Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Subduction Zone]

We are not talking about the probability of someone lying,(or misinterpreting information) we are talking about the probability that multiple independent authors invented the exact same lie. I’s unlikely for multiple authors to have had invented the same lie, this is why independent attestation is a strong criteria to establish historical events.




I will love to see your evidence for that (no hearsay allowed)

Roman history supports that. You are misusing the term "hearsay". That is not allowed in a court of law. A person of unknown reliability can only testify about what they saw in a court of law. History is a bit different. One has the time and resources to check various sources and judge how reliable they are.

If you go by the "No hearsay" rule then you have to deny the Jesus story. Are you sure that you want to do that? I am fine with it if you are.

 

[Sheldon]

Assuming that you know the names of the authors…. How do you know if 2 testimonies are independent? (What reliable method should / would you use?

You don't know them in this instance, that's rather the point you seem unwilling to unable to grasp the significance of.

Now pretend that the authors are anonymous … ¿why can’t you use the same method?

I already listed 6 well known criteria, that historians use for critical scrutiny of sources, now take your time...did one of those criteria specify authorship?

My point is that I am not aware of any method that can be used for known authors that cant be used for unknown authors.

That's a falsehood, just read the criteria I have posted more than once. You're also not an historian, so as I said why don't you go away and learn how historians validate sources, instead of making ludicrous sweeping claims, like the 6 you claimed were "known to high degree of certainty" which was and is a risible claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Really so by your logic you can´t tell if 2 members form this forum are different persons , because we are all anonymous.

As you've been told, there is only one logic, and yes, it is conceivable two posters on here could be the same person, though we could verify they are not of course, unlike the four gospels assigned subjectively to 4 anonymous "authors".

Each independent account would tell the details of an event with different words and different emphasis on various details, you don’t need to know the names of the authors

Sigh... You, may not care, but no credible historian would ignore this significant fact, and it would have to be included in any critical evaluation of a "source". Again this has been explained to you, remember the 6 criteria historians often use to evaluate a source, and you have ignored them. Again the inference is that you are arguing from sheer subjective bias.

 

[Sheldon]

It seems to me that you can do the overlapping regarldless if you know the name of the author or not

Except the author of all 4 texts might be the same, thus to claim (as you keep doing) that they are independent when you don't know the provenance, falls well short of the critical evaluation historians would use to validate sources.

Well “defently” is a very strong word, obviously there would always be a possibility of “dependency” no matter what , but the same is true if the names of the authors are known

Oh good grief, authorship is a crucial factor for historians to establish credibility of the source, you can think whatever you want, but that is simply a fact.

If one has details that the other lacks (and vice versa) the accounts are likely independent. If the accounts help / complement each other the likelihood increases.

So a single person can't fabricate accounts that are similar but not identical, or that compliment each other? Do you hear yourself man?

And the important thing is that knowing the names is irrelevant.

No it isn't, you are simply wrong, and no credible historian would agree with your biased claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Well I cant talk for other Christians, but I personally grant that the gospels where not written by witnesses and perhaps nor by people named Mark Matt Locke and John. (maybe they had some other name, who knows)

There is no "maybe" about it, the name are fabrications, created by early Christians at the first council of Nicaea over three centuries after the alleged events, using hearsay texts written in Greek, was Greek the Lingua franca in that area at the time Jesus is alleged to have lived? Do take your time.

The only claim that I am making is that one doesn’t needs to know the names of the authors in order to establish that 2 testimonies are independent. Which quite frankly is a very simple and uncontroversial claim.

You are wrong, and it has been demonstrated that historical scholars absolutely include provenance as a major factor in critically evaluating any source.

 

[Sheldon]

Exactly! In fact, it is sometimes the case. It is actually very difficult to prove that you aren't a dupe account of @BilliardsBall, for example.

So you are claiming that I couldn't make a dupe account here, pretending to be a religionist and argue with myself, without it being obvious to everyone that I am the same person?
Ok. We'll put that to the test. In a few days, I want you to tell me who my dupe account is. Maybe I already have one...

Being an old duffer, my IT skills are pretty mediocre, but surely using a different IP and email address is all one would need?

I think @leroy must know at some level he is arguing a lost cause here, as he is with other claims he has made here of course.

 

[Sheldon]

We are not talking about the probability of someone lying,(or misinterpreting information) we are talking about the probability that multiple independent authors invented the exact same lie.

You don't have any independent sources, and of course multiple authors can be motivated to make the same lie, especially after the fact to support a common religious belief. Even simpler when the entire collection of narratives (bible) are subjectively edited and redacted by one source, early Christians, three centuries after the alleged events.

I’s unlikely for multiple authors to have had invented the same lie,

I don't agree, I have read many religious apologists who peddle the same stuff, with tedious predictability. There are of course other factors at play here, you seem keen to try and knock them over separately, but historians don't work that way when critically evaluating sources.

this is why independent attestation is a strong criteria to establish historical events.

So what inference do you derive from the fact there is not a scholarly consensus among historians for the claims you made, beyond that there was probably an historical Jesus, and that he was crucified? Again this seems a fact you have been keen to ignore, and even misrepresent.

 

[joelr]

Ok ok, but my point is that knowing the names of the authors doesn’t solve the question on whether if John and Mark are independent or not.

You see I am not even claiming that John and Mark are independent, I am simply claiming that you don’t need to know the names of the authors in order to establish if the sources are independent or not………. This is how boring and trivial this discussion is.

Matthew and Luke have extremely likely seen and sourced Mark.

When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke.
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Scholars believe John also was familiar with Mark, Luke and possible a passion source. Carrier believes they all sourced Mark.
Gospel of John
the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman.
The author may have drawn on a "passion source" for the story of Jesus's arrest and crucifixion, He seems to have known some version of Mark and Luke, as he shares with them some items of vocabulary and clusters of incidents arranged in the same order.
Recent arguments by Richard Bauckham and others that the Gospel of John preserves eyewitness testimony have not won general acceptance.
Gospel of John - Wikipedia


That is it. Mark made it up the rest sourced Mark. I have posted several lines of reasoning from a NT historian why Mark would invent this. There is simply no solid argument that this was made up by 2 separate authors.

 

[joelr]

If one has details that the other lacks (and vice versa) the accounts are likely independent. If the accounts help / complement each other the likelihood increases.

.

No one doubts the Markan priority. Matthew used Mark and tried writing a better version. Matthew added details. But they were made up?
Going further Luke added details and John added all kinds of supernatural wu.

You are talking about historical events where things actually happened. This is not that. It isn't that style. Matthew added zombies roaming the streets and an earthquake. This does not increase the likelyhood they are independent? These stories add details and SUBTRACT just as much.
A lightning Angel of the LORD? Was MISSED in other versions? Nothing here is likely independent even without all the other evidence?

Mark has no guard. 3 women. Mary, Mary M. Salome. The stone rolled by itself.
Matthew added a guard because people were saying the body was just stolen. Now just 2 Marys show up. Earthquake, Angel of God shows up, he's like lightning and the guard is scared. The angel showed them where Jesus was. The angel also rolled the rock back to open the tomb.

In Luke it's 2 Marys, Joanna at the tomb. The rock is already rolled, 2 men in shiny clothes are in there?

John has just Mary M see the stone already moved. She got Simon Peter, they saw 2 angels sitting in the tomb.

In all cases when they see Jesus is different.Gospel
Any rational person can see this is a made up story. Each Gospel was meant to be THE Gospel of Jesus. They were not writing a series. IF they were they would have taken care to get the story correct. The historical consensus is that in 367 they chose the 4 churches that were in Rome and doing the best with membership and finance and were most favored by Constantine.
This caused the need to attempt to harmonize the Gospels the best they could.

Nothing about these versions "enhance" each other. The authors were clearly making it up based on a basic outline.

 

[KWED]

Prove is a very strong word, but sure you can tell with high degree of certainty that BilliardsBall and I are different persons, despite the fact that you don’t know our names

Or in any case you could show that we use the same sources (say Wiliam Lane Creig) and therefore conclude that our post are not independent but rather come from a common source.

The key point is that you don’t need to know my actual name in order to conclude that BilliardsBall and I are independent.

(i have no idea who BilliardsBall is by the way)



Maybe, but you can have your dupe account and full us, regardless if we know your name or not. The only point that I am making is that we don’t need to know the name of the authors in order to claim that the sources are independent.

Without being able to identify who a source is, we cannot know if they are independent of other anonymous sources.
As I said, they could even be the same person pretending to be different people.
That's just the way it is.

 

[KWED]

And we don’t have any sources independent of NASA and the government confirming the landing on the moon.

Oh dear god! You cannot be serious?

You keep ignoring the argument the fact that we have more than one independent author reporting the same event strongly suggests that the event is historical, because it´s unlikely for 2 or more authors to have invented the same lie.

Ok. List those "independent authors" and explain how we know they are independent.

 

[KWED]

Pilate was just doing a favor to the Jewish leaders. He didn’t really care about Jesus.

Says whom?
(Remember, we are looking for sources independent of the Bible here).

The accepted historical event was the Jesus character being executed by the Romans, using a method reserved for enemies of the state. Nothing more. If you want to expand the narrative, you need to supply evidence.
(Why do I get the feeling I'm wasting my time here?)

 

[Sheldon]

leroy said: ↑
And we don’t have any sources independent of NASA and the government confirming the landing on the moon.

Oh dear god! You cannot be serious?

Oh I'd bet a months wages he was being entirely serious, pretty funny though, albeit unintentional on @leroy's part.

 

[leroy]

You can? Let's see you do it.

Without me telling you my name or the name of my cousin (who has a different last name from mine), tell me how you would figure out that we're related by nothing more than an anonymous account of the same event written by each of us.



That's true: anyone claiming that two accounts are "independent" can never really be sure.


How do you figure that?

Two strangers can be standing near each other and have the same vantage point for an event.

Two friends may have different vantage points and see very different things, but coordinate their testimony after the event.

Yu are confusing mere possibility with likelihood.

If 2 testimonies report the same event but with different details and different focus such that they complement each other than the testimonies are likely to be independent . (regardless if you know the name of the author or not)

But grated one can never be 100% sure

 

[leroy]

Says whom?
(Remember, we are looking for sources independent of the Bible here).

)

If you are only willing to accept sources outside the bible, then I can’t meet your dumb and ridiculous standards

 

[leroy]

That's right. But I am not the one claiming that one source is independent of another. It is Christians that try to claim, sometimes, that all four Gospels are independent. At most you have only tow independent sources giving you their version of a myth. And you might only have one independent source. The Jesus story does not have the many independent sources that Christians claim that it has.

But I am not the one claiming that one source is independent of another.

Nether do I (atleast not in this context)

All I am saying is that one doesn’t needs to know the names of the authors in order to establish if the sources are independent or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nether do I (atleast not in this context)

All I am saying is that one doesn’t needs to know the names of the authors in order to establish if the sources are independent or not.

Okay, they are not independent. So that limits them to one or at the very most two sources. The point was that the four Gospels are not four independent sources. Are you following along?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you are only willing to accept sources outside the bible, then I can’t meet your dumb and ridiculous standards

Would you accept sources from within Harry Potter books to confirm that wizards are real, or would you look for confirmation outside of the Harry Potter book series for confirmation that wizards are real?

 

[leroy]

So what inference do you derive from the fact there is not a scholarly consensus among historians for the claims you made, beyond that there was probably an historical Jesus, and that he was crucified? Again this seems a fact you have been keen to ignore, and even misrepresent.

I told you the 6 facts that I made earlier are supported by the majority of scholars the empty tomb is supported by 70% and the other 5 by almost 100%

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you accept sources from within Harry Potter books to confirm that wizards are real, or would you look for confirmation outside of the Harry Potter book series for confirmation that wizards are real?

Ixnay, Creationists do not like it when you point out that they are using fan fiction rules to support their beliefs