A major bone of contention between us (TSZ) and our friends at Uncommon Descent is origins, how things came to be.
It is pretty clear from their recent writings that despite earlier protestations to the contrary, UD is a Christian apologetics website looking to boost and support the Christian story of origins.
Barry has claimed: “The documents constituting the New Testament are vouchsafed with the blood of the martyrs. Nothing else comes remotely close.”
Islam and the Heaven’s Gate cult also have had people willing to die for them. So, they come close. Also, not all of them can be true given their contradictory truth claims. We can therefore rule out wanting to die for something being a guarantee of truth.
KirosFocus looks to bolster the argument with “with 500 core witnesses, not one of whom could be turned by the threats or inducements of state agents determined to uproot what they saw as a potential source of uprisings”, but as far as I can tell this is poor thinking, he is citing the bible to support the biblical account (1 Cor 15:1) – So the number is irrelevant, we are still left with only the primary source.
KF also tells us, “we have four eyewitness lifespan biographies, one of which is volume 1 of the earliest history of the Christian movement, credibly initially complete c 62 AD. a two-volume work that has been abundantly vindicated as to habitual, detailed accuracy and capturing nuances of setting in ways not plausible for people projecting back from later times. This consciously historical work uses a second biography as a major source, reinforcing the conclusion”
This is closer to the truth; there are four accounts that were written at the earliest decades after the purported events all of which are part of the bible, not independent support for it. I image that people at that time would understand the nuances of biblical times far better than we do, so I’m not sure there’s any argument about ‘good context’ to be made.
See also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#The_synoptic_problem)
So my question is, outside of the bible, what historical evidence do we have for the story of Jesus? Having been told by Barry “The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most reliably documented events in all of human history.” (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-why-liars-lie/#comment-580232) I’d like to see those documents, the non-biblical ones.
The scientific aim is obviously to have a consilient picture of events, multiple independent and reinforcing narratives, like this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
A far better question than the one raised in the title of the OP would be why do you feel justified in ignoring the Gospels?
Let’s try this again. You can be honest with me Richardthughes. Really.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there is no known mention of Jesus outside the New Testament. So What? What is your point, if you have one?
Do you think Jesus never existed?
Do you think Joseph Smith’s golden tablets existed? What is your reason for ignoring my questions about Mormonism?
No idea. Are you comparing the existence of Jesus with the existence of Joseph Smith’s golden tablets?
Lack of relevance.
What does that statement even mean?
You do know that Jerusalem was an actual city, right?
If you ask questions about why someone does or does not accept scriptures, the overriding question becomes, on what basis do you accept scripture. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Not one eyewitness wrote down their account.
There are eleven signed witnesses to Joseph Smith’s tablets.
Why are you not a Mormon?
I respect your religious beliefs, but they are not evidence.
Mung, why are you not a Mormon?
Don’t want to be a Mormon. Why aren’t you a Christian?
Seems like a good enough reasons.
Why do you defend one brand of bullshit and reject another?
His own smells better — to him.
It’s a serious question. Mung, Gregory, Eric and Fifth are assuming that some sort of Christianity is the default way of looking at existence, and anyone who doesn’t agree must explain why they reject it. Anyone who doesn’t accept the Gospel must explain why.
That’s silly. Considering how many conflicting religions and scriptures there are, a rational person would not accept any withour very good reason, and none have been forthcoming.
At the very least, they could provide a well reasoned description of why the Book of Mormon is not reliable, and the Gospels are reliable.
Hi Mung. You’ve posted a few things and I’m going to work my way through them, but instead of questioning what I believe you could have supplied evidence from outside of the bible for the story of Jesus.
There is no reason that the story of Jesus in forced to be in one tome, the bible. There are many contemporary writings support could have been in, but isnt. I’d argue that the odds of something be memorialized is directly correlated to how noteworthy it is.
Or any of the many religious conflicting origins / religious stories from the many faiths. They can’t all be true, can they? So many of them are false. The ones that contain fantastic (at odds with physics / human history) I find easier to dismiss.
I think probably a man called Jesus existed. And he was a good man and his words merit study and there are lessons to be learned. But, just a man.
Yes. I also know that wardrobes and London are real things and there was a world war 2. But I’m still skeptical on Narnia. likewise, Comet Hale–Bopp is real, but I find “heavens gate” a bit… culty. But, well done Bible for not being set on Mars, I suppose?
So I’ve given my answers, and you’ve still given no support from outside the bible. An honest question has been turned into scrutiny on my views. Can I conclude to have no corroboration external to the bible for the story of Jesus, especially the miraculous bits? Because if you don’t you might want to ask KF and Barry what they are banging on about.
Why should I when I clearly reject your entire premise as absurd.
I can only imagine how much history you reject as not worthy of consideration simply because it’s written by the wrong people.
That must be it. Scripture is true if it was written by the right people.
To be honest, that is how I reject the Book of Mormon – it was written by the “wrong” person, known conman Joe Smith.
But what I don’t understand is how Mung can be so self-unaware to complain about us rejecting history written by “wrong people” when he himself does exactly the same thing: just as we do, he rejects the Mormon version of history without even hesitating.
You can try and try, but you can never open their eyes to their inconsistency and hypocrisy.
Sure, scripture is true, and theirs is self-evidently the right scripture written by the right people.
No doubt.
Flyby Mung. So evasive. Miraculous events, seen by many. What should have happened?
Indeed, I find it perfectly believable that there was some historical model for Jesus and some of the stories in the gospels could have some relationship to historical events. It’s the miraulous elements of the stories I reject. Water into wine? Walking on water? Coming back to life after having been dead for a few days?
KF seems has perhaps noticed:
I’ll link because I’m not afraid of open dialogue and feel no need to control it.
I’ve no idea. I wasn’t alive back then and neither were you.
What do you think should have happened?
Do you think someone would have made mention of the events and even perhaps have committed the events to writing? They did.
Why do you ignore the evidence?
If you truly believe that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of what is recorded in the Bible, why believe he existed at all?
Richardthughes,
There are a few questions you did not answer. For example:
Q: If you are going to take off the table, from the beginning, the very sources which attest to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, what do you really expect to find? What’s more, what conclusions can you draw?
Recall, if you will, it was your decision to restrict consideration of sources to extra-biblical ones. How do you justify that decision?
Q: Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there is no known mention of Jesus outside the New Testament. So What? What is your point, if you have one?
Richardthughes: I am primarily interested in support for the bible from outside of the bible.
What does that statement even mean?
What does support for the bible from outside the bible consist of and why is it a meaningful measure of anything at all?
Richardthughes,
You understand, I hope, that your challenge to present extra-biblical sources that attest to … (whatever) … is pretty uninteresting if only for the fact that you’re choosing to ignore relevant sources.
You don’t think the Gospels can be trusted. I think your excuse if lame, but whatever.
What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
What does your “answer” have to do with my question?
Is this your argument?
I hope that’s not your argument, because it’s incredibly lame.
But what say you?
Mung, Why are you not a Mormon?
Lol@attack Mung. I’ll reply at length again later today then he can question me and avoid my questions some more.
Your worldview presupposes that miraculous events don’t happen therefore you reject the miraculous elements of the stories.
Is this supposed to be news to us? Is it supposed reveal anything other than you are unable to view the evidence in an unbiased manor?
peace
What would give you the right to criticize anyone’s presupposition?
Even more, though, why do you presuppose that it’s a presupposition, rather than a conclusion from observations? Is it really so odd that someone might conclude that brains deprived of oxygen for hours (in normal conditions) do not begin to work properly ever again? And why would an exception be made for Jesus’ resurrection based upon ancient accounts?
Glen Davidson
Not so much my “worldview” (though I can’t categorically deny it – I’m not sure what a wordview is) more my own experience of the World. Water runs downhill and, unfrozen, is not a reliable surface for people to walk on. In my lifetime the properties of water seem unvariable. By extension, the unvarying properties of matter in this universe, lead me to
presuppose that this is a fact of this universe.Who is we? I suspect anyone with sufficient interest can verify the properties of water for themselves. Have you tried walking on it? Doesn’t work, does it?
The evidence that Jesus walked on water? What would that be other than reported testimony? My manor is very comfy thanks, though not large. I blame the builder for the bias!
ETA correct spelling (Note to self be especially aware to not make typos in comments making fun of others’ typos)
Mung,
Thanks for the link, Mung. On reading the reviews of the book you link to, I see one Donald Smith quotes the Roman historian Polybius:
You are confusing observation with criticism.
I’m not sure how you could conclude that miracles don’t happen based on observation.
Miracles are by definition rare events the fact that you have never witnessed one is not evidence that they don’t happen.
1) miracles are by definition not “normal conditions”
2) Ever hear of the problem of induction?
peace
What do you mean when you use the word “miracle”? If, for the purpose of this discussion, we restrict miracles to events described in a bible that appear to defy the known porperties of the Universe, what evidence do we have other than those descriptions themselves?
Ever hear of the problem of induction? Just because it has been your experience that the universe works in a certain way is not in any way evidence that it always behaves in such a way.
That it does not work for me is not in any way evidence that it won’t work for God. I’m not God. I know that by observation
peace
Appear to whom? Known to whom? Remember it does not have to always have to be about you
peace
Indeed, that’s why I feel reasonably confident about extrapolating out from my own experience of the properties of water and comparing it with historical reports, geological findings, astronomy and so on.
Are you suggesting there is evidence that water sometimes runs uphill?
Hardly, as you didn’t have good evidence that it was a presupposition.
The issue is concluding that they do happen, which would have to be based on observation.
You just made up that “definition.”
So? “Not normal” doesn’t necessarily mean rare. You could have a miracle worker, which would be atypical, yet the amazing thing would be that miracles abounded through said miracle worker.
Ever hear of the problem of just making stuff up? Of gullibility? Of making exceptions for your pet beliefs?
Glen Davidson
Are you serious? Walking on water is impossible for a human given the observed properties of the Universe. Additionally, at the time the gospels were written, including little gems like this may have seemed a good idea to bolster the divinity of Jesus. That hints to me that the writers weren’t thinking ahead but writing for their own time.
Well, exactly!
I’m suggesting actually more than that I’m flat out stating that
Extrapolations from your own experience are not evidence that water never runs uphill.
peace
Impossible for whom? Surely you agree that God could walk on water
Lets look at the syllogism
1) Humans can’t walk on water
2) Jesus walked on water
Therefore Jesus was more than human
The logic works as well today as it did when the disciples first observed it
quote:
but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.”
(Mar 6:49-50)
end quote:
peace
But I combine with that fifthmonarchyman’s personal experience of water never running uphill.
But I don’t accept premise number two. Reported testimony is story-telling. In itself, without any other evidence, a story of an impossible event is a story. Might be true; might not. Might be partly true not to exclude the middle!
Okay, Mung. Let’s try this collaboratively:
We’ve both parked our priors.
There are many conflicting truth claims about the past. How are we going to choose which ones to believe? Why do we accept some but reject others?
It doesn’t matter. The personal experience of every human that ever existed is not evidence that water never runs up hill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
I agree it’s a good thing we have lots of collaborating evidence that the Logos exists. That evidence would include the regularity of nature
peace
Collective common experience is a powerful argument for one external reality.
There’s that “we” again. Just glancing here at Wikipedia there seems a wide range of ideas covered by λόγος. I wonder what you mean when you use “logos”. If you mean God, why not say so? I’m unaware of any collaborating evidence for any god or similar supernatural concept other than reported testimony.
It is not an argument at all unless one presupposes the regularity of nature.
I do this because I presuppose the Logos. I’m not sure how you can do so given your worldview. Feel free to enlighten me if you like.
The Logos is the the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.
it’s God as seen from our perspective not God “a se”.
Check out John 1 for an introductory summery.
It’s a hypothesis of mine that the Logos is necessary for any knowelege whatsoever. If knowledge exists the Logos exists
I won’t derail this thread with that particular experiment. I think you know how it goes.
peace
That is not necessary. I (and most other sentient beings, I suggest) use their experience of external reality to form general assumptions about the world in general. A working hypothesis, a pattern, that is continuously tested against our perception of the outside world. I’m testing it now while I’m typing.
No, that doesn’t make any sense to me.
And so it begins don’t say I did not warn you
How exactly do you know this? Be very specific. Trust me It will make the process easier
How exactly do you know that testing is the best way to acquire knowledge of the outside world
Again be very specific. It will make it easier.
peace