fairness in evidence examination

[achilles12604]

This question stems from my recent discussion with goat.

My challenge to you is to show evidence to support that tradition. I challenge the validity of the tradition. While there might have been a Luke who supposedly traveled with Paul, and the early church fathers (mid to late second century), associated luke/acts with that person, I want see evidence it is correct.

The author of Luke/Acts does not self identify themselves. Indeed, the Gospel of Luke says 'I am writing things down from other people' , rather than say 'I am writing down what Paul told me'. To me, that indicates a relationship further in time rather than someone who was there at the beginging with Paul.

Show me some evidence that is external to Luke , that Luke actually was written in the first century, and was not just an assumption of church father from the mid to late 2nd century that it was. Give me evidence that the Gospel of Luke was not redacted from Marcion, with chapters added on to distance itself from the Gnostic movement.

I am looking for reference to the Gospel of Luke from before 100 C.E. Not one of your sources was from before 100 C.E., and the earliest reference that was attributiing the Gospel of Luke to Luke himself (the tradition Luke wrote it), was before 170 C.e. (and that dating of that is questionable at best)

You keep on pointing to 'internal data'. That was not part of my challenge. My challenge was specifically to find an external reference to the Gospel of Luke that
would place the writing before 100 c.e

Question for debate: Why do non-theists demand much more conclusive evidence for events surrounding Christianity than they do for other historical events? (like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Genghis Kahn, etc.)

Are their demands for specific kinds of evidence from exact time periods valid? Does lack of their evidence warrant disregarding other evidence outright?

I was discussion with McC about how history is analyzed by most historians.

achilles12604 wrote:
However, we do have evidence of a man named Jesus. We do have evidence of his ministry. We even have evidence of his miracles and resurrection. In fact we have non-biblical evidence of all three of these points.

McCulloch wrote:
I must have been sleeping. Where is the non-biblical evidence of Jesus' ministry, miracles and resurrection?

Achilles 12604 wrote:

Quote:
Traditionally, historians have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents, although historical research is not limited merely to these sources. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three. Historians frequently emphasize the importance of written records, which universally date to the development of writing. This emphasis has led to the term prehistory, referring to a time before written sources are available. Since writing emerged at different times throughout the world, the distinction between prehistory and history often depends on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

Ok notice here the method used by historians is largely dependent on written records. There are also additional sources of information; what is said, and what is preserved.

With regard to Jesus and his ministry, we should not expect much to have been physically preserved. Jesus actions and teachings would have never left any real archeological evidence to validate the accuracy of written accounts. The only place archeology has in this particular study is in confirming specific details such as town's existences and physical structures. It can tell us if a certain well had five pillars for example as mentioned in John. But it can neither confirm nor denounce any specific event which occurred at said well.

What is said is basically useless when examining ancient times as well do not have any ability to record or preserve the words of those men.

So we are left with what is written. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned non-biblical sources.

So given that historians primarily use written documentation as their tool for unravaling history, what is wrong with historical analysis of indirect evidence? Historians do this all the time.

But it seems to me that if a Christians does it, their argument isn't worth anything. Does this have more to do with the facts of the argument, or the preconceptions of those examining the argument?

[Easyrider]

When I was a Christian, I once witnessed to a close friend of mine. I remember him telling me how "closed-minded" I was as a Christian. That upset me. I thought I had it all figured out. I read my Bible, weighed the facts, thought the whole thing through quite logically, but later I find out that it was me that had it all wrong. Very wrong indeed...

Such as? When answering please provide the evidence of what was supposedly wrong. Thank you.

[wrekk]

When I was a Christian, I once witnessed to a close friend of mine. I remember him telling me how "closed-minded" I was as a Christian. That upset me. I thought I had it all figured out. I read my Bible, weighed the facts, thought the whole thing through quite logically, but later I find out that it was me that had it all wrong. Very wrong indeed...

Such as? When answering please provide the evidence of what was supposedly wrong. Thank you.

Christianity itself is all the "evidence" I need to answer your question. You name me one thing that's supposedly "right" about it.

[achilles12604]

When some book or person makes claims about a god and miracles performed by that god, much concrete evidence SHOULD be necessary. This claim affects millions of lives, sometimes in fatal ways.

Small interjection here - if those purporting to follow these teachings (Jesus not islam - don't get me started), would have actually READ those teachings, then violence would never have been an option. So I submit the problem is with the people, not the teachings.

These are about magical, unnatural events that have never be repeated or witnessed in modern times. These should always be accompanied by proof, not just evidence.

Define proof.

[achilles12604]

When some book or person makes claims about a god and miracles performed by that god, much concrete evidence SHOULD be necessary. This claim affects millions of lives, sometimes in fatal ways.

Small interjection here - if those purporting to follow these teachings (Jesus not islam - don't get me started), would have actually READ those teachings, then violence would never have been an option. So I submit the problem is with the people, not the teachings.

These are about magical, unnatural events that have never be repeated or witnessed in modern times. These should always be accompanied by proof, not just evidence.

Define proof.

[achilles12604]

Achilles wrote:

Question for debate: Why do non-theists demand much more conclusive evidence for events surrounding Christianity than they do for other historical events? (like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Genghis Kahn, etc.)

Are their demands for specific kinds of evidence from exact time periods valid? Does lack of their evidence warrant disregarding other evidence outright?

I don't think we demand more conclusive evidence, rather than more unbiased evidence. If you wish to quote a source from the Catholic church that Luke was written in XXX or this Christ was crucified by XXX, well, your source is extremely compromised since the majority of what they recorded would be seen as extremely biased since they usued it primarily for control (or should I say abused it) and power.

I agree with this. In fact this is why I try my best to use as many atheist sources as I can. IF not, then I usually try and cite university or expert sources.

I have seen other debator cite other historians who were well noted for documenting everything yet lack any mention of certain Chrsitian events such as the earthquake, eclipse, and resurrrection of saints at the time of Christs death.

Of course I don't wish to parry over ever detail. But there are perfectly good reasons why the earthquake and resurrection of saints, and even the eclipse (but I actually think THIS was a real event) were not mentioned by outside source. They didn't happen. The writer Matthew was using a well known (at the time) litterary technique which we see used by many other Jewish writers both before his time and after. Apocolyptic writing style. Ok, well thats enough off topic discussion for this section.

I can't comment on Alexander the Great but to my knowledge there exist sources from those he conquered that don't exactly paint a rosey picture of him and document his journeys by multiple first hand sources written at the time of his exploits. I am not 100% sure of this which is why I can't state this with certainty.

Actually almost 100% of what we "know" about Alexander comes from 4 (some count 5) sources almost 400 years after he died. ANY writings before this including thier sources are gone forever.

You can actually read all about it in "The Historical Validity of Jesus" thread. It was my very first post.

The ONLY contemporary source we have (and they may not be contemporary, the jury is still out) are tablets which document his life. They also however say that he was 150 years old and did amazing things, so you decide how historically accurate they are.

Are the demands valid. Sure. Christianity is making claims of what is suppose to be the most important events of mankind. Yet we have no autographs, the originals, what we have are copied over copies. We all know that the more you tell a story the more dramatic it becomes.

So true. This is why I (or we) try to focus on the VERY FIRST sources we have. A suggestion? Na - a CHALLENGE!!! Research google about other ancient writings. Alexander is a perfect example. Find out how the sources for Christianity compare to others of the same genre. I did this and found that Christianity is WAY out in front when compared fairly to contemporary writings.

We also know that the largest spreader of the propoganda (I don't use this word in a negative connotation, just neutral) was the Catholic church who was hardly credible and eliminated anything not favorable about them as well as anyone who didn't ascribe to what they preached. So I don't find it unreasonable nor invalid to request non-biased sources.

Ah non-biased I would agree with. However, Goat wasn't asking for non biased. He was demanding sources be presented which fit into his specific guidlines. I offered many non-biased sources. In fact most of my argument was comparing ACTS with totally non-christian oriented history in order to get a date for it.

The letters I used were just that letters. They were not meant for propaganda purposes. In fact they were only meant to be read by one other person besides the writer. They were simply stating what they understood to be fact.

I think this is a trap that non-theists fall into. They become so used to discrediting Christian sources that they forget that these sources (some, not all) were not originally meant to be apologetical sources at all.

We all know they existed. We have some of their writings. Just look at the thread about "What did Christ Sacrifice" or "Was Christ sacrificed". As for the Gospels, look at the earliest recorded ones we have. The ones in the Bible. Now look at the Gnostics. Everyone has given so many partial reasons why they shouldn't be considered valid, however the heresy hunters found ones like the Gospel of Judas to be important enough to attempt to find it and destroy it. So though we carbon date the current writings at ~270, we know it existed at least 100 years before ~170 AD since they are listed in the volumes of heretical writings by heresy hunters. So how much early did they exist? We can't argue this because we have no proof of them mentioned prior to then. So while we may speculate, we can't prove it. Therefore we must accept what is known until evidence proves otherwise.

A little background on the Gnostice movement. We are able to date the movement through many sources. The letters of the fathers who talked about it is a good source. As you mentioned carbon dating, although this gets a little iffy because of the short time.

In short the Gnostic movement occured from about 140 on. This movement was powered by new ideas of nature, much like Zen Buddhists are influencing America today. These new ideas were countered by the church because they went against the accepted view of said church. We are able to date works, like the Gospel of Judas, by methods like comparing words and phrases to others used during the time. The ideas within a document can also date it.

For example the Gospel of THomas contains a great deal of natural imagry and metephorical allusions. "split a piece of wood and I am there."

These ideas were very popular for the gnostics. Hence, the Gospel of thomas can be accepted into the Gnostic era. Other ways of dating these books is by comparing them to others. For example the Nag Hammurabi library contained many of the gnostic books. Because they were all found together, we can see that they all had common denominators, ie they were gnostic.

When you present evidence from the bible, requesting outside sources is completely reasonable. Requesting unbiased resources is a necessity. Scripture cannot prove scripture anymore than speculation can prove speculation.

True unless you are debating theology.

I don't envy the theist position. It is much harder to defend. But if one is to debate it, then one must have the information required to back up the assertions and biased or 3rd or 4th hand testimony is hardly credible. Present valid evidence that may be disputed but still holds its foundation backed up by other sources and one cannot validly challenge the evidence. But the evidence must be valid and reliable.

I agree completely. THIS brings me right back to my main point.

I provided the method used by historians for examining the past. I provided a non-biased source to demonstrate this method. I then explained how I too had used this method.

However, my evidence was disregarded dispite the fact it matched with historical analysis. I wanted to ask WHY. I followed the exact same rules. I provided internal, external and logical evidence for my dating of Luke and Acts.

So why did they demand a certain kind of evidence and point blank reject what I had presented without reason?

[achilles12604]

Question for debate: Why do non-theists demand much more conclusive evidence for events surrounding Christianity than they do for other historical events? (like Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Genghis Kahn, etc.)

Wikipedia says there are five major sources on Alexander's life and numerous minor ones. Of the five, Wikipedia says:

"All, with the possible exception of Arrian, include a considerable level of fantasy, prompting Strabo to remark, 'All who wrote about Alexander preferred the marvelous to the true.'"

The Hannibal entry states that most accounts of Hannibal were written by Romans, so they very well contain significant amounts of pro-Roman bias. One of the sources is Livy, and his Wikipedia entry says this about his writing:

"Livy's writing style was poetic and archaic in contrast to Caesar's and Cicero's styles. Also, he often wrote from the Roman's opponent's point of view in order to accent the Romans' virtues in their conquest of Italy and the Mediterranean. In keeping with his poetic tendencies, he did little to distinguish between fact and fiction."

Hmm the Genghis Khan entry doesn't have any gems . Anyway, I'm no historian, but I believe that's how ancient historical writings generally are. Yet Christians insist the NT has this unprecedented newspaper-like accuracy without any reason whatsoever to justify it. So Christians have the double standard. Atheists are just trying to read the NT in its proper context.

I think this depends on the Christian. I don't know of to many here who hold the bible to inerrent status. I certainly don't. But then again I don't throw away the baby with the bath water either.

I feel it is the other way around. I see non-theists demanding newspaper quality CNN coverage of an event before they accept it to be possible. Goat is a perfect example of this. HIS evidence HIS way. Who cares that historians don't examine history that way, HE does and if the evidence doesn't measure up to HIS standards, then it should be ignored.

[achilles12604]

OK Changing attack angles for just a second. . . .




Cephus mentioned he wants ANY evidence at all.


Ok fair enough. However, he should then accept corroborative evidence correct?

This is 80% of the evidence I offer.

So bottom line, is the problem that non-theists are demanding DIRECT evidence because they feel corroborative evidence isn't acceptable?

If so, what is "direct" evidence?

What would be considered "good enough" that isn't at least a possibility of what we already have?

(ex: demanding eyewitness accounts is a disputed area. I believe we have already offered eyewitness accounts and provided good corroborating evidence and analysis for that fact)

[Confused]

Achilles writes:

This is why I (or we) try to focus on the VERY FIRST sources we have. A suggestion? Na - a CHALLENGE!!! Research google about other ancient writings. Alexander is a perfect example. Find out how the sources for Christianity compare to others of the same genre. I did this and found that Christianity is WAY out in front when compared fairly to contemporary writings.

Try it with convergence of evidence. In other words, apply standards we apply to the physical world. We come to conclusions of hypotheses by convergence of evidence from many sources: literature, paleontology, archaeology, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, etc. If we only had a few sources from each of these categories, the probability of the hypothesis being valid and reliable are high, they become theories. Not laws mind you. But enough credible evidence from multiple academics can lead to fairly accurate theories.

I have gone to two websites of archives of ancient writings. But testimony isn't good enough for proof. We both know that reality is relative. I remember in my psych 101 class, they showed a tape of some ecology students being led on an expedition in the area around "area 51" in Nevada. The professor had staged a site that was quarantined by tape with two unarmed soldier guarding something covered with a tarp with a small slice of silver showing out of the corner. The leader of the group said something had happened there and the military was handling it but they were to walk past quickly, no taking pictures, etc.... They videotaped the entire process. 3 months later all the students were brought in to account the events of that day. Of the 16 participants, 8 swore that the soldiers where armed with both machine guns and pistols, 4 swore one of them pulled his gun out and aimed it at one boy who was trying to sneak a picture in, there were various other accounts. Only one person reported the events in exact sequence. The other 15 swore they would swear on a stack of bibles and curse their firstborn if they were wrong. Then they were shown the video tapes of the actual events. Needless to say, perceptions are not always what they appear and memories can exaggerate without even meaning to. So for credible evidence I would require something greater than eyewitness accounts. The Gospels themselves of the NT have their own inaccuracies as well. So my challenge, find me something that you can prove through the convergence of evidence that happened in the bible, for example, the ressurection, the virgin birth, the 10 plagues of egypt, etc.

[achilles12604]

Achilles writes:

This is why I (or we) try to focus on the VERY FIRST sources we have. A suggestion? Na - a CHALLENGE!!! Research google about other ancient writings. Alexander is a perfect example. Find out how the sources for Christianity compare to others of the same genre. I did this and found that Christianity is WAY out in front when compared fairly to contemporary writings.

Try it with convergence of evidence. In other words, apply standards we apply to the physical world. We come to conclusions of hypotheses by convergence of evidence from many sources: literature, paleontology, archaeology, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, etc. If we only had a few sources from each of these categories, the probability of the hypothesis being valid and reliable are high, they become theories. Not laws mind you. But enough credible evidence from multiple academics can lead to fairly accurate theories.

I have gone to two websites of archives of ancient writings. But testimony isn't good enough for proof. We both know that reality is relative. I remember in my psych 101 class, they showed a tape of some ecology students being led on an expedition in the area around "area 51" in Nevada. The professor had staged a site that was quarantined by tape with two unarmed soldier guarding something covered with a tarp with a small slice of silver showing out of the corner. The leader of the group said something had happened there and the military was handling it but they were to walk past quickly, no taking pictures, etc.... They videotaped the entire process. 3 months later all the students were brought in to account the events of that day. Of the 16 participants, 8 swore that the soldiers where armed with both machine guns and pistols, 4 swore one of them pulled his gun out and aimed it at one boy who was trying to sneak a picture in, there were various other accounts. Only one person reported the events in exact sequence. The other 15 swore they would swear on a stack of bibles and curse their firstborn if they were wrong. Then they were shown the video tapes of the actual events. Needless to say, perceptions are not always what they appear and memories can exaggerate without even meaning to. So for credible evidence I would require something greater than eyewitness accounts. The Gospels themselves of the NT have their own inaccuracies as well. So my challenge, find me something that you can prove through the convergence of evidence that happened in the bible, for example, the ressurection, the virgin birth, the 10 plagues of egypt, etc.

so as to avoid getting WAY off topic, I'll PM this to you.

[Confused]

Achilles:

so as to avoid getting WAY off topic, I'll PM this to you.

I don't see this off topic. When we are looking a fairness in examinating evidence, how is methods of evalution of topic? I would find it very related.