Evolutionists and credentialism

[plindboe]

OK, I am unbelievably tired. I also have Church tomorrow. The argument here was about the non-biblical sources for Jesus (even though the biblical ones themselves have helped).

Well, on the wikipedia page "Historical Jesus", it says "These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea". So we can all agree that there are non-biblical sources right?

Yes, you must have been very tired, because you don't seem to understand the sentence you quote. It says clearly that the extra-biblical sources are used to "reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea". The entire sentence illustrates very well that evidence used for Jesus by the scholars is biblical only.

That said, I think there probably was a guy all these myths were based upon. I mean cult leaders are a very common phenonemon around the world and throughout history, so I see no reason to deny something so mundane. Of course when believers become enthusiastic enough they tend to exaggerate claims to the extreme. Even rumours about someone who might have or might not have seen Jesus at a distance some time after his burial can spiral completely out of control and can easily end up as someone flying up in the sky.

It might be difficult for you to accept, since you've no doubt been told that these things are fact your entire life, but I suggest you research other belief systems and you will see these patterns again and again. Humans tend to invent extraordinary beliefs out of the most mundane observations, and these beliefs can spread like bushfires in the right environment.

Peter

 

[Michael1975]

Yes, you must have been very tired, because you don't seem to understand the sentence you quote. It says clearly that the extra-biblical sources are used to "reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea". The entire sentence illustrates very well that evidence used for Jesus by the scholars is biblical only.

No, it doesn't. Yo must have been tired too because it clearly says non-biblical, not extra-biblical.

That said, I think there probably was a guy all these myths were based upon. I mean cult leaders are a very common phenonemon around the world and throughout history, so I see no reason to deny something so mundane. Of course when believers become enthusiastic enough they tend to exaggerate claims to the extreme. Even rumours about someone who might have or might not have seen Jesus at a distance some time after his burial can spiral completely out of control and can easily end up as someone flying up in the sky.

These claims are made by a few scholars, but they are very easily refuted.

It might be difficult for you to accept, since you've no doubt been told that these things are fact your entire life, but I suggest you research other belief systems and you will see these patterns again and again. Humans tend to invent extraordinary beliefs out of the most mundane observations, and these beliefs can spread like bushfires in the right environment.

Peter

Mudane observations? You mean like eye witness accounts? Most events in history are only known because they were witnessed. Btw, which other beliefs systems make these claims? Do they have evidence to support that too?

 

[Chalnoth]

Mudane observations? You mean like eye witness accounts? Most events in history are only known because they were witnessed. Btw, which other beliefs systems make these claims? Do they have evidence to support that too?

What eyewitness accounts? Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. The authors of the gospels, writing some three decades and more after Paul, also never saw him. So who are these supposed eyewitnesses, and where can we see their accounts?

 

[Michael1975]

Heh. They're not that uncommon. Google "Raised from the dead" some time. Many Christian sites like to trot out these supposed "miracles" all the time. Resurrection myths also found in other traditions, such as in Buddhism.

I don't know much about Buddhism, but do the resurrected in their belief have evidence for their existence? Were there eye witness accounts of them after they were resurrected?

Good question. With Paul, we actually have a plausible scenario: the "Road to Damascus" story is a dead ringer for a guy having a seizure. During seizures, people often hallucinate. It's definitely within the realm of possibility that an hallucination is the original source of the Jesus myth, with embellishments added later.

I think he'd be able to tell the difference between dream and reality.

You're going off of texts that were written many decades after the fact. The stories have been embellished, so these specific events are not trustworthy.

That's an assumption. You believe that these stories were embellished.
I don't. I believe that this what these people saw. You don't. At the end of the day, nobody will have changed their beliefs. However, because of the accuracy of the new testament, I believe it is far less likely that the specific events are not accurate also.

How do you know?

Have you been paying attention to my whole argument?

No, I don't. And I haven't said I disbelieve that Jesus lived (of course I don't believe he lives...if he was ever alive he's been dead and buried for nearly 2000 years). I have said that I'm not sure. As near as I can tell, it's approximately as likely that he lived as he didn't. I've never seen a solid argument that he ever was a real, living person. And I've never seen a mythical Jesus argument that went so far as to really provide solid evidence that he was indeed a myth. So I'm undecided.

If everyone who studied him believed he existed (remember that many of these people were non-religious), it is far more likely he did. You can wait for a solid argument, but since I know that all scholars acknowledge his existence, like my teacher, and that the remaining scholars who believe he was a myth are easily refuted, I am decided.

P.S. If you want to see one argument for a mythical Jesus, see this article:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/jesus_mythicist_position_revised_2008
It is quite lengthy and goes into quite a bit of depth.

I haven't read it yet, but remember what I said about people who believes he was a myth being easily refuted?

 

[Michael1975]

What eyewitness accounts? Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. The authors of the gospels, writing some three decades and more after Paul, also never saw him. So who are these supposed eyewitnesses, and where can we see their accounts?

Paul did see Jesus in the flesh. He also touched him.

 

[Michael1975]

The sentence seems to imply non-biblical sources for the historical context of first-century Judea, not specifically for the existence of Jesus.

Read the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus


Also, or if you can't be bothered to read it, click on the "first-century Judea" link, and it will bring you to a page entitled "Cultural and historical background of Jesus", so I am guessing that they are the same thing anyway.

 

[Michael1975]

I said " you either went to a christian college had a very dim teacher or both" I didn't claim that all teachers at Christian colleges were dim, although some Christian colleges have poor credentials when it comes to teaching science.

You implied that Christians are stupid.

creationism in unfalsifiable ( a belief that god stepped in at one point or many points in order to perform magic ) , Creationism ( young earth, single creation event, flood etc ) was falsified around 200 years ago by geologists building on the work of James Hutton.

Ok then.

Not according to the logic we saw deployed in the post I was answering. That said if you weren't there to see it it didn't happen. I have no massive problem with the Historicity of Jesus although it is unevidenced outside of the bible. I , obviously, don't believe in anything supernatural like resurrection.

There is evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible.

 

[flatworm]

Read the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus


Also, or if you can't be bothered to read it, click on the "first-century Judea" link, and it will bring you to a page entitled "Cultural and historical background of Jesus", so I am guessing that they are the same thing anyway.

I've read it. The non-biblical sources are for the culture and history of 1st century Judea, not Jesus specifically. I quote:

This article — a part of the Jesus and history series — describes the period within which Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, is said to have lived. As such, it examines the historic background to first century Roman Judea, and the trends, tensions and culture of that time, as distinct from theologically-inspired beliefs about Jesus, or the question of his existence as an actual historical figure.

Second, there are no known eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. The biblical gospels are not written as eyewitness accounts. The gospels are written from the limited omniscient point of view, not the first person. They include passages where the disciples to which they were attributed were not present, indeed they include sections where Jesus was alone. These sections are blended seamlessly into the narrative. Further, they date to a period decades after Jesus' purported death, and show signs of cribbing off one another. If these documents were about any other subject, I have no doubt you wouldn't hesitate to reject them as "eyewitness accounts".

 

[Michael1975]

I've read it. The non-biblical sources are for the culture and history of 1st century Judea, not Jesus specifically. I quote:

First, you did not click on the link. And you obviously haven't read it, because the 1st sentence reads: The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. You have already been proven wrong and there are plenty more lines saying the same thing. You didn't read it. The line you pointed out is saying that to know about Jesus, they had to reconsruct first-century Judea.

Second, there are no known eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life. The biblical gospels are not written as eyewitness accounts. The gospels are written from the limited omniscient point of view, not the first person. They include passages where the disciples to which they were attributed were not present, indeed they include sections where Jesus was alone. These sections are blended seamlessly into the narrative. Further, they date to a period decades after Jesus' purported death, and show signs of cribbing off one another. If these documents were about any other subject, I have no doubt you wouldn't hesitate to reject them as "eyewitness accounts".

Second, there are known eyewitnesess of Jesus' life. Read the Bible, you'll find plenty.

 

[Chalnoth]

Paul did see Jesus in the flesh. He also touched him.

No, he had a vision of Jesus. Even by the story in Acts, nobody else saw Jesus. I don't see where it says he touched him. Anyway, that event is a dead ringer for a seizure, if it happened at all.

I don't know much about Buddhism, but do the resurrected in their belief have evidence for their existence? Were there eye witness accounts of them after they were resurrected?

Well, I don't feel like going into it. I'm sure they claim they do. But if they do, that'd be better than any evidence for Jesus' resurrection. There are no eyewitness accounts of that.

I think he'd be able to tell the difference between dream and reality.

Why? People mistake hallucinations for reality all the time. Why would Paul be special?

That's an assumption. You believe that these stories were embellished.
I don't. I believe that this what these people saw. You don't. At the end of the day, nobody will have changed their beliefs. However, because of the accuracy of the new testament, I believe it is far less likely that the specific events are not accurate also.

Well, you're wrong. Even within the Bible we see the embellishments. Just read the gospels in the order they were written: Mark, Matthew/Luke, John. The embellishments as you go on are blatant.

If everyone who studied him believed he existed (remember that many of these people were non-religious), it is far more likely he did. You can wait for a solid argument, but since I know that all scholars acknowledge his existence, like my teacher, and that the remaining scholars who believe he was a myth are easily refuted, I am decided.

Argument from popularity, and it's false anyway. There are many scholars who disagree with the historical Jesus claims. And how are these scholars refuted, pray tell?

I haven't read it yet, but remember what I said about people who believes he was a myth being easily refuted?

You can claim that, but unless you do it it's just empty words.

 

[Chalnoth]

First, you did not click on the link. And you obviously haven't read it, because the 1st sentence reads: The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. You have already been proven wrong and there are plenty more lines saying the same thing. You didn't read it. The line you pointed out is saying that to know about Jesus, they had to reconsruct first-century Judea.

Read it again yourself, more carefully. The link states specifically what the evidence is:

1. Evidence of Jesus himself comes from the Bible.
2. They make use of evidence about the time period from extra-Biblical sources (presumably to judge the reliability of the accounts in the Bible).

There is no extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus himself.

 

[Tomk80]

Read it again yourself, more carefully. The link states specifically what the evidence is:

1. Evidence of Jesus himself comes from the Bible.
2. They make use of evidence about the time period from extra-Biblical sources (presumably to judge the reliability of the accounts in the Bible).

There is no extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus himself.

Is this still going on. I already explained that yesterday.

 

[flatworm]

First, you did not click on the link.

Actually I did. Where did you think I got the quote from?

And you obviously haven't read it, because the 1st sentence reads: The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods.

Hmmm... I notice a distinct lack of any mention of an extrabiblical source for the historicity of Jesus himself...

You have already been proven wrong and there are plenty more lines saying the same thing. You didn't read it. The line you pointed out is saying that to know about Jesus, they had to reconsruct first-century Judea.

Your reading comprehension skills need a little brushing up on, my friend. There are two distinct clauses in that sentence, each following the form:

<Purpose of inquiry> - <Nature of sources>

So we have

These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts

First "purpose of inquiry" part,

as the primary source for the biography of Jesus,

First "Nature of sources" part. Notice the comma that separates this idea from the next.

along with non-biblical sources

Second "nature of sources" part,

to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea.

Second "Purpose of inquiry" part.

Second, there are known eyewitnesess of Jesus' life. Read the Bible, you'll find plenty.

I said there are no known eyewitness accounts. 3rd hand accounts can still claim that eyewitnesses existed, but that doesn't make them eyewitness accounts. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts for the unrebutted reasons provided above.

 

[Michael1975]

No, he had a vision of Jesus. Even by the story in Acts, nobody else saw Jesus. I don't see where it says he touched him. Anyway, that event is a dead ringer for a seizure, if it happened at all.

Look at the debate video I posted the other day. It's one of the points Habermas makes.

Well, I don't feel like going into it. I'm sure they claim they do. But if they do, that'd be better than any evidence for Jesus' resurrection. There are no eyewitness accounts of that.

I don't think they claim they do, and no, it wouldn't be better.

Why? People mistake hallucinations for reality all the time. Why would Paul be special?

Because he wrote about this. I think he would have been sure for something like this when it would to be in the Bible and contribute to the start of a religion.

Well, you're wrong. Even within the Bible we see the embellishments. Just read the gospels in the order they were written: Mark, Matthew/Luke, John. The embellishments as you go on are blatant.

I believe what that the point they make is clear. He was resurrected. They differ on the details (I guess that's what embellishments, I thought it was something different), but as I said, I believe this is what people say. In fact, all the gospels agree that he was resurrected, meaning that these embellishments don't change the vital point made.

Argument from popularity, and it's false anyway. There are many scholars who disagree with the historical Jesus claims. And how are these scholars refuted, pray tell?

It's not majority. It's all of them. They all believe he existed. A few believe that he existed as a myth, and they are easily refuted, like it says in the link I gave you from wikipedia.

You can claim that, but unless you do it it's just empty words.

Remember what I said about the link on wikipedia?

 

[Michael1975]

Read it again yourself, more carefully. The link states specifically what the evidence is:

1. Evidence of Jesus himself comes from the Bible.
2. They make use of evidence about the time period from extra-Biblical sources (presumably to judge the reliability of the accounts in the Bible).

There is no extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus himself.

What are you talking about?
The evidence comes from critical analysis of the gospels and non-biblical sources. You should just read it and click on the link. You are seeing things that are not there.

 

[Chalnoth]

I believe what that the point they make is clear. He was resurrected. They differ on the details (I guess that's what embellishments, I thought it was something different), but as I said, I believe this is what people say. In fact, all the gospels agree that he was resurrected, meaning that these embellishments don't change the vital point made.

No, I don't mean they simply "differ on the details." I mean that as time went on, the story got longer, with more details. Mark is, by far, the shortest gospel, and it barely even mentions the resurrection: there's nothing but a few girls discovering an empty tomb. The later gospels go into more detail, with more events occurring.

It's not majority. It's all of them. They all believe he existed. A few believe that he existed as a myth, and they are easily refuted, like it says in the link I gave you from wikipedia.

Meh. Did you miss this part?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Criticism_of_reconstructing_a_historical_Jesus

There are indeed scholars that debate these claims. And your continual claims that they are easily refuted have never been supported. Why don't you try?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It's not majority. It's all of them. They all believe he existed. A few believe that he existed as a myth, and they are easily refuted, like it says in the link I gave you from wikipedia.

What the link on the historicity of Jesus actually says is

Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.[81][82][83][84]

It doesn't say it is easily refuted, only that almost all Biblical Scholars and historians (most of who are Christians) regard non-historicity as effectively refuted.

You need to read this part again

The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[80]

My point still stands. There is no contemporary extra Biblical reference to Jesus in any ancient works. The only non Christian reference to Jesus is the disputed passage in Antiquities of the Jews which was written by Josephus in about 93 AD and only exists in translations done by later Christian Monks. If you have any other reference to Jesus that is not Biblical or in apocrypha or other writings of early Christians please produce it or reference to it.

 

[Michael1975]

Actually I did. Where did you think I got the quote from?

So you clicked on a link saying 1st century Judea, and it brought you to "Cultural and historical background of Jesus", and you still don't believe they are the same thing in the context used.

Hmmm... I notice a distinct lack of any mention of an extrabiblical source for the historicity of Jesus himself...

Is extra-biblical the same as non-biblical? If so then I have mentioned reference to non-biblical source in the past.

Your reading comprehension skills need a little brushing up on, my friend. There are two distinct clauses in that sentence, each following the form:

<Purpose of inquiry> - <Nature of sources>

The 1st century of Judea involves Jesus. You clicked on the link, so you know.

I said there are no known eyewitness accounts. 3rd hand accounts can still claim that eyewitnesses existed, but that doesn't make them eyewitness accounts. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts for the unrebutted reasons provided above.

3rd hand accounts claim that eyewitnesses existed, because of eyewitness accounts. How could they claim they existed if the people written about did not have an eyewitness account?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

3rd hand accounts claim that eyewitnesses existed, because of eyewitness accounts. How could they claim they existed if the people written about did not have an eyewitness account?

Oh come on. I know someone who claims to know someone who claims to have seen a giant hairy humanoid monster in the Black Forest pick up a jeep and dump it over. That doesn't mean it really happened.

 

[Michael1975]

No, I don't mean they simply "differ on the details." I mean that as time went on, the story got longer, with more details. Mark is, by far, the shortest gospel, and it barely even mentions the resurrection: there's nothing but a few girls discovering an empty tomb. The later gospels go into more detail, with more events occurring.

They do simply differ on the details. More details is different. And they still all mention the resurrection.

Meh. Did you miss this part?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Criticism_of_reconstructing_a_historical_Jesus

There are indeed scholars that debate these claims. And your continual claims that they are easily refuted have never been supported. Why don't you try?

1. Yes they have, you just haven't looked back far enough.
2. OK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth