120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[blastula]

There is evidence, but in all those cases, it is very, very, very weak evidence.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is the SPECIAL CASING fallacy here? Or is "special casing" just meaningless jargon?

But I DISbelieve in miracle claims generally. There's usually not enough evidence (or none at all).

You keep on claiming that if someone tells a story about a miracle, that's evidence for it.

So if you hear of a miracle claim, by your standards, that's evidence for it.

It's not POSSIBLE for you to decide that the evidence for a miracle is

(or none at all)

because someone told you the story. That's your bare minimum for evidence.

Unless, of course, you're treating Jesus' miracle stories differently than other miracle stories. You know, special casing once again.

Why don't you ever give us an example?

You keep on claiming that if someone tells a story about a miracle, that's evidence for it.

Yes, but this doesn't include a claim about a miracle that happened a thousand or million years ago, by a god creating humans, or creating the moon or the sun.

But if someone claims to have seen the miracle event, or to have heard it from someone who saw it, or to have testimony from something recent, that's evidence. If there's ONLY ONE such report, it's probably not enough evidence to believe a miracle claim. But it is a small amount of evidence.

So if you hear of a miracle claim, by your standards, that's evidence for it.

Yes, for a recent miracle event -- not for Zeus casting a thunderbolt half a million years ago.

It's not POSSIBLE for you to decide that the evidence for a miracle is

(or none at all)

because someone told you the story.

No. "None at all" would be for a claim about the pagan gods/heroes who did something but with no evidence connecting back to the time of the event. The "claim" refers to someone who witnessed it, and there's some serious evidence going back to those witnesses.

Just a story about the gods is not evidence because there's no claim of a link going back to the event. Like a document written by someone who was there or knew someone near to the event.

That's your bare minimum for evidence.

Yes, a claim to have witnessed something is evidence. Or to have indirect connection to a witness, or document telling about the witness or connected indirectly to the witness. The evidence "chain" has to finally go back to at least a hypothetical direct witness, i.e., someone who was probably there, even if they're no longer around.

Unless, of course, you're treating Jesus' miracle stories differently than other miracle stories.

They all have to be treated the same.

We have 4 (5) sources attesting to the Jesus miracle acts, written near to the time of the events. This is good evidence for a time when there was so little being published.

Tell us about the "other miracle stories" from 1000+ years ago for which we have extra sources like we do for the Jesus miracle stories. These "other" stories have to be treated by the same standards. If there are 4 sources near to the time of the reported event(s), then it's good evidence.

You know, special casing once again.

All cases are special. But if you keep refusing to cite any "other" cases, it's difficult to judge their credibility. Why do you keep refusing to name the "other" cases for us to compare to the Jesus miracle stories?

Do you still claim the Pope is sending his vigilante book-burning squads everywhere to destroy the evidence for all the other miracle stories? Can't you get a video of these vigilantes in action and post them on YouTube? Have you seen them yourself? Or do you claim the vigilantes are invisible?

You know, special casing once again.

All cases are special.

BZZT! Wrong. But thanks for playing. You can't make your fallacy not be a fallacy by pretending the words mean something else.

It's not a "fallacy" just because you can parrot the words "special casing" like a tape recorder without showing what the "special casing" fallacy is.

Instead of just repeating this sloganistic jargon phrase you picked up somewhere (from a Jesus debunker guru you worship and whose words you repeat without knowing what they mean?), why don't you state what the "special casing" fallacy is in this case.

The same standards of logic and evidence must be applied equally to ALL miracle claims, about any alleged miracle-worker throughout all history.

Which one am I not judging by the same standards as I am judging the Jesus miracle claims?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If history doesn't "work" this way, how does it work?

And, frankly, I never really get tired of Lumpy demonstrating that he doesn't know how history works, as he tries to support a history argument.

Isn't this "how history works":

We have documents from the past telling us what happened, dated near to the time of the reported events. We treat the documents critically, but we generally accept them as reliable unless they are contradicted by other documents or other evidence from the time of the reported events. If a document makes very unusual claims, we look for corroboration from other documents of the time before giving them much credibility.

There's a lot of guesswork in putting together all the details about what happened. But we can get a good general picture of the events, mixed with much doubt about the details, and realization that any "historical record" produced will likely contain errors.

The doubt and likelihood of error increases for documents 500 or 1000 or 2000 years ago. But still we can piece together what happened, accepting the documents as mostly credible when they are not contradicted by other evidence.


Based on this "how history works" it is reasonable to believe the Jesus miracle acts as real events, while still having doubt, and admitting elements of fiction mixed with fact in the Gospel documents.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I believe Keith&Co is referring to special pleading:

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We treat the documents critically, but we generally accept them as reliable

What does that mean? These documents include stories of demons in pigs and resurrecting from the dead and walking on water and turning water into wine and fantastical magical beings--devils and angels--etc., etc., etc. So, what exactly is "reliable" about them?

unless they are contradicted by other documents or other evidence from the time of the reported events.

You mean a document that explicitly states, "No one saw anything, they're all cult lies" or the like? Something that reads, "But of course, there are no such things as demons or angels or gods and all of this is just fictional nonsense"?

If a document makes very unusual claims, we look for corroboration from other documents of the time before giving them much credibility.

Again, what are you corroborating? That there were Jewish men named Yeshua that lived in Jerusalem two thousand years ago? I'm sure there were dozens. That one in particular was a Rabbi who was killed by the Romans for sedition? Again, not controversial.

That this one particular one was the incarnate son of a magical being that created the entire universe and had the power to grant eternal life after death if all we do is "believe" really really really really really strongly that he's our Lord and Savior?

See the difference?

There's a lot of guesswork in putting together all the details about what happened. But we can get a good general picture of the events, mixed with much doubt about the details, and realization that any "historical record" produced will likely contain errors.

Again, which "events" are you referring to? What "details"? I tell you I saw Bigfoot in the Rockies. Does the fact that there actually exists a mountain range that we call "the Rockies" constitute a "detail" that therefore corroborates my claim of seeing a mythical creature? In what world?

Based on this "how history works" it is reasonable to believe the Jesus miracle acts as real events

No, that is entirely unreasonable to believe precisely because we know people and how history works and that fantastical claims are always debunked. Gods don't create thunder or support the earth on their shoulders or ride in fiery chariots in the sky and the universe was not just blinked into existence 6,000 years ago, etc., etc., etc.

If history teaches us anything, it is that ignorance dominates discourse and all human affairs, including the more disciplined ones that are intended to combat it, so why in the world would it be "reasonable" to believe any ancient anecdotes no matter how often they go viral throughout a community?

while still having doubt, and admitting elements of fiction mixed with fact in the Gospel documents.

Ok, what is the fiction? Let's start there. You tell us exactly what are the fictional elements?

 

[Lion IRC]

You can avoid the accusation of special pleading if you can show that your case actually IS special.

Lumpy has done a good job demonstrating that it is unreasonable to apply some vague concept of "how history works" to historical documents (and events) which have no historical equivalent.

We see this playing out every time skeptics demand extra-biblical corroboration of the entirely unique New Testament documents. Skeptics themselves don't even treat the New Testament as if it was a merely a collection of valid historical reporting (of claimed events.)

So if the...one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter, "how history works" skeptics won't treat Mark, Luke, Paul, as historical accounts, then they should be considered as unique special cases. No logical fallacy here Lumpy. You're fine.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

All writings which report historical events, including the Gospels, must be judged by the same standards.

The only problem is that no one has exactly made that claim or that error. You have altered the terms and references of what has been said in a way that suits your own needs.

No - he's just saying you have to be consistent.

If the Gospels aren't admissible as "history" neither are any other similar documents.

Which other "similar" documents?

All documents from the past which claim to report events from the time in question. Regardless what other content they also have, they are "similar" if their content includes claims about the events of those times.

The Koran? The apocryphal gospels? The Baghavad Gita? Because these are similar documents.

No, not the Gita. It is about events many centuries or even thousands of years earlier than the time this document was written.

For the document to be "similar" it has to contain reported events near to the time the document was written. The Gita was written from 500-200 BC, at least 1000 years later than Krishna lived (if he lived), and probably several thousand years later.

When the document was written and when the reported events happened are absolutely essential in identifying the nature of the document.

But the Koran is "similar" to the Gospels, and some of the apocryphal writings might be "similar," but not all of them. Some are borderline, being written 100-300 years later than the reported events. We could include some apocryphal gospels, with the qualifier that they are less credible because they are so much later, and so for any contradiction to the earlier writings, they are given lower credibility.

A "gospel" written after 300 AD, like the Gospel of Nicodemus, is really not "similar" to the canonical Gospels, as far as being any historical guide to the 1st century events. However, the Gospel of Thomas has to be taken seriously, as being much closer, with parts of it even being from the 1st century.

So you can reasonably say the Gospel of Thomas is "similar" to the canonical Gospels, while the Gospel of Nicodemus is not. And others too are less "similar" as reports for the 1st century history, as they appear later and later.

Unsimilar documents would be, for example, Herodotus' Histories, Tacitus' Annals, Thucydides' Peloponnesian War or Xenophon's Anabasis.

So what's the difference? The difference is that the latter were written as historical narratives, while the former were not.

But the former do contain historical events. The important "similar" element is that the documents contain claims about historical events in them, and these events mostly are close to the time the documents were written, i.e., 100 years or less.

Where the events are more separated than this, like Herodotus reporting events 400 years earlier, there is less similarity, and less credibility on those earlier events.

It's not correct to say that Herodotus, Tacitus, Thucydides, and Xenophon are "similar" unless you include qualifiers. Xenophon's Anabasis is quite different than the others, being focused on one very limited event. And he and Thucydides were eyewitnesses to much of their accounts, whereas Herodutus and Tacitus were not, making them dissimilar. An account of contemporary events which the writer experiences directly is much different than an account of events 50 or 100 or 200 years earlier.

The major difference between the Gospels and the above historical writers is that the Gospel writers are focused on one single unusual event which had special importance, and it was urgent for word of this event to be spread, as something people needed to know about. This does not undermine the credibility of the document. ALL the documents must be judged critically, regardless whether they have such a narrow focus or a broad overview of the events.

Whereas the above historians dealt with history on a much broader scale, encompassing decades or centuries. Or, in the case of Xenophon's Anabasis, it was a personal experience report, similar to a travelogue, and was not thought of by the writer as a momentous historical event of extreme urgency for people to know about, as the Jesus events in the Gospels were.

So the mainline "historians" were interested in history generally, whereas the Gospel writers were focused on one special historical event only, seeing this one event as uniquely important for everyone to know about.

Lumpy's claim that the gospels should be treated like "any other historical document" falls at the first hurdle because the gospels were not written as historical documents.

Not in the sense of broad history, or general history over decades or centuries. But they are "historical documents" to spotlight one special historical event as being special and important for everyone to know about. There's no need for semantical quibbling over the meaning of "historical document" and other terms. These are writings about one special historical event, whereas the "historians" write about history broadly, taking in events over long periods, rather than putting extreme emphasis on one critical event as having unique importance.

There were other writers who wrote "historical documents" but who were not historians like Herodotus etc. E.g., Philo the Alexandrian, Cicero, Pliny the Younger, and many others. The Gospels belong in this broad category of writings which reported some historical events, whether these were about history generally or about just one historical event, and in this case about one very special historical event seen as having great significance and urgency and thus different than ordinary events.

So you can call something "similar" or "dissimilar" depending on what point you're emphasizing. The Gospels are "similar" to all other documents of those times which contain reports on the events of those times, or on just one single important event.

All these "historical documents" should be treated the same way. I.e., critically, and accepted as credible except where they are contradicted by other evidence/documents. And if they make very unusual claims, we should ask for more than only one source for corroboration.

They are religious tracts, written for the purpose of gaining believers.

That doesn't mean they didn't also report historical facts. Most of the "history" writings we depend on included more than dry reporting of facts.

Historians like Herodotus and Josephus also included religious and patriotic and propagandistic elements to persuade readers to sympathize with their worldview. But that doesn't mean they weren't also reporting the historical facts. They did both.

Recording historical events was never their concern, . . .

Yes it was their concern. I.e., to report one very special event, and details focused around this one special historical figure. It's true they were promoting a belief, but it all centered on a special historical event they were reporting, which was called "good news" (euangelion) by Mark. Their concern was to report this important event and also give their interpretation of it.

Just because they were so focused on this one singular event alone doesn't change the fact that they did report events, or historical facts centered around this one event. What was NOT their concern was to report generally on ALL the history of the period.

. . . so Lumpy's attempt to legitimise them by lumping (sorry) them in with "other historical documents" is a mistake of categorisation.

No, they are similar, or "historical," in that they are reporting certain events of the time, like the "historians" and also writers like Cicero and Philo the Alexandrian and other non-historians who reported some historical events.

Writers did not have to be official certified professional "historians" like Herodotus and Thucydides in order to report historical events and serve as credible sources for the events.

It's OK to say that the official mainline "historians" are generally more polished and thorough and reliable in some ways, but that doesn't change the fact that the NON-historians are also reliable sources for the events.

It's comparing apples and oranges.

Just because there are different kinds of historical sources, and there are differences between them, doesn't mean they aren't all reliable sources for the events. Both the "apples" and "oranges" are still legitimate fruits, and both the official "historians" and the NON-historians are legitimate sources for the historical events they wrote about.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You can avoid the accusation of special pleading if you can show that your case actually IS special.

Yeah, no. That's not really what the "special" part means in special pleading.

Lumpy has done a good job demonstrating that it is unreasonable to apply some vague concept of "how history works" to historical documents (and events) which have no historical equivalent.

See, that would be special pleading. You are merely asserting that such documents have "no historical equivalent." Beside the fact that it's special pleading, the gospels have thousands of historical equivalents that predate them, most notably, the "old testament" that it is entirely based upon and repeatedly references as proof of its own authority.

We see this playing out every time skeptics demand extra-biblical corroboration of the entirely unique New Testament documents.

Again, special pleading. They are in no way "unique."

Skeptics themselves don't even treat the New Testament as if it was a merely a collection of valid historical reporting (of claimed events.)

I don't know what that means. Are you trying to claim that skeptics accept the NT as "valid historical reporting"--whatever the hell that's supposed to mean--because I don't know a single one who does?

So if the...one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter, "how history works" skeptics won't treat Mark, Luke, Paul, as historical accounts, then they should be considered as unique special cases.

What?

No logical fallacy here Lumpy.

No logic there.

You're fine.

He's not.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Gospels are reliable, generally, but we can distinguish the fact from the fiction, where there is fiction.

We treat the documents critically, but we generally accept them as reliable . . .

What does that mean? These documents include stories of demons in pigs and resurrecting from the dead and walking on water and turning water into wine and fantastical magical beings--devils and angels--etc., etc., etc. So, what exactly is "reliable" about them?

There is a fictional element in some of this, but there is also the factual part. Most ancient documents contain fictional elements, even documents we generally accept as reliable. Just because there is a fictional element does not mean the whole document is unreliable.

Josephus is reliable for most of his history, and yet he tells a bizarre story of an exorcist who made demons come out of people, and the demon knocked over a container of water when it came out. Since Josephus is generally "reliable," we can reasonably believe that he saw this exorcist perform, who perhaps did a trick which fooled even Josephus.

That doesn't make Josephus less reliable, overall. But we have to read every document critically and recognize that the writer could be misled, and we don't have to believe everything he says, even if most of it is reliable. We can tell the difference.

. . . unless they are contradicted by other documents or other evidence from the time of the reported events.

You mean a document that explicitly states, "No one saw anything, they're all cult lies" or the like?

Yes, that form of contradiction did exist. Lucian of Samosata debunked some of the charlatans of his time, like Alexander Proteus who claimed to do miracles. Also Josephus ridiculed some of the messiah-pretender-charlatans who claimed to have miracle power, showing that they never performed the mighty deeds they promised to do.

Had there been such debunking of the Jesus miracles by contemporary writers, it would cast doubt on the credibility of the Gospel accounts of these.

Something that reads, "But of course, there are no such things as demons or angels or gods and all of this is just fictional nonsense"?

No, that would not cast doubt on the Gospel accounts in particular.

If a document makes very unusual claims, we look for corroboration from other documents of the time before giving them much credibility.

Again, what are you corroborating?

That Jesus did heal the blind, lepers, and others. That he raised the dead, and also that he resurrected after being killed. We have 4 (5) sources corroborating these, not only one source.

That there were Jewish men named Yeshua that lived in Jerusalem two thousand years ago? I'm sure there were dozens. That one in particular was a Rabbi who was killed by the Romans for sedition? Again, not controversial.

That this one particular one was the incarnate son of a magical being that created the entire universe and had the power to grant eternal life after death if all we do is "believe" really really really really really strongly that he's our Lord and Savior?

See the difference?

We don't need corroboration for theological interpretations, which are subjective. It's the historical facts, or reports of what happened that need to be corroborated, when these are about alleged miracle acts. For these miracle acts of Jesus we do have the corroboration from extra sources, instead of relying on one only.

There's a lot of guesswork in putting together all the details about what happened. But we can get a good general picture of the events, mixed with much doubt about the details, and realization that any "historical record" produced will likely contain errors.

Again, which "events" are you referring to? What "details"?

E.g., at the empty tomb, who exactly saw it first, what did they see inside? The 4 accounts are not consistent about this, but we can try to piece together what happened.

Also, which disciples saw him later in Galilee, and which ones saw him at the ascension outside Jerusalem. There are discrepancies about this.

But we can answer some of this, and also some of the discrepancies might not get resolved. Yet we can believe the general story of what happened, even though not all these details are determined.

I tell you I saw Bigfoot in the Rockies. Does the fact that there actually exists a mountain range that we call "the Rockies" constitute a "detail" that therefore corroborates my claim of seeing a mythical creature?

No, what would corroborate it would be if someone else had seen something similar at the same location. Like several of the disciples saw Jesus after the resurrection, rather than only one or two. Multiple accounts of this, saying different persons saw him, is corroboration.

In what world?

Any world. Extra corroboration is always helpful, even in another galaxy somewhere.

Based on this "how history works" it is reasonable to believe the Jesus miracle acts as real events

No, that is entirely unreasonable to believe precisely because we know people and how history works and that fantastical claims are always debunked.

Not always. That the mad monk Rasputin healed the son of the Czar is a "fantastical claim" consistent with all the historical accounts and never debunked.

The accounts don't say there was a miracle, but all the facts given do support the claim, i.e., admit that somehow the kid recovered, and none of the accounts have debunked the "fantastical claim" that Rasputin made it happen even though he had no medical training, and all the doctors, who had failed, were baffled that Rasputin somehow caused the child to recover.

Gods don't create thunder or support the earth on their shoulders or ride in fiery chariots in the sky and the universe was not just blinked into existence 6,000 years ago, etc., etc., etc.

The Gospels don't make these claims. That some people have believed these does not disprove some other claims about miracle events. For all the claims, we need to know the sources for it and when they were written. Some claims are true, others false. And probably for most of them it's not possible to determine for sure what the truth is.

If history teaches us anything, it is that ignorance dominates discourse and all human affairs, including the more disciplined ones that are intended to combat it, so why in the world would it be "reasonable" to believe any ancient anecdotes no matter how often they go viral throughout a community?

If they are corroborated by extra sources, written near the time of the reported event, and not contradicted by other evidence, then it's reasonable to believe them.

No? Why? Which claim is not reasonable to believe if it's corroborated and not contradicted?

Perhaps if it's dependent on an ancient superstitious tradition, this undermines the credibility of the claim. If all those corroborating it are strongly influenced by an ancient superstition they share in common, this might be a good reason to disbelieve the claim.

But generally if the claim is corroborated by multiple sources, near to the time of the reported event, and is not contradicted by other evidence, then it's reasonable to believe it. And in modern times, i.e., claims of recent miracle events, we need more than only 5 sources for corroboration.

. . . while still having doubt, and admitting elements of fiction mixed with fact in the Gospel documents.

Ok, what is the fiction? Let's start there. You tell us exactly what are the fictional elements?

The Bethlehem birth stories are probably fiction. Also the story of the beheading of John the Baptist contains fiction, in which a girl at a banquet does a dance which impresses Herod Antipas and demands from him the head of John the Baptist "on a platter."

This story is interesting because it is partly corroborated by Josephus, who says John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas. But it's also contradicted by Josephus, because the scene of the banquet is too far away from where Josephus says John the Baptist was imprisoned.

This episode shows that the Gospels are a mixture of fact and fiction, and that we can distinguish these. As actually all the ancient documents contain both fact and fiction, even the reliable historical writings.

But the miracle stories, or the miracle acts of Jesus, do not contain such fictional elements. We can distinguish the fact from the fiction, without falling back on simplistic formulas, like the dogma that no miracle event can ever happen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As long as we cannot identify the actual authors of the Gospels, much less the date and purpose of their writing, thry won't be accepted as valid historical documents.

Nothing vague about that.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

You can avoid the accusation of special pleading if you can show that your case actually IS special.

Lumpy has done a good job demonstrating that it is unreasonable to apply some vague concept of "how history works" to historical documents (and events) which have no historical equivalent.

Yeah, no. That's not really what the "special" part means in special pleading.

See, that would be special pleading. You are merely asserting that such documents have "no historical equivalent." Beside the fact that it's special pleading, the gospels have thousands of historical equivalents that predate them, most notably, the "old testament" that it is entirely based upon and repeatedly references as proof of its own authority.

We see this playing out every time skeptics demand extra-biblical corroboration of the entirely unique New Testament documents.

Again, special pleading. They are in no way "unique."

Skeptics themselves don't even treat the New Testament as if it was a merely a collection of valid historical reporting (of claimed events.)

I don't know what that means. Are you trying to claim that skeptics accept the NT as "valid historical reporting"--whatever the hell that's supposed to mean--because I don't know a single one who does?

So if the...one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter, "how history works" skeptics won't treat Mark, Luke, Paul, as historical accounts, then they should be considered as unique special cases.

What?

No logical fallacy here Lumpy.

No logic there.

You're fine.

He's not.

Lion IRC wins the debate!

 

[Lion IRC]

See how Koyaanisqatsi says it's special pleading for me to describe the New Testament as "unique" but apparently it's not special pleading to gainsay and assert the exact opposite.

If you accept the NT is a collection of historical documents, then I will concede they aren't unique.

 

[bilby]

See how Koyaanisqatsi says it's special pleading for me to describe the New Testament as "unique" but apparently it's not special pleading to gainsay and assert the exact opposite.

Of course it fucking isn't. If you have a big bowl of identical marbles, and you claim that the one you pick out is special and unique, that's a special pleading on your behalf. Somebody else saying 'No, look, they are all pretty much the same, and none are unique' is NOT a special pleading fallacy, and never could be.

If you accept the NT is a collection of historical documents, then I will concede they aren't unique.

The NT is a collection of STORIES.

Stories are ten a penny. Calling a small subset of stories 'unique' remains special pleading even if some people are not capable of thinking things through logically to reach that blindingly obvious conclusion.

But don't take my word for it; Simply point out the criterion by which we can see that the NT is unique, but which could not be equally well applied to a different, but similar set of stories.

Don't worry, I am not holding my breath. So I would appreciate it if you could take your time, and come up with an answer that doesn't include a repetition of the special pleading fallacy. (Though given your demonstrated and repeated inability to grasp what that fallacy actually is, I doubt that you will - HINT: 'Special Pleading Fallacy' is not a synonym for 'You are wrong because I say so' ).

 

[blastula]

Even if the stories were written yesterday, it would still be very weak evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

See how Koyaanisqatsi says it's special pleading for me to describe the New Testament as "unique" but apparently it's not special pleading to gainsay and assert the exact opposite.

Of course it fucking isn't. If you have a big bowl of identical marbles, and you claim that the one you pick out is special and unique, that's a special pleading on your behalf. Somebody else saying 'No, look, they are all pretty much the same, and none are unique' is NOT a special pleading fallacy, and never could be.

But if you do that, you take away Lion's advanced debate tactic of "...bounces off me and sticks to you..."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

ALL ancient documents reporting alleged historical events of the time are "historical documents" -- YOU CAN'T EXCLUDE ANY!

Get used to it! Stop looking for excuses to exclude something you wish didn't exist!

If you accept the NT is a collection of historical documents, then I will concede they aren't unique.

The NT is a collection of STORIES.

Stories are ten a penny. Calling a small subset of stories 'unique' remains special pleading even if some people are not capable of thinking things through logically to reach that blindingly obvious conclusion.

But don't take my word for it; Simply point out the criterion by which we can see that the NT is unique, but which could not be equally well applied to a different, but similar set of stories.

"stories"? Like the story that Columbus crossed the Atlantic?

Couldn't a "similar set of stories" be Plutarch's Lives or Herodotus' Histories, along with Homer's Iliad, or the Book of Mormon, and thousands of other works which present "stories" of events which are said to have happened?

A history book is a "set of stories" which we assume are mostly true stories of events which happened, though some are fictional. But they are stories! Other collections present "stories" which are less certain and yet are offered as real events, and there are plenty of true stories in addition to the fictional ones.

If the Gospels are basically a "collection of stories" and that's all, then a "set of stories" similar to the Gospel accounts has to be ANY writings which report events, or "stories" or accounts of events which are said to have happened.

So we can compare the Gospel accounts to ALL writings which report alleged events, fact or fiction, including history as well as epic poetry and other "stories" presented as events which really happened.

No? You can't handle that?

Well then, if you want to get serious and narrow it down from simply a "set of stories" to something more specific, or limited to only certain writings and not 90% of all the writings ever published, we could add more to the description than just a "collection of stories":

Not just ANY "stories"
But stories of claimed real events which happened
​

E.g., this "set of stories" in the Gospels reports events said to have happened at a particular point in history, giving the date and location of the events. I.e., in the 1st century in the area of Galilee-Judea, and it names certain historical figures, like Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas and John the Baptist, thus placing the reported events into a particular time and place.

So a comparable "set of stories" has to be a document which focuses on a particular date and place in history and claiming its reported events happened at this time and place.

And not ancient legends, but reported RECENT events
(i.e., recent to the date of the writing)​

And further, the date of writing has to be somewhat near to the time of those reported events, like no more than 100 years later. Or maybe something like 30 to 120 years later, or even 150 years later. This allows some leeway. But it can't be 300 or 400 years later -- we have to draw the line somewhere.

If you throw at us a book written 200 or more years later than the alleged events reported in it, you're not being serious. You can't find anything closer than that? Why not? You're saying they're "similar" to many other writings, aren't you? Then get serious and give us a good example of something similar for comparison. We're entitled to an example of something truly comparable to the Gospel accounts which were written within 100 years after the reported events, or even as close as 50 years after. You can't find anything like that? Why not? It shouldn't be so difficult. What's your problem?

If there's nothing reasonably close, then the Gospel documents really are UNIQUE, or in a one-of-a-kind category, because the date of the reported events and also when the account was written are essential characteristics of the document -- you can't dismiss that as irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with one-of-a-kind categories. Some literature probably does belong in such a category.

So when you offer us a "set of stories" of that description, in the same category as the Gospel accounts, then we can compare them, and we can say that the Gospels are not unique but are "similar" to this other "set of stories" about events in history, from a certain time and place, and we can consider what the standards are for such literature, to determine the credibility, the reliability of the reported events.

and NOT MODERN writings, but before 1500 (1600) AD​

Also, we're not talking about the 20th century. To be serious you have to go back a few centuries to find something comparable. Preferably before the era of modern publishing when everything but the kitchen sink gets published. We have to go back to a period when publishing was much more costly and much less got published, for reasons of economic limits and lack of resources.

This is not an unreasonable demand -- surely you can find some literature of this description.

So, what example of literature, a few centuries back or earlier, do you have in mind for comparison? I.e., literature reporting events -- fact or fiction, but presented by the writer as fact -- alleged events near the time this was written, preferably within 100 years, or at most 200 years earlier.

Whatever literature it might be, the Gospels should be placed alongside it and judged by the same standards and given the same presumption of credibility/non-credibility, for that "genre" of literature, and yet at the same time still subject to the general criteria for judging ALL claims of events, such as whether it is contradicted by other evidence or documents, and the need for some corroboration of anything especially unusual -- any literature, of any category, must be subject to this basic critical standard.

My suspicion is that there is some such category, and so the Gospels are NOT "unique" -- however, any literature you could come up with, having this similarity to the Gospel accounts, is likely also a category with high credibility as to the accuracy of the reported events, and not a fiction category.

So, once you've identified an example of "similar" literature, then we can figure out what the "special pleading" rhetoric is about, and who's committing what fallacy. And whether that category of literature has to be excluded from the "historical documents" category.

What reason is there to exclude ANY literature from this category as long as it claims to be reporting historical events happening at a particular place and time in history? All writings claiming to report events should be relied on for our information about the historical events. And in fact they are relied on. It would be arbitrary to exclude any.

Actually the whole Bible IS RELIED ON as a source for history, including the apocryphal writings, along with all other ancient documents. It's nutty to suggest that any are excluded.

We should rely on ALL such documents for history, and then, in particular cases we can still judge that this or that claim in the document is erroneous. And there are NO documents which are 100% reliable.

 

[Jobar]

But generally if the claim is corroborated by multiple sources, near to the time of the reported event, and is not contradicted by other evidence, then it's reasonable to believe it.

 The True Word

Criticism of Christianity before Celsus

Celsus was only one writer in a long tradition of Roman writers and philosophers who wrote and spoke out against Christianity, feeling that their doctrines were either inscrutable or downright foolish. The primary problem that most Roman citizens and the Imperial government had regarding the Christians was their adamant refusal to participate in the required sacrifices that were regularly made to the Emperor and the Roman state, sacrifices that were an integral part of Roman politics, religion, and culture. Most Romans could not understand the Christians' insistence on their own superiority and their insistence upon their apparently exclusive path to salvation. They could also not understand Christianity’s claims that they were a unique religion with a long history reaching back to antiquity, when the Roman philosophers knew that Christianity had broken off from Judaism relatively recently and still used ancient Jewish texts both to formulate their theology and to support their religious claims. These Roman writers, who often professed to be loyal members of the Empire and Roman society, were also “troubled by the seeming incoherence of the Christian position toward society and towards the recognized religion of the state”.[1] All of these factors led to Christians being classified as enemies of society. Roman philosophers also attacked Christian moral and ethical principles because “the Christianity of the first century had yet to develop an assailable system of belief or a fixed canon of writings from which such beliefs could be educed”.[2] Celsus was only one among many, including Lucian, who wrote against Christianity.
Celsus and his work

Celsus was either a Greek or a Roman who wrote during the latter half of the 2nd century AD. Very little is known about his origins or life. The work in its original form has been lost and the True Word survives only as excerpts from a work by the Christian scholar Origen, who quoted Celsus to rebut him.[3] Origen stated that Celsus was from the first half of the 2nd century A.D., although the majority of modern scholars have come to a general consensus that Celsus probably wrote around 170 to 180 A.D.[4] Most modern scholars are in agreement that Celsus did not rely on the “rumors and hearsay evidence” [5] that many other Christian detractors of the time period used, but rather drew upon his own observations and displayed knowledge of both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament of the Christian Bible, as well as other Jewish and Christian writings.
Philosophical and theological arguments

Celsus’ first main point in his True Word was to refute the validity of Christianity. In his opinion Christian theology was based on an amalgamation of false eastern philosophical ideas hastily tied together. He stated that Christians would “weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources and trumpet them aloud”.[6] Celsus gave a point by point critique of Christian doctrine, and why it should not have been believed by anyone. He denied the virgin birth of Jesus, and accused Mary of being an adulteress turned out by her husband. His theory was not new, as even Jews at that time were saying the same.[citation needed] The remainder of Christian stories – what now makes up the Christian Bible- Celsus found very insipid and unappealing compared to Greek and Roman legends of powerful and colorful gods. Celsus also found Christian philosophy lacking when compared to secular philosophy, and declared that “things are stated much better among the Greeks”.[7] Celsus used Plato as the representative for Greek philosophers and, according to him, when comparing the two philosophical traditions Christianity appeared far worse, as "Plato is not guilty of boasting and falsehood",[8] a crime which Celsus obviously feels is a trademark of Christian theologians. The only connection Celsus made between Greek philosophy and Christianity was when he asserted that “Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher”[9] (i.e. Plato).

When compared with the gods of Roman and Greek mythology, Celsus found the Christian God sadly lacking, and declared that he could not be a god as he was neither all-knowing nor all-powerful. Celsus could deduce no explanation for the actions of the Christian God, such as the floods, natural disasters, and the introduction of evil into the world, except that God wanted to draw attention to his greatness because he felt humanity was giving him “less than his due”.[10] Celsus concluded that Christians used the explanation of God "testing" them to disguise the fact that their God was not powerful enough to successfully fight Satan, but was instead “helpless”.[11] Celsus wrote that Satan was either a mortal invention used by Christians to frighten others into believing their philosophies and joining them, or if he did indeed exist then he was proof that God was not all-powerful, but rather a weak lesser god and a bad one, for only a vindictive and insecure being would punish mankind for being tricked by an evil that he has been too weak to stop.[12] The apparent “blind faith” of the Christians was bewildering to Celsus, and he used it to further support his claim that Christianity was a false religion. In his opinion, the main tenet of Christianity was “Do not ask questions, just believe” and “Thy faith will save thee".

Just as with other works, such as Julian's  Against the Galilaeans, the only reason we know the work existed is that Christian refutations of Celsus' arguments still exist. In the time when Christianity was the state religion of the late Roman Empire, all of the originals were destroyed. We can be certain that many other works critical of Christianity existed, but were extirpated from the historical record.

As Heinrich Heine said, "Wherever they burn books, in the end they will also burn human beings." Certainly that's true of Christianity. What does it say about a religion, or any philosophy, when they burn not only all criticisms, but the critics as well?

 

[James Brown]

Curious how so many criticisms of Christianity today are identical to those made in the 2nd century.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Lion IRC wins the debate!

No, he didn't. Do you understand what it means to "win" a debate?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

See how Koyaanisqatsi says it's special pleading for me to describe the New Testament as "unique" but apparently it's not special pleading to gainsay and assert the exact opposite.

Correct. It is NOT special pleading to point out someone else is engaging in special pleading, but since you clearly don't know what special pleading means, we won't hold it against you.

If you accept the NT is a collection of historical documents, then I will concede they aren't unique.

Aside from the fact that you're still not getting what special pleading means, what, in your estimation, makes them "unique" in all of history?