Historical Jesus

[angelo]

How many judges look at a witness statement to police and say "I'm throwing this out because the only thing this proves is that somebody wrote something on a piece of paper"?

Fair enough if not vindicated. But if a witness can be proven, then the judge has to accept it.

There was no living witness to a Jesus as described in the Gospels. There was only hearsay.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Our legal system isn't designed to figure out what is true. It's a compromise to figure out what is true with time constraints. It's a good enough approach to truth. It's also essentially designed as a game. It assumes that everybody is lying and works with that. The fact that something is admissible in a court of law doesn't prove what you think it proves.

The best method for finding out what is true is the scientific method. Everything not supported by science is essentially speculation, and should be treated like it.

Best test for this. If somebody says they're 100% God exists then they're a dumb-ass who doesn't understand how humans know things

 

[Horatio Parker]

Legal systems determine legal truth, not empirical truth. If they did, corporations, legally people, would be flesh and blood instead of products of the human mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[angelo]

It's funny how bible skeptics want to insist we know nothing about the 'anonymous' Gospel writers
...and then they proceed to lecture folks about how the Gospel writers weren't eye witnesses and how they weren't named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and how they weren't from Palestine and how they weren't alive at the time of the events they reported and how they weren't independent sources and how they weren't the original source but copies.

Those bible skeptics are amazing experts on the absence of evidence.

But if we (allegedly) don't have the original manuscript how do we know that the oldest surviving texts aren't accurate accounts of eye witness testimony?

None of the gospel writers claim to be eye witness! Only Paul claims to have spoken to a ghost, which would be credible to someone who believes in such nonsense as ghosts and magic.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case there's not 00.1% of any credibility.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Gospel writers don't have to disambiguate whether they are eye witnesses.
The Gospels are deliberately and artificially presented in the third person because that's how an aggregation of historical facts was presented at that time.

It would not have occurred to them that some 2017 latter day skeptic would use their narrative style as an argument against the accuracy of those facts.

 

[none]

Or the work attributed to the fictional Paul was the basis of inquiry of later people's curiosity which could be satisfied with more anonymous authors producing more literature just as fictitious as the the letters of "Paul".
Unless of course you believe in selective accounts of the supernatural.
So which is it? Why do you believe in the bible? And skepticism is natural, no burden to overcome there unless you've been indoctrinated to believe in the supernatural
And just because the tale of Jesus is written in any form doesn't mean the narrative is accurate or describes historical events, fiction... ever heard of that?
What would you say if the miracles of Jesus were plagiarized from other narratives predating the new testament? Amalgamation ?
Lion IRC, why no skepticism on your part...?

 

[DBT]

The Gospel writers don't have to disambiguate whether they are eye witnesses.
The Gospels are deliberately and artificially presented in the third person because that's how an aggregation of historical facts was presented at that time.

Do you have evidence that shows the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Gospel writers don't have to disambiguate whether they are eye witnesses.
The Gospels are deliberately and artificially presented in the third person because that's how an aggregation of historical facts was presented at that time.

It would not have occurred to them that some 2017 latter day skeptic would use their narrative style as an argument against the accuracy of those facts.

The Bible belongs to the genre of litterature called wisdom litterature. In ancient wisdom litterature the point is to present a moral story. The moral lesson is more important than the facts. They often used famous people from the day, pull them out of context and would make up a story. Symbolic details would be added to add to the message of the story. The Biblical narrative has all the hallmarks of this. If Jesus really had been a poor carpenter there's no way he could have done any of the stuff he's supposed to have done. His status would have been too low.

A good example of wisdom litterature is "Pepi goes to school". In it the student Pepi doesn't do his homework and lots of bad things happen. Pepi in the story is Pepi II Neferkare, pharaoh of Egypt. Though it isn't mentioned in the story that he's a pharaoh. Pepi in the story has a lower status than the teacher. Which we know for a fact that he didn't have.

 

[iolo]

The Gospel writers don't have to disambiguate whether they are eye witnesses.
The Gospels are deliberately and artificially presented in the third person because that's how an aggregation of historical facts was presented at that time.

It would not have occurred to them that some 2017 latter day skeptic would use their narrative style as an argument against the accuracy of those facts.

The Bible belongs to the genre of litterature called wisdom litterature. In ancient wisdom litterature the point is to present a moral story. The moral lesson is more important than the facts. They often used famous people from the day, pull them out of context and would make up a story. Symbolic details would be added to add to the message of the story. The Biblical narrative has all the hallmarks of this. If Jesus really had been a poor carpenter there's no way he could have done any of the stuff he's supposed to have done. His status would have been too low.

A good example of wisdom litterature is "Pepi goes to school". In it the student Pepi doesn't do his homework and lots of bad things happen. Pepi in the story is Pepi II Neferkare, pharaoh of Egypt. Though it isn't mentioned in the story that he's a pharaoh. Pepi in the story has a lower status than the teacher. Which we know for a fact that he didn't have.

'The Bible' belongs to no genre of literature because it is a whole series of texts, composed under different circumstances at very different times, but scarcely any of it is 'wisdom literature', unless you are straining the term beyond what it could possibly take.

 

[funinspace]

The Bible belongs to the genre of litterature called wisdom litterature. In ancient wisdom litterature the point is to present a moral story. The moral lesson is more important than the facts. They often used famous people from the day, pull them out of context and would make up a story. Symbolic details would be added to add to the message of the story. The Biblical narrative has all the hallmarks of this. If Jesus really had been a poor carpenter there's no way he could have done any of the stuff he's supposed to have done. His status would have been too low.

A good example of wisdom litterature is "Pepi goes to school". In it the student Pepi doesn't do his homework and lots of bad things happen. Pepi in the story is Pepi II Neferkare, pharaoh of Egypt. Though it isn't mentioned in the story that he's a pharaoh. Pepi in the story has a lower status than the teacher. Which we know for a fact that he didn't have.

'The Bible' belongs to no genre of literature because it is a whole series of texts, composed under different circumstances at very different times, but scarcely any of it is 'wisdom literature', unless you are straining the term beyond what it could possibly take.

Scarcely? Maybe not chock full of wisdom literature, but there are 7 out of 73:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiential_Books

Sapiential Books or Books of Wisdom is a term used in biblical studies to refer to a subset of the books of the Jewish Bible in the Septuagint version. There are seven of these books, namely the books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Book of Wisdom, the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon), and Sirach

 

[Horatio Parker]

The Gospel writers don't have to disambiguate whether they are eye witnesses.
The Gospels are deliberately and artificially presented in the third person because that's how an aggregation of historical facts was presented at that time.

It would not have occurred to them that some 2017 latter day skeptic would use their narrative style as an argument against the accuracy of those facts.

Your assertions about the intentions of the various gospel authors are speculation.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Gospel writers don't have to disambiguate whether they are eye witnesses.
The Gospels are deliberately and artificially presented in the third person because that's how an aggregation of historical facts was presented at that time.

Do you have evidence that shows the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

Suppose an eyewitness has really bad arthritis in their hands and cataracts in both eyes.
Would they be expected to write their own testimony?

And suppose their first language is Aramaic and the early church wants to record their testimony in koine.

Why can't all the various testimonies be collated and presented as one aggregate historical account written in the third person - because it would be misleading for the Koine Greek scribe/translator to use phrases "I saw, I said, I watched, I touched, etc. when the standard method of writing historical accounts was third person they, he, she.

 

[iolo]

'The Bible' belongs to no genre of literature because it is a whole series of texts, composed under different circumstances at very different times, but scarcely any of it is 'wisdom literature', unless you are straining the term beyond what it could possibly take.

Scarcely? Maybe not chock full of wisdom literature, but there are 7 out of 73:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiential_Books

Sapiential Books or Books of Wisdom is a term used in biblical studies to refer to a subset of the books of the Jewish Bible in the Septuagint version. There are seven of these books, namely the books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Book of Wisdom, the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon), and Sirach

'Scarcely any' seems to cover it, then. And I'd have grave doubts about a philosophical story like Job's being 'wisdom literature', any more than quite a lot of Plato.

 

[Lion IRC]

Or the work attributed to the fictional Paul was the basis of inquiry of later people's curiosity which could be satisfied with more anonymous authors producing more literature just as fictitious as the the letters of "Paul".
Unless of course you believe in selective accounts of the supernatural.

Yes, you have to dismiss this "fictional Paul" don't you. Because his writing does date VERY close to the events in question.
Moreover, he asserts that much of what he is writing about was already known by others.
He is corroborating earlier evidence not belatedly 'inventing' new stories.
So he is very inconvenient to the skeptic who believes this history comes hundreds of years after any eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.

...So which is it? Why do you believe in the bible? And skepticism is natural, no burden to overcome there unless you've been indoctrinated to believe in the supernatural

I'm indoctrinated to test all things - not automatically dismiss them just because they are artificially labelled 'supernatural' by folks who use that term as a synonym for "I don't understand". If someone claims they saw a ghost I don't automatically assume they must be lying or deluded. Neither do I demand to immediately see that ghost presented right in front of me as 'proof'.

...And just because the tale of Jesus is written in any form doesn't mean the narrative is accurate or describes historical events, fiction... ever heard of that?

This is a very important point. And you are quite correct.
Many of the skeptics who (disingenuously) prattle on about the Gospels being 'anonymous' and second-hand accounts wouldn't believe the Gospels accounts even if they were written in the first person and signed and dated.

If four eye witnesses all agree exactly on the facts they must be secretly colluding.
And if they don't then they must all be lying or mistaken.

And no matter what they say, if it involves the existence of God(s) then they definitely must be making it up, because we all know there's absolutely no evidence for God.

...What would you say if the miracles of Jesus were plagiarized from other narratives predating the new testament? Amalgamation ?

Then I would say they are plagiarized - if that was true.
Because telling the truth is what God wants.
And the Gospel writers were God-fearing servants who put truth ahead of personal hardship/suffering.
And like Jonah, who really would have preferred NOT to have to go to Nineveh, the Gospel writers all had a much easier alternative option. They all could have just packed up and gone back home to their normal lives.

...Lion IRC, why no skepticism on your part...?

Why no open-mindedness on your part?
You don't necessarily have to believe miracles in the Gospel are true.
All you have to do, if you think nothing miraculous occurred, is consider what the next best explanation is for why someone would think they saw a miracle.

 

[none]

Yes, you have to dismiss this "fictional Paul" don't you. Because his writing does date VERY close to the events in question.
Moreover, he asserts that much of what he is writing about was already known by others.
He is corroborating earlier evidence not belatedly 'inventing' new stories.

What are you talking about?

 

[Elixir]

Yes, you have to dismiss this "fictional Paul" don't you. Because his writing does date VERY close to the events in question.
Moreover, he asserts that much of what he is writing about was already known by others.
He is corroborating earlier evidence not belatedly 'inventing' new stories.

What are you talking about?

Oh, it's just the usual mental gymnastics required of religious believers to support their delusions... nothing to see.

 

[blastula]

Psst, Lion IRC, I have some magic beans for sale.

 

[angelo]

"
Yes, you have to dismiss this "fictional Paul" don't you. Because his writing does date VERY close to the events in question.
Moreover, he asserts that much of what he is writing about was already known by others.
He is corroborating earlier evidence not belatedly 'inventing' new stories.
So he is very inconvenient to the skeptic who believes this history comes hundreds of years after any eyewitnesses to Jesus' life"

You keep harping on about "eyewitness."
There are no claims anywhere in the whole New/Testament of eyewitnesses to a Jesus of Nazareth! None!

 

[Tigers!]

"
Yes, you have to dismiss this "fictional Paul" don't you. Because his writing does date VERY close to the events in question.
Moreover, he asserts that much of what he is writing about was already known by others.
He is corroborating earlier evidence not belatedly 'inventing' new stories.
So he is very inconvenient to the skeptic who believes this history comes hundreds of years after any eyewitnesses to Jesus' life"

You keep harping on about "eyewitness."
There are no claims anywhere in the whole New/Testament of eyewitnesses to a Jesus of Nazareth! None!

John 1:29-34 re. John the Baptist?

 

[abaddon]

John 1:29-34 re. John the Baptist?

So John the Baptist wrote that? Or did the gospel-writer give those words to a character within the story he wrote?

The characters within a story cannot testify to one another. angelo must have meant none of the writers were reporting their own personal eyeballing of Jesus or else was careless with his words. Because it makes no sense including the characters of a "testimony" as "witnesses" to the veracity of that testimony.