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

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by phelix

You're picking up on certain words rather than addressing the arguments.
With regards to the statements on "claims" and "seems":
Luke claims to have an eyewitness source.

Who does? The author of an anonymous gospel story, that's who.

In the wikipedia article on historical method^WP there is a lot of stress on the need for independent sources. I agree, and it's why using the gospel to prove the truth of the gospel doesn't work.

You stated earlier that the historical method doesn't work for fiction. How did you determine that the gospels weren't fiction, so that you could start using the historical method? This is circular logic.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by phelix

....If you rule out every available source, then how can any argument be made at all?
All I've been doing is applying the historical method to the sources available. What sort of argument would you expect me to make?...

When the sources are at best third-hand hearsay and fanfic, how can you apply the 'historical method'?
There are threads where your contribution would be valued, phelix.
Here, we're intereted in evidence.
edited to add-
carlitos, I've just read the wiki article on the historical method.
Thanks for the link!

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

You're picking up on certain words rather than addressing the arguments.
With regards to the statements on "claims" and "seems":
Luke claims to have an eyewitness source. Indeed he does, right on page one "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"

With seems, my claim was that the stories from source L seem to be public declarations. Indeed they do. For the parable of the prodigal son, the scribes and pharisees are nearby (Luke 15). For the parable of the good samaritan, he is speaking to around 70 people (Luke 10).

Would you dispute either of the claims made?

We dispute that your speculations count as evidence.

Quote:

With regard to probably, I am a-ok with that word.

I feel so sorry for you!

Quote:

All historical evidence ever tells us is what probably happened.

Amazingly enough, ACTUAL evidence can tell us a lot about what ACTUALLY happened.


GB

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by pakeha

carlitos, I've just read the wiki article on the historical method.
Thanks for the link!

You're welcome. While it sounded totally logical that there was a field of knowledge called "the historical method," I confess that I was worried it could be another special pleading apologist tool like "the criterion of embarrassment." It's a good article and I'm pleased to have read it.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Strawman.
Do you understand the difference between a personal letter and a sermon?

Yes, and the pauline epistles were neither.

Originally Posted by pakeha

These aren't personal letters, they're sermons to be read aloud to a congregation.
Big difference.

They are indeed intended to be read out, but this draws very little away from the potential historical value, if anything. We can still conclude that Paul had a follower called Timothy, can we not? We can still conclude that Paul visited Corinth twice, and that there was disorder in the church, can we not?

Originally Posted by pakeha

You'll recall my suggestion these Epistles are NOT a private correspondence.
They are sermons and even contradict Acts, as Ehrman points out.

Correct, they do. This is why I do not think Paul spent much, if any, time with Luke. This is one of the things which strengthens the Timothy point.

Originally Posted by pakeha

Useful?
I think not.

Of course it is useful. You have brought up reasons why the texts are difficult and cannot be accepted at face value. I am not suggesting that no work needs to be done in extracting the likely facts, but this doesn't mean the sources are useless.

Originally Posted by pakeha

But it isn't evidence.
This thread doesn't deal with the early church, in case you hadn't noticed.

I don't understand this. Why are the letters not evidence for some of the things I have mentioned? Also the thread does deal with the early church. The authors in the NT make many claims about the early church.

Originally Posted by pakeha

For propagating and afirming the faith of those of his curch.
In any case, it's nothing near evidence for the truth of the NT, is it.
The history of the early church would be better dealt with in a thread dedicated to that subject.

Right. Exactly what faith in the church would be affirmed by, say Acts 18:12-18? An unimportant story in which Jews are angry at Paul and nothing at all happens, but which uses the correct terminology (proconsul) for the politician involved?

Originally Posted by pakeha

It seems likely?
Please stick to the subject of the thread.

I don't get why likely isn't good enough. I am unable to say "definitely" just as I am unable to say this about practically all ancient history. Is the John the Baptist case not one in which it the NT writers probably told the truth in some part?

Originally Posted by pakeha

Is this really the best you can offer by way of evidence the NT writers were telling the truth?
Speculation, inference and supposition?
I think you'd be better off in the threads which deal in those things.
This one deals with evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.
Over 500 pages.
No evidence.

No no I don't think that the L source has any bearing on the validity of some of the NT claims. I cannot even remember why it was brought up. As I've said though, the evidence comes from applying the historical method to the sources available.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by SezMe

I'll step on a bit Carlitos' toes with this post but the highlighted parts are where you keep going off the rails.

So we're in a culture of oral tradition. Not many literates are around but everybody likes a good story. Good story tellers like a good, admiring audience...and maybe he can convince the rubes that he's really special. So, over time, the story gets, well, embellished just a tad. It's not a lie, mind you, but there's definitely some, er, spin, to use a modern term. One very likely type of spin is claiming to more closely connected to the main characters in the story than is actually the case. Exhibit A is: "Hey, I really knew that guy."

So, when we flog the "evidence" dead horse and you keep giving us stories such as the above, it is hard to understand why you remain so obdurate.

I don't get it. I don't think Luke knew an eyewitness so how is this so important.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by phelix

I don't get it. I don't think Luke "anonymous" knew an eyewitness so how is this so important.

1 - fixed.

2 - Your opinion regarding the eyewitness is noted. Now, do you have any evidence to share?

3 - Careful with missing the question mark on that last post; it's a "DOC" tell.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by phelix

For that reason, I think it's likely that an unnamed source (or sources) for Luke claimed to be an eyewitness.

Originally Posted by phelix

I don't get it. I don't think Luke knew an eyewitness so how is this so important.

Can you rectify these two statements?

In addition, your second statement suggests that the author of Luke was a single person. Has that been reliably established?

[phelix]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Who does? The author of an anonymous gospel story, that's who.

Correct. Can we refer to him (or her) as Luke though, for the sake of ease?

Originally Posted by carlitos

In the wikipedia article on historical method^WP there is a lot of stress on the need for independent sources. I agree, and it's why using the gospel to prove the truth of the gospel doesn't work.

That's why it is useful to sift the sources into their likely constituent parts. What probably had origin in Mark, what probably had origin in Q, what probably had origin in L, where the infancy narratives came from, which stories Paul was aware of, etc. Using any one gospel is not very good practice, and I doubt anyone would be comfortable with saying that evidence from one gospel alone would be enough to warrant belief in a story.

Originally Posted by carlitos

You stated earlier that the historical method doesn't work for fiction. How did you determine that the gospels weren't fiction, so that you could start using the historical method? This is circular logic.

I don't think they're fiction for many reasons. The cross-source agreement, and presentation of history, of the gospels, is enough for me. With Acts, there is a fair amount of historical accuracy in the less important stories. With the Pauline epistles, they are letters to the early church communities, so will likely have some historic worth.
Could these things have been fiction? Yes. Could someone have written down a load of made up letters to made up places for no apparent reason as someone implied above? Yes. Could all of the gospels been working off a single source of complete fiction with the authors all thought was fact, but which they radically altered to make versions they preferred? Yes.
But none of these things are likely, and all of them are special pleading, appealing to a possibility which we have no real reason to adopt, and which would defeat the historical pursuit.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

No that's nonsense. Try proving the validity of the battle of hastings sources... without using the battle of hastings sources...
If you rule out every available source, then how can any argument be made at all?

You really ARE worse than DOC! We expect that sort of ridiculous conflation from him, so it's not so shocking, coming from him.

Quote:

All I've been doing is applying the historical method to the sources available. What sort of argument would you expect me to make?

One with evidence.

Quote:

We're back to using the word "cherry pick" again. History is not cherry-picking. It is method to find what is likely to not be true (Jesus saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone") and finding what is likely to be true (John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan).

YOU are cherry picking. And History is not a method; history is what we have when we have multiple available sources (not in a compilation) and physical evidence.


GB

[phelix]

Originally Posted by SezMe

Can you rectify these two statements?

In addition, your second statement suggests that the author of Luke was a single person. Has that been reliably established?

The two statements do not contradict each other. 1) Luke believed he had an eyewitness (or was willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt.) 2) He actually did not.

The author of Luke was indeed a single person. The writing style, theology, and word usage is consistent throughout. Furthermore this consistency continues into Acts, and both books are written to Theophilus, so both have the same author.

NB: I started my GCSE religious studies essay with "Dear Theophilus". Oh what a card I was

[Larechar]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

You really ARE worse than DOC! We expect that sort of ridiculous conflation from him, so it's not so shocking.



One with evidence.



YOU are cherry picking. And History is not a method; history is what we have when we have multiple available sources (not in a compilation) and physical evidence.


GB

Seconded. We went over this 10 pages ago, phelix.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by carlitos

1 - fixed.

2 - Your opinion regarding the eyewitness is noted. Now, do you have any evidence to share?

3 - Careful with missing the question mark on that last post; it's a "DOC" tell.

On 1, I will continue referring to him as Luke so that you know I mean "the author of Luke and Acts". If I use anonymous I could mean any of the four gospel authors. And If I use "the anonymous author of Luke" then this is cumbersome.

On 2, I have given the evidence for Luke's belief in an eyewitness above. My evidence for him not actually knowing an eyewitness is that the eyewitness doesn't seem to have been of much help. If Luke has an eyewitness, why does he rely heavily on Mark instead? Why doesn't he name the eyewitness in case Theophilus wants more information? There are more problems with the eyewitness stance than it would be sensible to allow, so the data available sits more comfortable with "no eye-witness contact".

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by phelix

Yes, and the pauline epistles were neither.


They are indeed intended to be read out, but this draws very little away from the potential historical value, if anything. We can still conclude that Paul had a follower called Timothy, can we not? We can still conclude that Paul visited Corinth twice, and that there was disorder in the church, can we not?

You raise an intersting point there, phelix.
The fact is much of the Nt deals with the early church.
But only through Paul's letters.
The fact is this thread has centred on the NT in relation to the life and acts of Jesus, as a quick overview of it would show you.
I think if you want to discuss Paul's letters in terms of church history you'd do well to start a thread on the subject.

Originally Posted by phelix

Correct, they do. This is why I do not think Paul spent much, if any, time with Luke. This is one of the things which strengthens the Timothy point.

But, ultimately, it's just speculation.
This thread is about evidence.

Originally Posted by phelix

...I am not suggesting that no work needs to be done in extracting the likely facts, but this doesn't mean the sources are useless.

In relation to this particular thread, yes, they are useless.
But mind, I say this particular thread.

Originally Posted by phelix

I don't understand this. Why are the letters not evidence for some of the things I have mentioned? Also the thread does deal with the early church. The authors in the NT make many claims about the early church.

A good point.
But the Geisler proposition of the OP doesn't discuss the early church, only the NT inrelation to the life, etc. of Jesus.
Again, a thread on the subject of the early church would be the place for that subject.

Originally Posted by phelix

Right. Exactly what faith in the church would be affirmed by, say Acts 18:12-18? An unimportant story in which Jews are angry at Paul and nothing at all happens, but which uses the correct terminology (proconsul) for the politician involved?

How would I know?
I wasn't there.
What faith was afirmed?
Perhaps we could argue the anti-Semitism Ehrhard mentions in relation to the early church.
But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Originally Posted by phelix

I don't get why likely isn't good enough. I am unable to say "definitely" just as I am unable to say this about practically all ancient history. Is the John the Baptist case not one in which it the NT writers probably told the truth in some part?

In some part?
Do I really have to mention Gone With the Wind or the Harry Potter saga for the use of truth in part to further a tale?

Originally Posted by phelix

No no I don't think that the L source has any bearing on the validity of some of the NT claims. I cannot even remember why it was brought up. As I've said though, the evidence comes from applying the historical method to the sources available.

That would be acceptable if those sources even came up to the standard required to apply the historical method.
In respect of the life of Jesus, it's pretty clear they don't.

[phelix]

Originally Posted by Larechar

Seconded. We went over this 10 pages ago, phelix.

Cherry picking can be easily shown up by presenting the information which I have left out, which would contradict the stances I adopt. I am more than willing to discuss all of the NT, if you wish me to demonstrate the consistency in my approach, but finding some facts to likely be true, and some to likely be false is not cherry picking. It's the natural result from the historical method.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by phelix

On 1, I will continue referring to him as Luke so that you know I mean "the author of Luke and Acts". If I use anonymous I could mean any of the four gospel authors. And If I use "the anonymous author of Luke" then this is cumbersome.

Fine.

Originally Posted by phelix

On 2, I have given the evidence for Luke's belief in an eyewitness above.

Not fine. No one here is asking for evidence of belief. We have like 500 pages of that. How about evidence of authorship, or evidence of the alleged eyewitness? Or evidence that the stories told in Luke are, you know, true?

Originally Posted by phelix

My evidence for him not actually knowing an eyewitness is that the eyewitness doesn't seem to have been of much help. If Luke has an eyewitness, why does he rely heavily on Mark instead? Why doesn't he name the eyewitness in case Theophilus wants more information? There are more problems with the eyewitness stance than it would be sensible to allow, so the data available sits more comfortable with "no eye-witness contact".

This topic is to ascertain the truth of the gospels. Please start contributing. Evidence need not contain your opinions as to how some author developed his story. Your musings, as interesting as you may find them, are not evidence for the truth of the gospel accounts.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by phelix

Cherry picking can be easily shown up by presenting the information which I have left out, which would contradict the stances I adopt. I am more than willing to discuss all of the NT, if you wish me to demonstrate the consistency in my approach, but finding some facts to likely be true, and some to likely be false is not cherry picking. It's the natural result from the historical method.

I'm getting sick of you spouting "Historical Method" when it's clear that what you are doing is not historical method but EXEGESIS. The two are not equivalent.

-Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

-Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

-The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

-A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.

-If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

-The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

-If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

GB

[phelix]

Originally Posted by pakeha

You raise an intersting point there, phelix.
The fact is much of the Nt deals with the early church.
But only through Paul's letters.
The fact is this thread has centred on the NT in relation to the life and acts of Jesus, as a quick overview of it would show you.
I think if you want to discuss Paul's letters in terms of church history you'd do well to start a thread on the subject.

The problem with focusing on the life and acts of Jesus is that we cannot establish very much at all. The thread will have lingered on this point because apologists will defend it, and atheists will have fun swiping at the low-hanging fruit. The thread though is about whether the New Testament writers told the truth. Sometimes they did, and the letters of Paul play a big part of that.

Originally Posted by pakeha

But, ultimately, it's just speculation.
This thread is about evidence.

Do you think the references provided to support the claim that Paul had a disciple called Timothy do not constitute evidence? It's speculation because the conclusion is not definite, but we still have two pieces of evidence that lead to the conclusion that Paul probably had a disciple called Timothy.

Originally Posted by pakeha

In relation to this particular thread, yes, they are useless.
But mind, I say this particular thread.

Howso useless? It is from the NT writers alone that we know John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. The NT writers were probably telling the truth here.

Originally Posted by pakeha

That would be acceptable if those sources even came up to the standard required to apply the historical method.
In respect of the life of Jesus, it's pretty clear they don't.

This is now interesting, and I wonder if you will send Pythagoras to touch like two other people in this thread have. Would you be willing to say that all our sources for Pythagoras do not meet the required standard?

[phelix]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Not fine. No one here is asking for evidence of belief. We have like 500 pages of that. How about evidence of authorship, or evidence of the alleged eyewitness? Or evidence that the stories told in Luke are, you know, true?

In that particular line of the conversation, none of this was requested or even warranted. We don't know the authorship. I think the evidence actually rules against the eyewitness. The stories from the alleged eyewitness I don't think there is much sway one way or the other as to their truth.

Originally Posted by carlitos

This topic is to ascertain the truth of the gospels. Please start contributing. Evidence need not contain your opinions as to how some author developed his story. Your musings, as interesting as you may find them, are not evidence for the truth of the gospel accounts.

Hey, people started grilling me on the sources for Luke, so I've replied with what much of critical history has to say about the matter. As I've said, the evidence for truth in the gospel accounts simply comes from critical historical analysis of the sources.

[carlitos]

Much like our friend DOC, you seem to respond to questions, but not answer them.

Originally Posted by phelix

Originally Posted by carlitos

You stated earlier that the historical method doesn't work for fiction. How did you determine that the gospels weren't fiction, so that you could start using the historical method? This is circular logic.

I don't think they're fiction for many reasons.

And here's where I start looking for "how." And not finding an answer.

Originally Posted by phelix

The cross-source agreement, and presentation of history, of the gospels, is enough for me.

So the cross-source agreement, and presentation of history, of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, should convince you that Gandolf is real. Great. Super logic there. You don't seem to get the Gone with the Wind or other examples. I wonder why? Again, how did you determine that these books were non-fiction so that you could apply (your interpretation of) the historical method?

Originally Posted by phelix

With Acts, there is a fair amount of historical accuracy in the less important stories. With the Pauline epistles, they are letters to the early church communities, so will likely have some historic worth.

Could these things have been fiction? Yes. Could someone have written down a load of made up letters to made up places for no apparent reason as someone implied above? Yes. Could all of the gospels been working off a single source of complete fiction with the authors all thought was fact, but which they radically altered to make versions they preferred? Yes.

And HOW did you rule those things out please? How? My question was how, in case you missed it. How?

Originally Posted by phelix

But none of these things are likely, and all of them are special pleading, appealing to a possibility which we have no real reason to adopt, and which would defeat the historical pursuit.

You do not understand the fallacy of special pleading, I'm afraid. Here's a good summary. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html

[Larechar]

Originally Posted by phelix

In that particular line of the conversation, none of this was requested or even warranted. We don't know the authorship. I think the evidence actually rules against the eyewitness. The stories from the alleged eyewitness I don't think there is much sway one way or the other as to their truth.


Hey, people started grilling me on the sources for Luke, so I've replied with what much of critical history has to say about the matter. As I've said, the evidence for truth in the gospel accounts simply comes from critical historical analysis of the sources.

That's evidence for probability of truth in some points, not evidence for truth. This is pointless. You keep saying the SAME THING over and over and over and over and over, and we keep telling you that isn't proof based on your system over and over and over and over and over. I'm out 'til DOC comes back with some more assertions.

[Larechar]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Much like our friend DOC, you seem to respond to questions, but not answer them.

And here's where I start looking for "how." And not finding an answer.

So the cross-source agreement, and presentation of history, of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, should convince you that Gandolf is real. Great. Super logic there. You don't seem to get the Gone with the Wind or other examples. I wonder why? Again, how did you determine that these books were non-fiction so that you could apply (your interpretation of) the historical method?


And HOW did you rule those things out please? How? My question was how, in case you missed it. How?
You do not understand the fallacy of special pleading, I'm afraid. Here's a good summary. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-pleading.html

Yes.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by carlitos

.

So the cross-source agreement, and presentation of history, of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, should convince you that Gandolf is real.

What??? My presence isn't enough!!???



GB

[Larechar]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

What??? My presence isn't enough!!???



GB

Literally lmao.

eta
You're just the beard talking. There's no evidence you're actually Gandalf's Beard, unless you're phelix, anyway.

[Gandalfs Beard]

Originally Posted by Larechar

That's evidence for probability of truth in some points, not evidence for truth. This is pointless. You keep saying the SAME THING over and over and over and over and over, and we keep telling you that isn't proof based on your system over and over and over and over and over. I'm out 'til DOC comes back with some more assertions.

Yes! The same ones he keeps asserting over and over and over and over and over...

What a relief it will be to have DOC back! At least he's not pretending to be an Atheist.


GB

[ddt]

Originally Posted by ddt

Originally Posted by DOC

Or there simply could have been a Palestine census at exactly the time Luke reported and Quirinius could have been an official at that time. Rulers and politicians do hold more than one office in their lifetime. This census was around 4 BC. Josephus wasn't even born then and he didn't write about this time period until about 91 AD. Also Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so its not like there would be a lot of census records laying around (for Joshephus to read) of something that happened 95 years ago.

First of all, the text does not support that. You have brought in Heichelheim and Geisler claiming that, but you have not given any argumentation why their claims are valid. Let's go over that 9-word sentence of Luke 2:2 again:

Quote:

αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη πρωτη ἐγενετο ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

Now, let's break down that sentence.

It's subject is αὑτη ἡ ἀπογραφη - "that census". The word αὑτη is a demonstrative pronoun ("that"), and refers back to the previous verse where it said that Augustus ordered a census. The word ἡ is the definite article (which is usual in Greek in this construct but obviously not translated in English). Lastly, ἀπογραφη means census; it's a feminine word; as it's the subject, it's in the nominative; and it's singular;. The words αὑτη and ἡ are inflected to agree with that.

The verb is ἐγενετο. It's the aorist indicative, 3rd person singular of γιγνομαι - to become, to be, to happen (cf. the English word Genesis). It acts here as a copula.

Then the word we've skipped: πρωτη. That is a superlative of an adjective that has no positive grade, and means "first" or "earliest". A Greek superlative may also be translated as "very ...", so "very early" would also be possible. It's inflected in the nominative singular feminine, and so it's the predicate of the copula.

Then the last four words: ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου. They are a genitive absolute construction. The word ἡγεμονευοντος is the genitive singular masculine of the present participle of ἡγεμονευω, "to rule", "to govern", so literally it means "ruling". This verb happens to have its direct object in the genitive case too; that object is της Συριας, i.e., Syria (της is the genitive singular feminine of the definite article "the"). The last word, Κυρηνιου, is the genitive singular of Κυρηνιος, the Greek transcription of the name Quirinius. So the whole construct means "Quirinius ruling over Syria". A genitive absolute construct is called "absolute" because it stands "loose", it is independent grammatically, of the rest of the sentence. It is typically translated as a subordinate clause, with simply a temporal relation ("while", "when") or a causal relation ("because") or a concessive relation ("although") or whatever the translator deems appropriate. The fact that the participle employed here is a present participle means that the action in the genitive absolute construction is contemporaneous with the action in the main clause.

So, all in all, my translation is: "This census was the first, while Quirinius ruled over Syria".

Now, I don't see any mention in this sentence of two censuses as your favourite apologists contend, but I'll give you some rope to hang yourself with. Some scholars claim that the NT writers now and then employed a superlative (here: πρωτη, "earliest") when they actually meant a comparative (which would be προτερη, "earlier"). In case of a comparative there has to be a thing you compare it with, say: "Peter is taller than Paul". You can't just say "Peter is taller". That (the italicized part) can be expressed in two ways in Greek: (1) the word ἠ stands for "than" and the actual thing is in the same case as the thing we compare it with, or (2) the thing we compare it with is put in the genitive case.

Now, obviously the word ἠ is absent; and the genitive construction doesn't work either IMHO: firstly, the verb ἐγενετο is placed in between which makes this unlikely to have been the idea (Greek word order is not that free); and secondly, the genitives are there for a genitive absolute, not for a comparative.

And even if you were able to convince me of such a translation, there are also historical reasons why this doesn't work.

A census in Judea around 4 BC is right out, for several reasons. Herod reigned over Judea, and the finances of Judea was not the Romans' worry. They had an agreement with Herod how much tax he had to turn over and it was his business how to get that. There was no need for the Romans to mandate he conduct a census, and still, then it would have been Herod's census and not Quirinius' c.q. Augustus' census.

Varus was the governor over Syria in the last years of Herod's reign. Even in your fantastic scenario of a Roman census in that time, Quirinius would have been a subordinate. The Greek text of Luke 2:2 however is very clear:

Quote:

ἡγεμονευοντος της Συριας Κυρηνιου

which means "while Quirinius reigned over Syria". The use of the verb ἡγεμονεω leaves open a subordinate position, however, της Συριας is a direct object (in the genitive) and precludes anything but him being the boss - otherwise, Luke would have written ἐν τῃ Συριᾳ ("in Syria"). But we're here already in the realm of fantasy, as noted above.

But to put your last fantastical delusions to an end: if you're going to argue Quirinius may have been governor of Syria after Varus, then this is the first instance we know that the same man had been governor twice of the same Roman province. Surely Josephus, Tacitus or any other Roman historian would have told us.

Originally Posted by DOC

Also if Luke wanted to make up a story of how Joseph and Mary got to Bethlehem why make up a story that can be challenged by all the people of that time (that doesn't make sense). Why not just make up a story that can't be challenged. He could say something like the dead Joseph wanted to visit his hometown, or he wanted to have the child in the place he was born. Why go through all the trouble of bringing in historical people and events into made up story where it can be challenged, that doesn't make sense to do that.

Your posts here are a testament to the gullibility of the general populace to take any story they're told at face value. Skeptics who critically engage a story were in the minority then as well as now. Most of Luke's readers were not in the position to challenge the story. They didn't have Wikipedia to look up that there's actually a gap of 10 years between Herod's death and Quirinius' tenure. They couldn't check the claim that Joseph had to travel for a census. However, there's a definite advantage to Luke's story - from a Christian perspective. After the Jewish Revolt, Jews were looked upon with suspicion by Romans. The early Christians had to disambiguate their cult from the Jews. There also was the story (per Josephus) of the revolt of Judas the Galilee as a reaction to Quirinius' census. Having Joseph be an obedient Roman subject, willing to make an arduous journey with his highly pregnant wife paints Christians as law-abiding Roman subjects from the outset.

Bump. DOC, any reaction forthcoming?

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by phelix

The problem with focusing on the life and acts of Jesus is that we cannot establish very much at all. The thread will have lingered on this point because apologists will defend it, and atheists will have fun swiping at the low-hanging fruit. The thread though is about whether the New Testament writers told the truth. Sometimes they did, and the letters of Paul play a big part of that.


Do you think the references provided to support the claim that Paul had a disciple called Timothy do not constitute evidence? It's speculation because the conclusion is not definite, but we still have two pieces of evidence that lead to the conclusion that Paul probably had a disciple called Timothy.


Howso useless? It is from the NT writers alone that we know John the Baptist worked in the river Jordan. The NT writers were probably telling the truth here.


This is now interesting, and I wonder if you will send Pythagoras to touch like two other people in this thread have. Would you be willing to say that all our sources for Pythagoras do not meet the required standard?

Come, come, phelix.
Read the thread.
See what it's about.
None of what you've written has anything to do with it.
Be honest.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Originally Posted by SezMe

I want to underscore carlitos' question. My understanding - which pales compared to the more erudite posting in this thread - is that the BEST that the gospel writers had was third hand stories. NO eyewitnesses.

Please address this point, phelix.

Oh goodness I hope people didn't take too much from that.

Trust me, there was little enough risk of that to start with and your contributions have done absolutely nothing to increase it.

Originally Posted by phelix

It is my view that Luke thought he knew an eyewitness, not necessarily that he did know one.

The Historical Method™ appears to consist of of your opinions about the possiblity that someone who may or may not have existed possibly thought he was recording hearsay.

And because we don't lap it all up we're being dogmatic?


Geeze, Louise.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Which of the things I said are you doubting?

Everything after this:

Originally Posted by phelix

I'm guessing

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Gandalfs Beard

Originally Posted by carlitos

Again, I'm really starting to wonder if this is an act.

I'm still not sure that Phelix is an Atheist!



GB

+1

[DOC]

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. 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.

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies or difficult passages. But as I've said, I've never seen an alleged inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be rationally explained.

[Larechar]

Originally Posted by DOC

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies. But as I've said, I've never seen an alleged inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be rationally explained.

Please do so, now. At this moment. I expect you to walk us through your, "rational," explanation, as well.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Larechar

Hai! No problem. I'd say I'm curious to know your thoughts about the comment you quoted of him with what I told you in mind, but it would be moot, anyway, because he'd just dismiss your point anyway.

What?

Ask a straight question, or be considered foolish.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by DOC

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies or difficult passages. [...].

Maybe they have, but in the final analysis, presented their arguments as poorly as you have done, DOC.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

With regard to probably, I am a-ok with that word. All historical evidence ever tells us is what probably happened.

Did this probably happened?

Matthew 14:25

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea

Or will I add it to the list with the resurrection and the saints rising up?

Any sign of that evidence for the empty tomb yet?

I think there was an enquiry about the loaves and fishes story too.

No pizza for you until all your chores are done.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by DOC

Also, if the history was faked by several authors they could have smoothed over their accounts so their wouldn't "appear" to be some inconsistencies or difficult passages.

Just because your new little friend is fond of referring to your fairytale as history doesn't make it so, DOC, despite your fervent wishes.

And smoothing over inconsistencies for the sake of appearances? How does that fall within the definition of "telling the truth"?

Originally Posted by DOC

But as I've said, I've never seen an alleged inconsistency in the Gospel accounts that can't be rationally explained.

And we've never seen you produce a rational explanation for anything, so there's little enough reason to suspect that you'd recognise one if it bit you.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

I don't get it. I don't think Luke knew an eyewitness so how is this so important.

For anyone trying to claim that the gospels are historically accurate, the idea that the alleged author was writing glossed-over, third-hand hearsay from someone who probably wasn't an eyewitness is a bit of a setback, to say the least.

Pointing out that you don't get this is completely redundant.

[Larechar]

Originally Posted by John Jones

What?

Ask a straight question, or be considered foolish.

It was pretty straightforward. Would you like to rescind your comment? If not, you'll be considered foolish.

Here's a hint, if you're needing guidance: Backtrack through the quotes.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by phelix

Correct. Can we refer to him (or her) as Luke though, for the sake of ease?

The correct appellation is "a great historian (Luke) regarding non-supernatural events (at least according to Sir William M. Mitchell.)"

Please try to pay more attention.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by ddt

My absolute favourite, however, starts with a similar pattern as "once upon a time", which places the tale in a distant past: "Muse, tell me of the man with many tricks who, after he destroyed the holy city of Troy, saw the towns of many people and learned their habits..."
Fact or fiction?

Don't know. Don't care. Making popcorn. Please, do go on!

And skip the prequel, which was too interested in who was whom.