Matthew Levi was an eye witness.
So it has been alleged, but we don't have
his testimony. We have someone else allegedly re-telling his version of events, perhaps, but we know that GMatthew can't possibly be an eye-witness account because of the elements that no one other than Jesus could have witnessed, such as the so-called "temptation" in the desert. At best, that would have been a story Jesus told to Matthew, but there is no evidence that this is the case. Matthew 4 just states the events as if he witnessed them; not, "And then Jesus told me about...."
So, at best, we have an unknown number of anonymous authors/copyists over the centuries that have re-told someone else's alleged recollections.
Lion IRC said:
Saul of Tarsus was an eye witness.
Not to any aspect of Jesus' life or even public teachings. He never met the man. He claims to have had a "vision," but that does not constitute an "eye-witness" to any of the "miracles" Jesus is alleged to have actually done.
So, once again, no, there are no eye-witness accounts.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
trustworthiness (historicity) of biographical accounts of Jesus
Written by biased sources.
You can't even assert bias as a motive
Of course we can.
Lion IRC said:
let alone prove it, when you yourself claim not to know who wrote the Gospels.
The bias is evidenced in the books of the NT. Hell, Paul as much as declares that lying is permissible if it means a possible conversion.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
extra biblical corroboration
At best it corroborates that a guy named Jesus existed. There were many people named Jesus that have existed. It tells us nothing of any divine or supernatural claims about such a person.
Yes, maybe we have all our multiple Jesus' all jumbled up.
Considering the confusion over Chrestus and Christus and Chresto and the fact that his name was actually Yeshua, when it comes to
extra biblical corroboration we clearly see
scholarly confusion over who is being written about.
Lion IRC said:
Now, I've already stated that the events reported can be viewed in purely secular terms. You are not obligated to attribute them to divine/supernatural causes.
I agree. So then there is no point in discussing anything further, if Jesus was just some guy.
Lion IRC said:
But in terms of historicity, you should at least admit that people were sincerely reporting their experience of an event which THEY interpreted as miraculous.
Except that, once again, we don't have anyone we can say definitively was reporting
their experience and that includes Paul.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
In regard to what? Archeology only confirms places existed, not the divinity/supernatural claims about a particular person. Iow, that would apply to a Stephen King novel just as much as it would to the NT accounts.
That's right. And archeology could easily disprove allegedly fabricated NT accounts. But it doesn't.
No, it can't. It can't serve any purpose at all except to confirm whether or not a city claimed to have existed in a particular region existed. Again, every city ever mentioned in a Stephen King novel actually exists. So what? That tells us nothing about whether or not there is a supernatural clown that lives in sewers.
Lion IRC said:
Lee Strobel doesn't claim that there's a link between archeological evidence and Christology.
Great, then we can dispense with it entirely as being utterly irrelevant.
Lion IRC said:
the archeological record is used to debunk Jesus mythers and history deniers.
Which it can't, so, again, strike it off the list along with eye-witness accounts.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
...disparity between the secular historical Jesus and the (Christological) Jesus of Faith.
Again, I doubt anyone cares whether or not somebody named Jesus existed.
Speak for yourself.
There is not a single atheist on the planet who would doubt that people have been named Yeshua throughout the millennia. There were likely dozens if not hundreds so named in the area at the same time as the NT version is alleged to exist.
The only thing that matters is whether or not there existed a particular one with the divinity/supernatural abilities claimed in the NT myths.
Lion IRC said:
The only claims that need to be evidenced/tested are those of divinity/supernatural abilities, etc.
Fine, if that's what you're primarily interested in then Lee Strobel would call that progress
Doubtful, unless he's a congenital idiot as that is the entire question and always has been.
Lion IRC said:
because it would mean you accept (arguendo) that yes, in purely secular terms perhaps the Gospel events happened
I'm sure they did, just not in the manner presented.
Lion IRC said:
but that there is a non-supernatural explanation
Yep.
Lion IRC said:
which accounts for someone thinking they saw "xyz".
We can't access what anyone thought and we have no record of what anyone thought. We only have a record of what
other people were told other people thought, with the noted exception of Paul (but even his writings are in question; i.e., we are not sure exactly which are authentic).
So, again, scratch eye-witness and archeology and anything that doesn't have strictly to do with the only relevant question: the alleged divinity/supernatural abilities of a particular individual.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
Chapter 2 - Analyzing Jesus' self-identity.
Irrelevant and no direct evidence exists to even attempt such a thing. We would literally need Jesus' own diary to even begin to undertake such a question.
Don't you think it's important to rule out the possibility that people mistook Jesus' statements and misunderstood His motives.
Not in regard to the only issue that matters (his alleged divinity/supernatural abilities).
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
Why did Jews convert to Christianity?
By and large, they didn't, unless you're talking about more modern day "Jews for Jesus" nonsense.
By and large Jesus' disciples were, like Jesus Himself, Jewish.
And none of them "converted to Christianity." There was no such thing as "Christianity" at the time of the disciples.
Lion IRC said:
I don't know how you can claim otherwise.
Now you do.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
Chapter 3 - Researching the Resurrection. Medical analysis. Swoon theory. Body double theory. Was Jesus' body really lost/stolen? Hoax theories.
All good, so long as one assumes certain things, but the biggest problem is that GMark (the creator of the passion narrative that later writers simply embellished) does not actually have Jesus resurrecting.
There is not one single source for the Passion accounts.
Yes, there is. GMark.
Lion IRC said:
Mark certainly has Jesus' Resurrection in detail.
No, it certainly does not. It ends with a group of women arriving at an open cave where a "young man" is sitting inside evidently waiting for them to show up so that he can tell them that Jesus "is risen" (which is not the same thing as saying he
resurrected from the dead) and is down in the town.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
Post Resurrection appearances.
Immediately dismissed unless one raises it as evidence that the man never actually died.
You are not qualified to reject another person's claim about what they thought they saw.
Of course I am. As are you. We know from literally billions of case studies that no one resurrects from the dead. Similarly, we know from thousands of case studies, that people
thought to be dead, but actually were not was a common enough experience in the days before more precise measures were known that a regular feature on coffins was a goddamned
bell that could be wrung from the inside, precisely because it was so often an occurrence.
Lion IRC said:
You can have an opinion, but you don't own their eyeballs.
Irrelevant. Anecdote is not evidence of anything beyond what the person thought they saw. It does not prove that what they thought they saw actually occurred.
Lion IRC said:
People said that they saw what they thought was a living person who they took to be Jesus.
No, someone else claimed that other people saw such a thing. That's even worse. That's known as hearsay.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
Circumstantial evidence and/or conclusive evidence.
We have none.
You seem intent on a fairly lazy, minimalist form of gainsaying.
Far from it. I have conclusively demonstrated precisely why we have no eye-witness accounts (well, possibly one, but it's not reliable for the various reasons given; i.e., liar and/or inauthenticity); why "archaeology" isn't applicable in any way to the question of someone's divinity/supernatural abilities; the inherent problem with anecdotal accounts, even if we could establish that they were not merely hearsay; etc.
Lion IRC said:
No, we don't, as has been clearly demonstrated twice now. Third hand claims of what other people saw is not evidence. Do NOT try to argue that anecdote is evidence as it can ONLY be evidence
of what someone thinks they say, and NOT evidence that what they think they saw actually exists.
Lion IRC said:
We only have, at best, third person anecdotes. Which are not "evidence" of anything other than someone telling someone else something they thought happened. Iow, non-verifiable and therefore useless in regard to any attempt to verify claims of divinity/supernatural abilities.
All evidence shared with others is anecdotal.
No, it isn't.
Lion IRC said:
Scientists tell others what they saw happening in the Antarctic.
No, they don't. They bring back core drill samples and let other scientists
corroborate what they discovered in their own examinations of the samples. What you're referring to, of course, is when they write up their findings in peer-review journals and the like.
Lion IRC said:
When you say claim "xyz" doesn't (in and of itself) prove Christianity true and that Jesus is the Son of God, you're right.
Good, then we're done.
Lion IRC said:
But, just like melting ice caps, you have to either admit or deny they really are melting
I need do no such thing as it's not a matter of belief. I can test the readily available data myself, if I were so inclined. What do you think scientists do? Sit around and tell each other fantastical stories and then everyone just agrees and publishes their stories and that's the extent of it?
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
Accepted historical facts
If they do not pertain to divinity/supernatural abilities, irrelevant.
Since when are facts irrelevant?
If they do not pertain to divinity/supernatural abilities, which is the only relevant question here.
Lion IRC said:
Lion IRC said:
appeals to the "best explanation"
For? A cult? People believing in gods?
Yes, Strobel argues that we should seek the best explanation for the apparent or claimed facts.
It is unquestionable, then, that the "best
explanation" cannot possibly be "magic" as that has no explanatory power whatsoever. Indeed, far from
explaining anything, it only makes the question even more problematic.
Lion IRC said:
Is it more plausible that the Romans themselves would fabricate and circulate the Gospels as a ploy?
More plausible than an omni-capable invisible magical being that blinked the universe into existence would require of himself to incarnate in flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself to protect his own creation from his wrath?
It is infinitely more plausible that Romans--well known for their near
invention of such "espionage" tricks--to have done such a thing, especially right at a time when the alleged followers of the insurrectionist/seditionist movement they would be writing about were in open rebellion.
Hell, WE do the exact same thing to this day every time we invade a country. We constantly spread pro-American propaganda that takes the form of local lore about their own leaders and flips it to make them out to be the bad guy and us out to be the heroic saviors.
Lion IRC said:
You assert the absence of evidence
Not "assert"; established as an undeniable fact that there is nothing that would be considered objective evidence of the existence of an omni-capable magical being incarnating into flesh...etc., etc., etc. Iow, no reliable or compelling evidence of divinity/supernatural abilities.
Lion IRC said:
but isn't the biggest, most conspicuous missing evidence the total lack of counter-Gospel claims?
What?
Lion IRC said:
Shouldn't we expect to see a concerted effort by the Romans and the Hellenistic Jewish power elite to debunk the emerging claims about Jesus and what He did.
We arguably do. Hence GMark, which, btw, is often claimed to contain a storyline that was deliberately tampered with in regard to Pilate's actions precisely because it was meant to fool or appease Romans who might hear whatever the "real" story was and think it was anti-Roman, remember? Which begs the question that no apologist can ever answer, what is the REAL story and why didn't it get re-established in the canon after the alleged threat of Roman reprisal ended?
Lion IRC said:
Where's all the propaganda refuting that Jesus seemingly performed miracles?
All of Judaism? The fact that people back then were gullible morons who believed anything anyone told them and that, evidently what we call "miracles" were stories that people just swallowed whole or something and therefore not a big deal? The victors write the history? I don't know, nor do I see why anyone would need to refute something that never was to begin with.
Lion IRC said:
How is it that the might of Rome couldn't suppress the tide of belief that a Higher Power was at work and that.
Considering they were likely the ones who came up with it in the first place--and forced it under threat of death over the centuries--and that it was designed to keep idiots docile and sheep slaves and was in fact PRO ROMAN (there's where that bit above comes in about Pilate, remember?), why would they suppress it? It's perfectly in line with everything Rome would want; do what Rome says; pay Roman taxes; be meek; don't do anything that would get you jailed; thank God you are poor and worthless; rejoice in your suffering; offer a Roman your ass to do with what he pleases any time he wants it; etc.
If they didn't write it, it is as if they did, so why suppress it?
But that's ancillary to Strobel and this thread. We have conclusively reduced EVERYTHING you listed to this simple fact: there is no reliable or compelling evidence that anyone depicted in the NT mythologies was divine or had supernatural powers.
If you have such evidence, please present it. But don't just continue to repeat established nonsense like "anecdotes are evidence" because the ONLY thing that an anecdote can evidence is that someone thought they saw something. That cannot tell us whether or not that something actually happened; it can ONLY tell us that the person
thought it actually happened. And what we have in the NT myths is countless unknown copyists/others making claims about what
other people claimed they saw. So we don't even have first hand anecdotal/eye-witness accounts; we have anonymous hearsay in all cases but Paul's and even then we don't know for sure which of his letters are authentic or complete.
Not to mention the most obvious fact, which is that we know people who have had "visions" like the one he alleged had typically mean they are suffering from some form of brain disorder and NOT that they have actually been visited by a magical being, which only makes anything Paul wrote
further suspect (if not, once again, an outright lie just to get himself ingratiated into the "movement").
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
So ALL of this merry-go-round comes down to ONE thing: what evidence do you have that a guy named Jesus was divine and/or had supernatural powers? Because if you say, "somebody told me he did" you have no evidence.
ETA: Let me reiterate. I don't mean "you have no evidence
that I would personally accept." You have no evidence PERIOD.
To make it
unmistakably clear to you, anecdote (especially
hearsay anecdote) is not evidence of the object; it is ONLY evidence of that someone had an experience they couldn't readily explain.
And we don't even have that. We have other unknown people claiming that some other person saw something they could not readily explain. That is not evidence that the something they saw actually existed. Full stop.