Do you really think you are helping anyone?

[-Peacemaker-]

Your posted "quote" is severely lacking in facts.

In fact, it is nothing more than a bunch of unsubstantiable claims stating they are facts.

If you want to believe that it is fact, by all means do so.
Whatever helps you to sleep at night.

But I want real facts, not someones beliefs as to what the facts are.

The gist of that argument is that using the accepted methods that historians use to validate the authenticity of ancient documents, the New Testament satisfies those requirements more than just about any document in existence. If you reject the standards by which we can validate the trustworthiness of ancient documents then you have to cast doubt over things like Homer's Illiad, and the biographies of Alexander the Great to just name a couple. The issue then becomes using the "what do we think we know about our world" test to interpret a document's authenticity which is rooted in arrogance and worship of the human brain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The gist of that argument is that using the accepted methods that historians use to validate the authenticity of ancient documents, the New Testament satisfies those requirements more than just about any document in existence. If you reject the standards by which we can validate the trustworthiness of ancient documents then you have to cast doubt over things like Homer's Illiad, and the biographies of Alexander the Great to just name a couple.

But you're asking for a much different role than these other documents. Nobody demands that we base our lives on the truth of the fact that Homer wrote the Iliad.

Wikipedia probably meets the tests you mention as well... much better than most historical documents, in fact. Does this mean you would take what Wiki says as "gospel" when it talks about, say, a medication that you're considering giving to a loved one?

And BTW: we do cast doubt over Homer's Iliad: Homeric Question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[-Peacemaker-]

But you're asking for a much different role than these other documents. Nobody demands that we base our lives on the truth of the fact that Homer wrote the Iliad.

Wikipedia probably meets the tests you mention as well... much better than most historical documents, in fact. Does this mean you would take what Wiki says as "gospel" when it talks about, say, a medication that you're considering giving to a loved one?

And BTW: we do cast doubt over Homer's Iliad: Homeric Question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fine, bad example, but the original point still stands. And no wikipedia doesn't satifying those requirements as we don't have pages of wikipedia that are almost 2000 years old that still exist today

 

[adi2d]

Sky Dancer - Do you believe that that those who choose Christianity are choosing a belief system based on truth?

I'm working my way through this thread. You have asked a lot of questions,would you mind telling us how you decided the TRUTH for you and everyone else? What evidence do you have?

 

[lunamoth]

What evidence do you have?

The evidence is something you find for yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fine, bad example, but the original point still stands.

As does mine. Speaking for myself, I don't think I would consider it reasonable to hang my entire worldview on the historical accuracy of an ancient document.

It's great to figure out as much as we can about the ancient world, but it's important to realize that it's possible for our conclusions to be wrong. This is true of Jesus as much as Alexander the Great.

And no wikipedia doesn't satifying those requirements as we don't have pages of wikipedia that are almost 2000 years old that still exist today

What does that have to do with anything? Age doesn't lend a document credibility.

But let's back up just so we can avoid any misunderstandings; you mentioned "the accepted methods that historians use to validate the authenticity of ancient documents"; can you tell us which methods you had in mind? Maybe you could just give us a quick bullet list so we understand where you're coming from, and so we understand exactly what sort of evidence you think the Bible has going for it.

 

[Mister Emu]

Like I said, I'm okay with a flat-earther thinking that I'm arrogant because I think he's wrong.

Indeed, you have... I just don't think you are being arrogant merely by believing that another person is wrong.

I can't? What did you mean when you said this, then?

I said that perhaps thinking that another cannot understand the truth would be arrogant, I said this while asking how it is arrogance to merely believe you have knowledge of the truth.

I think the circumstances of that belief have great deal of bearing on whether the belief is arrogant. Most Chrisitan belief that I've encountered fits the bill.

I agree with the first sentence... I think...

I've been arguing that it is a generalization to say that an entire class of belief, believing in a universal truth, is of necessity arrogance.

I disagree, I don't think most Christians are arrogant in their beliefs... at least in my experience very few have been.

I'm confused by this - it reads to me like you're saying that religious ideas are necessarily correct, but I can't imagine this is what you'd intend to say.

I was saying that there are people/religions who approach religion as you suggest, as a matter of aesthetic appeal.

But you don't have access to actual factual evidence for any of the claims of Christianity.

I don't have access to transferable factual evidence.

I don't believe that objective truth informs a Christian's decision to be a Christian (or any religious person's decision to adopt their religion).

There is a difference between objective evidence and objective truth. Subjective evidence can support objective truth. Christians, at least all I've personally encountered, accept Christianity because it is the objective truth. Not because it feels right, but because it has been supported during the course of their lives.

it only ceases to be an aesthetic choice if the reason for your belief is the truth of your beliefs.

That is exactly the reason that most of the Christians I have encountered have their belief.

And if that's the case, then like I said: show me.

As I said before, I am not the one that demonstrates the truth of my religion.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As does mine. Speaking for myself, I don't think I would consider it reasonable to hang my entire worldview on the historical accuracy of an ancient document.

It's great to figure out as much as we can about the ancient world, but it's important to realize that it's possible for our conclusions to be wrong. This is true of Jesus as much as Alexander the Great.


What does that have to do with anything? Age doesn't lend a document credibility.

But let's back up just so we can avoid any misunderstandings; you mentioned "the accepted methods that historians use to validate the authenticity of ancient documents"; can you tell us which methods you had in mind? Maybe you could just give us a quick bullet list so we understand where you're coming from, and so we understand exactly what sort of evidence you think the Bible has going for it.

That's why I posted my three page report. It'll take you 5 or 10 minutes to read and it'll explain things as thoughly as I'm able to explain it. I realize on message boards that's a long freakin time to be reading but if we were in the real world, it would be the length of a magazine article. If the story of Jesus is true then we're talking about life and death and it's imperative that the points are fleshed out and clear. I don't think devoting 5-10 minutes of your time is too much to ask. And yes, for historians age of the document is critical in determining authenticity

 

[adi2d]

The truth is - I do not weigh 125 pounds.

Now - I can say I do. I can believe I do. I can tell you that I do. I can tell you that I've had a personal realization that I indeed to weigh 125 pounds.

That doesn't change the fact that I don't.

I'm new to this but I thought all girls on the we were 5'2" 125lbs and 20 something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why I posted my three page report. It'll take you 5 or 10 minutes to read and it'll explain things as thoughly as I'm able to explain it. I realize on message boards that's a long freakin time to be reading but if we were in the real world, it would be the length of a magazine article. If the story of Jesus is true then we're talking about life and death and it's imperative that the points are fleshed out and clear. I don't think devoting 5-10 minutes of your time is too much to ask. And yes, for historians age of the document is critical in determining authenticity

Your report doesn't answer what I asked.

For the time being, I'm not asking for your explanation of how the accounts of Jesus meet the requirements of the historical methods you mentioned. Right now, all I'd like to find out is what those methods are. Are you talking about, for instance, multiple independent attestation? Archaeological corroboration? I can think of a few criteria that might fit the bill for what you're talking about, but I don't think many of them, if any, are met by the Gospels.

Can you tell us which methods you were referring to when you talked about "accepted methods"? You presumably had something specific in mind when you wrote that, didn't you?

BTW - I like your new expression "indirect eyewitness testimony". I think the traditional term for this form of testimony is "hearsay".

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Your report doesn't answer what I asked.

For the time being, I'm not asking for your explanation of how the accounts of Jesus meet the requirements of the historical methods you mentioned. Right now, all I'd like to find out is what those methods are. Are you talking about, for instance, multiple independent attestation? Archaeological corroboration? I can think of a few criteria that might fit the bill for what you're talking about, but I don't think many of them, if any, are met by the Gospels.

Can you tell us which methods you were referring to when you talked about "accepted methods"? You presumably had something specific in mind when you wrote that, didn't you?

BTW - I like your new expression "indirect eyewitness testimony". I think the traditional term for this form of testimony is "hearsay".

Number of existing copies, lack of contradiction among the copies, distance between the time the events took place and the time they were recorded, sources outside the original source which corroborates the story, an understanding of an "oral culture",

 

[adi2d]

So - no matter what a person believes, it's valid and true - is that what you're saying?

If a person believes that Odin told them to cut their baby's head off - is that true and valid? If they do it, are they right in doing so? If they don't do it, are they being untrue to themselves and their own beliefs?

I don't have to go far back in history to find a Christian that heard god tell them to kill their kids. How far back for an Odin supporter?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As far as indirect witnesses go, that's what judges in a court of law become when they give a ruling. We have no problem allowing them to sentence people to death upon the information they got from the eyewitnesses. The point is that when all the arguments I made are put together it makes a pretty compelling argument

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Number of existing copies, lack of contradiction among the copies,

These support the claim that the original source was transmitted faithfully, not that the original source is true.

However, that being said, I take it from this that you reject the longer ending of Mark, right?

distance between the time the events took place and the time they were recorded,

This seems to me to be a criterion that speaks against the truth of the Gospel story, not for it.

sources outside the original source which corroborates the story,

Again: this is one that's a point against the Gospel story. No contemporary outside sources at all, and only one independent source that mentions anything about Jesus at all decades later, and even then it's not much: just Josephus' offhand remark about "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ." (note: not the Testimonium Flavianum, since it's a later Christian insertion and not an independent source).

Also, we're lacking any outside info on points where there should be plenty of documentation, particularly Herod's slaughter of all the infant boys in Judea and the zombie invasion of Jerusalem. A rebellious itinerant preacher might be missed by the historians; these sorts of events shouldn't have been.

an understanding of an "oral culture",

What does this mean?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as indirect witnesses go, that's what judges in a court of law become when they give a ruling.

No, they're not witnesses at all. They're judges.

We have no problem allowing them to sentence people to death upon the information they got from the eyewitnesses.

Actually, I probably would. Eyewitness testimony is some of the most unreliable testimony. Forensic evidence doesn't lie; people sometimes do. We also tend to give it more weight than it really deserves.

The point is that when all the arguments I made are put together it makes a pretty compelling argument

Out of curiosity, do you believe in alien abduction as well?

I mean, there are many people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Even though they're in different places, their stories generally agree on the key details. And you don't have to worry about faithfulness of the transmission of their accounts or problems with oral history; many of the people are alive today, so you could talk to them yourself if you wanted to.

It seems to me that based on the criteria you describe, it's more reasonable to believe in alien abductions than the Gospel story. So... do you?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

These support the claim that the original source was transmitted faithfully, not that the original source is true.

However, that being said, I take it from this that you reject the longer ending of Mark, right?


This seems to me to be a criterion that speaks against the truth of the Gospel story, not for it.


Again: this is one that's a point against the Gospel story. No contemporary outside sources at all, and only one independent source that mentions anything about Jesus at all decades later, and even then it's not much: just Josephus' offhand remark about "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ." (note: not the Testimonium Flavianum, since it's a later Christian insertion and not an independent source).

Also, we're lacking any outside info on points where there should be plenty of documentation, particularly Herod's slaughter of all the infant boys in Judea and the zombie invasion of Jerusalem. A rebellious itinerant preacher might be missed by the historians; these sorts of events shouldn't have been.


What does this mean?

The Talmud, which called him a sorcerer, and The Antiquites mention him. The point about the oral culture is that special emphasis was paid to transpitting stories orally unlike anything we know today. Rabbis would commit the entire Old Testament to memory. Again the point was that using scholar's accepted methods of determining historical accuracy of documents, the NT passes with flying colors. I didn't say it would pass your personal methods for determing the authenticity of ancient documents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Talmud, which called him a sorcerer,

Does it? Can you give the specific reference?

and The Antiquites mention him.

I touched on that. There are two references in Josephus:

- the main one (the "Testimonium Flavianum") is a later insertion.
- the other one is an offhand remark that doesn't say anything other than that Jesus "was called the Christ".

And Antiquities was written 60 years after Jesus' supposed death. It isn't a contemporary source.

The point about the oral culture is that special emphasis was paid to transpitting stories orally unlike anything we know today. Rabbis would commit the entire Old Testament to memory.

Wait - so you're rejecting the two-source hypothesis, i.e. the main hypothesis accepted by Biblical scholars? I mean, inherent in this hypothesis is the idea that the Gospels weren't transmitted entirely faithfully... that the Gospels we have now are a mish-mash of different sources.

Again the point was that using scholar's accepted methods of determining historical accuracy of documents, the NT passes with flying colors. I didn't say it would pass your personal methods for determing the authenticity of ancient documents.

But it seems to me that you don't actually follow "accepted methods".

And my personal determination of authenticity is what's going to matter if we're talking about whether I should base my entire worldview on the Gospels, isn't it?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Does it? Can you give the specific reference?


I touched on that. There are two references in Josephus:

- the main one (the "Testimonium Flavianum") is a later insertion.
- the other one is an offhand remark that doesn't say anything other than that Jesus "was called the Christ".

And Antiquities was written 60 years after Jesus' supposed death. It isn't a contemporary source.


Wait - so you're rejecting the two-source hypothesis, i.e. the main hypothesis accepted by Biblical scholars? I mean, inherent in this hypothesis is the idea that the Gospels weren't transmitted entirely faithfully... that the Gospels we have now are a mish-mash of different sources.


But it seems to me that you don't actually follow "accepted methods".

And my personal determination of authenticity is what's going to matter if we're talking about whether I should base my entire worldview on the Gospels, isn't it?

How have I not followed accepting methods? I spent three pages explaining these methods and how the NT qualifies. The whole point is that some people are imposing requirements be satisfied that scholars don't impose on other works of antiquity

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How have I not followed accepting methods? I spent three pages explaining these methods and how the NT qualifies.

No, you didn't. Simply saying that they're met isn't explaining how they're met.

The whole point is that some people are imposing requirements be satisfied that scholars don't impose on other works of antiquity

But they're in keeping with the standard the Bible gives for itself. If Homer wasn't a real person and someone else wrote the Iliad, who really cares? The beauty of the Iliad is intrinsic in the poem itself; it doesn't depend on who wrote it. We don't care about the Iliad and the Oddyssey because we think Homer wrote it; we care about Homer because we think he wrote the Iliad and the Oddyssey.

In contrast, as Paul points out in the Epistles, if Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, then all of Christianity is in vain.

If we're wrong about Homer, we still have wonderful poems. If we're wrong about Jesus, then Christianity loses its foundation.

I think Homer may have been a real historical figure, but I don't actually care much either way. If that's all you want me to think of Jesus, then fine - we can hold him to the same standard as Homer. But if you want me to think of Jesus as something more, then we need to ask more of the evidence.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

No, they're not witnesses at all. They're judges.


?

Precisely my point. We trust their judgments after they've listened to the person who actually witnessed the event firsthand