The Historicity of the Gospels

[HitchSlap]

Yet, no evidence has been provided to show it false.

Or true, for that matter.

 

[ScottA]

Got it. So it does not matter how happy a belief makes one feel, it still might miss the truth.

How do you know your beliefs did not miss the truth?

If you don't "know", but only "believe", then you would not "know" until you die.

 

[bhsmte]

You might want to read up on the historical method. You could start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

It always amazes me, how many people seem to have no clue, on what the historical method is.

 

[bhsmte]

Or true, for that matter.

In that case, you just shift the burden of proof.

 

[ScottA]

You do? I have evidence that the gospels contradict each other, and thus can not be entirely true. What does your "same" empirical evidence look like?

Contradictions are not evidence, but misunderstandings. I would be happy to explain any, if you like. But, what I meant is, we both have access to whatever can be demonstrated in this world.

That's odd. I thought I cared.

Can you give me a sentence I could say and you would interpret that as meaning I care? I am not sure if I could say anything that would convince you I care.

I couldn't find it...so, my apologies...it may have been someone else.

Do you mind if I make two small edits to see if you agree with someone who might use your exact same words to argue for a different religion?

But...putting all that aside...the news that we [Muslims] are trying to share, is that other than the consolation of finding happiness in the natural world during this short life, there is so much more that you are missing...and in fact, it is the reason this world exist...and you might like to know about it. But due to the nature of the subject...you simply can't stay put and demand that we prove it all. By definition, the supernatural cannot be brought into the natural world in a way that you can "test" or "prove" it...any more than you could visit the supernatural world in your natural body. So...you can take our [Islamic] word for it, or pass.
Based on the above paragraph, did you become a Muslim, or did you pass? If you passed, can you see that a Muslim making this argument would have a weak argument?

I am not sure how a muslim would view it, but mine is not an "argument." The difference is , one of us "knows" what we are talking about, and one of us only "believes" what we are talking about.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Contradictions are not evidence, but misunderstandings. I would be happy to explain any, if you like.

Sure, please explain to me how in Luke the disciples were told to stay in Jerusalem after the resurrection, and Acts confirmed that this is indeed what they did, but Matthew says they went to Galilee. Did they stay in Jerusalem, or didn't they? How is that a misunderstanding, and not a contradiction?

But, what I meant is, we both have access to whatever can be demonstrated in this world.

Good point. We both have access to whatever can be demonstrated in the world.

And we both have access to the abundance of evidence that resurrections are rare--extremely rare--yes? So if you hear somebody claim that her neighbor resurrected last night, you would be skeptical, yes? Me too. I tend to doubt claims of resurrections. Do you have a level of evidence for your claimed resurrection that is greater than my healthy skepticism about all claims of resurrection?

I am not sure how a muslim would view it, but mine is not an "argument." The difference is , one of us "knows" what we are talking about, and one of us only "believes" what we are talking about.

Which one of you knows, and which of you only believes? I don't think I can tell from where I stand.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Or true, for that matter.

Agreed. Interestingly enough, there is some evidence that would support it but it is considered at the wrong period of time. Many scholars though are thinking that the Egyptian dynasties are being timed wrong.

 

[Davian]

We do, show up, however...which is more than can be said of those like yourself, who sit back and demand that everyone play your way.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

Sulking will get you nowhere.

Try not to project your feelings onto others.

 

[ScottA]

Sure, please explain to me how in Luke the disciples were told to stay in Jerusalem after the resurrection, and Acts confirmed that this is indeed what they did, but Matthew says they went to Galilee. Did they stay in Jerusalem, or didn't they? How is that a misunderstanding, and not a contradiction?

Without quoting the passages, the simple answer is...both are true: They were to stay in Jerusalem until they received the Holy Spirit, then go to Galilee. Spiritual and linguistics translation: They were to receive Holy Spirit power, and then take the message of the gospel of Christ to every nation (Galilee = outlying nations/peoples).

Good point. We both have access to whatever can be demonstrated in the world.

And we both have access to the abundance of evidence that resurrections are rare--extremely rare--yes? So if you hear somebody claim that her neighbor resurrected last night, you would be skeptical, yes? Me too. I tend to doubt claims of resurrections. Do you have a level of evidence for your claimed resurrection that is greater than my healthy skepticism about all claims of resurrection?

Extremely rare, yes. I do have a level of evidence, but it is a level above this world's empirical level, it's spiritual. When you receive the Holy Spirit (as the apostles did in Jerusalem), all things become self-evident and known rather than believed.

Which one of you knows, and which of you only believes? I don't think I can tell from where I stand.

No, I am sure you could not, for the evidence is not of this world. But if you can imagine [wanting] to believe so much that you convince yourself, then you/they would exist purely on hope. Unfortunately, humans are capable of such nonsense. The best that can be done...is to stand at the door and knock (and keep knocking)...to appeal to God by name, to reveal Himself to you. If you have it in you to do so, He will answer. If you do not, He will not...in which case, He has [only] given you the gift of [this] life. But I would caution that if that is the case, it would not be in your best interest to be resentful, but rather be grateful for what you have as collateral benefactor to His greater purpose in creating the world. Such is life. Keep asking.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Without quoting the passages, the simple answer is...both are true: They were to stay in Jerusalem until they received the Holy Spirit, then go to Galilee. Spiritual and linguistics translation: They were to receive Holy Spirit power, and then take the message of the gospel of Christ to every nation (Galilee = outlying nations/peoples).
Extremely rare, yes. I do have a level of evidence, but it is a level above this world's empirical level, it's spiritual. When you receive the Holy Spirit (as the apostles did in Jerusalem), all things become self-evident and known rather than believed.

You missed the point. The point is that Luke says Jesus appeared to his disciples on the night of the resurrection and told them not to depart Jerusalem. Acts confirms that they did not depart from Jerusalem after they were given this command. But Matthew reports that they went to Galilee and met with Jesus there before the ascension, before Pentecost. So how can Matthew say they went to Galilee between the resurrection and Pentecost, and Acts say they did not?

But if you can imagine [wanting] to believe so much that you convince yourself, then you/they would exist purely on hope. Unfortunately, humans are capable of such nonsense.

Let me see if I can imagine that...Yep, I am imagining that--some people convince themselves of things purely on hope.

Can you understand why some might thing you yourself are convincing yourself of things purely on hope?

The best that can be done...is to stand at the door and knock (and keep knocking)...to appeal to God by name, to reveal Himself to you. If you have it in you to do so, He will answer. If you do not, He will not.

How is that better than observation and reason? I trust observation and reason as my guide.

 

[doubtingmerle]

When you receive the Holy Spirit (as the apostles did in Jerusalem), all things become self-evident and known rather than believed.

How do you know that the things you think are self-evident are actually not true? That happens quite often. People think something is self-evident, but they turn out to be wrong. Is it possible you are wrong?

 

[ScottA]

You missed the point. The point is that Luke says Jesus appeared to his disciples on the night of the resurrection and told them not to depart Jerusalem. Acts confirms that they did not depart from Jerusalem after they were given this command. But Matthew reports that they went to Galilee and met with Jesus there before the ascension, before Pentecost. So how can Matthew say they went to Galilee between the resurrection and Pentecost, and Acts say they did not?

They were clearly told both and did both, and then were all over the map.

Let me see if I can imagine that...Yep, I am imagining that--some people convince themselves of things purely on hope.

Can you understand why some might thing you yourself are convincing yourself of things purely on hope?

Of course, I am the one who said it. But that just means many are wrong...not all.

How is that better than observation and reason? I trust observation and reason as my guide.

It is second hand, and tells you nothing of the unseen.

 

[ScottA]

How do you know that the things you think are self-evident are actually not true? That happens quite often. People think something is self-evident, but they turn out to be wrong. Is it possible you are wrong?

That may be true in your realm of human reason, but not under the realm of Him who created the universe. No...He cannot be wrong...it's His universe.

 

[Davian]

How do you know that the things you think are self-evident are actually not true? That happens quite often. People think something is self-evident, but they turn out to be wrong. Is it possible you are wrong?

I do not think Scott has considered the possibility that he might be wrong.

 

[Snark]

As for Jesus as mythotype, is does seem to be gaining traction among scholars, but as you know, new ideas are often resisted by established academia. Time will tell, as true ideas tend to rise to the top.

It's certainly true that sometimes new and radical ideas are rejected initally to be proven right later. And perhaps this is one of them. However, more frequently they continue to be rejected outside the fringe because they're wrong. To parahrase someone I can't remember the name of, while all geniuses may be heretics, most heretics are not geniuses.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

But the idea that the scientific method is the best, or even the only, way of investigating all facets of reality is a philosophical position. And is itself not provable through empirical evidence.

I'm not convinced that science is well equipped to look at religious claims. Any more than I'd use it to study dada or the rockism vs poptimist wars.

 

[Davian]

But the idea that the scientific method is the best, or even the only, way of investigating all facets of reality is a philosophical position.

What other methodologies might you suggest as a reliable and consistent means of exploring reality?

And is itself not provable through empirical evidence.

How is that a problem?

I'm not convinced that science is well equipped to look at religious claims. Any more than I'd use it to study dada or the rockism vs poptimist wars.

I often find that to be the position of those that make religious claims.

 

[Snark]

What other methodologies might you suggest as a reliable and consistent means of exploring reality?

Philosophy. Art. Literature. Music. Journalism. Political theory. Even marketing if we must. (Are we considering the social sciences to be scientific subjects for this discussion? They don't follow the scientific method at least) I'll admit freely that they don't produce consistent goals in the sense of producing the same results over time. But neither does the scientific method if you try and apply it to any of those subjects. Or at least, if someone has managed to use the scientific method to produce a series of hit singles I haven't noticed it.

How is that a problem?

Because it's incoherent. Either the scientific method is the only valid way of investigating reality or it isn't. If it is, then any philosophical claim that can't be verified scientifically is worthless.

I often find that to be the position of those that make religious claims.

Whereas I've never in fact come across anyone who actually applies the scientific method universally, including to claims about the utility of the scientific method. It's an interesting philosophical concept, but it seems purely theoretical.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They were clearly told both and did both, and then were all over the map.

Huh? Matthew says they were told to go to Galilee before the ascension and they went. Luke/Acts said they were told not to depart Jerusalem and they didn't depart.

Your solution: They did both! ROFL! How can they possibly both depart from Jerusalem and not depart from Jerusalem during that time period?

Of course, I am the one who said it. But that just means many are wrong...not all.

Ah, you are right and those who disagree are all wrong. How do you know you are right and those who disagree with you on the gospel accounts are wrong?

 

[ScottA]

Huh? Matthew says they were told to go to Galilee before the ascension and they went. Luke/Acts said they were told not to depart Jerusalem and they didn't depart.

Your solution: They did both! ROFL! How can they possibly both depart from Jerusalem and not depart from Jerusalem during that time period?

Mathew didn't say that. You are reading it into it, assuming the time was before the ascension.

Ah, you are right and those who disagree are all wrong. How do you know you are right and those who disagree with you on the gospel accounts are wrong?

I know, because I have confirmation that is contradictory to their claims.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Mathew didn't say that. You are reading it into it, assuming the time was before the ascension.

Are you serious?

Here is Matthew 28:16-20:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.​

And if you read Mathew 28 in context, this is clearly talking about an event that happened before the ascension, before Pentecost. That contradicts Luke/Acts which says they stayed in Jerusalem until after Pentecost. Your solution? Matthew skipped the ascension, skipped Pentecost, and fast forwarded to a day after Jesus had gone to heaven, after Pentecost, when the eleven somehow got together and went up on a road trip to Galilee where they met Jesus on a mountain, with some doubting. Seriously? Even after Pentecost the disciples pulled off this road trip and some of them were still doubting?!?

And if this happened, why does Acts say nothing about it? It seems to me that this would be important: after Pentecost they all went to Galilee--some of them still doubting the resurrection-- to have a meeting with Jesus who came back from heaven for this special meeting!

Is that the best you can do in resolving this contradiction? For more see, http://theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1tarry92.html

I know, because I have confirmation that is contradictory to their claims.

And what is that confirmation that you have that verifies that you are right? This is where it gets confusing. You describe it only as spiritual evidence. If you are going to tell us you are right and could not possibly be wrong, some of us would want more evidence than your statement that you have a "confirmation", whatever that is.