Merged: Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Seem to agree with you on everything above, so am just replying to this. Why is Matthew's dating better? It isn't to any significant degree, but the fact that Luke's account seems to place it during Herod's rein makes me think that both authors reckon that was about the time he was born. Even with the wildly divergent accounts, they both seem to think that Herod was around at the time.

Despite coming in here claiming that your Historical Method™ was the be-all and end-all in terms of sorting fact from fiction you have at least as many vague, wishy-washy opinions about the way things 'seem' as DOC, Geisler, Turek and Sir Ramsay.

Originally Posted by phelix

Of course, this isn't "proof". It's not even a convincing argument, but Jesus had to be born at some time, and why suppose he was born 2AD and both authors somehow managed to get every detail wrong, rather suppose he was born 5BC and they got the basic timescale correct?

Why suppose anything at all? What does the evidence say and when will you be presenting it?

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

No, it is much less than that. I think it is likely that John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. I think it is likely that John the Baptist new Jesus. I also think that the reason stated for John's execution in the gospels (he had questioned the legitimacy of Herod's marriage) is more likely than the reason given by Josephus (he had many followers and was seen as a threat).

"Likely" isn't evidence.


GB

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Hence your circular argument. Adding some woolly phrasing and extra words don't give much cover to your circular reasoning.

How is the reasoning circular? It involves identifying the nature of the sources > Applying the historical method > Finding the sources are often insufficient to warrant belief. This is the standard approach when trying to ascertain historical facts.

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Your continuation of this False Dichotomy and the Straw Man after it has been called out, either displays dishonesty on your part, or your inability to follow logic.


GB

The false dichotomy was called out as the possibility that faking history 2 or 3 sources back would not be identified by the nature of the writing we have. I accept that, but the argument still applies to the original source of the fake, even if all we have is commentary on this fake.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

We have done a few cases before. I have said what my position on most will be (sticking with the majority, but more towards the liberal/skeptical).

The accounts of the resurrection are likely all false. There is possibly something to be gained from the empty tomb claim though. The four sources available disagree on who, when and why, but all reckon that a woman/women discovered an empty tomb. The differences in the stories rules out collaboration, so it seems all the authors reckon that a female found an empty tomb.
I cannot argue that this is a claim with any probable basis in fact, because it fits the story so nicely. Maybe a woman found an empty tomb because she went to the wrong one? Maybe a woman found the tomb empty because the body had been stolen? Maybe a woman dreamt about the tomb being empty, told her husband, and the whole thing got wildly overblown. All possible, none beats the others for probability. Of course there is one possibility that can be ruled out, and that is the resurrection, because historians are not allowed to draw on supernatural explanations when natural ones are present.
But past that, we just cannot say with any confidence one way or the other.

We can confidently say that you have provided no evidence for the veracity of the NT or the historicity of Jesus.

GB

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

... but Jesus had to be born at some time,

Not if he didn't exist.


GB

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

The main problem here, is that the "Accredited" Bible Scholars who disagree with your "Accredited" Bible Scholars, are more right than yours to point out that Jesus is a myth, even if they are wrong on the details.

And the "Accredited" Bible Scholars you agree with (some of whom I like too), are wrong to use the Bible as evidence of Jesus' historicity, or as evidence of the veracity of the NT.

You do not need to put accredited in quotation marks. I suspect you have done that so as to put the people who doubt Jesus' existence (none of whom are able to get jobs at accredited universities, contrary to your previous incorrect claim) in the same category as those who do not.

If the only people to have been right are the ones who are unable to fit into academia, then this unusual fact would need to be accounted for.

I am totally ok with your point of view that the sources in the NT cannot be used for historical analysis. It is just that doing this would wipe out a large chunk of history, and I do not want to do that.

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Sorry, you don't get to set up the rules of debate on this thread. You asked for Biblical Scholars from "Accredited" Universities who don't believe in the Historicity of Jesus. And Akhenaten was nice enough to provide you a list.

I provided a list of several Philosophers of Religion, and a number of Biblical Scholars who started out as avid Christians who became Atheists and Agnostics; and who question whether Jesus actually existed.

Some of those had a hard time letting go, and still look for the elusive "Historical Jesus." But most of them know there really is no "Historical Jesus," so they are very careful not to stick their heads out too far (all those probablies, maybes, and most likelies). The Biblical Scholars you hold so dear, play similar word games.

And no, you are not being "nitpicky." You are being flat out dishonest.

Your "clearly defined scope" is nothing more than a sham to cover up the fact that you can't provide a Comprehensive list of Every Single Bible Scholar (in the world) from an "Accredited" University and poll their views. I know you can't do that, and YOU know you can't do that.

If you admitted that fact, you'd have to retract your unsupported and sweeping assertions. The fact that you continue to bluster and play the martyr card after we have called your bluff, demonstrates your dishonesty.

GB

I cannot provide a list of every single bible scholar in the world, correct...
I don't really see what your argument is from that.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

"Likely" isn't evidence.


GB

Correct. Likely is a conclusion. We use history to find what likely happened at any given time.

[nvidiot]

I'm not sure why but you seem to have inadvertently missed responding to this phelix...

Quote:

And another thing whilst I'm sufficiently annoyed by brain dead customers to have the balls to say it out loud, you seem to have the strange idea that lying for jeebus isn't a common, everyday occurrence by people who may well be very sincere in their belief. I can assure you that if there is any chance of ingratiation with a supernatural (in other words, non-existent) being by spreading the word through "economical truth distribution, there will be many who will think it their duty to do so.

Put more politely now that I am home and have my cats in a suitably worshipping position around my person: You are aware that people are white happy to lie for religion to "spread the word"? In fact this seems to be a disturbingly common event.

Shouldn't that make you perhaps a little bit, dare I say it, skeptical about the tales told by the anonymous writers of the synoptic gospels?

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Actually it is an extremely productive request. The fact that you can't back up your assertion with a poll of ALL "Accredited" Biblical Scholars demonstrates that your bluff has been successfully called.

Are you actually serious? The fact that nobody is able to find a counterexample is not a sufficient reason to think the claim is probably correct?
There seems to be an underlying idea that only mathematical or logical proofs constitute sufficient reason to believe something. If there is the possibility of a counterexample, even if nobody has been able to find one (and finding one would probably be easy) then the claim can be totally dismissed.

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

It's in inverted commas to demonstrate that your bogus attempt to so narrowly define Biblical Scholarship is a fallacy, designed to allow you to discount any Biblical Scholars which don't agree with you.

It's not really that narrow. It's very common for biblical scholars to teach, and publish in peer reviewed journals.

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

None of which counts as evidence for the veracity of the NT and the Historicity of Jesus.


GB

What exactly would you consider to be "evidence for the veracity of the NT"? The veracity of the any source at all cannot be established unless it says nothing new. Does the fact that the gospels expand on Josephus' information regarding John the Baptist have any sway? Or do we say that Josephus is informative while the gospels are not.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

I am totally ok with your point of view that the sources in the NT cannot be used for historical analysis. It is just that doing this would wipe out a large chunk of history, and I do not want to do that.

Why?

Quote:

I cannot provide a list of every single bible scholar in the world, correct...
I don't really see what your argument is from that.

You are deliberately being obtuse. Provide a Poll or retract your bogus claim.

GB

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

You do not need to put accredited in quotation marks. I suspect you have done that so as to put the people who doubt Jesus' existence (none of whom are able to get jobs at accredited universities, contrary to your previous incorrect claim) in the same category as those who do not.

I see it as more of a nod to your use of the term "accredited" to mean "people of whom phelix approves".

Originally Posted by phelix

If the only people to have been right are the ones who are unable to fit into academia, then this unusual fact would need to be accounted for.

No.

Originally Posted by phelix

I am totally ok with your point of view that the sources in the NT cannot be used for historical analysis.

In other words there is no evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Let DOC know, will you?

Originally Posted by phelix

It is just that doing this would wipe out a large chunk of history, and I do not want to do that.

If the sources in the NT are the only sources, and they can't be used for historical analysis, then what is it exactly that constitutes this large chunk of history that you're so attached to?

Originally Posted by phelix

I cannot provide a list of every single bible scholar in the world, correct...
I don't really see what your argument is from that.

That turn about is fair play and you should probably stop making similar demands for lists of people that fit into your arbitrarily decided categories.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

Correct. Likely is a conclusion. We use history to find what likely happened at any given time.

"Likely" isn't a conclusion. "Likely" is a weasel word people use when they don't have evidence.

You need a better dictionary.


GB

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by phelix

Are you actually serious? The fact that nobody is able to find a counterexample is not a sufficient reason to think the claim is probably correct?
There seems to be an underlying idea that only mathematical or logical proofs constitute sufficient reason to believe something. If there is the possibility of a counterexample, even if nobody has been able to find one (and finding one would probably be easy) then the claim can be totally dismissed.



It's not really that narrow. It's very common for biblical scholars to teach, and publish in peer reviewed journals.


What exactly would you consider to be "evidence for the veracity of the NT"? The veracity of the any source at all cannot be established unless it says nothing new. Does the fact that the gospels expand on Josephus' information regarding John the Baptist have any sway? Or do we say that Josephus is informative while the gospels are not.

The gospels are not informative,just stories.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

I'm not sure why but you seem to have inadvertently missed responding to this phelix...



Put more politely now that I am home and have my cats in a suitably worshipping position around my person: You are aware that people are white happy to lie for religion to "spread the word"? In fact this seems to be a disturbingly common event.

Shouldn't that make you perhaps a little bit, dare I say it, skeptical about the tales told by the anonymous writers of the synoptic gospels?

Terribly sorry. I do actually remember reading that, so I don't know why I didn't respond. I usually just ignore some of the less productive comments.

People are quite happy to lie for Jesus yes. When analysing various stories, this has to be remembered. "lying" is a positive claim though, so it is preferable to use the word "wrong" in many cases. Did Jesus walk on water? No, and it's unlikely that anyone could be fooled into thinking he did, so this is likely a lie (at some point, possibly by the authors). Did people see Jesus after he had died? No, and lying about this seems possible, but it is quite likely that some grieving people thought they had seen him, so I would be happier saying this isn't a lie, but it is wrong.
Also remember that "lying for Jesus" wouldn't be the same sort of thing that would be going on if every source for the existence of Jesus involved faking. "Lying for Jesus" becomes morally acceptable if the person believes it will lead to salvation. To lie for the existence of Jesus wouldn't be that easy, and the original liars would likely be turning against whichever gods they genuinely believed in.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by dafydd

The gospels are not informative,just stories.

In large part yes. Would you consider the example I gave of John the Baptist one in which the gospels probably provide extra historical information?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Not if he didn't exist.


GB

I'm not sure that we're accredited to suggest that possibility.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Correct. Likely is a conclusion. We use history to find what likely happened at any given time.

What a load of cobblers.

"Likely" is no more than the sum of all your "maybes".

History is a collation of the evidence.

Got any?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by phelix

Correct. Likely is a conclusion. We use history to find what likely happened at any given time.

Likely also IMPLY that there is a chance it did not happen. It does not mean sure-fire-100%-undubitable-everybody-saying-it-did-not-happen-is-a-crackpot.

Heck, WW2 *DID* happen. JEsus Christ LIKELY existed.

Grasp the difference ?

I have YET to find you or DOC or anybody using that word ready to admit that indeed the existence of Jesus was not PROVED, but is only LIKELY.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Likely also IMPLY that there is a chance it did not happen. It does not mean sure-fire-100%-undubitable-everybody-saying-it-did-not-happen-is-a-crackpot.

Heck, WW2 *DID* happen. JEsus Christ LIKELY existed.

Grasp the difference ?

I have YET to find you or DOC or anybody using that word ready to admit that indeed the existence of Jesus was not PROVED, but is only LIKELY.

Then consider this an admission. That is all I have ever been aiming to argue for.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

What exactly would you consider to be "evidence for the veracity of the NT"? The veracity of the any source at all cannot be established unless it says nothing new. Does the fact that the gospels expand on Josephus' information regarding John the Baptist have any sway? Or do we say that Josephus is informative while the gospels are not.

You seem to have completely misunderstood the whole point of this thread.

The OP claimed a number of things as evidence that the NT is true, and most especially that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected as decribed in the gospels.

It is the majority view here that this is fish piss and we have, for the last 20000-odd posts, been asking to see the evidence on which one might legitimately make a claims for NT truthiness.

Do you have evidence that the life and times of the Jesus as described in the gospels constitute a true story? Do you have evidence that Jesus performed miracles? Do you have evidence of Jesus' resurrection? Do you have evidence, in short, that Jesus is who and what christianity claims him to be?

Do you have evidence that will convince the participants in this thread that the New Testament belongs in the non-fiction section at the library?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

In large part yes. Would you consider the example I gave of John the Baptist one in which the gospels probably provide extra historical information?

What the hell is this fixation with John the Baptist all about?

It's starting to to look as though your answer to the question "Were the NT writers telling the truth?" is a fairly confident "Well, there was this one time . . ."

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Likely also IMPLY that there is a chance it did not happen. It does not mean sure-fire-100%-undubitable-everybody-saying-it-did-not-happen-is-a-crackpot.

Heck, WW2 *DID* happen. JEsus Christ LIKELY existed.

Grasp the difference ?

I have YET to find you or DOC or anybody using that word ready to admit that indeed the existence of Jesus was not PROVED, but is only LIKELY.

I think you're all tearing a bit too harsh on phelix. He's no DOC. I mean, there are three basic positions on Jesus you have to distinguish.

1) The NT is the inerrant, infallible word on Jesus Christ. Mind the Christ bit. Everything in the NT is true, especially the supernatural stuff like the Resurrection. This is DOC's position, and Geisler's, and William Ramsay's and of all those other liars for Jeebus. "Liar" here is appropriate, as they willfully lie and twist and mince words to turn the contradictions in the gospels into confirming each other.

2) Historical Jesus: There's a kernel of truth in the NT, Jesus was a historical person; but apart from his baptism, his being an itinerant preacher, and his crucifixion, there's not much true, the rest is myth - especially all the supernatural stuff. No Resurrection, no Son of God, so no "Christ". This is phelix' position and of most biblical scholars. The fun begins of course when you ask them which sayings and parables of Jesus were truly his or not - then there aren't two with the same opinion on the whole set.

3) Jesus Myth: The NT is made up out of whole cloth and is myth; there never was historical person on whom all the stories were modeled at all.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by phelix

Then consider this an admission. That is all I have ever been aiming to argue for.

If this what you aimed for you took a poor way. You started by saying atheist were dogmatic, you asked people to provide people with acredited university saying the contrary. Etc...

Well sorry, but once you see that it is only likely, and you realize that some of the criteria would give FALSE positive on fiction books, then you quickly come to realize it isn't a 99% chance either.

Now how far down the rabit hole are you ready to accompagny us ?

ETA: what you need to realize is that there are no evidence, only very weak indication. And that the likeliness of the existence of Jesus is assumed by scholar to be high, ONLY because there are many of such weak indication. Heck some of those weak indication indicate a false positive as said previously when used on a work of fiction.

The "Jesus likely existed" isn't so strong as you think.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by phelix

Then consider this an admission. That is all I have ever been aiming to argue for.

In that case, your sights are in need of some adjustment. For example:

Originally Posted by phelix

It is the other way around. The accuracy of some parts of the NT is why we know Jesus knew John the Baptist.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by ddt

3) Jesus Myth: The NT is made up out of whole cloth and is myth; there never was historical person on whom all the stories were modeled at all.

If I remember other poster , this is actually not the only Jesus-Myth hypothesis (was it Kapyong?). Another one is that "he" was modelled after a mix of many persons as a sort of archetype, another is that it is a merging of previously known myth and a retelling. I am not sure if I am saying that correctely.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

If this what you aimed for you took a poor way. You started by saying atheist were dogmatic, you asked people to provide people with acredited university saying the contrary. Etc...

Well sorry, but once you see that it is only likely, and you realize that some of the criteria would give FALSE positive on fiction books, then you quickly come to realize it isn't a 99% chance either.

Now how far down the rabiit hole are you ready to accompagny us ?

With regards to dogmatic atheism, that was a comment on the rampant response I got in comparison with my posting on other threads. That atheists often defend this fringe theory to the death can feel like one is up against dogma, even though a shrug of the shoulders and "ok, Jesus probably existed" changes absolutely nothing about the probable non-existence of God.

I don't get what you mean when you say Jesus' existence was "only likely". Isn't that sufficient? it has no major implications, just as the likely existence of anyone else from the time period changes nothing.
If a letter is found from, say, 20AD, which says "yesterday I went round to Joseph the tax collectors house and we ate some tasty tasty unleavened bread". I would say ok, there likely was a tax collector called Joseph... The letter could be faked, so I am not sure, but vehemently denying the existence of Joseph the tax collector seems a bit of a pointless and unwarranted stance to take.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

In that case, your sights are in need of some adjustment. For example:

I guess you're implying that something can only be known if it can be proven? That's really just a philosophical game that I am not interested in playing.

[Aepervius]

If you poll the people on this thread, my gut feeling is that you would find that we would not care either way (whether he existed or not) and that most would say he likely existed, but there are no real evidence of it.

The battle which was fought ehre was not a battle against "jesus" but against the improper assertion that preacher like DOC come and state like "the NT writer told the truth" aka, to take DDT list, the population corresponding to criteria #1.

Frankly if tomorrow a tomb with an incription 2000 year old saying "jesus christ was here" and some indubitable archeological evidence was found, it would change nothing in my life, as you admitted this would change nothing about the made up story and myth.

On the other hand even if a tomb and the indubittable evidence was found, it does not change that apologist, geisler , sir ramsey and DOClike are using poor reasonning, bad logic, non sequitur, and worst. That is what is fought. Not Christianity but the utter badlerdash non-reason.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by phelix

from the time period changes nothing.
If a letter is found from, say, 20AD, which says "yesterday I went round to Joseph the tax collectors house and we ate some tasty tasty unleavened bread". I would say ok, there likely was a tax collector called Joseph... The letter could be faked, so I am not sure, but vehemently denying the existence of Joseph the tax collector seems a bit of a pointless and unwarranted stance to take.

If it is a letter incidentally found, yes that would be unwarranted. But the bible isn't a letter randomly found. And that is where the whole edifice fall down on its face.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

If it is a letter incidentally found, yes that would be unwarranted. But the bible isn't a letter randomly found. And that is where the whole edifice fall down on its face.

Apart from the 8 letters that were randomly found...

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by phelix

Apart from the 8 letters that were randomly found...

Which letter are you speaking of ? I think we are very quickly going to disagree on what is considered random here.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Which letter are you speaking of ? I think we are very quickly going to disagree on what is considered random here.

I know, I was being a bit flippant. I was referring to the 7 undisputed Pauline Epistles, and included Colossians as well, which could well be genuine. Would you say the degree of randomness involved with finding these letters is an important factor regarding the likely truth of any off the cuff comments found within? (comments such as the eating bread with Joseph the Tax Collector one I made up above.)

[Aepervius]

Not that is not what I would call random letter. That what I would call part of the NT.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Not that is not what I would call random letter. That what I would call part of the NT.

would you say this distinction is a profound one?

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by ddt

I think you're all tearing a bit too harsh on phelix. He's no DOC.

No, I actually prefer DOC. DOC may have presented pitiful excuse of so called evidence that was debunked in 30 seconds or just flat out lies for jesus but at least he produces something.

Phelix on the other hand posted 0 evidence so far.

DOC may have posted various appologetic crappy sources that were easily debunked as crap or flat out lying for jesus, but at least he gives some sources and their reasoning (even though he doesn't bother reading them).

Phelix keeps rambling on, but has again presented 0 arguments from his sources.

I actually prefer DOC

[phelix]

I'm not really sure which claims you want sources for?
If you read "The New Testament: A historical introduction" by Bart Ehrman and "A Marginal Jew" by John Meier you will have read most of the claims I am likely to make. The rest is just a defence of the historical method.

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by phelix

No. It was a Jewish rabbi and commentator. As far as I'm aware he did not attempt to rewrite the story with his conclusion included as definitive. You would have done better to choose the story about the adulterous woman, which WAS added later. Naturally, various historical techniques identified this.

No, you would have done better to understand the example.
This particular chosing is a good one because it is done by a person writing an addition to an existing story and we know for a fact who said it and that he wrote hit many many many years after the original was written.

Clearly, he added the reasoning of why the bears were sent. He is adding facts to what one might percieve as history.

This is the form of fan fiction that religion has been using for years.

For example, on Moses's birth it is said that his mother thought he was "good".
Rashi said that when he was born, the entire room was filled with light.
Raba on the other hand, said that Moses was born prematurely and thus his mother was surprised he was even alive (read: good).

Both of these rabbies are basically adding facts to a known story.

No conspiracy involved period.
The stories expanded on the existing "gospel" while getting some details similiar and some details different.

None of this requires moses or elisha to have been a real people at all.

Originally Posted by phelix

2) correct. 3) it seems likely that he did.


You're really introducing an unreasonable level of doubt, that would get us to the point of saying "we cannot know anything about minor historical figures". History has to work with what its given, and find out what is probably true.

On the contrary. It's exactly a reasonable level of doubt.
We have real life people today where we still question whether or not they really believe their crap or are just making it up.
Heck, we even have Poe's law.

If for something that happens in modern times you have far better information and documentation and still can't deduce it, you don't get to magically claim to do so when there are even less evidence involved.

If you can't tell if Rashi was really trying, at the very least, to teach other people what he thought was real history, then you can't do that on the writings of the NT. It really is that simple.

Originally Posted by phelix

Number 3 seems incredibly unlikely, partly because they would all require similar sources and all be aware these sources are fabricated

Does it matter if Rashi knows if the bible is forged or not to write his fan fiction?

Originally Posted by phelix

, but mostly because, when you come across multiple independent sources, the chance that "they're all lying" just isn't one historians bother with.

Exactly. Remember I mentioned the writings on Omri several pages ago?
That's an independant source. The NT is not an independant source.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

No, you would have done better to understand the example.
This particular chosing is a good one because it is done by a person writing an addition to an existing story and we know for a fact who said it and that he wrote hit many many many years after the original was written.

Clearly, he added the reasoning of why the bears were sent. He is adding facts to what one might percieve as history.

Did he try to pretend that his additions were present in the original story? That would be the most important part.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

For example, on Moses's birth it is said that his mother thought he was "good".
Rashi said that when he was born, the entire room was filled with light.
Raba on the other hand, said that Moses was born prematurely and thus his mother was surprised he was even alive (read: good).

Both of these rabbies are basically adding facts to a known story.

Well no they appear to be providing commentaries. That's hardly the same as altering a story. I do think the stories were altered in numerous ways but this is a terrible example.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

No conspiracy involved period.
The stories expanded on the existing "gospel" while getting some details similiar and some details different.

Where the commentaries ever successfully passed off as present in the original? Also the gospels do not come from one source.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

On the contrary. It's exactly a reasonable level of doubt.
We have real life people today where we still question whether or not they really believe their crap or are just making it up.
Heck, we even have Poe's law.

If for something that happens in modern times you have far better information and documentation and still can't deduce it, you don't get to magically claim to do so when there are even less evidence involved.

I don't consider a reasonable level of doubt to be one which necessitates dismissal of so much history. I do not claim to be able to deduce what definitely happened. You rightly say that this cannot be done even for much modern history. But even with less and less evidence we can still say what probably happened.

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

Exactly. Remember I mentioned the writings on Omri several pages ago?
That's an independant source. The NT is not an independant source.

Correct. The NT is multiple independent sources.

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by phelix

This isn't my argument. We use historical analysis on the various sources contained in the NT because some of them constitute historical sources.

What we care about is why you call them "historical sources".
In other words, what makes you say that the NT is not fiction.

You claimed to use the historical method and other crap such as emberassing details to say which parts of the NT aren't fiction.

That is circular argument. But let's assume you are taking it back now.
What we want to know is what makes you say "some of them constitute historical sources".

Originally Posted by phelix

The NT is not historical because we use historical analysis on it. Parts of it are historical because their presentation would lead us to certain conclusions around their origin.

You do realize to that as skeptics we don't just take up stuff because it is convinient?

Sure, the sound of an after life might sound "nice" or "comfurting" but without evidence to back it up it's crap.

Just because you don't have sufficient evidence doesn't mean you get to guess around without anything to back it up.

Guess what? We'll probably never know how the first caveman called himself unless we invent a time machine. If we do great, if we don't, the proper thing to do is to say "we don't know" and move on.

Originally Posted by phelix

As mentioned, it is possible that a group of authors all decided to fake history, but this possibility isn't one that historians typically consider to have much import. For a start, it doesn't tell us anything.

How much it tells you is of no relavence what so ever.

Basically you're saying, a person was murdered. We don't have evidence for who is the killer, so let's just say X did it. Cause otherwise who else are we going to blame?

Originally Posted by phelix

It's the end of the search. Saying "every source is faked" is to history what "god did it" is to the fossil search. Yes it's possible, but not likely, and not informative.

Sure, every source is fake is quite unlikely. Noticing contemporary stories over a large area about the same individual is quite unlikely.

However, we are not talking about every source here.
We are talking about a book that contains, as you have stated, false supernatural acts. It contains known forgeries and inconsistancies. The people who wrote it had clear cut cases to lie (they were part of a religion). Every other cult\religion in the world is based on the works of liers an it makes sense that christianity follows suite.

In other words, saying that this particualr source is fake is not so unlikely at all. Unless you have some evidence to back it up.

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by phelix

Did he try to pretend that his additions were present in the original story? That would be the most important part.

Yes he did actually. This shows that you haven't spoken to much orthodox jews . They quote his interpertations thinking it's part of the bible.

Whether he meant to or not, people concieve it as actual history.

Originally Posted by phelix

Well no they appear to be providing commentaries. That's hardly the same as altering a story. I do think the stories were altered in numerous ways but this is a terrible example.

Not exactly. Sure they *start* as interpertations of what the word "good" mean, but what they are doing is adding a story to explain it.

That's the difference between "pshat" and "drash"
The "pshat" simply interperted the text, for example Rashbam said on the "good" issue that every mother consider her son to be good.
That is a simple explanation of what the word means.

The "drash" were inventing stories to fill up gaps. I just gave you the brief version. In the longer version, Raba said that moses's mother gave birth to a premature baby. She then talked to her husband who tells her that she should tell the egyptians her son was born dead. Thus she passes their inspection meanwhile sending the child down the nile.

Some of these stories were short, others were quite long.
Either way, this is a writing of a fan fiction story to expand the bible.

Originally Posted by phelix

Where the commentaries ever successfully passed off as present in the original? Also the gospels do not come from one source.

As I said, yes.

Originally Posted by phelix

I don't consider a reasonable level of doubt to be one which necessitates dismissal of so much history. I do not claim to be able to deduce what definitely happened. You rightly say that this cannot be done even for much modern history. But even with less and less evidence we can still say what probably happened.

Actually you can't. To say something is "probable" you are saying that it is happened to a greater possibility.

This is not a word you can toss around without providing evidence for.

And either way, your defense is that basically "if we admit for making this mistake for Jesus, then we have to admit it for a bunch of other people"
is laughable.

Originally Posted by phelix

Correct. The NT is multiple independent sources.