Scholars concluding stuff has gone on for quite some time. And their conclusions are based not only upon what information is available, but also upon what is popular at the time.
Scholars have concluded that the earth is flat, that women are inferior to men, that blood-letting is an effective treatment for ailments. None of these, and so very many more, are not, in fact the case. We’ve learned that.
So your dependence on these scholars of yours to determine that there is no doubt that an individual names jesus, who was divine, existed without a doubt is, well, just the other side of firm.
1 Like
The New Testament (the entire Bible actually) does not contain a single verse written by anyone who ever met the character/person of Jesus (in the flesh).
3 Likes
Scholars also hold subjective religious beliefs, what a scholar deduces using methods like the historical method, and religious beliefs they subjectively hold, are not remotely the same. He tried to imply that historical scholars believed the new testament to be historical fact, when no historian would claim to have historical evidence to support the gospels, which they would know are anonymous hearsay.
There is some scant independent evidence for the crucifixion, but beyond that there is no independent or historical evidence for the claims in the gospels. I confronted him with this, and how historians use secondary sources and archaeological evidence for example and he waved it away. His claim is simply wrong.
This is nonsense,
“Historical method is the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past. Secondary sources, primary sources and material evidence such as that derived from archaeology may all be drawn on.”
"Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance to the subject under investigation.
Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez divide source criticism into six inquiries:[1]
- When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
- Where was it produced (localization)?
- By whom was it produced (authorship)?
- From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
- In what original form was it produced (integrity)?"
1 You will note the earliest texts are dated to decades after the events they purport to describe, with not one single word written by a contemporary source - so no eyewitness accounts, only claims for the same using hearsay.
2. This cannot be corroborated independently.
3. The gospel texts were unauthored and so are anonymous, ipso facto they are hearsay.
4. There is no corroborating evidence outside of the bible, and no objective evidence that the supernatural claims associated are even possible, some like resurrections are even roundly disproved by scientific facts.
5. Again there was no authorship, and the earliest accounts are dated to decades after the events they claim to describe.
2 Likes
As I highlighted in my post he tried to interpolate “Christ” which is a particular religious title into the “scholars believe” narrative. I corrected him and of course I have been treated to a chorus of crickets.
But then, I am used to the dishonesty that inevitably accompanies theists claims to historical accuracy.
2 Likes
Witnessed by whom? Certainly not by the writers of the gospels. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and when you filter it through many oral tellings and re-tellings over several decades before it gets written down, it becomes exponentially more unreliable.
There are names recorded of those who witnessed the events, John, Mark and so on, I also never said that these witnesses penned the record but they are the source of what has been penned.
I would have immediately written down my recollections of the event as soon as possible and confirmed my memory of the events by talking to other witnesses.
And why would an account of your testimony be regarded as true thousands of years later?
In the case of the gospels, the witnesses of the events (assuming they happened at all) were likely illiterate, so the events were only propagated orally (and that’s assuming they weren’t just made up).
So events witnessed by illiterate observers must be dismissed, is that an argument you are proposing?
Which ones? There were plenty of other historians active at the time, both in Judea and elsewhere, that make no mention of jesus or any of the events described in the gospels. Don’t you think these historians would notice things like the sky going dark for three hours or dozens of zombies wandering the streets of Jerusalem?
The paucity of the record might be due to any number of causes. It was only with a Herculean effort on behalf of many hundreds of people over many centuries that we even have the Gospels. There must have been countless historic events too that are not recorded or have left no surviving record.
Consider too that there are a great many non-canonical documents preserved, actually rather a lot.
Have you considered the possibility that the NT is religious propaganda made up to promote the religion?
Yes, of course I have, I was a staunch atheist myself once.
What assumptions about reality? I base my view of reality on scientific theories that are backed up by empirical, objective evidence, not ancient texts written by what one fellow on this forum likes to describe as followers of an ancient goat herder mythology.
Assumptions like the only viable explanations must be materialist explanations. Ancient texts are objective evidence, they are real tangible things! Look at the hieroglyphs in Egypt or the Sumerian clay tablets are they not evidence of something?
You raise numerous objections, again for the sake of expediency I’ll deal with these for the time being:
On the contrary? They are in fact of anonymous authorship, and they are ipso facto hearsay, they are no more compelling evidence for the claims made than Harry Potter novels are “evidence” for wizardry, though you are free to believe otherwise.
I didn’t use the term “compelling”, at least I don’t think I did. That you do not know who exactly put pen to paper has no bearing on the efficacy of the record. But the Harry Potter novels are fiction, this is openly admitted and readily confirmed.
Sufficient objective evidence, have I not made that clear as my criteria for belief? I’d certainly need more than completely unevidenced hearsay, else I would have to believe every such claim.
No you’ve not been clear at all. What would serve as examples of some tangible, material find that could make you react with “Ahh, OK, I see now, yes I think these accounts might well be true after all”? This is another way of asking you to show that you are truly open minded.
No that’s wrong as well, we already have overwhelming objective evidence that people don’t rise form dead, and we know why. Do you think it is a coincidence such claims tapered off in direct proportion to the advances of medical science’s understanding of human biology? None of that requires any assumptions. However even if I had no explanation I can still rationally withhold belief from the unevidenced hearsay of the gospels, obviously.
This is a fallacious argument. That X has never been observed by you does not prove that X can never be observed. That X has never been observed by you does not prove that others who claim to have observed it are not telling the truth.
Spartacus is as “unevidenced” as Jesus.
There isn’t much surviving contemporary sources for Spartacus, but some does exist (fragments of the writings of the historian Gaius Sallustius Crispus, who was a young man during Spartacus’s revolt).
There are no (known) contemporary sources for the character of Jesus.
3 Likes
Unlikely. How did “John”, “Mark”, and so on, convey their eyewitness testimony to whoever wrote the stories down?
And where did the jesus dialog in the “red letter” bible come from? The gospels were written decades after jesus was supposedly alive, so how was his words recorded? How were those words preserved so accurately through decades of oral traditions? And how were his words from his supposed time alone in the desert preserved at all (Matthew 4:1-11)?
It wouldn’t be without collaborating secondary sources and archeological evidence.
Not at all. Since the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, how do we even know they accurately describe the events depicted in the gospels? There’s little or no collaborating secondary sources or archeological evidence for anything in the gospels–that’s why they should be dismissed.
Yes, but billions of people aren’t basing their lives on or trying to impose their morals on others as a result of these other unrecorded historic events.
Unless you can show that anything other than materialist explanations exist, that is the only objective evidence. Sure, ancient texts exist and are material objects, but that says nothing about the validity of their contents. I have a Spiderman comic book in my closet–does that prove the existence of Spiderman?
I seriously doubt that.
3 Likes
Are you asserting that there were men living in the area of current-day Israel ~2000 years ago who were named John and Mark?
3 Likes
Yes! They are indeed evidence of something! They are evidence that people of that time and culture had written language.
4 Likes
I prefer the Greek … Hesiod was a farmers son and complained about being poor and the “hard life”.
HOW fortunate for him that he received “divine” inspiration and special knowledge from the deities.
Prometheus (according to him) no longer has his liver picked apart day after day for giving mankind fire (stolen from the gods).
HOWEVER 
if he’s wrong, we as a human society SHOULD acknowledge the sacrifice of Prometheus who is still subjected to this torture (and he was satisfied with the punishment because of his love for humanity).
First hand account.
Divine knowledge.
Literal places mentioned.
Acceptance by the people.
Vital lessons for humankind.
3 Likes
Pure assumption, based on naught but hearsay. This is a second hand and anonymous account.
If it was independently corroborated by a reliable source, if the claim didn’t offend reason, and deny scientific facts, if the original source were both known and reliable, if the original source could be demonstrated to be a contemporary account, and so on and so on, or to put it exactly as people have been trying to explain to you, if it satisfied any of the criteria of the historical method.
There is no evidence anyone witnessed anything, Not one word was written by a contemporary source, you do know what eyewitness means don’t you?
Like the legends of Hercules, and I don’t believe they are true either.
No one is assuming that, it’s a straw man religious apologists use to create a false dichotomy fallacy. It’s a fact the material world, universe and natural phenomena exist, when someone demonstrates a shred of objective evidence for anything else then I’ll pay it due diligence and keep an open mind.
What a spectacularly stupid claim. The legends of Hercules are an ancient text, I have to hope this was some sort of an attempt at humour.
I never said you had?
I already linked criteria for historical methodology, and the primary source is listed as an important factor, so yes the fact they gospels are anonymous hearsay directly contradicts the notion they have any historical validity.
That’s not true, as I have said so plainly and repeatedly. I will embolden it for you then, so there is no more confusion: I believe what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence.
Since that criteria is applied without prejudice to all claims and belief, my being open minded is demonstrated. You on the other hand believe one particular superstition based on “evidence” any of the others could satisfy, how is that not bias?
I made neither claim? I was responding to a claim of yours, and disbelieving it for the reasons stated. You are again dishonestly pretending that disbelieving your claims equates to making a contrary claim, when it does not, and there is no logical fallacy in that quote, so that sounds like rhetoric?
Actually there were contemporary sources that mentioned him, and none for Jesus, but do you have a point?
1 Like
Very well, take that view if you want.
1 Like
There are names recorded, that’s a fact, go and check for yourself.
If it was independently corroborated by a reliable source, if the claim didn’t offend reason, and deny scientific facts, if the original source were both known and reliable, if the original source could be demonstrated to be a contemporary account, and so on and so on, or to put it exactly as people have been trying to explain to you, if it satisfied any of the criteria of the historical method.
What constitutes a reliable source for information written down two thousand years ago?
Your own reason might be offended but that’s all due to your subjective interpretation of the matter.
What “scientific fact” is denied? Science doesn’t help us with “facts” it is based on inductive reasoning, not deductive.
If the original source is not known then how can you presume it to be not reliable?
There are contemporary accounts, there are four canonical gospels and rather a lot more non canonical.
No, that’s not true. The written account does exist, it is evidence of something. You might interpret as evidence of radical religious zealotry but that’s nothing more than an interpretation. You have to do that too because you cannot reconcile this with your atheist world view.
Good.
You are assuming, of course you are, you even said above “deny scientific facts” betraying a naïve understanding of science, an assumption that it deals with facts! You can’t ask for a “shred of objective evidence” because you have no way of recognizing it, we’ve been over this in the other thread.
It is not a fact that they are anonymous hearsay, it’s a belief you hold, so there are no facts that contradict the view they possess historicity.
And I say again, all evidence is interpreted in such a way that it can be reconciled with some existing belief system.
But back to Spartacus:
But they (Plutarch et-al) were based wholly on prior sources, already existing material, they were not eye witnesses. For example the Histories of Salust was a source and here’s what’s said about this (emphases mine)
Although they (Salust’s writings) have not survived intact, about five hundred fragments have been preserved in excerpts or quotations by later writers
But there’s more bad news for you, the oldest fragments we have today from Salust are:
The most ancient scrolls which survive are the Codex Parisinus 16024 and Codex Parisinus 16025 , known as “P” and “A” respectively. They were created in the ninth century, and both belong to the mutili group. The oldest integri scrolls were created in the eleventh century AD.
But there’s one more remaining detail I’d like to bring to your attention:
Several fragments of Sallust’s works survived in papyri of the second to fourth centuries AD. Many ancient authors cited Sallust, and sometimes their citations of Histories are the only source for reconstruction of this work.
Now consider the Rylands papyrus P52 a fragment of the book of John:
Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, aiming to generate consistent revised date estimates for all New Testament papyri written before the mid-4th century, has proposed a date for 𝔓52 of 125–175 CE.
Based the interval between the purported events and our earliest surviving reference to it, it seems to me that the accounts of Jesus are on somewhat stronger ground than the accounts of Spartacus
There’s therefore a very reasonable case here for asking Is Spartacus made up? what do you think?
The names “John” and “Mark” did not exist in that area at that time. You have shown that with your reference material. The names “John” and “Mark” are modern names. They may have grown from ancient words, but are not those ancient words any longer.
It’s sorta like evolution 
…
3 Likes
And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
I don’t think they had the whole name thing worked out back then. Kinda like ‘gender issues’ today. You could be a mark or a Luke or a john all at the same time. I mean, what’s in a name anyway? And if someone wanted to call you a TinMan, so what? But they probably did it with a Latin Accent “Vir Stagni” But the bible was written in Greek, so the name would have been ‘άνθρωπος από κασσίτερο.’ But then, like I said, back then names didn’t mean anything and people could call themselves whatever they wanted. Just like genders today. 
1 Like
And there we have the typical theist distraction. The trousers and raincoat have been respectively dropped and opened and all is on display. Egad.
2 Likes
I almost blew snot on that one… 
Edit to snicker