Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

Yes, guess what? The Jews also used crucifixion at times. They would take people down once dead. You are still stuck with an exceedingly rare exception. And you are also contradicting yourself again. Can you see it?

No please quote my alleged contradiction

You are still stuck with an exceedingly rare exception.

Exceptions where not that rare, especially in Judea, especially in periods of piece (no war) specially when the “criminal” was not guilty of a serious crime + the fact that a wealthy and influential man (Joseph of Arimathea) asked.

Jesus really seems like a good candidate for an exception.

The alternative is that multiple independent authors invented the exact same lie which is far more unlikely. …

 

[KWED]

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?

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

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.

If you have four anonymous accounts, they could all have been written by the same person. Hardly rocket science.
If you have four accounts under four different names, they could all have been written by one person using pseudonyms.
You need something more than "here is an account by Tom, and here is one by dick, and they are both similar to one by Harry". You need to know who Tom, Dick and Harry are, and have confirmation that they are different, real people. Only then can you begin to determine if they really are independent. You do this by finding references to them, their lives and their work in sources other than Tom, Dick or Harry.

 

[leroy]

Was it? Are you sure? Because the Romans would not crucify someone for that. So the rational conclusion is that he was crucified for something that the Romans did crucify people for. Like sedition. Which a revolutionary rabbi stirring up trouble might well be done for.

If a businessman was found in a Bogota hotel room executed in the way the drug cartels do to people who don't pay their debts, is the logical conclusion that he had got into cocaine big time and ****ed up - or that someone else had killed him for running off with their wife and the circumstances were purely coincidental?

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Like if I saw two eyewitness reports of a car crash, for instance?

For each witness, I'd try to figure out:

• Who they talked to during and immediately before or after the event
• Who else the witness knows
• What social circles the witness runs in
• What clues are there (e.g. workplace, hobbies, etc.) of other people that they might know
• Whether there's any sign that they might be induced/coerced toward bias (e.g. a mysterious deposit into their bank account right after they give their testimony)

... and then look for overlaps between each witness.

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

What? How would you even start?

When the authors are anonymous, you could potentially show that they're not independent (e.g. if one quotes the other verbatim), but no way to show that they're definitely independent.

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.

What method would you use to decide that two accounts of the same event are independent?

 

[leroy]

If you have four anonymous accounts, they could all have been written by the same person. Hardly rocket science.
If you have four accounts under four different names, they could all have been written by one person using pseudonyms.
You need something more than "here is an account by Tom, and here is one by dick, and they are both similar to one by Harry". You need to know who Tom, Dick and Harry are, and have confirmation that they are different, real people. Only then can you begin to determine if they really are independent. You do this by finding references to them, their lives and their work in sources other than Tom, Dick or Harry.

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

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

 

[leroy]

... and then look for overlaps between each witness.

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

When the authors are anonymous, you could potentially show that they're not independent (e.g. if one quotes the other verbatim), but no way to show that they're definitely independent.

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

]What method would you use to decide that two accounts of the same event are independent?

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.

Testimony 1: the Green car was about to crash in the wall / luckily the car manage to stop and barely touching the wall.

Testimony 2: that green paint stain on the wall was produced by the car that crashed yesterday

Testimony 2 “accidentally” confirmed that the car is green confirming that the truth of testimony 1 is true.

So unless you argue that the same author willingly and purposefully made 2 different accounts so that they look independent, you should conclude that the testinomies are indepdnent.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

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

You don't get it. Some Christians make the mistake of trying to claim that the four gospels are eyewitness accounts and that they were written by the names that they now bear. Those claims have been shown to be false. Most Bibles acknowledge that they are anonymous. That does not refute the gospels but it does show that there is no support for the claim that they were written by eyewitnesses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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




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





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.

Testimony 1: the Green car was about to crash in the wall / luckily the car manage to stop and barely touching the wall.

minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US">Testimony 2: that green paint stain on the wall was produced by the car that crashed yesterday
minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US">Testimony 2 “accidentally” confirmed that the car is green confirming that the truth of testimony 1 is true.
minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US">So unless you argue that the same author willingly and purposefully made 2 different accounts so that they look independent, you should conclude that the testinomies are indepdnent.
minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US">And the important thing is that knowing the names is irrelevant.

It is more than overlapping. There is plagiarism involved. There are examples of word for word copying of Mark. in Matthew and Luke.

Yes, if you had three witnesses they could easily tell the same or very similar stories. You now that there is cheating going on if they quote word for word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No please quote my alleged contradiction



Exceptions where not that rare, especially in Judea, especially in periods of piece (no war) specially when the “criminal” was not guilty of a serious crime + the fact that a wealthy and influential man (Joseph of Arimathea) asked.

Jesus really seems like a good candidate for an exception.

The alternative is that multiple independent authors invented the exact same lie which is far more unlikely. …

You would need to show that there were exceptions with Roman crucifixion. Not just with crucifixion. It is a common error to assume that only Romans did that when the Jews did the same. The difference is that Jews, due to their religious beliefs, would not and could not (the crucifiers would have been breaking a major law) leave the victims up.

And here is where you contradicted yoursefl:

"That is the point, Jesus´s crime was “blasphemy against the Jewish God” something that the romans would have not considered a serious crime.

So the claim that Jesus was an exception and he was buried (like many other crucified victims) is not very unlikely.// the alternative “that Paul and the authors of the gospels invented their own story and by just by chance they happened to invent the same event” sound much more unlikely."

If it was just a Jewish crime the Jewish courts would have handled it. The Romans would not have been involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

 

[leroy]

You don't get it. Some Christians make the mistake of trying to claim that the four gospels are eyewitness accounts and that they were written by the names that they now bear. Those claims have been shown to be false. Most Bibles acknowledge that they are anonymous. That does not refute the gospels but it does show that there is no support for the claim that they were written by eyewitnesses.

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)

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.

 

[KWED]

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

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.

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

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...

 

[Subduction Zone]

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)

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.

But that is not true either. All that you can say is that John did not plagiarize Mark. It appears that he was aware of Mark and could have even gotten his ideas from Mark.

Did John Know the Synoptic Gospels? - Reading Acts

So We cannot say for sure that John copied Mark, but neither can we say that he is independent. He might be very dependent, he might be independent. We simply cannot say for sure either way.

 

[leroy]

It is more than overlapping. There is plagiarism involved. There are examples of word for word copying of Mark. in Matthew and Luke.

Yes, if you had three witnesses they could easily tell the same or very similar stories. You now that there is cheating going on if they quote word for word.

Maybe, but you could do that regardless if you know the names or not………… those 3 gospels are not independent and would not ,magically become independent if the names where known


The only point that I am making is that one can tell if the source is dependent or independent regardless if the author is anonymous or not.

 

[leroy]

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.]

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)

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...

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.

 

[leroy]

But that is not true either. All that you can say is that John did not plagiarize Mark. It appears that he was aware of Mark and could have even gotten his ideas from Mark.

Did John Know the Synoptic Gospels? - Reading Acts

So We cannot say for sure that John copied Mark, but neither can we say that he is independent. He might be very dependent, he might be independent. We simply cannot say for sure either way.

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.

 

[leroy]

, and no, a lie or misrepresentation of events is an almost trivially common event,

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.

whereas burial after crucifixion was rare.

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

 

[ppp]

And we don’t have any sources independent of NASA and the government confirming the landing on the moon. But that is not big of a deal.

Um. Yes we do. Many many sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe, but you could do that regardless if you know the names or not………… those 3 gospels are not independent and would not ,magically become independent if the names where known


The only point that I am making is that one can tell if the source is dependent or independent regardless if the author is anonymous or not.

There are definitely ways to show that one source is dependent upon another, as can be shown with Matthew and Luke being dependent on Mark, How would you show that John was independent? I don't think that it can be done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.