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?

[MrWhy]

Non-theists demands for evidence are sometimes to high. It depends on the issue. In general, ancient history is interesting and useful only to history buffs. Very little of that info affects our lives directly. In those cases the debate over the accuracy of specific points is academic, and this applies to much of the history the Bible refers to.

In some religious issues it's different. Scripture claims to certain pieces of real estate have caused a great deal of deadly conflict. But even if historical accuracy could be verified, it should not be expected that a centuries old claim still has much validity. Ideas that involve miracles or prophetic knowledge are profound, and have a much effect on daily lives globally. These require a great deal of accurate evidence.

Whether George Washington actually lived or not has little effect. A claim about who makes the best strawberry ice creme does not have to be backed up by much, if any, evidence. 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. 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.

[Easyrider]

Non-theists demands for evidence are sometimes to high. It depends on the issue. In general, ancient history is interesting and useful only to history buffs. Very little of that info affects our lives directly. In those cases the debate over the accuracy of specific points is academic, and this applies to much of the history the Bible refers to.

Au contraire. People learn (or at least should learn) quite a bit from history. Those ignorant of history are sometimes doomed to repeat it (ala Chamberlain and modern-day appeasers of evil).

But even if historical accuracy could be verified, it should not be expected that a centuries old claim still has much validity.

Why?

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.

Science cannot replicate historical events, so the "proof" test is a false idea. You have to weight these issues on the preponderance of the evidence.

[MrWhy]

Non-theists demands for evidence are sometimes to high. It depends on the issue. In general, ancient history is interesting and useful only to history buffs. Very little of that info affects our lives directly. In those cases the debate over the accuracy of specific points is academic, and this applies to much of the history the Bible refers to.

Au contraire. People learn (or at least should learn) quite a bit from history. Those ignorant of history are sometimes doomed to repeat it (ala Chamberlain and modern-day appeasers of evil).

Oh yes, we've always heard that, but we repeat them anyway. Religious war, political war, financial disasters, famine, ethnic cleansing, etc. Are these the history lessons we have learned to not repeat? History is not important. What's important is knowledge of human behavior, and skepticism toward upsupported claims from dangerous superstitions.

But even if historical accuracy could be verified, it should not be expected that a centuries old claim still has much validity.

Why?

Because, these old stories often cannot be corroborated or verified in any reliable manner. It's difficult to determine exactly what happened in current affairs where witnesses are still living.

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.

Science cannot replicate historical events, so the "proof" test is a false idea. You have to weight these issues on the preponderance of the evidence.

Exactly my point. The accuracy of most historical accounts cannot be proved. The other point, is that proof or concrete evidence is just not that important in most cases. There are adventure stories that are surely more myth than truth, but they are taken as just stories. Religious accounts are a different matter due to the profound affect they have on lives. Proof should be required before people dedicate, and sacrifice, their lives based on religious accounts of supernatural events. If science or other methods cannot provide this proof, then they should be regarded only as interesting myths. Considering the consequences, the level of evidence that some consider "preponderance" is far from what should be required. Even if it existed, just a preponderance of evidence is not enough to warrant the degree of faith that religion ask of it followers.

[Cephus]

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.)

Usually non-theists don't demand more conclusive evidence, they just demand evidence period. Theists cannot provide evidence whatsoever for their claims. However, you have to look at what is being asked of people. If Alexander the Great turns out never to have existed, does it really make a difference? No one is being asked to worship Alexander the Great. No one is being told that Alexander the Great is God. That isn't the case with regards to Jesus and Biblical events though, therefore the burden of evidence should be much higher because the 'stakes' are much higher.

Me, I'd be satisfied with any evidence whatsoever. There just isn't any.

[Confused]

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 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

[wrekk]

If I was trying to make a case for the existence of Bigfoot, how many "specific kinds of evidence" would you "demand" of me?

[wrekk]

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?

Yes. Exactly correct. How you ever stopped and thought about this point for a minute? It is exactly why I no longer believe.

Considering the topic at hand, and such lack of evidence, it all hinges on "the facts of the argument" and nothing less.

[Goat]

If I was trying to make a case for the existence of Bigfoot, how many "specific kinds of evidence" would you "demand" of me?

Some fecal samples, or hair samples that can be analysed for DNA for one.

A physical body would be good.. prefereable alive.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Non-theists do not demand more evidence. It is Christians who seek to establish a double-standard for validity.

I have an alleged account of an event. The account is supposed to be written 40 years after the event, but no evidence proves this. The evidence points to the account being written closer to 100 years after the alleged event (or longer). There is a group of individuals who have clearly defined motivation to establish this event as real and are willing to re-write history to further their goals. The account was written by such an individual. The account itself involves events which are at face value impossible and provides no explanation for how their occurance is possible.

If this was a UFO sighting reported by a UFO enthusiast, a Christian would dismiss it for as the ridiculousness it is. If it's part of the gospel, they'll invoke a double standard and treat it as 'proven'.