Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[th1bill]

The authenticity of the Gospels is an easily discerned item. Anyone truly interested in the matter will have purchased the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. It is a single large volume, complete with bibliography of all material, insuring ease of verification of the extra-biblical sources.

For the Christian, the follower of Jesus the question is a matter of no concern though. The fact that I actively interact with Him on a daily basis is all the proof I need of the content of the scriptures.

[Goat]

As for Paul, using the bible to prove the bible is not independent.

Zzyzx seems reluctant to answer my question, so perhaps you'll be able to help me out. Why does the decision of 2nd century Christians to designate Paul's letters as 'scripture' have any relevance regarding his contact with James the brother of Jesus? It constantly puzzles me how some folk seem to think that decisions made in the 2nd and 3rd centuries somehow reached back in time to affect writers of the 1st century, and make them completely unreliable. The 'bible' means nothing when talking about 1st century texts, unless you share with Christians views about some kind of intrinsic characteristics of the 'bible.'

It doesn't matter if it considered 'scripture' or not. He apparently is the source for the 'james, brother of Jesus', and is the basis for the later references. The later references are therefore not independant, or at least can not be shown to be independant.

So it's not "using the bible to prove the bible" - that's a remarkably imprecise way of characterising it. It's the simple fact that Paul met and wrote about James the brother of Jesus. Do you claim that Galatians wasn't written by Paul? Or perhaps you argue that, for some inexplicable reason, he was lying about who he met in Jerusalem?

'Independant,' by the way, means 'not dependant.' So "two independant first-hand references" would be two first-hand references which are not dependant on each other (nor, on account of being first-hand, on any other earlier source). No offence, but your response seemed more like a glib accusation of circularity with the implication that I don't know Paul's in the bible, rather than anything to do with geniune discussion and understanding.

When fred says something, and then john copies it, it is not independant. If both fred and joe see something, and do not collaborate in the telling, then it is independant.

The Synoptic Gospels copy extensively from each other. That is why there is the 'synoptic gospel problem', and therefore they are not independant.

Well,there is a problem with that particular passage for using James the brother of the one called Christ as Jesus of Nazareth.

In Jewish society, the high priest was called 'an annointed one', or Moishe..which in Greek is called 'Christ'. If you read it in context, you will see that it is highly likely that he is talking about Jesus the high priest... not Jesus of Nazareth.

The 2nd century Christian historian Hegesippus records that James died in Jerusalem shortly before the first war. And this is the only time in all his writings Josephus uses the term 'Christ' besides the Testimonium. It would be a remarkable co-incidence if the only time he says someone was called Christ, it's a person whose name is Jesus with a brother named James who died in Jerusalem shortly before the first war - don't you think?

And where did he get that information. He was a 'Christian' historian. Can you show he got it from OTHER than the bible, or Urban legands??

THe fact that this is the only time the term 'Christ' is used by Josephus would be a good indication it was a later copiers gloss (according to Doughtery at least)>

The more common way of identifying someone would be by the name of their father, as with Jesus son of Damneus. But besides that common name Jesus, Josephus makes absolutely no connection between this James and the future high priest (who obviously wasn't a 'christ' at the time in any case). He doesn't say that James was the son of Damneus, he doesn't say that the new high priest had been brother to that James; he doesn't even say anything about what the term 'christ' means. His Greek readers would probably know of only one Jesus who was called Christ; the one whose brother James, by some remarkable co-incidence, had died in Jerusalem around that time.

Yes, it would be..but when you are talking about the High Priest.. the high priest has more influence than a father.

[Zzyzx]

.

Are you referring to statements or claims in this thread " or are you creating a straw man?

Can John and Peter be identified as real characters using sources other than bible stories? Are there records of their existence, is their identity known to scholars and theologians from extra-biblical sources?

A strawman is a position put up in place <snip>
Since you seem quite careful to avoid stating any views of your own <snip>
since I expressly stated that the views I mentioned <snip>Flinging out implications of logical fallacy in the hopes <snip>

Notice that in the process of complaining about whether or not I state my views to your satisfaction and accusation of flinging about, you completely ignored the question I asked: Can John and Peter be identified as real characters using sources other than bible stories? Are there records of their existence, is their identity known to scholars and theologians from extra-biblical sources?

Would you care to try to answer the question now " and demonstrate to readers that you are sincere about debating the topic?

A strawman is a position put up in place of an opponent's for the purpose of easy defeat, without engaging the opponent's actual views.

I agree with your definition of straw man logical fallacy. Thank you.

Since you seem quite careful to avoid stating any views of your own, merely questioning others' views and demanding evidence,

I state my views openly, clearly and repeatedly.

I have encountered no evidence that would convince me that any of the thousands of proposed invisible, undetectable, supernatural gods are real or that they influence human lives or proposed afterlives.

What is incomprehensible about that view?

and since I expressly stated that the views I mentioned belonged to folk on other forums, I wonder why you think that counts as a straw-man?

What was the purpose of importing views from other forums? Was it to support your point of view?

If you brought those views for any other purpose I would entertain the view that doing so constitutes a straw man in the thread (not necessarily toward any individual opponent).

Flinging out implications of logical fallacy in the hopes that something will stick is not a valid argument technique.

Indiscriminate implication of logical fallacy would be inappropriate.

Off the top of my head, I'm actually not familiar with any of the references to Peter and John to be found in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (late 1st century), Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd), Papias of Hierapolis (early 2nd), Polycarp, Gospel of Thomas, Marcion, Justin Martyr etc. etc. I could look them up of course,

Nice sidestep.

I clearly asked for evidence that John and Peter were real people as depicted in bible tales. Evidently your answer is NO. I agree.

Unless those are real people, is any discussion of them mythological or hypothetical?

but a fundamental element of sound thinking is the ability to critique your own thoughts - perhaps you could compile a short-list of the references you're able to find for all of our benefits?

It is not my obligation to find your evidence or to dispute evidence that you have NOT provided.

More to the point however, I wonder why you think that the canon of accepted writings compiled from the late 2nd century onwards has any bearing on whether something 'counts' as evidence? If I want to learn about Ghandi, I don't automatically exclude from my research every text studied at the University of New Delhi.

I have expressed no position regarding what has bearing on what.

I ask for real world evidence to substantiate claims made.

I'd be interested in understanding your reasoning here.

The creator of the universe (or his son) visits the Earth for thirty years (according to the tale), contacts a few chosen people (the ones writing the tale), performs miracles including raising the dead, teaches multitudes . . . . . . . then comes back from death . . . . .

I won't accuse you of using a staw-man, but since you've recently been talking with a Christian who has explicitly stated that he doesn't consider the miraculous stories to be 'factual' (ie, provable), since I myself have explicitly stated that I am not a Christian, and since even many Christians through the ages have raised questions about the deity of Christ and nature of his ministry and resurrection, I do wonder why this is relevant.

In my opinion what I said above is a key element in evaluating the truth and accuracy of bible tales.

I think it is QUITE REVELANT that the ONLY people writing about miracles as though they actually occurred are followers of the religion being promoted in the literature. Even the greatest miracle in the storied life of Jesus and proof of his divinity " coming back to life after three days in the grave " is NOT RECORDED by anyone but religious promoters writing decades or generations after the supposed events.

Are you making a claim regarding the fourth gospel? If so what claim do you make?

Did John (whoever he may have been) state that he personally witnessed the death of Jesus? Kindly quote verbatim where John claims to be an eyewitness.

You can read, can you not?

Uncalled for comment " often a belittling tactic used by a person who perceives themselves as coming in third in a two person event " or a person who postures as though they occupy a superior position. What is your intent with that comment?

I've made many claims about the fourth gospel; about its language, style, content and themes, about scholars' opinions regarding it and about references to it by later authors, for starters. I'm not going to repeat them all simply because of your reluctance to engage in actual debate.

I understand that you would be reluctant to actually STATE your claim in clear and precise terms for all to understand.


What theological position do you represent in debate?

What is your opinion of the claim made by these two writers?

Before I express an opinion regarding claims made I ask:

1. Who, exactly, is the person making the claim?
2. What is their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy?
3. What are their potential biases (i.e., are they closely associated with the claim)?
4. What, exactly, did they say (preferably in their original documents)?
5. Where did they get their information?

We do not know who wrote John, nor their reputation for veracity and accuracy, nor their potential biases, nor exactly what they said in their original documents, nor where they got their information. Do you agree?


NOTICE that your first quote of John starts with hyperbole and exaggeration -- That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.

Was John there from the beginning to be able to speak authoritatively " or is he (whoever may have written that account) making a conjecture " stating something that he did NOT observe and could not know directly? When one starts with hyperbole, is the credibility of their statement enhanced or reduced?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 23:

...For the Christian, the follower of Jesus the question is a matter of no concern though. The fact that I actively interact with Him on a daily basis is all the proof I need of the content of the scriptures.

How does one "actively interact" with someone who's been dead for around two thousand years?

[Mithrae]

As for Paul, using the bible to prove the bible is not independent.

Zzyzx seems reluctant to answer my question, so perhaps you'll be able to help me out. Why does the decision of 2nd century Christians to designate Paul's letters as 'scripture' have any relevance regarding his contact with James the brother of Jesus? It constantly puzzles me how some folk seem to think that decisions made in the 2nd and 3rd centuries somehow reached back in time to affect writers of the 1st century, and make them completely unreliable. The 'bible' means nothing when talking about 1st century texts, unless you share with Christians views about some kind of intrinsic characteristics of the 'bible.'

It doesn't matter if it considered 'scripture' or not. He apparently is the source for the 'james, brother of Jesus', and is the basis for the later references. The later references are therefore not independant, or at least can not be shown to be independant.

A different argument; thankyou.

The source for Paul's reference to James the brother of Jesus would be either the actual existence of James the brother of Jesus, or Paul's own imagination and dishonesty based, presumably, on some kind of gain or bias coming from inventing such a character. I do not know and have never seen any claims regarding why Paul would make such a character up. Since you suggest that Paul himself is the source for 'James the brother of Jesus' - rather than the actual existence of James, which is the point in question and the reason I mentioned Paul - I would be interested in knowing why you apparently think that he invented this individual? What did he stand to gain?

When fred says something, and then john copies it, it is not independant. If both fred and joe see something, and do not collaborate in the telling, then it is independant.

The Synoptic Gospels copy extensively from each other. That is why there is the 'synoptic gospel problem', and therefore they are not independant.

I didn't say anything about the synoptic gospels being independant or in relation to James at all. Here it is again:

The two independant, first-hand references to the brother of Jesus:

Josephus (Antiquities, xx.9) mentions the death of James the brother of Jesus around 62 CE, and similarly Paul mentions Jesus' brother as one of the the three 'pillars' of the church along with John and Cephas (Galatians 1:19, 2:9).

Why are you bringing the synoptic gospels into this? Paul and Josephus did not collaborate in their references to James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. Therefore, as you now seem to acknowledge, they are independant.

And where did he [Hegesippus] get that information. He was a 'Christian' historian. Can you show he got it from OTHER than the bible, or Urban legands??

He didn't get it from the bible, since the bible makes no reference to James' death. Here again we run into this apparent fixation (since you have agreed it doesn't matter whether something is 'scripture') on the religion of a writer - almost as if Christians are by definition liars. That's the very reason Christians make such a big deal about the likes of Tacitus or Seutonius; and most sceptics won't accept them as evidence either! But pending your theory on why Paul would invent such a character, we at least know from his writings that he met James the brother of Jesus - and indeed that he was a major figure in the early church.

The vast bulk of Christian writings from the 2nd and even late 1st century come from the gentile church (or gentile 'heretics'), with far more emphasis on Paul or Peter than any other non-deified human. References to James, who remained in Jerusalem and associated himself mostly with the Jewish church, are not common - though from memory surviving Ebionite literature makes reference to him somewhat. There's evidence that Hegesippus himself was a Jewish Christian; but whether it was some written source now lost to us, or simply information widely known amongst Jewish believers (which presumably you would call 'urban legends'), most scholars don't simply toss out every historical claim for which they can't trace a definite, reliable and direct chain back to the original event. We know that James was a leader in the church at Jerusalem, and it's reasonable to assume that he died at some point; if a Jewish-Christian historian from less than a century after his era says he died at such-and-such a time, I think it'd be fair to say that we shouldn't simply ignore it as worthless.

THe fact that this is the only time the term 'Christ' is used by Josephus would be a good indication it was a later copiers gloss (according to Doughtery at least)> . . . .

Yes, it would be..but when you are talking about the High Priest.. the high priest has more influence than a father.

The fact that this is the only time Josephus uses the term 'christ' (besides the TF) would be a good indication that he's not just talking about a high priest (who wasn't even a 'christ' at the time).

I'm not familiar with Doughtery's arguments for believing that it was a copier's gloss, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that to be true. There is no manuscript evidence supporting that claim and, moreover, the known text of the passage is quoted three times by Origen (c 240CE). Being the leader of a heterodox Jewish sect in Jerusalem, it's not implausible that the priestly establishment would want James dead. And since, in this scenario, it resulted in a change of the priesthood, it's entirely likely that Josephus would record it. The question then becomes how else would Josephus describe the death of James to his Gentile audience? The brother of Jesus called Christ is by far the most obvious way to do so. There's no conspiracy here, just a footnote in the tale of Jerusalem he was recording.

Far more unlikely is the alternative. For if we remove 'who was called Christ' he's just talking about James the brother of Jesus; two of the most common Jewish names of the period, and when common practice would dictate that he should have used James' father. Removing 'who was called Christ' there's now nothing to link James with Jesus son of Damneus, besides that common name Jesus. We're left with the mystery either of why Josephus identified this James with a brother, rather than a father or, if we assume it's referring to Jesus son of Damneus, why he made no effort to explain that relation.

- Why would he, on this single occasion, use the term 'christ' to describe a priest?
- If he didn't use the term 'christ,' why would he identify this unknown James with an unknown brother Jesus, rather than by his father?
- Or why would he not explain that he's talking about James the son of Damneus, brother of the future high priest Jesus?
- Perhaps most intriguingly, who were these 'others' killed with him?

And isn't it a strange coincidence that another James brother of Jesus who was called Christ happened to be leading a heterodox sect in Jerusalem and (according to a Jewish Christian of the next century) was killed by the priesthood around that time?

------------------

Notice that in the process of complaining about whether or not I state my views to your satisfaction and accusation of flinging about, you completely ignored the question I asked: Can John and Peter be identified as real characters using sources other than bible stories? Are there records of their existence, is their identity known to scholars and theologians from extra-biblical sources?

I answered the question in the next paragraph.

Off the top of my head, I'm actually not familiar with any of the references to Peter and John to be found in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (late 1st century), Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd), Papias of Hierapolis (early 2nd), Polycarp, Gospel of Thomas, Marcion, Justin Martyr etc. etc. I could look them up of course,

Nice sidestep.

I clearly asked for evidence that John and Peter were real people as depicted in bible tales. Evidently your answer is NO. I agree.

You asked whether their identity is "known to scholars and theologians from extra-biblical sources." I mentioned that such references can "be found in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (late 1st century), Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd), Papias of Hierapolis (early 2nd), Polycarp, Gospel of Thomas, Marcion, Justin Martyr etc. etc." How is that a sidestep?

If it's your position that Christian sources are not to be considered as evidence, please say so.

It is not my obligation to find your evidence or to dispute evidence that you have NOT provided.

I made a statement about the evidence regarding the existence of James the brother of Jesus. In response, you demanded evidence from outside the bible regarding Peter and John. It wasn't relevant, but I was polite enough to point out a starting place to find the evidence. I agree that your not obliged to actually go and get it, but if you're the one who is interested in that question, common sense would suggest that you do something about it.

More to the point however, I wonder why you think that the canon of accepted writings compiled from the late 2nd century onwards has any bearing on whether something 'counts' as evidence? If I want to learn about Ghandi, I don't automatically exclude from my research every text studied at the University of New Delhi.

I have expressed no position regarding what has bearing on what.

I ask for real world evidence to substantiate claims made.

Paul's writings are real world evidence. The gospels of Mark and Q are real world evidence, though opinions vary widely on how strong or weak that evidence is. The book of Acts is real world evidence, and so is the gospel of John. Even the pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) are real world evidence - they're evidence that by the time they were written Paul was respected enough that the author wrote those epistles in his name, evidence about the structure of the church at the time, evidence about beliefs regarding Jesus...

Many scholars believe that the book of Acts was written by the end of the 1st century CE, and I know of no reason to doubt that conclusion. Many of its references to the life of Paul can be confirmed in his letters; but there are also points of disagreement and much material which isn't directly related to Paul, suggesting that the author of Acts didn't use his letters as his only source. The book of Acts mentions John several times, and mentions Peter even more frequently. This is real world evidence regarding the existence of Peter and John, as virtually all scholars agree. It's not the only evidence, and some would say that it's evidence of little more than their mere existence; but it's there in the real world, and it is evidence that they existed.

The fact that you asked for extra-biblical evidence suggests that you think things in the bible somehow don't count. And since the canon of the 'bible' had barely even begun to exist by the 2nd century, this suggests that you believe decisions made in the 2nd and 3rd centuries affect whether or not certain writings 'count' as evidence. Though I have met folk who really haven't thought the issue through much, so I apologise for not explaining myself better.

To avoid any assumptions on my part however, I'd appreciate your answer:
Why did you specifically request that I provide only sources from outside the bible?

In my opinion what I said above is a key element in evaluating the truth and accuracy of bible tales.

I think it is QUITE REVELANT that the ONLY people writing about miracles as though they actually occurred are followers of the religion being promoted in the literature. Even the greatest miracle in the storied life of Jesus and proof of his divinity " coming back to life after three days in the grave " is NOT RECORDED by anyone but religious promoters writing decades or generations after the supposed events.

I think we're getting somewhere now, and I appreciate your continued contribution

As to the latter, I don't think it's surprising that the only people writing about miracles are the followers of the religion; they're the ones who believe in the religion and the miracles, after all. If someone believed in the miracles, there's a good chance they'd end up joining the religion (though I've yet to see the sceptic who agrees that people believing the tales and converting is evidence for the believability of those tales; a circular position?). However even then, there are some non-Christian references to Jesus as a magician (eg. in the Talmud), suggesting that those authors believed he did supernatural things. Nevertheless, obviously people who believed Jesus was divine would have a certain bias towards exaggerating the stories they'd heard or even inventing new, even more remarkable stories about what he'd done. This is the case in probably every religion, and scholars spend much time researching and pondering and arguing over how this bias affected the writings of that author, compared with the different theological bias of this author.

So to the question of "evaluating the truth and accuracy of bible tales": I'd say that if one believes folk in the Roman Empire were generally informed, critical-thinking folk like we tend to expect of the 21st century Western adult, then tales of miracles would put any author in the same category as we'd put the average schizophrenic. Simple fact is, however, that tales of miracles abound in the ancient world. Alexander the Great was said to have been a son of Zeus, if memory serves - do we then ignore everything written about him by writers who mention that myth? I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true. Hillel the Elder was said to have lived 40 years in Babylon, 40 years studying in Jerusalem and 40 years as head of the Sanhedrin. Truth, or a mythical comparison with Moses? And if it's mythical, does that mean that Hillel didn't exist, or that we should discount everything else said about him by those sources? I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true.

Actually I wouldn't ignore the myth; I'd try to understand it, to see what views and biases the author might have, so as to better understand what and why he wrote, and hence whether and which bits (if any) are based in fact.

I understand that you would be reluctant to actually STATE your claim in clear and precise terms for all to understand.

Could you tell me why you believe I would be reluctant to state my claim in clear and precise terms?

What theological position do you represent in debate?

Some would say that asking for a theological position in a discussion about the authenticity of a text is a loaded question. I mentioned my views in the post you're replying to, but if that's not clear enough for you I think my most recent summary regarding John would be:
"...given that the known facts seem to fit quite well with a disciple recording his thoughts towards the end of his long life, it's interesting that I still haven't seen any evidence against the claims regarding it made by the author and confirmed by the latter appender and by Justin Martyr."

What is your opinion of the claim made by these two writers?

Before I express an opinion regarding claims made I ask:

1. Who, exactly, is the person making the claim?
2. What is their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy?
3. What are their potential biases (i.e., are they closely associated with the claim)?
4. What, exactly, did they say (preferably in their original documents)?
5. Where did they get their information?

On an online discussion forum, you don't know who exactly is the person making any claim; even if they've been posting for months, except on the extreme ends of the spectrum generally you know very little about their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy; and the same goes with their potential biases.

You have the advantage of knowing exactly what they've written (though misinterpretation is an ever-present possibility). I've often seen you asking for evidence, which isn't really the same as asking where someone got their information, but along the same vein. Of course, if that information depends in whole or in part on some 'general knowledge' about science or history, or 'common sense' regarding human nature, presumably it's then necessary to ask where that 'general knowledge' or 'common sense' came from.

So in an online discussion forum, in the best of cases you might have partial answers to two of your five questions.

And yet earlier in your post you said to me:
"I understand that you would be reluctant to actually STATE your claim in clear and precise terms for all to understand."
Far more than expressing your opinion about a claim of mine, this seems to be an opinion about my feelings or motivation!

Could you please explain the discrepancy between your stated requirements before expressing an opinion, and what seems to be expressed in practice?

What is your opinion of the claim made by these two writers?

We do not know who wrote John, nor their reputation for veracity and accuracy, nor their potential biases, nor exactly what they said in their original documents, nor where they got their information. Do you agree?

So (correct me if I'm wrong), but your opinion seems to be that these two claims do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the author?

I've often seen folk ask Christians what would constitute sufficient evidence for them to reject one of their core beliefs. The key test of any claim's reliability is it's falsifiability, after all; an important part of the scientific method, if memory serves me.

You have frequently asked folk for evidence on one point or another, and I thought I'd done a decent job of providing it. Apparently not. So as my third main question in this post, I must ask for further clarification:
When you ask for evidence, what exactly do you have in mind? Two specific examples may help with the clarification.
- What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?
- And what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that Jesus did exist?


For Goat (with a snide implication regarding Josephus/James ) one can't help but get the impression that even if we found a 4th century archive in Rome with copies of death records throughout the empire, if one read "Jesus son of Joseph, crucified under Pilate for sedition" some folk would claim it was artificially added by Constantine.

[Mithrae]

I clearly asked for evidence that John and Peter were real people as depicted in bible tales. Evidently your answer is NO. I agree.

Hmmm... didn't really notice this as much as I should have. You're saying that you 'agree' there's no evidence that the biblical John and Peter were real people - and that was after I'd mentioned Clement of Rome etc. (not sure about some of those I've mentioned, but I know for a fact that Clement mentions Peter's death in Rome some three decades earlier).

You're making the claim that those other Christian authors (and, of course, the bible) are not evidence that Peter and John were real people?

That makes me all the more curious to see your answers to my last question.

[Goat]

You have frequently asked folk for evidence on one point or another, and I thought I'd done a decent job of providing it. Apparently not. So as my third main question in this post, I must ask for further clarification:
When you ask for evidence, what exactly do you have in mind? Two specific examples may help with the clarification.
- What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?
- And what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that Jesus did exist?


For Goat (with a snide implication regarding Josephus/James ) one can't help but get the impression that even if we found a 4th century archive in Rome with copies of death records throughout the empire, if one read "Jesus son of Joseph, crucified under Pilate for sedition" some folk would claim it was artificially added by Constantine.

If it was 4th century, then, yes, it would be a much too late a date, and it would be 'too good to be true', so to speak.

I will tell you what would have convinced me if it wasn't a modern forgery was the ossuary of James. If we found some writings that could be dated from before the destruction of the Jewish temple from a non-christian source that mentioned Jesus with enough information to identify him as a preacher who was executed, I would accept that. It was was after the synoptic gospels were written, then the source of the information could be the synoptic gospels.

[Zzyzx]

.
Mithrae,

I may have underestimated you and responded as though you were one of the usual Parroting of Dogma Fundamentalists who refuse to think about what they quote from scripture and refuse to defend their claims and stories. Perhaps you can do better than the standard pattern in these debates.

Lets back up a couple paces and talk about John or the writer of the fourth gospel.

1. What was his name?
2. Where did he live?
3. When did he live (reasonable approximation of date of birth and death)?
4. When did he write?
5. With whom did he associate?
6. Did he know Jesus personally " how can we learn about this from reliable sources?
7. Did he personally witness the events about which he wrote " and how do we know?
8. What were his sources of information about things he did not witness?
9. Were his sources reliable, truthful and accurate?
10. What was his reputation for truth and accuracy in what he wrote?
11. What other writings of his can we study? Did he write fiction?
12. Did he copy from or collude with other bible writers?
13. Is any wording from different gospels identical or close enough to evidence copying?
14. Which gospel writers may have copied from which others? Was John a copier?

Notice that a truthful answer to the first eleven questions is, We do not know and we cannot verify. We can guess, infer, or opine " but we cannot speak with authority, certainty, or claim to truth.

Those who are inclined to believe on faith alone what they read in holy books, may accept the stories as truthful " but that does not extend to people who do not revere the bible or accept it as a reliable source of information.

Notice that in the process of complaining about whether or not I state my views to your satisfaction and accusation of flinging about, you completely ignored the question I asked: Can John and Peter be identified as real characters using sources other than bible stories? Are there records of their existence, is their identity known to scholars and theologians from extra-biblical sources?

I answered the question in the next paragraph.

No you didnt. What you actually said was that you were not familiar with references and that you could look them up " but did not.

Is that what you would consider answering the question? If so, we have very different standards as to what constitutes honorable debate.

Off the top of my head, I'm actually not familiar with any of the references to Peter and John to be found in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (late 1st century), Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd), Papias of Hierapolis (early 2nd), Polycarp, Gospel of Thomas, Marcion, Justin Martyr etc. etc. I could look them up of course,

Nice sidestep.

I clearly asked for evidence that John and Peter were real people as depicted in bible tales. Evidently your answer is NO. I agree.

You asked whether their identity is "known to scholars and theologians from extra-biblical sources."

Read the rest of my statement that you quoted above " Can John and Peter be identified as real characters using sources other than bible stories?

You also overlooked, are there records of their existence.

Why so selective in observation? Why be coy at all? Why not just lay evidence on the line for all to examine?

I mentioned that such references can "be found in the writings of St. Clement of Rome (late 1st century), Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd), Papias of Hierapolis (early 2nd), Polycarp, Gospel of Thomas, Marcion, Justin Martyr etc. etc." How is that a sidestep?

Do you suggest that any of the writers you mention KNEW John and Peter and could attest to their identity?

Would people writing a century or two later be reliable sources of information about a person? If so, how so?

Would centuries-later writers have direct knowledge or would they be reporting hearsay? If reporting hearsay from unidentified sources, how can the truth and accuracy of the information be evaluated?

Does one just believe on faith alone that whatever gospels say is true?

If it's your position that Christian sources are not to be considered as evidence, please say so.

I have no objection to Christian sources as evidence " provided they can be verified like all other sources and provided that the source is not cited to support itself (i.e., using bible stories to support bible stories).

I might well question the veracity of sources writing centuries later about a specific person " and ask how they would know details of the life or conversations of a person that might have been contemporary with their great-great-great grandmother. It would not make any difference to me what that persons religious convictions might be.

It is prudent to consider the likely biases of ALL sources of information. An Islamic writer, for instance is more likely to be biased in favor of Islamic truths than Christian truths " and any condemnation of Christian stories might be considered in the light of his potential or likely religious bias.

Christian churchmen who selected and edited manuscripts that became know as the bible are likely to have had at least a SLIGHT pro-Christian bias. Do you agree?

It is not my obligation to find your evidence or to dispute evidence that you have NOT provided.

I made a statement about the evidence regarding the existence of James the brother of Jesus. In response, you demanded evidence from outside the bible regarding Peter and John.

Would you care to try to defend a claim that James the brother of Jesus referred to the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth " the miracle worker?

It wasn't relevant, but I was polite enough to point out a starting place to look for the evidence. I agree that your not obliged to actually go and look, but if you're the one who is interested in that question, common sense would suggest that you do something about it.

Have you NOT used reference to John (or the writer of the fourth gospel) in your argument?

If you have, are you willing to verify that he existed and identify him with something other than bible tales?

More to the point however, I wonder why you think that the canon of accepted writings compiled from the late 2nd century onwards has any bearing on whether something 'counts' as evidence? If I want to learn about Ghandi, I don't automatically exclude from my research every text studied at the University of New Delhi.

I have expressed no position regarding what has bearing on what.

I ask for real world evidence to substantiate claims made.

Paul's writings are real world evidence.

Pauls writings are real world evidence ONLY that Paul said things " NOT that what he said was true.

He CLAIMS to have met Jesus in a vision " and does not, evidently, claim to have known him in person. If that is true, he wrote tales of Jesus from HEARSAY (something heard from others).

Is THAT what you consider real world evidence? Hearsay?

The gospels of Mark

The gospel of Mark is real world evidence ONLY that someone whose identity is not known or is disputed, later given the name Mark, wrote tales about Jesus. Some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers. None are known to be first-hand (actually eyewitness) accounts. The time of writing cannot be established with certainty, but appears to be decades or generations AFTER the supposed events.

What is the evidentiary value of Marks writing?

and Q are real world evidence, though opinions vary widely on how strong or weak that evidence is.

I am unaware of the existence of the gospel of Q in the real world. Can you provide a link to its text?

The book of Acts is real world evidence, and so is the gospel of John.
The tales exist. Their existence is no assurance or evidence that the tales are true.

Even the pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) are real world evidence - they're evidence that by the time they were written Paul was respected enough that the author wrote those epistles in his name, evidence about the structure of the church at the time, evidence about beliefs regarding Jesus...

Notice, as readers will, that the evidence you cite is simply more tales from the same source as the one you are trying to support or defend.

Are you NOT aware that Paul is claimed (and disputed) to be the author of those writings?

If you are aware that someone else wrote in Pauls name, do you not recognize that as FRAUD? Writing something and signing or assigning someone elses name to the work is DISHONEST. Do we trust a dishonest person to provide truthful evidence?

All the gospels and epistles are religious promotional writings " gathered and combined by religious people into a compiled and edited text that is religious promotional material.

It is not surprising to find that papers collected to reflect certain religious views reflect certain religious views " that tales reinforce one another.

Modern sales promotional literature does the same thing. Testimonial #1 says much the same as Testimonial #2. Dissenting views are not likely to be included because the intent is to promote the product " not to increase human knowledge.

Many scholars believe that the book of Acts was written by the end of the 1st century CE, and I know of no reason to doubt that conclusion.

Do other scholars and theologians NOT believe that Acts was written until later than first century?

Is your lack of doubt concerning its date anything other than personal opinion?

Many of its references to the life of Paul can be confirmed in his letters; but there are also points of disagreement and much material which isn't directly related to Paul, suggesting that the author of Acts didn't use his letters as his only source.

Are you saying that the author of Acts (whoever that anonymous person may have been) used sources IN ADDITION to Pauls letters as sources of information?

If that author used Pauls letters in any way, HOW can agreement between the letters and Acts be offered as evidence of anything?

If someone uses your writings to write theirs, would it be surprising that there be some commonality?

The book of Acts mentions John several times, and mentions Peter even more frequently.

Who was the person doing the writing? What was their intent? When did they write? Where did they live? What was their religious affiliation or possible bias?

This is real world evidence regarding the existence of Peter and John, as virtually all scholars agree.

Do virtually all scholars agree that the names Peter and John are accurate and that the tales told about them are accurate?

It's not the only evidence, and some would say that it's evidence of little more than their mere existence; but it's there in the real world, and it is evidence that they existed.

Then it should be no problem to answer the questions at the beginning of this post. Surely you will want to demonstrate to readers that you can do so.

The fact that you asked for extra-biblical evidence suggests that you think things in the bible somehow don't count.

Correction: I do not accept promotional literature as truthful without verification by convergence of evidence from wide ranging sources.

The bible can be offered as evidence. I recognize that as being biased toward acceptance of bible stories " and ask what OTHER evidence one can supply to substantiate what is contained therein.

I do not accept sales or promotional literature regarding a Ponzi scheme as being truthful and accurate, but look to other sources to verify information presented. When the promotional literature is NOT verified by other sources, I realize that it is suspect (at best) and quite possibly in error or outright false.

I do not accept as true what I am told by used car salesmen, investment advisors, politicians or preachers " unless they can provide strong evidence that they speak truth. I have yet to encounter a preacher or politician (or their followers) who can provide strong evidence " but used car salesmen and investment advisors occasionally have.

And since the canon of the 'bible' had barely even begun to exist by the 2nd century, this suggests that you believe decisions made in the 2nd and 3rd centuries affect whether or not certain writings 'count' as evidence. Though I have met folk who really haven't thought the issue through much, so I apologise for not explaining myself better.

To avoid any assumptions on my part however, I'd appreciate your answer:
Why did you specifically request that I provide only sources from outside the bible?

I do NOT accept as evidence (or more correctly as the weakest of evidence hardly worthy of serious mention) a source being offered to support itself. Doing so is ludicrous in my opinion " and indication that there is no legitimate or independent support available.

In my opinion what I said above is a key element in evaluating the truth and accuracy of bible tales.

I think it is QUITE REVELANT that the ONLY people writing about miracles as though they actually occurred are followers of the religion being promoted in the literature. Even the greatest miracle in the storied life of Jesus and proof of his divinity " coming back to life after three days in the grave " is NOT RECORDED by anyone but religious promoters writing decades or generations after the supposed events.

I think we're getting somewhere now, and I appreciate your continued contribution

As to the latter, I don't think it's surprising that the only people writing about miracles are the followers of the religion; they're the ones who believe in the religion and the miracles, after all.

Exactly.

Those who are followers of the religion and believers in miracles report that such things occur. That is NOT surprising.

If followers of a modern religious cult claim that their leader who died came back to life and visited us then went up into the sky " would you believe them?

If they wrote accounts of the resurrection would you believe those accounts without other verification?

If one of the accounts was cited as proof (or evidence) that another was true, would you accept that reasoning?

Might one suspect that the followers EXAGGERATED tales about their dead leader?

Why would that be any different for earlier followers of Christianity? Were they known to be more honest and accurate than modern people? Were they more trustworthy? Why believe their tales and not more modern tales " or similar tales about different gods?

If someone believed in the miracles, there's a good chance they'd end up joining the religion

What a stretch.

Not everyone who observes accepts the magic " not everyone converts to the religion being promoted.

Even theres a good chance leaves a lot of room for people to observe and not become followers.

I do not accept that modern magicians perform supernatural feats " even though the tricks may be quite good and I do not know how the illusion was created. Do you believe modern magicians are supernatural? Do you believe that ancient magicians were supernatural?

Could people living in the ignorance and superstition characteristic of two thousand years ago be expected to be prone to believe in miracles and magic " and perhaps to report tales of such things as though they were truthful accounts of actual events?

(though I've yet to see the sceptic who agrees that people believing the tales and converting is evidence for the believability of those tales; a circular position?). However even then, there are some non-Christian references to Jesus as a magician (eg. in the Talmud), suggesting that those authors believed he did supernatural things.

I am unfamiliar with Talmud references to Jesus as a magician. Can you provide a link or two?

If someone said he is a magician, does that mean that they believed he did supernatural things?

Do magicians do supernatural things?

Nevertheless, obviously people who believed Jesus was divine would have a certain bias towards exaggerating the stories they'd heard or even inventing new, even more remarkable stories about what he'd done.

I agree.

Can we know which, if any, of the stories about Jesus are NOT exaggerated?

For instance, believers claim that he came back to life after three days in the grave. Is that literal truth? Did he return physically or was it a spiritual return?

Believers clam that Jesus was divine and the son of god. Is there evidence to support those contentions and to show that they are NOT exaggerations?

Remember that those who make the claims bear the burden of proof " in honorable debate and reasoned discussion.

This is the case in probably every religion, and scholars spend much time researching and pondering and arguing over how this bias affected the writings of that author, compared with the different theological bias of this author.

Yes. SOME insight may be gained into biases of ancient authors " but we cannot actually know their motivations.

So to the question of "evaluating the truth and accuracy of bible tales": I'd say that if one believes folk in the Roman Empire were generally informed, critical-thinking folk like we tend to expect of the 21st century Western adult, then tales of miracles would put any author in the same category as we'd put the average schizophrenic.

I, for one, do NOT expect that 21st Century western adults to be well informed or (especially) critical-thinking folk.

I KNOW that a large percentage of modern folks believe that invisible, undetectable, supernatural gods created the universe and influence human lives (and presumed afterlives) " ALL based upon ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion.

As a former college / university professor, I am aware that critical (or analytical) thinking is NOT characteristic of our society (even among young people who often reject old-fashioned ideas in favor of new fads).

Simple fact is, however, that tales of miracles abound in the ancient world.

I agree. Miracles and supernatural tales were common explanations for unknown events. Drought was explained as punishment from gods " and might be relieved by sacrificing children. An eclipse of the sun was explained as dragons eating the sun (and may have been reversed by making large donations to the clergy welfare fund).

Alexander the Great was said to have been a son of Zeus, if memory serves - do we then ignore everything written about him by writers who mention that myth?

I do not express a position regarding Alexander the Great or the writers.

I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true.

Okay, lets apply that to the bible tale of resurrection. What details might we sort out as being true " and how would we learn their truth?

Hillel the Elder was said to have lived 40 years in Babylon, 40 years studying in Jerusalem and 40 years as head of the Sanhedrin. Truth, or a mythical comparison with Moses?

False dichotomy. Other POSSIBILITIES include:

1. Exaggeration (without need to be comparison with Moses)
2. Faulty information or memory
3. Poor mathematical ability
4. Religious fervor or delusion
5. Deliberate fantasy

Those who offer dichotomies (either " or choices) often overlook (deliberately or otherwise) other alternatives " but attempt to coerce others to make a choice between the two that I have offered. Thanks anyway.

And if it's mythical, does that mean that Hillel didn't exist, or that we should discount everything else said about him by those sources?

I can accept exaggeration (for whatever reason). Many writers and tellers of tales exaggerate.

When exaggeration is apparent or strongly suspected (as claiming that humans live hundreds of years, common in bible tales), the accuracy of details is suspect.

If a storyteller is known or suspected to be prone to exaggeration, their claims are suspect " not necessarily totally rejected, but in need of verification before acceptance.

I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true.

I would not ignore the myth " but would take into account that the storyteller was prone to exaggeration while sorting out which of the mundane details are true.

How, exactly, can one sort out the true details? How, exactly, does one go about doing so?

Apply that to tales of Norse gods, for instance. What are the true details and how can that be determined?

Actually I wouldn't ignore the myth; I'd try to understand it, to see what views and biases the author might have, so as to better understand what and why he wrote, and hence whether and which bits (if any) are based in fact.
If one is inclined to analyze myths or fiction to ferret out facts they are welcome to do so. I have little or no interest in or incentive to do so.

I understand that you would be reluctant to actually STATE your claim in clear and precise terms for all to understand.

Could you tell me why you believe I would be reluctant to state my claim in clear and precise terms?

What theological position do you represent in debate?

Some would say that asking for a theological position in a discussion about the authenticity of a text is a loaded question. I mentioned my views in the post you're replying to, but if that's not clear enough for you I think my most recent summary regarding John would be:

"...given that the known facts seem to fit quite well with a disciple recording his thoughts towards the end of his long life, it's interesting that I still haven't seen any evidence against the claims regarding it made by the author and confirmed by the latter appender and by Justin Martyr."

Thank you.

What known facts are you referring to above?

I agree that the account COULD be that of an elderly disciple recording thoughts late in life.

The account COULD also be pure fiction.

I have no way of knowing which or these or anything between is actually the case. I ASK those who think they know (and want me or others to accept their arguments) to provide REASON to accept one or the other.

NOTICE that I am not selling the fiction idea " only correctly noting that it is possible. Those who claim to KNOW one way or the other are expected, in honorable debate, to provide substantiation or withdraw their claim of knowledge.

What is your opinion of the claim made by these two writers?

Before I express an opinion regarding claims made I ask:

1. Who, exactly, is the person making the claim?
2. What is their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy?
3. What are their potential biases (i.e., are they closely associated with the claim)?
4. What, exactly, did they say (preferably in their original documents)?
5. Where did they get their information?

On an online discussion forum, you don't know who exactly is the person making any claim; even if they've been posting for months, except on the extreme ends of the spectrum generally you know very little about their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy; and the same goes with their potential biases.

Note that I was NOT asking about the on-line person but was very specifically addressing YOUR question regarding these two writers (meaning Peter and John)

Note further that none of the five questions can be answered in regard to these two writers with anything other than guesses.

Do you think that slips past or fools readers?

You have the advantage of knowing exactly what they've written (though misinterpretation is an ever-present possibility).

When did they write?
Do their original writings exist or only copies (or copies of copies of copies)?
Were the writings (by whoever might have written) later transcribed, edited, translated? Can we know that all of that retained the exact wording and meaning of the originator?

I've often seen you asking for evidence, which isn't really the same as asking where someone got their information, but along the same vein. Of course, if that information depends in whole or in part on some 'general knowledge' about science or history, or 'common sense' regarding human nature, presumably it's then necessary to ask where that 'general knowledge' or 'common sense' came from.

Since you propose common sense and general knowledge, it is incumbent upon YOU to say where it came from

So in an online discussion forum, in the best of cases you might have partial answers to two of your five questions.

Again, I ask that the questions be answered with respect to these two writers (Peter and John).

And yet earlier in your post you said to me:
"I understand that you would be reluctant to actually STATE your claim in clear and precise terms for all to understand."
Far more than expressing your opinion about a claim of mine, this seems to be an opinion about my feelings or motivation!

Do you take ANY position with regard to the truth and accuracy of the writings of Peter and John?

Could you please explain the discrepancy between your stated requirements before expressing an opinion, and what seems to be expressed in practice?

In debate it is not uncommon to ask the opposition to clearly state their position on items being discussed.

What is your opinion of the claim made by these two writers?

We do not know who wrote John, nor their reputation for veracity and accuracy, nor their potential biases, nor exactly what they said in their original documents, nor where they got their information. Do you agree?

So (correct me if I'm wrong), but your opinion seems to be that these two claims do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the author?

It is my opinion that those who support or promote or accept the writings of John as being truthful and accurate have NOT provided information upon which a reasoned decision can be based " including the writers identity, reputation, veracity, accuracy, associations, sources of information, etc.

I've often seen folk ask Christians what would constitute sufficient evidence for them to reject one of their core beliefs. The key test of any claim's reliability is it's falsifiability, after all; an important part of the scientific method, if memory serves me.

TESTING of ideas is the core of what we know as the scientific method.

Theories or explanations are CRITICALLY examined by people other than the originators or their organizations and supporters. Opponents are invited to poke holes in (find defects in) theories presented.

If someone claims that dead bodies come back to life, that donkeys and snakes converse with humans, that the Earth ceased rotating, that a worldwide flood covered the planet to the tops of mountains, that people walk on water " they are asked to DEMONSTATE that those things happen in the real world.

When they CANNOT demonstrate clearly without tricks that what they claim is true, their claims are DISMISSED as unworthy of acceptance for truth (until evidence of truth is provided)

Scientifically oriented people do NOT claim to possess absolute truth " theistically oriented people often do (or claim that for their favorite gods).

You have frequently asked folk for evidence on one point or another, and I thought I'd done a decent job of providing it. Apparently not. So as my third main question in this post, I must ask for further clarification:

When you ask for evidence, what exactly do you have in mind? Two specific examples may help with the clarification.

If a person wishes to persuade me to take them and their arguments seriously, they can expect to provide reason for me to accept that they speak truth.

They CANNOT convince me of anything by offering tales by anonymous writers, or using a single source of information and claiming that the source proves itself. Bible stories being offered to verify bible stories is ludicrous.

Making excuses for absence of evidence is not at all convincing.

What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?
I would expect that the identity of the writer be KNOWN, that there be records of the person and his connection to Jesus (aside from tales in a storybook that are offered as truthful without verification).

And what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that Jesus did exist?

I do not doubt that a preacher, perhaps named Jesus, lived a couple thousand years ago " and may have become immortalized as the pattern for Christian beliefs.

What I do NOT accept is that the Jesus character was a miracle worker, or the son of god, or divine as claimed in bible tales.

Evidence that I would consider might include widespread mention of miracles by sources NOT representing or promoting the religion " including recognition of the feats by opponents, adversaries, worshipers of other gods.

[Mithrae]

When you ask for evidence, what exactly do you have in mind? Two specific examples may help with the clarification.
- What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?
- And what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that Jesus did exist?

For Goat (with a snide implication regarding Josephus/James ) one can't help but get the impression that even if we found a 4th century archive in Rome with copies of death records throughout the empire, if one read "Jesus son of Joseph, crucified under Pilate for sedition" some folk would claim it was artificially added by Constantine.

If it was 4th century, then, yes, it would be a much too late a date, and it would be 'too good to be true', so to speak.

I will tell you what would have convinced me if it wasn't a modern forgery was the ossuary of James. If we found some writings that could be dated from before the destruction of the Jewish temple from a non-christian source that mentioned Jesus with enough information to identify him as a preacher who was executed, I would accept that. It was was after the synoptic gospels were written, then the source of the information could be the synoptic gospels.

Thankyou. Of course, the only two such sources would be either some kind of Roman execution record (which would likely not mention that the deceased was a preacher), or a comment by a Jew. In either case, are you sure you wouldn't think it 'too good to be true'? You specified writings, which are almost never found as originals. The suspicion that it might be a century Christian forgery would never enter your mind? Or that it might be a forgery even if it was indisputably written in the 60s CE?

Paul would fit that description almost perfectly of course; a contemporary of Jesus who spent considerable time in Judea and Jerusalem and who states that he initially harried the followers of Jesus. But since he had some kind of vision of a risen divine Jesus, he apparently doesn't count as evidence that the man Jesus even existed in the first place?

And Josephus' reference to James is non-Christian and well within your 40-year time limit. Yet this apparently is not suitable evidence either? I notice that you haven't made any guess why Josephus would on that sole occasion use the term 'christ' for a priest, nor provided any evidence that it's a scribal gloss, nor commented on the difficulties which arise if it were, nor ventured an opinion on whether or not it would be a remarkable co-incidence to have two such Jameses in Jerusalem around that time.

Regardless, it's curious that a perfect comparison for your required evidence regarding Jesus is not accepted in the case of James. And a near-perfect comparison is apparently rejected simply because the individual ended up converting.

I appreciate your answer though Do you stand by it, or would you like to add new terms? For example, we could add that the source must specifically mention meeting Jesus and/or must use at least X different descriptions to show beyond the slightest modicrum of doubt who he's referring to (presumably without causing any unusual interruption in the flow of the passsage, which would raise suspicion and seem too good to be true).

-------------------

Mithrae,
I may have underestimated you and responded as though you were one of the usual Parroting of Dogma Fundamentalists who refuse to think about what they quote from scripture and refuse to defend their claims and stories. Perhaps you can do better than the standard pattern in these debates.

Thankyou for admitting the possibility that I might at some point argue better than a "parroting of dogma" fundamentalist. It's comforting to know that my posts so far have shown the potential to become that good!

Questions of my debating potential aside, I should mention that in my second post of this thread, in a paragraph adressed directly to you, I wrote that "I'm not a Christian and enjoy debating as much as the next man..." If it's taken you this long to finally understand that exceedingly simple fact, I suspect that the likelihood of myself (or anyone else) having a productive discussion with you is approximately nil. Reading and comprehension are essential for communication, after all. Nevertheless.

I'll try to keep my response brief, but as usual please let me know if I've overlooked anything in your post which you claim is significant.

I have no objection to Christian sources as evidence " provided they can be verified like all other sources and provided that the source is not cited to support itself (i.e., using bible stories to support bible stories).

Poor comprehension
Imprecise or uncritical thinking
I've mentioned several times that the bible isn't a single source. It's a collection of distinct writings which were canonised (in the case of the NT) through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Describing it as a single source sometimes used to support itself is an imprecise or uncritical way of thinking about it.

However you've made the claim that 'bible stories' are a single source sometimes used to support itself. You make the claim more clearly later in your post - "the evidence you cite is simply more tales from the same source as the one you are trying to support or defend." Please provide evidence to support your claim that the bible is a single source.

Christian churchmen who selected and edited manuscripts that became know as the bible are likely to have had at least a SLIGHT pro-Christian bias.

Please provide evidence that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible. Please explain what you mean by 'bias' and provide evidence that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias.

Would you care to try to defend a claim that James the brother of Jesus referred to the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth " the miracle worker?

Poor comprehension
I haven't made any claims about working miracles. However my last post very clearly has a defence of the claim that Josephus makes reference to the biblical James and Jesus.

He [Paul] CLAIMS to have met Jesus in a vision " and does not, evidently, claim to have known him in person. If that is true, he wrote tales of Jesus from HEARSAY (something heard from others).

Is THAT what you consider real world evidence? Hearsay?

Poor comprehension
Straw-man
I mentioned Paul specifically as evidence regarding the existence of James. Before my comments to Goat in this post, I have never used Paul as evidence regarding Jesus. Paul does say that he met James on multiple occasions. That is not hearsay, and your comments here are a strawman.

The gospel of Mark is real world evidence ONLY that someone whose identity is not known or is disputed, later given the name Mark, wrote tales about Jesus. Some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers. None are known to be first-hand (actually eyewitness) accounts. The time of writing cannot be established with certainty, but appears to be decades or generations AFTER the supposed events.

Please provide evidence for your claims that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" and that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events."

All the gospels and epistles are religious promotional writings " gathered and combined by religious people into a compiled and edited text that is religious promotional material.

Please provide evidence for your claim that all the epistles are religious promotional writings. (By the way, in the interests of convenience, I'll put all these claims you've made into a list at the end of my post.)

It is not surprising to find that papers collected to reflect certain religious views reflect certain religious views " that tales reinforce one another.

Please provide evidence for your claim that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings.

However even then, there are some non-Christian references to Jesus as a magician (eg. in the Talmud), suggesting that those authors believed he did supernatural things.

I am unfamiliar with Talmud references to Jesus as a magician. Can you provide a link or two?

It's nearly midnight, and this around the point where my computer ate my first attempted reply, so I'm a little frustrated with it. Since it's a minor point, for now I'll just refer you to the Encyclopaedia Judaica.

I KNOW that a large percentage of modern folks believe that invisible, undetectable, supernatural gods created the universe and influence human lives (and presumed afterlives) " ALL based upon ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion.

Could you provide evidence for your claim that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods? I'm trying to be fair in picking out which claims I request evidence for by the way, in the interests of relative brevity if nothing else. As a claim about religious psychology, this may offer insight into your/our level of understanding regarding those ancient tales.

I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true.

Okay, lets apply that to the bible tale of resurrection. What details might we sort out as being true " and how would we learn their truth?

Accounts of the resurrection can be found from Paul, Mark (as the basis for the tales in Matthew and Luke) and John (which has no literary dependance on the synoptics). Common to all accounts are the death of Jesus, that it was on the third day he allegedly rose, and the identity of Peter as the first male witness. John and Mark both agree that the first witness/es were female (very weak testimony, in the ancient world), and that Mary Magdalene was there. They both agree that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. We thus find theories such as the women mistaking the location of the tomb and their grief and/or hallucination giving rise to the resurrection story and perhaps a series of such visions inspiring hope amongst a group in an otherwise overwhelmingly hopeless situation.

We "learn the truth" based on principles such as extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence (ruling out supernatural elements as being reasonably justified), corroboration of details between sources, potential theological biases regarding specific details (eg. the likely bias against female witnesses could imply that their presence in the two more detailed accounts has a basis in fact) etc. etc.

What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?

I would expect that the identity of the writer be KNOWN, that there be records of the person and his connection to Jesus (aside from tales in a storybook that are offered as truthful without verification).

That doesn't answer the question; belief that the author was John is justified if we KNOW the author was John? I asked for an exact explanation of what evidence you want, perhaps a couple of examples of what you'd consider sufficient. If "tales in a storybook" means the bible, does that mean you accept accounts of the author and his connection to Jesus from other early Christian sources?

I'm asking for what you'd consider sufficent evidence to reasonably justify belief, not what would convince you personally. You've stated your opinion that Christians "have NOT provided information upon which a reasoned decision can be based" regarding the fourth gospel - so what information would be sufficient as a basis for a reasoned decision, whatever decision each person might make?

What hypothetical scenario might satisfy your request for evidence?

I do not doubt that a preacher, perhaps named Jesus, lived a couple thousand years ago " and may have become immortalized as the pattern for Christian beliefs.

You don't doubt that a preacher lived a couple thousand years ago, perhaps under the name Jesus. But that such a figure 'may' have become immortalised as the pattern for Christian beliefs implies a measure of doubt, yes?

Is it your position that believing such a founder-figure 'may' have existed is reasonable without evidence? Perhaps it's even reasonable to believe that he did exist without evidence? If not, then what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that such a founder-figure did exist?

I remind you that you asked the question:
"However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus..."

The question is meaningless unless you define your terms. What would serve as the evidence you request? What hypothetical scenario/s would provide evidence to reasonably justify belief?





And as promised, out of the claims which you made in this post, here is the summary list of the ones which I think are worth providing evidence to support:
1 - that the bible is a single source
2 - that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible
3 - that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias
4 - that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" (Mark)
5 - that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events" (Mark)
6 - that all the epistles are religious promotional writings
7 - that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings
8 - that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods?

Please note that I'm trying to pay attention to your specific points, to which ones seem important and which ones less so, rather than simply ignoring all that's gone before and asking "Are you making a claim regarding the fourth gospel? If so what claim do you make?" As you would have guessed at the time, that comment annoyed me somewhat Hopefully we're on the road to a more productive exchange of views, evidence and epistemological criteria now

[Goat]

When you ask for evidence, what exactly do you have in mind? Two specific examples may help with the clarification.
- What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?
- And what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that Jesus did exist?

For Goat (with a snide implication regarding Josephus/James ) one can't help but get the impression that even if we found a 4th century archive in Rome with copies of death records throughout the empire, if one read "Jesus son of Joseph, crucified under Pilate for sedition" some folk would claim it was artificially added by Constantine.

If it was 4th century, then, yes, it would be a much too late a date, and it would be 'too good to be true', so to speak.

I will tell you what would have convinced me if it wasn't a modern forgery was the ossuary of James. If we found some writings that could be dated from before the destruction of the Jewish temple from a non-christian source that mentioned Jesus with enough information to identify him as a preacher who was executed, I would accept that. It was was after the synoptic gospels were written, then the source of the information could be the synoptic gospels.

Thankyou. Of course, the only two such sources would be either some kind of Roman execution record (which would likely not mention that the deceased was a preacher), or a comment by a Jew. In either case, are you sure you wouldn't think it 'too good to be true'? You specified writings, which are almost never found as originals. The suspicion that it might be a century Christian forgery would never enter your mind? Or that it might be a forgery even if it was indisputably written in the 60s CE?

Paul would fit that description almost perfectly of course; a contemporary of Jesus who spent considerable time in Judea and Jerusalem and who states that he initially harried the followers of Jesus. But since he had some kind of vision of a risen divine Jesus, he apparently doesn't count as evidence that the man Jesus even existed in the first place?

And Josephus' reference to James is non-Christian and well within your 40-year time limit. Yet this apparently is not suitable evidence either? I notice that you haven't made any guess why Josephus would on that sole occasion use the term 'christ' for a priest, nor provided any evidence that it's a scribal gloss, nor commented on the difficulties which arise if it were, nor ventured an opinion on whether or not it would be a remarkable co-incidence to have two such Jameses in Jerusalem around that time.

Regardless, it's curious that a perfect comparison for your required evidence regarding Jesus is not accepted in the case of James. And a near-perfect comparison is apparently rejected simply because the individual ended up converting.

Well, you are wrong. Josephus' antiquties was written in 93 C.E, which is 60 years after the event, and the problems with it being inserted later, or taken out of context have been addressed many times.

Tell you what, if you read the 'christ' passage in context, can you show, using the context of Antiquities 20, that it doesn't mean Jesus the high priest?

Here is the entire Antiquities 20:1.


1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.


Can you show that it doesn't refer to Jesus, son of Damneus, using the context of
Antiquities?

Remember, the 'high priest' is a 'christ'.

I