They should have known better

[achilles12604]

.
The greatest event in history supposedly occurs, a thirty year visit from the “creator of the universe”, and believers can cite only church preachings and ONE outside source that is known to be at least partially false.

Something doesn’t ring true. Any discerning person should question the validity of and support for the story.

Agreed. But remember we are 2000 years out of date. Those discerning people with the best vantage point were those living in the area at the time. Strangely enough we see a couple of unduplicated phenomina occur right then.

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).



Now these things are unique especially because these people had the unique ability to KNOW BETTER. If you compare Christianity to Islam, Christianity claims that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the grave in full view of the public. Compare that with Muhammad who was totally alone in a cave and then only he came out and reported what he did. No one else was around to protest any lies.

This is a critical difference and it has major implications for the falsfiability and therefore validity of the religion in question.

This transaction occurred in the Was the TF inserted thread. And I find it to be a topic unto itself.


Is my view on this matter sound? I find that Christianity is unique because it is the only religion which allowed itself to be falsifiable to the original believers. Jesus didn't go into a cave and later come out to tell everyone what an angel said to him. He taught in the streets. His ministry was very public. And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disproven.

So doesn't common sense tell us that if someone is making outrageous claims like those of miracles and rising from the dead, that the people right then and there would have been able to disprove and ignore the raving lunatic? How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas, and move into a totally new and different religion when their totally outrageous and absurd claims were so blatently and obviously false?

They should have known better.


Please evaluate the above 3 points of uniqueness and comment. Am I off my rocker? Are there other religions which can boast the same unique situations as Christianity? Do these situations have an impact on the verifiability and validity of Christian claims as a whole?

[Goose]

And, therefore, the string of battles for which there are archaeological information validates the accounts. But, the accounts of the military success and prowess don't get me anything, or the average person anything.

This has WHAT to do with establishing history?

What unbiased eyewitness evidence do you have for Alex? Isn't that what you guys ask for Jesus?

The unbiased eye witness accounts are the accounts of the battles, and, for example, the astronomical diaries.

So you don't need eyewitness attestation for Alex? Why do you need it for Jesus then? Already went over this - accounts of a battle don't support an indivdual's historicity. Unless the account speaks of that individual. I've read the astronomical diaries. Who wrote them and when goat? How do you establish that? The references to Alex are at best an inductive argument. They never even say Alexander the Great. They say "King of the world" or "Alex" if memory serves.
Astronomical Diaries

[Furrowed Brow]

FB, that was my post you responded to. I can understand. There are two similar threads and I keep popping in and out. I'm getting confused myself.

Wrote that at 12.00 last night just before bedtime. Ooops. Sorry Achilles and Goose.

The million dollar question is, how do we know if the text is true? Are you assuming it is true with Alex and assuming it isn't for Jesus? Is there a method that one could use to arrive at somewhat similar conclusions or are you going with your gut instinct.

It is a question. And this has been my point that I’ve repeated to Achilles - I think It was Achilles - that his approach and I thinks yours too is way to focused on that question. For the moment I’m backing off my anti supernaturaims as it seems to be giving you two guys opportunity to turn tail, and is taking you away from what methodology you are using to approach the evidence.

I’m not assuming anything about Alex. You just have to approach the evidence with the same set of questions. The more yes-yes evidence you get the more any interpretation of historical evidence stands up. But then you have to look at what does stand up. In the case of Pilate’s stone, we do not use the stone to prove he commissioned a temple, in this respect the truth of the inscription is not what we are looking to establish, it is the existence of the characters named by the stone, we are trying to establish. And the stone is yes-yes evidence for Pilate. However, given the nature of politics, and political hegemony, we still cannot say with any real clarity whether Pilate paid for the Temple, or that he was a generous benefactor etc, or even that the temple got built. That is still open for more interpretation. As for Alex I shall take a look at the evidence this morning.

I have no doubt you can sift with a logical eye. What I doubt is that eye is unbiased as you've acknowledged. Some type of transparent method would alleviate my concern.

I know. I sensed that. Hence the yes-yes, yes-no method.

I agree, except historians rarely have yes-yes evidence for ancient history. Your yes-yes essentially boils down to enemy or neutral attestation, yes-yes?

Not necessarily. If you found an a request to pay the bill for a cabinet built by a carpenter of the name of Jesus. You'd have yes-yes evidence for the existence of the carpenter Jesus. Yes-yes evidence could be a stone. It could be a shopping list. It could be an invoice to pay. This is the sort of stuff that really comes in the yes-yes category. Josephus writings are yes-yes evidence for the existence of Josephus. They are yes-yes evidence that he was an historian. As for the contents of what Josephus wrote that requires another set of questions. What was he writing about? what exactly did does he say? What were his sources? Is he telling the truth i.e. is he giving honest witness to his own sources, is he elaborating? Satisfied with the answers then you asked questions about his sources, and his sources sources? All the time don't try to prove the content of what he is saying, instead the aim is to find exactly what does his writings demonstrate.

[Goat]

And, therefore, the string of battles for which there are archaeological information validates the accounts. But, the accounts of the military success and prowess don't get me anything, or the average person anything.

This has WHAT to do with establishing history?

Are you serious? If you are, we have nothing to talk about.

If you find a document that makes claim xx, and you go test , via archaeological data, that claim xx is false, then you can discount the arguement.

If the document makes claim xx, and you go test, then it gives, and you get
positive results, then it increases the likely hood that the document claim that
yy caused xx to be greater.

For example, we have a claim that Alexander the Great fought a battle in this place at this time. We look at that place.. and we find there was a battle at the proper place, dating to the proper time. That increases the probability that the original claim is correct. Then, if the source is contemporary to the event, and from a disinterested third party (such as the astronomical diaries), that is even stronger evidence.

[Goose]

I agree, except historians rarely have yes-yes evidence for ancient history. Your yes-yes essentially boils down to enemy or neutral attestation, yes-yes?

Not necessarily. If you found an a request to pay the bill for a cabinet built by a carpenter of the name of Jesus. You'd have yes-yes evidence for the existence of the carpenter Jesus. Yes-yes evidence could be a stone. It could be a shopping list. It could be an invoice to pay. This is the sort of stuff that really comes in the yes-yes category. Josephus writings are yes-yes evidence for the existence of Josephus. They are yes-yes evidence that he was an historian. As for the contents of what Josephus wrote that requires another set of questions. What was he writing about? what exactly did does he say? What were his sources? Is he telling the truth i.e. is he giving honest witness to his own sources, is he elaborating? Satisfied with the answers then you asked questions about his sources, and his sources sources? All the time don't try to prove the content of what he is saying, instead the aim is to find exactly what does his writings demonstrate.

How do you know Josephus wrote anything? What is the method used? The possible sources you've listed such a shopping list (not likely to find that one from the first century) would be a nuetral source. An enemy source such as Paul would be an even stronger source.

[Goose]

And, therefore, the string of battles for which there are archaeological information validates the accounts. But, the accounts of the military success and prowess don't get me anything, or the average person anything.

This has WHAT to do with establishing history?

Are you serious? If you are, we have nothing to talk about.

If you find a document that makes claim xx, and you go test , via archaeological data, that claim xx is false, then you can discount the arguement.

If the document makes claim xx, and you go test, then it gives, and you get
positive results, then it increases the likely hood that the document claim that
yy caused xx to be greater.

For example, we have a claim that Alexander the Great fought a battle in this place at this time. We look at that place.. and we find there was a battle at the proper place, dating to the proper time. That increases the probability that the original claim is correct. Then, if the source is contemporary to the event, and from a disinterested third party (such as the astronomical diaries), that is even stronger evidence.

You misunderstood. What does the highlighted part have to do with establishing history?

[Goat]

And, therefore, the string of battles for which there are archaeological information validates the accounts. But, the accounts of the military success and prowess don't get me anything, or the average person anything.

This has WHAT to do with establishing history?

Are you serious? If you are, we have nothing to talk about.

If you find a document that makes claim xx, and you go test , via archaeological data, that claim xx is false, then you can discount the arguement.

If the document makes claim xx, and you go test, then it gives, and you get
positive results, then it increases the likely hood that the document claim that
yy caused xx to be greater.

For example, we have a claim that Alexander the Great fought a battle in this place at this time. We look at that place.. and we find there was a battle at the proper place, dating to the proper time. That increases the probability that the original claim is correct. Then, if the source is contemporary to the event, and from a disinterested third party (such as the astronomical diaries), that is even stronger evidence.

You misunderstood. What does the highlighted part have to do with establishing history?

I answered it. I am so sorry that you can not understand my point. Perhaps someday I will be able to explain it using smaller words.

[Furrowed Brow]

How do you know Josephus wrote anything? What is the method used?

You have documents by a character named Josephus. The name could be a pen name. But you've got a document that we can date To 90 AD. If you are saying we don't even know that the writer was a Jewish historian then we can't say who wrote the document. If your are saying that the documet is a lie we can still say that the idea of Jesus the Wonder worker was established in 90 AD. Which is all I'm saying is you can get from the document anyway.

The possible sources you've listed such a shopping list (not likely to find that one from the first century) would be a nuetral source. An enemy source such as Paul would be an even stronger source.

Well two straws are stronger than one straw. You need a shopping list.

And exactly what writings from Paul do you have from when he was an enemy? Demonstrating he was an enemy. And exactly what do they say about the cosmic JC or the resurrection of even the crucifixion?

[Goose]

The possible sources you've listed such a shopping list (not likely to find that one from the first century) would be a nuetral source. An enemy source such as Paul would be an even stronger source.

Well two straws are stronger than one straw. You need a shopping list.And exactly what writings from Paul do you have from when he was an enemy? Demonstrating he was an enemy

We don't need writings from when Paul WAS an enemy. Paul tells us himself that he was an enemy and persecuted the Church (Gal 1:13, 1Cor 15:9, Phil 3:6). This is confirmed by the writer of Luke/Acts (Acts 7:58, 8:3, 9:1, 22:4, 26:10). Can you think of a reason why he would confess this to fellow believers he is trying to instruct if it wasn't true?

And exactly what do they say about the cosmic JC or the resurrection of even the crucifixion?

Pauls tells his readers to remember that which he had already received and given them previously in 1Corinthians 15:1-8

Now I'm making known to you, brothers, the gospel that I proclaimed to you, which you accepted, on which you have taken your stand, and by which you are also being saved if you hold firmly to the message I proclaimed to you-unless, of course, your faith was worthless. For I passed on to you the most important points of what I received: Christ died for our sins in keeping with the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day in keeping with the Scriptures-and is still alive!- and he was seen by Cephas, and then by the twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Next he was seen by James, then by all the apostles, and finally he was seen by me, as though I were born abnormally late.

That's an early creedal passage referring to an earthly Jesus that died, was buried and rose again and seen by multiple people. It's cited by a former enemy of the church. It's powerful enemy attestation you need to contend with. It more than meets your "yes-yes" criteria.

[Furrowed Brow]

We don't need writings from when Paul WAS an enemy. Paul tells us himself that he was an enemy and persecuted the Church (Gal 1:13, 1Cor 15:9, Phil 3:6). This is confirmed by the writer of Luke/Acts (Acts 7:58, 8:3, 9:1, 22:4, 26:10).

Goose. You’ve got Paul’s say so, and an unknown author of Luke’s says so.

Can you think of a reason why he would confess this to fellow believers he is trying to instruct if it wasn't true?

The manipulations and misdirection one human plays on others can be subtle and complex -and some less subtle. Look at what Paul is doing. He is selling his brand.

[center]“I uses to hate Christians until I became one!”

“I use to think I hated snowy flakes until I tried them!” Then I realise they really were GGGrrreat!!!” [/center]
It is a standard appeal to the quality of the product you are selling by stating you never thought of the produced/ or never believed the claims until you tried it for yourself. This is yes/no evidence because in the no case Paul is a marketing man. The confession an aid to the ends of spreading the word. The world of advertising later adopting the very same tactic.

On the one hand Goose I think you are displaying amazing credulity, on the other hand I think it would be quit nice to be you. I think the world would just seem nicer.

That's an early creedal passage referring to an earthly Jesus that died, was buried and rose again and seen by multiple people. It's cited by a former enemy of the church. It's powerful enemy attestation you need to contend with. It more than meets your "yes-yes" criteria.

If Paul is telling the truth then yes, if Paul is lying then no. Why would Paul lie? Looks like a standard marketing ploy. He is trying to spread Christianity and tell people why it is so good. If he makes himself look like - not just a non believer, but someone who was the least likely to embrace the product, then this works in his favour not against.

"I was the president of Frosty Flakes, every time I saw someone buy a box of snowy flakes made me just want to punch them, until I tried them for myself. I gave up my old job on the spot. You can believe the ex president of Frosty Flakes when he says try snowy flakes they're GGGrreat!!!"

[Goat]

FB, that was my post you responded to. I can understand. There are two similar threads and I keep popping in and out. I'm getting confused myself.

Wrote that at 12.00 last night just before bedtime. Ooops. Sorry Achilles and Goose.

The million dollar question is, how do we know if the text is true? Are you assuming it is true with Alex and assuming it isn't for Jesus? Is there a method that one could use to arrive at somewhat similar conclusions or are you going with your gut instinct.

It is a question. And this has been my point that I’ve repeated to Achilles - I think It was Achilles - that his approach and I thinks yours too is way to focused on that question. For the moment I’m backing off my anti supernaturaims as it seems to be giving you two guys opportunity to turn tail, and is taking you away from what methodology you are using to approach the evidence.

I’m not assuming anything about Alex. You just have to approach the evidence with the same set of questions. The more yes-yes evidence you get the more any interpretation of historical evidence stands up. But then you have to look at what does stand up. In the case of Pilate’s stone, we do not use the stone to prove he commissioned a temple, in this respect the truth of the inscription is not what we are looking to establish, it is the existence of the characters named by the stone, we are trying to establish. And the stone is yes-yes evidence for Pilate. However, given the nature of politics, and political hegemony, we still cannot say with any real clarity whether Pilate paid for the Temple, or that he was a generous benefactor etc, or even that the temple got built. That is still open for more interpretation. As for Alex I shall take a look at the evidence this morning.

I have no doubt you can sift with a logical eye. What I doubt is that eye is unbiased as you've acknowledged. Some type of transparent method would alleviate my concern.

I know. I sensed that. Hence the yes-yes, yes-no method.

I agree, except historians rarely have yes-yes evidence for ancient history. Your yes-yes essentially boils down to enemy or neutral attestation, yes-yes?

Not necessarily. If you found an a request to pay the bill for a cabinet built by a carpenter of the name of Jesus. You'd have yes-yes evidence for the existence of the carpenter Jesus. Yes-yes evidence could be a stone. It could be a shopping list. It could be an invoice to pay. This is the sort of stuff that really comes in the yes-yes category. Josephus writings are yes-yes evidence for the existence of Josephus. They are yes-yes evidence that he was an historian. As for the contents of what Josephus wrote that requires another set of questions. What was he writing about? what exactly did does he say? What were his sources? Is he telling the truth i.e. is he giving honest witness to his own sources, is he elaborating? Satisfied with the answers then you asked questions about his sources, and his sources sources? All the time don't try to prove the content of what he is saying, instead the aim is to find exactly what does his writings demonstrate.

And of course, there is positive evidence that some of the writings of Josephus were interpolated later.