatives! Man that was soo weird!! Anyway, Lucian sends his love and my shoes still hurt! Toodles!”
Ah, yes, one would
think…
Though one might also wonder why they make such a fuss about a resurrection, given how commonplace they seem to have been? Has anyone actually checked out these other resurrections to make sure none of them were deities? I mean if someone believes deities are possible, then why couldn’t there be more than one?
Guys, a strange idea occurred to me last night when I was trying to sleep.
There are a few apocryphal books that weren’t included in The Bible that mention Jesus --in his younger days–as a trickster and a practical joker.
I’m sure other people have thought of this (although I haven’t checked), but what if Jesus had an identical twin brother?
It could explain the resurrection, at least . . . and probably several other miracles as well. Twins have been known to play practical jokes before.
I’m not as original as I thought. This has been examined at length as the “substitution hypothesis.”
I should have checked before running my mouth.
The resurrection of Jesus can be explained by one person telling a lie. Something we have all seen happen countless times in our lives.
You can also check out Thomas Didimus…or the “twin”
Thank you. I’m a little embarrassed.
No need to be mate, this stuff can make anyone come a cropper and the substitution story is certainly more probable than the resurrection.
Thank you. 20 characters.
And again, our latest apologist continues to fail to learn relevant elementry lessons.
What is asserted does not equal fact. This is a central rule of proper discourse, that anyone purporting to take part therein should have learned long ago.
Indeed, as I have explained at length several times here, assertions, when presented, possess the status “truth value unknown”.
To be rigorous, just in case some people require this commentary, the above statement does no mean that an assertion lacks a truth-value, not least because an assertion purports to be a source of information, and has a truth-value by definition as a corollary. But until that assertion is tested, the truth or falsity thereof is not known a priori.
Indeed, this brings me to the second cardinal rule of proper discourse, namely that all assertions are to be tested to determine their actual truth value. In the absence of said testing, an assertion is useless as a source of knowledge.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as a “self-validating assertion” (the waffle on this matter peddled by the likes of William Lane Craig notwithstanding). An assertion is the claim awaiting verification, and said verification can only be conducted by recourse to relevant means of external corroboration.
Now I’ve already stated on multiple occasions, that we have two reliable methods for this, that have demonstrated their utility value beyond any and all reasonable doubt. One being consonance with observational data (the method of choice in the physical sciences), the other being error-free deduction from carefully chosen axioms (the method of choice in pure mathematics). Though this second method requires, by definition, care in the choice of axioms, a lesson pure mathematicians learned the hard way over a 22 century period. But I digress.
Unfortunately for the enthusiasts for the endeavour in question, apologetics is a dismal failure on all grounds. On the occasions it makes reference to observational data, it does so frequently in order to force-fit said data to unwarranted presuppositions. As for “axioms”, it treats unsupported mythological assertions as such in a manner that drives a tank battalion through any concept of rigour.
Concocting fabrications as a sort of magic spell to convert presuppositions into fact, is as far removed from proper discourse as it’s possible to be, and duplicitously so if the exercise involves rampant abuse of the propositional calculus, or the introduction of fallacious elisions that are baits and switches either as a side effect, or by intent.
I think you are missing the point. A document that can’t be independently corroborated with objective evidence isn’t to be trusted. This has nothing to do with the time period it was from. In the book of John in the Bible, it said there were some porticos by a lake. We just didn’t assume they were there because this book said so, but because archeologists were able to uncover it. On a philosophical level, there is no way you can trust any eye-witness statements by themselves.
The innocence project helps get people who were wrongly convicted exonerated by using science based techniques like DNA matching. Of the 400 some odd people they let go, 75% of them were originally convicted with eye-witness testimony alone. There are 4000 religions with over 4000 eye-witnesses. If they cannot show us how to measure their claims, they get discarded.
I love it when Christians who don’t understand math to try to calculate odds of god existing. They almost always have some fudge factor but they don’t get that they made up the rest of the numbers too.
Or when they take a metaphor like “fine tuning”, and wrongly assume it represents a scientific argument, or even evidence for a deity, as if long odds are somehow reduced by the addition of an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition using magic that has no explanatory powers whatsoever, when no one can objectively demonstrate either the deity or the supernatural magic are even possible.
I just discussed ‘God’s Plan’ and ‘Free Will,’ with an office mate. He rarely brings up religion. I think he knows better. But yesterday, he was off and running. I asserted you can not have both.
His response, 'Free will is like a football game. Let’s say you are prerecording a game so you can watch it for later. You are busy or something. But on your way home to watch the game someone tells you the score. Even though you know the final score the players have free will and make individual moves." (I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW… I CAN HEAR YOU ALL SCREAMING NOW!)
FALSE ANALOGY - I AM NOT GOD! Knowing the ending score is not the same thing as being a god and counting the hairs on every player’s head. It is not the same thing as knowing their innermost thoughts because no mind can hide from God’s omnipresence. Your God knows every thought and every action every single player will make. He knows how fast their hearts will beat and how much air they suck into their lungs each time they take a step. And! He knows it all before the game. He is all knowing. He doesn’t just know the score. If someone breaks a leg, it is because he planned it. If one of the players is an atheist, it is because he planned it. If someone dies, it is his hand that caused or allowed the death. He has a plan. If it was his plan for your helmet to get knocked off, do you think that helmet would stay on your head? If it was his plan for the wide receiver to turn left, could the wide receiver turn right? NO! You can not have an all-knowing god with a plan and then profess to have free will!
I guess I was on a bit of a rant.
His response. ‘Alright, alright, let’s set that aside.’
Are you kidding me? You can not set that aside. There is no way to ‘set it aside.’ You are living in an illogical contradiction. Your religion and your beliefs are illogical. Your religion is full of contradictions!
OH NO - HE DIDN’T! Yes, he did. “Name another contradiction,” he says. OMG he went and opened that door.
Your god can not be merciful and just at the same time.
Why not?
NOW IT GETS GOOD. I previously mentioned that one of my officemates was a Satanist. She belongs to the Church of Satan. We rarely talk but suddenly she looks over the divider and says…
“Because mercy is a suspension of justice. If you are all just then you treat everyone the same. But if you show one person mercy, you have suspended justice for that person and that is not fair. You can not show mercy and be just at the same time.”
Well, look, I just love God. That’s all I know. I didn’t even start this conversation. I love God and God loves me. That’s it. That’s all I know.
This was the repetitious end of the discussion. I took it as: (A plea of sorts "Please don’t pick on me any more, you guys are being mean to me.')
Well, that’s my story… glad to share.
False equivalence fallacy, they may have had “free will”, but the fact you failed to observe the result doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, and since it has it cannot change, if it cannot change it does not equate to free will.
This is lame compared to god observing all things all the time, and thus transcending time, , like a time traveller who observes, but never changes. It’s a way better argument, but still weak, since for the deity to ultimately know exactly which choices we make, they would be an illusion to us, and thus so would free will.
I agree, the two claims create a rational contradiction, but and more than that, there is a contradiction innate between omniscience and omnipotence. If a deity knows literally everything it knows the future, if it knows the future it follows it cannot change it, see the problem?
Hilarious, they’re cute when they do that… 
Ah grasshopper, do you not know that god transcends logic. Which simply means the deity they’re positing is irrational, even as a hypothetical.
Bless, did he stamp his foot, stick his fingers in his ears, shout lah lah lah lah at the top of his lungs, click the heels of his ruby slippers etc etc… 
If I wanted to be mean it’s not just repetitious, it’s a circular reasoning fallacy, and a begging the question fallacy, and probably a special pleading fallacy, as I assume he doesn’t accept all other deities love all their adherents and vice versa based on them stamping their foot…
Good story…it’s been a tough day, that cheered me up…thank you