News3 mins ago
Resuming With Clanad
14 Answers
Some of us rudely hi-jacked joko’s post the other day, so I’ll continue my discussion with Clanad here:
Clanad – there is no equivalence between my references and yours. Yours claim positive knowledge about people and events without ever telling us what solid historical evidence such knowledge is based on.
Mine merely point out that there is no such solid evidence. We know because when we look for such evidence, it isn’t there. So mine can be verified whereas yours can’t.
So it’s best to try the opposite approach:
You believe the Jesus story with all its magic and miracles. Tell me what you base this belief on. It must be some form of evidence, not merely a story, some alleged conversation or some opinion offered by a scholar who has no more to go on than we have.
For example bald assertions like “Luke was well-known to Peter and James” and “Peter was also close friends with Mark” are valueless unless you tell us what solid evidence lies behind them. That such ideas may have come from “Act of Apostles” doesn’t help because that book was probably written by the same unknown person who wrote “Luke”, and he supplies no evidence for anything. Also there is the implication that we know who “Mark” and "Luke" are , and that is not true.
Enough. Over to you.
Clanad – there is no equivalence between my references and yours. Yours claim positive knowledge about people and events without ever telling us what solid historical evidence such knowledge is based on.
Mine merely point out that there is no such solid evidence. We know because when we look for such evidence, it isn’t there. So mine can be verified whereas yours can’t.
So it’s best to try the opposite approach:
You believe the Jesus story with all its magic and miracles. Tell me what you base this belief on. It must be some form of evidence, not merely a story, some alleged conversation or some opinion offered by a scholar who has no more to go on than we have.
For example bald assertions like “Luke was well-known to Peter and James” and “Peter was also close friends with Mark” are valueless unless you tell us what solid evidence lies behind them. That such ideas may have come from “Act of Apostles” doesn’t help because that book was probably written by the same unknown person who wrote “Luke”, and he supplies no evidence for anything. Also there is the implication that we know who “Mark” and "Luke" are , and that is not true.
Enough. Over to you.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Problem is, chakka... you have already stated that you won't accept any[i scholars opinions. Yet, paradoxically, you have displayed a world view that I doubt you came by [i]without] giving weight to someone else's studies... ancient or recent. Therefore, my reliance on the historical data has no relevance to you. That pretty well shuts down any meaningful discussion, in my view.
Fact is, nearly the sum of all knowledge is based on previous investigations. The well worn phrase "scientific proof" really hasn't much of a meaning, other than understanding the work that went into collecting "data". Then, it's the interpretation of that "data" that becomes contentious.
So, having said that by way of explanation, we both can produce reams of scholarly opinions based on about the same "data"... picking and choosing according to our personal world view or philosophy. (How we came to that "philosophy" is another thread).
As I stated some time ago, one thing that adds weight to the belief that the authors of the Gospels deserve to be accepted as valid is the fact that the cultural "norm" for the nearly 2,000 years previous to the Gospel period was for the name of each author to be attached (usually at the beginning stanza) of each scroll. To date, with over 5,000 copies and partial copies of thousands more (the earliest being the Rylands fragment in your own British National Museum, ca 150AD) have never had anyother name attached. That's a significant, scholarly piece of information... but only one.
Look, your objections are well taken... but certainly not new. We can produce no new arguments about nearly anything Christian that haven't been thoroughly discussed over the eons. I usually try to avoid these dicussions, since they are pretty fruitless. No one comes away with any change of heart or mind.
Again, I state... to be intellectually honest, you must... must... reject nearly all of the ancient writings about almost any subject since examples of original[i documents from their respective time periods are extremely rare. Yet we [i]do] (at least I do) rely on scholar's opinions of those copies of documents... sometimes 1,000 years or more after the events (with only 10 or fewer copies to compare to one another). (I wold still like to give the example of Vercingoterix, but that would take another thread).
Lastly nearly each thread concerning Christianity (or other religions) contain someones demand for "proof"... yet "evidence" is the best anyone can provide, and I fully understand that, and charge anyone to "prove" even fairly
recent historical events to do anything more that provide "evidence".
So your statement i.e.; "...So mine can be verified whereas yours can’t..." really doesn't hold water, unless you rescind your objections to scholarly investigation... in my opinion... [i]Ubī sunt lātrīnae?[i]
Fact is, nearly the sum of all knowledge is based on previous investigations. The well worn phrase "scientific proof" really hasn't much of a meaning, other than understanding the work that went into collecting "data". Then, it's the interpretation of that "data" that becomes contentious.
So, having said that by way of explanation, we both can produce reams of scholarly opinions based on about the same "data"... picking and choosing according to our personal world view or philosophy. (How we came to that "philosophy" is another thread).
As I stated some time ago, one thing that adds weight to the belief that the authors of the Gospels deserve to be accepted as valid is the fact that the cultural "norm" for the nearly 2,000 years previous to the Gospel period was for the name of each author to be attached (usually at the beginning stanza) of each scroll. To date, with over 5,000 copies and partial copies of thousands more (the earliest being the Rylands fragment in your own British National Museum, ca 150AD) have never had anyother name attached. That's a significant, scholarly piece of information... but only one.
Look, your objections are well taken... but certainly not new. We can produce no new arguments about nearly anything Christian that haven't been thoroughly discussed over the eons. I usually try to avoid these dicussions, since they are pretty fruitless. No one comes away with any change of heart or mind.
Again, I state... to be intellectually honest, you must... must... reject nearly all of the ancient writings about almost any subject since examples of original[i documents from their respective time periods are extremely rare. Yet we [i]do] (at least I do) rely on scholar's opinions of those copies of documents... sometimes 1,000 years or more after the events (with only 10 or fewer copies to compare to one another). (I wold still like to give the example of Vercingoterix, but that would take another thread).
Lastly nearly each thread concerning Christianity (or other religions) contain someones demand for "proof"... yet "evidence" is the best anyone can provide, and I fully understand that, and charge anyone to "prove" even fairly
recent historical events to do anything more that provide "evidence".
So your statement i.e.; "...So mine can be verified whereas yours can’t..." really doesn't hold water, unless you rescind your objections to scholarly investigation... in my opinion... [i]Ubī sunt lātrīnae?[i]
CONT. The first gospel wasn't written until about 55 AD and there were no
Roman records until the second century and that was repeating what Christians had said . There were no actual Roman records at all.
The versions in the Jewish bibles and the Quran even differ and dispute
the scant information in the gospels which don't agree ,and were written by old men (bear in mind the disciples were adults and nothing was written until they were 80+ year olds, assuming they were literate, most were not. ) At a time when life expectancy was under 40 how much contemporary information would have been available 50 odd years after Christs death.
Quite simply there is no acceptable proof of what was written in the NT let alone what happened thousands of years earlier.
Roman records until the second century and that was repeating what Christians had said . There were no actual Roman records at all.
The versions in the Jewish bibles and the Quran even differ and dispute
the scant information in the gospels which don't agree ,and were written by old men (bear in mind the disciples were adults and nothing was written until they were 80+ year olds, assuming they were literate, most were not. ) At a time when life expectancy was under 40 how much contemporary information would have been available 50 odd years after Christs death.
Quite simply there is no acceptable proof of what was written in the NT let alone what happened thousands of years earlier.
However, Modeller, you're overlooking the Dead Sea Scrolls, referencing the Old Covenant. These ancient documents push back the window on the Old Testament by cneturies and... behold and low... they're nearly exactly identical to the one you can hold inyour hand today.
Look, can you name even one document from the first century that names an individual? Fact is you can't. Let alone one that provides the store of information about one individual (Yeshua) that's located in the Gospels and other New Testament copies we have today. The science that goes into verifying the information in any old document is extensive and well accepted throughout the world. The thousands of examples of copies of New Covenant documents is literally overwhelming when compared to the dearth of such documents on other subjects... plus, for all genaral purposes they are all the same... few and minor differences. Unfortunately, this is meaningless to chakka and perhaps yourself, but I find it impressive.
Lastly, the sources of the various copies come from all over the ancient world... meaning they would have been copied from earlier documents and had little chance at being part of a grand conspiracy to hoodwink everyone.
There are few if any respected historians that cling to the once popular belief that Yeshua never existed. That doesn't 'prove' his claim on history but it does establish a basis for at least giving the evidence close examination.
Men and women have died for belief systems, probably since the beginning of time... and, unfortunately, they've died for what was later revealed as a lie. Yet, there's no evidence I can locate of someone dying for a known lie. The persecution to the death of early believers was vicious and wide spread... yet all they had to do to escape was simply say "I no longer believe"... that didn't happen, or if it did it was very limited.
For my part, I can only attest to the difference in myself since I examined the evidence as a near-athiest... certainly an agnostic, and found the evidence deserved more than my total scepticism. Second Corinthians 5:17 says what I've found to be true. I've many friends that have come from different backgrounds... ranchers, manual laborers, Phd.'s, housewives, business owners, etc., etc., who all report basically the same thing...
Thanks for your input, though...
By the way, portions of verses believed (at least at this point) to have been from James (the brother of Jesus) have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which could push the date of original writing back to within just a few years of the Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Several other portions are still being studied.
Lastly, 55AD is only 25 years after Jesus... if the writers, as you suggest, were adults of 20 to 30 yearso ld, they would have only been45 to 55 years of age... no?
Look, can you name even one document from the first century that names an individual? Fact is you can't. Let alone one that provides the store of information about one individual (Yeshua) that's located in the Gospels and other New Testament copies we have today. The science that goes into verifying the information in any old document is extensive and well accepted throughout the world. The thousands of examples of copies of New Covenant documents is literally overwhelming when compared to the dearth of such documents on other subjects... plus, for all genaral purposes they are all the same... few and minor differences. Unfortunately, this is meaningless to chakka and perhaps yourself, but I find it impressive.
Lastly, the sources of the various copies come from all over the ancient world... meaning they would have been copied from earlier documents and had little chance at being part of a grand conspiracy to hoodwink everyone.
There are few if any respected historians that cling to the once popular belief that Yeshua never existed. That doesn't 'prove' his claim on history but it does establish a basis for at least giving the evidence close examination.
Men and women have died for belief systems, probably since the beginning of time... and, unfortunately, they've died for what was later revealed as a lie. Yet, there's no evidence I can locate of someone dying for a known lie. The persecution to the death of early believers was vicious and wide spread... yet all they had to do to escape was simply say "I no longer believe"... that didn't happen, or if it did it was very limited.
For my part, I can only attest to the difference in myself since I examined the evidence as a near-athiest... certainly an agnostic, and found the evidence deserved more than my total scepticism. Second Corinthians 5:17 says what I've found to be true. I've many friends that have come from different backgrounds... ranchers, manual laborers, Phd.'s, housewives, business owners, etc., etc., who all report basically the same thing...
Thanks for your input, though...
By the way, portions of verses believed (at least at this point) to have been from James (the brother of Jesus) have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which could push the date of original writing back to within just a few years of the Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Several other portions are still being studied.
Lastly, 55AD is only 25 years after Jesus... if the writers, as you suggest, were adults of 20 to 30 yearso ld, they would have only been45 to 55 years of age... no?
Clanad-- briefly:
1. I repeat that my information tells me that there is no reference to Jesus until Paul mentions him in AD 55. And that there are no eyewitnesses and no evidence. This is very easily demonstrated by the fact that no-one can produce any such reference or evidence.
2. If you think you can, then please do so. Your long answers contain only references to later writings, assumptions and speculations. Where is the evidence on which all these writings are based?
3. Ask me why I believe that Julius Caesar lived and that he did more-or-less the things attributed to him. You will then see the difference between evidence and lack of it.
4. I have never asked for proof, only evidence. It would help if you confined your answers to addressing that request instead of talking your way around it.
1. I repeat that my information tells me that there is no reference to Jesus until Paul mentions him in AD 55. And that there are no eyewitnesses and no evidence. This is very easily demonstrated by the fact that no-one can produce any such reference or evidence.
2. If you think you can, then please do so. Your long answers contain only references to later writings, assumptions and speculations. Where is the evidence on which all these writings are based?
3. Ask me why I believe that Julius Caesar lived and that he did more-or-less the things attributed to him. You will then see the difference between evidence and lack of it.
4. I have never asked for proof, only evidence. It would help if you confined your answers to addressing that request instead of talking your way around it.
Thank you chakka, for making my point!
Ask yourself (and then answer honestly) just why it is that you believe the things you do about Gaius Julius Caesar[i. It's well known that we have no original writings composed by him. In fact out of 8 volumes on the Gallic Wars (Commentarii de Bello Gallico) at least three were written by another person, according to the latest [i]scholarship[i].
The closest we can get to his originals are 10 hand written copies of the above referenced documents... all written by the same person (probably a monk in a Monastery) in the 10th century. Ten (10) copies!
Now, make no mistake, Julius Caesar is an historical figure... perhaps even accomplishing a lot of the things we know or think we know about him... but the [i]evidence[i] for Jesus (Yeshua ha Massiach) is far more reliable and far more prolific. We cannot compare Gaius' writings to earlier ones to see if there are differences or changes... we certainly can for the Gospels.
We have no (at least scholars say) eyewitnesses to events in Caesar's life, while we have at least two... John and Matthew as well as the writings of a highly respected historian (Luke) plus the writings of Mark, who traveled with Paul and certainly knew Peter.
Undoubtedly, one of the most important 'actors' in Julius' life was Vercingoeterix... by [i]only[i] Caesar's account, a very young Gallic warrior who united various tribes in what is now south central France. Vercingoeterix defeated Roman Legions in the Battle of Gergovia in 52 BC. He was later defeated and captured by Caesar during the battle of Alesia. After being returned to Rome he was kept alive for a year until being executed.
Napolean commissioned a huge statue of the Celtic Warrior in Place de Jaude, in Clermont-Ferrand, France. It's an awesome work of art.
Not one other writing exists attesting to the historicity of Vercingoeterix and the references to him are only found in the above referenced works translated and copied in the 10th century AD. Vercingoeterix left no writings of his own and much that scholars know is admittedly speculation since it's based on such sparse information. But, I'm sure you have no problem with the story... neither do I... but in my case only because the scholarship seems to be well founded.
But, can you or I accept that as history without placing great (in this case [i]all[i] ) store in the writings of others? No?... I agree...
Lastly, we simply don't know what happened to Caesar's original writings, or anything possibly written by Vercingoeterix... two of the most famous men in history. Remind you of any parallels? Or is your bias going to force you into the trap of intellectual dishonesty?
[i]Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!]
Ask yourself (and then answer honestly) just why it is that you believe the things you do about Gaius Julius Caesar[i. It's well known that we have no original writings composed by him. In fact out of 8 volumes on the Gallic Wars (Commentarii de Bello Gallico) at least three were written by another person, according to the latest [i]scholarship[i].
The closest we can get to his originals are 10 hand written copies of the above referenced documents... all written by the same person (probably a monk in a Monastery) in the 10th century. Ten (10) copies!
Now, make no mistake, Julius Caesar is an historical figure... perhaps even accomplishing a lot of the things we know or think we know about him... but the [i]evidence[i] for Jesus (Yeshua ha Massiach) is far more reliable and far more prolific. We cannot compare Gaius' writings to earlier ones to see if there are differences or changes... we certainly can for the Gospels.
We have no (at least scholars say) eyewitnesses to events in Caesar's life, while we have at least two... John and Matthew as well as the writings of a highly respected historian (Luke) plus the writings of Mark, who traveled with Paul and certainly knew Peter.
Undoubtedly, one of the most important 'actors' in Julius' life was Vercingoeterix... by [i]only[i] Caesar's account, a very young Gallic warrior who united various tribes in what is now south central France. Vercingoeterix defeated Roman Legions in the Battle of Gergovia in 52 BC. He was later defeated and captured by Caesar during the battle of Alesia. After being returned to Rome he was kept alive for a year until being executed.
Napolean commissioned a huge statue of the Celtic Warrior in Place de Jaude, in Clermont-Ferrand, France. It's an awesome work of art.
Not one other writing exists attesting to the historicity of Vercingoeterix and the references to him are only found in the above referenced works translated and copied in the 10th century AD. Vercingoeterix left no writings of his own and much that scholars know is admittedly speculation since it's based on such sparse information. But, I'm sure you have no problem with the story... neither do I... but in my case only because the scholarship seems to be well founded.
But, can you or I accept that as history without placing great (in this case [i]all[i] ) store in the writings of others? No?... I agree...
Lastly, we simply don't know what happened to Caesar's original writings, or anything possibly written by Vercingoeterix... two of the most famous men in history. Remind you of any parallels? Or is your bias going to force you into the trap of intellectual dishonesty?
[i]Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!]
Clanad - as it turns out I do not need to start on the subject of Caesar because your strange idea of what comprises evidence is clearly revealed firstly in your fourth paragraph where you make the breathtaking claim that "the evidence for Jesus is far more reliable and far more prolific". This from a chap who has, after all this time, failed to supply a single grain of evidence.
But the real clincher is in the fifth paragraph where not one of your statements can be justified.
Do you really believe that "Matthew" and "John" of the gospels are the two disciples of that name? You may remember that John the apostle was a horny-handed Galilean fisherman whose native tongue would have been Aramaic. What would he be doing in his extreme dotage (aged between 90 and, say, 120 at a time when the expectation of life was 40 - 45 years) writing in Greek a gospel full of mysticism and Hellenism? The idea is preposterous.
The same applies mutatis mutandis, to "Matthew".
"Luke", whoever he was, cannot be considered a highly respected historian. On the one occasion we can check his account against known facts he gets it wrong. He says that Joseph lived in Nazareth and had to go to Bethlehem for the census. Wrong on two counts: the Quirinius census applied only to Syria and Judaea, not to Galilee; and people did not have to go to the city of their ancestry for it. The purpose of Roman censuses was to know how may men lived in each place so as to know how much tax to expect. And women didn't count, so Mary did not have to make such a journey in her journey.
If you don't know who "Mark" was, how can you say anything about him? There is an idea that he was John Mark, friend of Paul, but no evidence for it. The bald claims you make about who knew whom and so on are extraordinarily presumptuous.
We won't get anywhere, Clanad, until you supply evidence for the Jesus story. Until then it has the same status as all the pagan god-man stories from which it is so obviously copied. Just a story, a myth, a fable.
If you find some evidence, you won't have to let me know: it'll be making headlines all over the world. Cheers.
But the real clincher is in the fifth paragraph where not one of your statements can be justified.
Do you really believe that "Matthew" and "John" of the gospels are the two disciples of that name? You may remember that John the apostle was a horny-handed Galilean fisherman whose native tongue would have been Aramaic. What would he be doing in his extreme dotage (aged between 90 and, say, 120 at a time when the expectation of life was 40 - 45 years) writing in Greek a gospel full of mysticism and Hellenism? The idea is preposterous.
The same applies mutatis mutandis, to "Matthew".
"Luke", whoever he was, cannot be considered a highly respected historian. On the one occasion we can check his account against known facts he gets it wrong. He says that Joseph lived in Nazareth and had to go to Bethlehem for the census. Wrong on two counts: the Quirinius census applied only to Syria and Judaea, not to Galilee; and people did not have to go to the city of their ancestry for it. The purpose of Roman censuses was to know how may men lived in each place so as to know how much tax to expect. And women didn't count, so Mary did not have to make such a journey in her journey.
If you don't know who "Mark" was, how can you say anything about him? There is an idea that he was John Mark, friend of Paul, but no evidence for it. The bald claims you make about who knew whom and so on are extraordinarily presumptuous.
We won't get anywhere, Clanad, until you supply evidence for the Jesus story. Until then it has the same status as all the pagan god-man stories from which it is so obviously copied. Just a story, a myth, a fable.
If you find some evidence, you won't have to let me know: it'll be making headlines all over the world. Cheers.
At least we're not wasting other's pixels.
Your position has the not too pleasant odor of intelectual chauvinism. You fail to address even one counter proposal that I have raised in objection to your hands-on-hips position of "mine are based on facts, your's aren't".
Strange that you rely on obvious scholarship that you've consulted as "proof" or at least superior evidence (example: vis-a-vis 1,000 year gap for our friend Caesar's writings) yet decry any reliance on such on my part as invalid.
Hard to have any meaningful exchange when one's belief system is as entrenched in logical fallacies such as yours...
Your position has the not too pleasant odor of intelectual chauvinism. You fail to address even one counter proposal that I have raised in objection to your hands-on-hips position of "mine are based on facts, your's aren't".
Strange that you rely on obvious scholarship that you've consulted as "proof" or at least superior evidence (example: vis-a-vis 1,000 year gap for our friend Caesar's writings) yet decry any reliance on such on my part as invalid.
Hard to have any meaningful exchange when one's belief system is as entrenched in logical fallacies such as yours...
I'm with Clanad on this. I can't believe that an intelligent man like the new Archbishop of Canterbury, would give up a lucrative career as an oil industry executive, if the evidence for Jesus was so flimsy.
Yes, we, the Great Unwashed, do rely on scholarly guidance to bolster our faith, as well as our subjective experiences in our everyay lives.
Yes, we, the Great Unwashed, do rely on scholarly guidance to bolster our faith, as well as our subjective experiences in our everyay lives.
I agree, Clanad, that communication is probably impossible since our views of what constitutes evidence differ so much.
In normal life evidence comes first. It is analysed and possibly added to until there is enough to form a tentative belief.
Religionists form their belief first, then, when they find that there is no normal evidence to support it, they change the definition of that word to mean opinion, scholarly dissertations, speculation and assumption.
I will waste no more of your time, but merely leave the subject open. If you find some evidence for the Jesus story I'll be delighted. Astonished but delighted.
You have two supporters anyway, even if one of them is good old Theland who, as far as I can remember, has never said anything rational in all these years.
In normal life evidence comes first. It is analysed and possibly added to until there is enough to form a tentative belief.
Religionists form their belief first, then, when they find that there is no normal evidence to support it, they change the definition of that word to mean opinion, scholarly dissertations, speculation and assumption.
I will waste no more of your time, but merely leave the subject open. If you find some evidence for the Jesus story I'll be delighted. Astonished but delighted.
You have two supporters anyway, even if one of them is good old Theland who, as far as I can remember, has never said anything rational in all these years.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.