Circumstantial Evidence against BibleGod

[Flail]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

Circumstantial evidence: that which merely suggests truth.

Hearsay: that which is repeated 'second-hand removed' from the original declarant which is propounded to prove the truth of an assertion via someone else who is either not known or not present and thus not subject to questioning. Hearsay is inadmissible in courts of law as having been demonstrated unreliable; and as dependent for veracity upon things not available for examination and testing such as: the identity, character, bias, motive, observation and reporting ability, mental acuity etc, of the original reporter or declarant.

Second hand 'testimony' that is not propounded to prove the truth of the matter at issue, but for some other purpose (such as demonstrating the basis for the oppositional claim) is admissible and may be considered as such.

Background:
Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof, or at a minimum, the burden of going forward with the evidence. Arguments can be made in the broadest sense that there is no such thing as direct evidence, and that all we have as 'proof currency' to support truth claims is circumstantial evidence.

The OP Proposition (claim): "BibleGod (JesusGod) does not exist.'

Assume that this claim does not refer to 'God', as in some as yet undefined supernatural creature that may or may not exist, and for which no coherent definition is available, and for which any claims of existence or non-existence are meaningless. Assume that the OP refers solely to BibleGod as presented in the NT and as supplemented by Christianity.

Assume for purposes of the OP that there is no verifiable, 'direct evidence' upon which to either prove or disprove this claim. What we are left with then is circumstantial evidence, ie, evidence which merely suggests the truth and for which an inference is required to connect it to a proposition of fact (claim).

Further presume that hearsay evidence, as defined above, is not admissible to prove the truth of the claim since such evidence is unreliable as emanating from un-trustworhty sources.

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

[Flail]

The Bible has been co-opted by Christianity for the purposes of Church building and power and revenue.

Present evidence that the 1st century church was motivated by Church buildings, power, and/or revenue.

FYI: 1st century "churches" were in homes.

Agreed....but I didn't make any reference to first century churches. According to Biblical accounts, in his concluding and all important final instructions to his disciples, Jesus made no mention of organizing or creating any new religion or furthering an existing one...as you say, he sent them home to home...then Paul came along and started the process of organizing and preaching and indoctrinating and putting his spin on the formation of a new religion.

[Flail]

Precisely the point. The Bible has been co-opted by Christianity for the purposes of Church building and power and revenue. We can certainly build a circumstantial case that Paul and Jesus were not fictional characters. But as to Paul having a visitation from Jesus on the Road to Damascus, or Jesus being born of a virgin or walking on water, we can build a mountain of circumstantial evidence that this was literally not the case.

Then do so! You have claimed that you can build a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but you have yet to present us with a pebble.

Stop boasting that you can make a case and make a case!

If I came across as boasting or if I have offended you, I apologize. I am pressed for time at the moment, but I thought many of the examples would be obvious. Surely we can all think of circumstances that offer any number of rational explanations for each and every supernatural event rendered in the bible, none of which require any resort to supernatural beings.

Virgin Birth is an example. Ample circumstantial evidence including reproductive science and common human experiences demonstrate that gestation and birth are the result of sexual intercourse between man and woman and have never verifiably occurred via impregnation by any Gods. However, 'Virgin Births' were a common story-telling mythos at the time. This would tend to show, circumstantially, that the Virgin Birth story is myth; either concocted as a fable or rendered through oral traditions in keeping with the mythos of the era; not as literal fact but as metaphor; perhaps never intended to be taken as literal. Hard to tell. If there was a Joseph and a Mary, likely Joseph or some other man impregnated her, not a God.
Believing that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead requires an emotional response to dogma, belying a rational response to common sense and circumstantial evidence that would tend to indicate the contrary.

[Adamoriens]

Question for debate(s): What available circumstantial evidence( if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is fictional?

What available circumstantial evidence (if any) suggests (tends to prove) that BibleGod is actual and extant?

Perhaps a good argument from non-belief could be made. The New Testament suggests that God desires that everyone enter into a relationship with him. And yet, it appears that reasonable non-belief (belief being a prerequisite to personal relationships) persists, where we would expect only belief and unreasonable non-belief. Therefore, it's likely no such God exists.

[Mithrae]

Paul actually records that he met Jesus' brother in person (Gal. 1:19), which I'd say is rather strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus wasn't fiction

Jesus may not have been wholly fictional, but like Robin Hood or King Arthur, most of what we know about him probably is.

A Jew from Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, in the early 1st century. Baptised by John the Baptist and followed in a broadly similar vein of preaching in Galilee and Judea/Jerusalem. Gathered disciples and had a reputation as a miracle worker and breaker of social traditions. Upset the authorities too much (perhaps most specifically by causing a disturbance in the temple just before Passover), was betrayed by a follower and got himself crucified c. 30-36CE.

To my knowledge, historians do not usually throw out any evidence which would not be admissible in a court of law. But while I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the OP, the above are wholly non-supernatural details coming from the account of a disciple who actually knew Jesus during his ministry. Furthermore they're all confirmed by other accounts, which according to the OP would be inadmissible in a court of law as 'hearsay'; a Jewish contemporary of Jesus who spent time with his brother and key disciples (Paul), and a narration of Jesus' ministry written around 40 years after his death and plausibly attributed to Peter's interpreter (Mark).

Whether to believe any of the supernatural claims made by that disciple of Jesus and perhaps confirmed by others is, of course, more a matter of personal credulity and worldview than historical (or legal) investigation.

[Goat]

Paul actually records that he met Jesus' brother in person (Gal. 1:19), which I'd say is rather strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus wasn't fiction

Jesus may not have been wholly fictional, but like Robin Hood or King Arthur, most of what we know about him probably is.

A Jew from Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, in the early 1st century. Baptised by John the Baptist and followed in a broadly similar vein of preaching in Galilee and Judea/Jerusalem. Gathered disciples and had a reputation as a miracle worker and breaker of social traditions. Upset the authorities too much (perhaps most specifically by causing a disturbance in the temple just before Passover), was betrayed by a follower and got himself crucified c. 30-36CE.

To my knowledge, historians do not usually throw out any evidence which would not be admissible in a court of law. But while I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the OP, the above are wholly non-supernatural details coming from the account of a disciple who actually knew Jesus during his ministry. Furthermore they're all confirmed by other accounts, which according to the OP would be inadmissible in a court of law as 'hearsay'; a Jewish contemporary of Jesus who spent time with his brother and key disciples (Paul), and a narration of Jesus' ministry written around 40 years after his death and plausibly attributed to Peter's interpreter (Mark).

Whether to believe any of the supernatural claims made by that disciple of Jesus and perhaps confirmed by others is, of course, more a matter of personal credulity and worldview than historical (or legal) investigation.

Except, fo course, we do not know who wrote the Gospel of John...

From 'Early Christian writings' on the gospel of john


Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

[Flail]

Paul actually records that he met Jesus' brother in person (Gal. 1:19), which I'd say is rather strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus wasn't fiction

Jesus may not have been wholly fictional, but like Robin Hood or King Arthur, most of what we know about him probably is.

A Jew from Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, in the early 1st century. Baptised by John the Baptist and followed in a broadly similar vein of preaching in Galilee and Judea/Jerusalem. Gathered disciples and had a reputation as a miracle worker and breaker of social traditions. Upset the authorities too much (perhaps most specifically by causing a disturbance in the temple just before Passover), was betrayed by a follower and got himself crucified c. 30-36CE.

To my knowledge, historians do not usually throw out any evidence which would not be admissible in a court of law. But while I don't fully understand the reasoning behind the OP, the above are wholly non-supernatural details coming from the account of a disciple who actually knew Jesus during his ministry. Furthermore they're all confirmed by other accounts, which according to the OP would be inadmissible in a court of law as 'hearsay'; a Jewish contemporary of Jesus who spent time with his brother and key disciples (Paul), and a narration of Jesus' ministry written around 40 years after his death and plausibly attributed to Peter's interpreter (Mark).

Whether to believe any of the supernatural claims made by that disciple of Jesus and perhaps confirmed by others is, of course, more a matter of personal credulity and worldview than historical (or legal) investigation.

Except, fo course, we do not know who wrote the Gospel of John...

From 'Early Christian writings' on the gospel of john


Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

Precisely, uncorroborated hearsay upon unsubstantiated authorship, interpreted and spun over the centuries, is hardly the stuff of reliable history, let alone a reliable indication for the presence or the 'leavings' of supernatural beings.

[Mithrae]

The author does claim to have been a witness in 1:14. Some might interpret this as a non-specific 'we,' as in 1 John 1:1-3, but I don't suspect it that it's a very convincing view. The anonymous references to the 'beloved disciple' and the aforementioned 19:35 fit in well with that view. And of course since John 21:24 was written by someone else it provides additional confirmation, which personally I wouldn't say is a reason to dismiss it as irrelevant.

[Mithrae]

Sorry for the double-post; I was at work and didn't have much time initially. A small correction first:
Some might interpret this [John 1:14] as a non-specific 'we,' as in 1 John 1:1-3...
What I meant was that both passages, apparently by the same author, appear to be eyewitness claims regarding the 'Word' who became flesh (Jesus).

Precisely, uncorroborated hearsay upon unsubstantiated authorship, interpreted and spun over the centuries, is hardly the stuff of reliable history, let alone a reliable indication for the presence or the 'leavings' of supernatural beings.

I'm not sure whether 'uncorroborated' has a specific meaning in a court of law, but I'm fairly sure that all the details from John I listed in post 14 are indeed corroborated (as I said) by other sources who apparently had access to first-hand testimony (Paul and Mark). That may make those two sources 'hearsay' in a court of law, but it sounds as though your thinking is somewhat confused in calling the information 'uncorroborated.'

Along similar lines, I provided a link to a 14-page thread in which I've discussed this topic, with some very intelligent and informative contributions from many people. The facts are that on face value the fourth gospel claims eyewitness status, which was confirmed by the author of the appendix, and moreover logic and church tradition suggest the probable candidate as to precisely who this 'beloved disciple' was. Some people dispute that face-value information, but it seems rather circular to dismiss it as 'hearsay' and 'unsubstantiated authorship' in order to conclude that it's "hardly the stuff of reliable history." I wonder, do you have any academic credentials in reliable history (or the study of early Christianity)?

You began a thread with the presumption that 'hearsay,' being inadmissible in a court of law, should also be excluded from our consideration of evidence regarding BibleGod, and raised a story about Jesus as your first example. Attempting to work within your parameters, I provided a source which very plausibly is not 'hearsay,' and I even differentiated non-supernatural details which are confirmed by other sources. Your dismissive response that it's hardly the stuff of reliable history doesn't bode well for anything else which might come up in discussion.


As far as the supernatural JesusGod goes... well, various opinions aside the fourth gospel hasn't really been excluded as 'evidence' in this thread, has it? I assume you're the one who intends to call the shots on precisely how we deal with admissible evidence?

[Goat]

The author does claim to have been a witness in 1:14. Some might interpret this as a non-specific 'we,' as in 1 John 1:1-3, but I don't suspect it that it's a very convincing view. The anonymous references to the 'beloved disciple' and the aforementioned 19:35 fit in well with that view. And of course since John 21:24 was written by someone else it provides additional confirmation, which personally I wouldn't say is a reason to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Actually, that does not meet the evaluation of most Johnaine scholars. The full article about it is here

It says

There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That Papias source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

Kysar states that most scholars today see the historical setting of the Gospel of John in the expulsion of the community from the synagogue (op. cit., p. 918). The word aposynagogos is found three times in the gospel (9:22, 12:42, 16:2). The high claims made for Jesus and the response to them (5:18), the polemic against "the Jews" (9:18, 10:31, 18:12, 19:12), and the assertion of a superiority of Christian revelation to the Hebrew (1:18, 6:49-50, 8:58) show that "the Johannine community stood in opposition to the synagogue from which it had been expelled." (p. 918)

Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John: "Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919)

Kysar also observes on the dating of the Gospel of John: "The earliest date for the gospel hinges upon the question of whether or not it presupposes the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Most agree that it does, although there have been persistent attempts to argue otherwise. The reasons for positing a post-70 date include the view of the Temple implicit in 2:13-22. Most would argue that the passage attempts to present Christ as the replacement of the Temple that has been destroyed." (p. 918) Note also the irony of 11:48: "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place [i.e. temple] and our nation." Finally, there is no mention of the Sadducees, which reflects post-70 Judaism. The retort that there is also no mention of scribes misses the mark, as the Pharisees represented the scribal tradition, and the Pharisees are mentioned.

The terminus a quo might also be set by dependence upon the Gospel of Mark, if it were certain that the Gospel of John is dependent upon Mark. The matter is debated in contemporary scholarship, but Kysar says that the theory of Johannine independence commands a "slim majority" of contemporary critics. For a discussion of this issue, D. Moody Smith's John Among the Gospels is recommended.

The external evidence fixes the terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John. Irenaeus of Lyons made use of John (c. 180), and Tatian included the Gospel of John in his harmony (c. 170). The Gospel of John is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200). Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) and the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 140-150) may have made use of the Gospel of John. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen's own commentary). The oldest fragment of the New Testament, known as p52 or the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John and is dated paleographically c. 120-130 CE.

Kysar writes: "In the place where the synoptics narrate the origin of the eucharist stands the account of the foot washing (13:1-10). The last meal Jesus celebrates with his disciples before his passion is not a Passover meal at all. Thus one of the basic features of the institution scenes in the synoptics is missing. Furthermore, there is no account of the baptism of Jesus, and there is confusion about whether or not Jesus practiced baptism (compare 3:22 and 4:2). Water baptism is treated critically and assigned strictly to the Baptizer in contrast with Spirit baptism (1:26, 31, 33). One is left with the impression that the sacraments of baptism and eucharist did not figure in the theology of the fourth evangelist." (p. 929)

Kysar states: "The passages which seem to address the sacraments are sometimes thought to be redactional. Some maintain that 'water and' in 3:5 and the discourse in 6:51-59 are insertions of a later hand by one interested in strengthening the explicit sacramental teachings of the gospel. It has been recently argued that portions of chaps. 13-17 come froma redactor at the time of the writing of the Johannine epistles some ten years or more after the completion of the gospel." (p. 922)

Norman Perrin believes that the redactor who added the sacramental passages to the Gospel of John also authored the first epistle of John, in which the sacraments are emphasized.

Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):

Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel.

Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:

by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

[dianaiad]

Definitions:

Evidence: the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition is true.

Now, I KNOW you love Wikipedia and all, but if you are going to use it to define a word, rather than the dictionary, you might want to include the entire definition. In this case, you left out a bit: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid


Color emphasis mine..."information" isn't 'fact."

Facts: things that are indisputably the case.

Dang; Wikipedia strikes again...WEBSTER defines 'fact' this way:

1
: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime <accessory after the fact> c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Please note: there is nothing 'indisputable' about the above definition. "Fact" is something that is perceived to be actual; many things that humans have firmly believed to be facts turned out not to be. No philosopher or scientist I know (and I know quite a few; rocket scientists, even...) would define 'fact' as something that is 'indisputably the case." The entire idea behind science is that EVERYTHING is disputable; you just have to have some really, really, REALLY good evidence.

Direct evidence: that which directly proves truth.

I have NO idea where you got that one. Direct evidence is simply evidence which stands on its own, whereas circumstantial evidence is evidence from which conclusions must be inferred; in terms of evolution, for instance, direct evidence for the existence of dinosaurs is the actual fossils that we can touch, manipulate and put together into a skeleton. Circumstantial evidence would be the inferred conclusion that dinosaur fossils that had feathers means that modern birds may well have, and even probably, descended from critters like those.

Ah, well....

If you are going to set us all up for predetermined conclusions by manipulating the definitions.....why bother entering into the discussion?