Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

I concede. I guess one would have to call the beliefs of a people evidence for the reality of their beliefs, but a very paltry evidence at that.

Interesting point. I was going to note that I'm not sure that the predominance of a belief is evidence of its truth, but then again - isn't that exactly how science works? As a hypothesis is successfully tested and retested, confidence in its truth becomes broader and wide acceptance within the scientific community provides an increasing assurance of the truth of the proposition. However, note that this is for beliefs that are grounded in a rigorous methodology. I don't think it would extend to beliefs that are not.

[Tassman]

Of course the New Testament has primary sources written by those who knew Christ or from the community populated by those who knew Christ.

There are no primary sources of the Jesus story. No artifacts, no contemporary information and no original documents - merely hearsay accounts dated decades after the death of Jesus and a vision by Paul who, it seems, never met Jesus.

You don't know that at all.

There is no good reason to think that the notion of gods and the concept of eternal moral laws exist outside of the minds of our species.

[seer]

There are no primary sources of the Jesus story. No artifacts, no contemporary information and no original documents - merely hearsay accounts dated decades after the death of Jesus and a vision by Paul who, it seems, never met Jesus.

That would be the case Tass with most ancient documents. We don't have original documents for Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, yet no one discounts that (FYI the New Testament has more manuscript evidence and closer to the originals than the Gallic Wars). And the Gospel of John, 1,2,3 John 1,2, Peter were written by eyewitnesses. Luke and Acts were written by a companion of the Apostles and Paul was a companion of the Apostles. No the real problem is the claims we find in the New Testament.

[carpedm9587]

There are no primary sources of the Jesus story. No artifacts, no contemporary information and no original documents - merely hearsay accounts dated decades after the death of Jesus and a vision by Paul who, it seems, never met Jesus.

There is no good reason to think that the notion of gods and the concept of eternal moral laws exist outside of the minds of our species.

Now THAT I agree with!

[Tassman]

That would be the case Tass with most ancient documents. We don't have original documents for Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, yet no one discounts that

With Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars we have an abundance of primary sources. There are huge quantities of artifacts, contemporary information, archaeological remains and original documents. The Gallic Wars are evidenced by the known dramatic aftermath of the conquest of Gaul. And we have Caesar’s own writings which are directly referenced by others.

There is no such evidence supporting the supposedly miraculous events surrounding the Jesus story - merely interpolated, hearsay accounts dated decades after the death of Jesus.

[seer]

There are no primary sources of the Jesus story. No artifacts, no contemporary information and no original documents - merely hearsay accounts dated decades after the death of Jesus and a vision by Paul who, it seems, never met Jesus.

Tass it is not hearsay when you have books written by eye witnesses: the Gospel of John, John 1,2,3, Peter 1,2. Or based on eye witness accounts like Luke and Acts. And there are no original documents for Caesar's Gallic wars either, yet you would not throw that out. Let's be honest Tass, even if you had an original letter written by Christ Himself you would reject it. You have an anti-supernatural bias. Even though you have no logical basis for that.

There is no good reason to think that the notion of gods and the concept of eternal moral laws exist outside of the minds of our species.

Who defines what is a good reason? How is that not subjective? It is a wonder though; in the teeth of a worldwide pandemic you still reject the Gospel of hope and embrace the cult of death. I'm afraid there is little optimism for such a man.

[seer]

With Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars we have an abundance of primary sources. There are huge quantities of artifacts, contemporary information, archaeological remains and original documents. The Gallic Wars are evidenced by the known dramatic aftermath of the conquest of Gaul. And we have Caesar’s own writings which are directly referenced by others.

There are historical persons, places and things in the New Testament that are shown to be accurate.

There is no such evidence supporting the supposedly miraculous events surrounding the Jesus story - merely interpolated, hearsay accounts dated decades after the death of Jesus.

Why would there be? Tacitus Pliny and Josephus mention Jesus or early Christians. But 99% of all peoples in those days left no archaeological records.

[carpedm9587]

There are historical persons, places and things in the New Testament that are shown to be accurate.

The existence of historical persons, places, and things in a text is not adequate to support the claim, "therefore everything in the text is historically true," especially when all of the historical things are perfectly aligned with everyday experience and science but the claims being claimed as "true" that do NOT have external verification are not.

Why would there be? Tacitus Pliny and Josephus mention Jesus or early Christians. But 99% of all peoples in those days left no archaeological records.

There is little reason (IMO) to doubt the Jesus existed, that he developed a cult following, that he died, and that his cult following went on to grow into the early Christian church, hence the existence of external sources citing him. That does not translate into proof that he was divine and the son of a god. There are many examples of people who were the basis for (or founded) a religious group without their claims being true.

[seer]

The existence of historical persons, places, and things in a text is not adequate to support the claim, "therefore everything in the text is historically true," especially when all of the historical things are perfectly aligned with everyday experience and science but the claims being claimed as "true" that do NOT have external verification are not.

Why is it not adequate to establish the trustfulness of the writers? Given the period of time when he existed, and the fact that we was rather obscure with a public ministry of a mere three years what would you expect for proofs?

There is little reason (IMO) to doubt the Jesus existed, that he developed a cult following, that he died, and that his cult following went on to grow into the early Christian church, hence the existence of external sources citing him. That does not translate into proof that he was divine and the son of a god. There are many examples of people who were the basis for (or founded) a religious group without their claims being true.

Never mind that fact that as obscure as he was he became the single most influential person of human history. Perhaps that is proof that he was divine and the Son of a God.

[carpedm9587]

Why is it not adequate to establish the trustfulness of the writers?

Because anyone can add historically accurate information to a document to lend it credibility. Indeed, if you want to convince people that your story is true, you will imbue it with a large number of "facts" to support your claim. You will place it in a historically accurate and verifiable setting. That has been shown to be a common literary device throughout history. What we are seeing, in the NT, is a historically accurate account of the beliefs of the early Christian community as seen through the eyes of the authors. That does not translate to "what that community believed is fact."

Given the period of time when he existed, and the fact that we was rather obscure with a public ministry of a mere three years what would you expect for proofs?

This is a misleading question: it assumes that proofs of this are possible, and we don't know that to be the case. It is entirely possible the "proofs" are simply not there and not possible. Not every historical event can be "proven."

Never mind that fact that as obscure as he was he became the single most influential person of human history.

And that too is a deceptive claim. So what? MANY historical figures have risen from obscurity to become major figures in religion, politics, etc. The fact that he is arguably the most influential does not translate to "so everything said about him in the bible must be true."

[seer]

Because anyone can add historically accurate information to a document to lend it credibility. Indeed, if you want to convince people that your story is true, you will imbue it with a large number of "facts" to support your claim. You will place it in a historically accurate and verifiable setting. That has been shown to be a common literary device throughout history.

This is a misleading question: it assumes that proofs of this are possible, and we don't know that to be the case. It is entirely possible the "proofs" are simply not there and not possible. Not every historical event can be "proven."

If this is the case then I see no reason to believe that the NT writers were not honest in what they reported. Or that they used historically accurate settings to foist a falsehood.

And that too is a deceptive claim. So what? MANY historical figures have risen from obscurity to become major figures in religion, politics, etc. The fact that he is arguably the most influential does not translate to "so everything said about him in the bible must be true."

Sorry Carp, I can't think of one other person in history who came from such obscurity to such prominence. The single most influential person in human history (for good or ill depending on your belief). Is that "proof?" No, but it should make one wonder.

[carpedm9587]

If this is the case then I see no reason to believe that the NT writers were not honest in what they reported. Or that they used historically accurate settings to foist a falsehood.

Of course you don't. Believing the stories are true, which you cannot substantiate, serves a need for you, so you embrace it. It doesn't serve a need for me, so I don't embrace it. I look at the documents and ask myself how this aligns with my experience of reality, science, and other histories. I conclude it aligns with the phenomenon of "religious texts" and not the phenomenon of "historical texts," at least not with respect to the claims made about Jesus of Nazareth.

Sorry Carp, I can't think of one other person in history who came from such obscurity to such prominence. The single most influential person in human history (for good or ill depending on your belief). Is that "proof?" No, but it should make one wonder.

Again, it makes no difference. It's a red herring. The fact is, many people rise to prominence from obscurity. One of them is naturally going to be "the most prominent" of the set. As you note, rising to prominence from obscurity is irrelevant to "the claims made are true." It doesn't make me wonder if the claims are true in the least. It does make me wonder what factors led to that prominence, and we can easily find those in the nature of the message, basic psychology, and the history of the period and subsequent history of the world. I don't need to resort to "it had to be a god."

[seer]

Of course you don't. Believing the stories are true, which you cannot substantiate, serves a need for you, so you embrace it. It doesn't serve a need for me, so I don't embrace it. I look at the documents and ask myself how this aligns with my experience of reality, science, and other histories. I conclude it aligns with the phenomenon of "religious texts" and not the phenomenon of "historical texts," at least not with respect to the claims made about Jesus of Nazareth.

Or you are a sinner who doesn't want a Holy God at the end of the road or defining morality for you. But my point is, you have offered nothing to make me question the honesty of the NT writers, in general. And I'm not sure what science has to do with it.

Again, it makes no difference. It's a red herring. The fact is, many people rise to prominence from obscurity. One of them is naturally going to be "the most prominent" of the set. As you note, rising to prominence from obscurity is irrelevant to "the claims made are true." It doesn't make me wonder if the claims are true in the least. It does make me wonder what factors led to that prominence, and we can easily find those in the nature of the message, basic psychology, and the history of the period and subsequent history of the world. I don't need to resort to "it had to be a god."

Like I said, it should make one wonder, it is completely unique in human history. You can not find anything comparable.

[carpedm9587]

Or you are a sinner who doesn't want a Holy God at the end of the road or defining morality for you.

That is the narrative of your religion, so it is understandable that you would see it that way.

But my point is, you have offered nothing to make me question the honesty of the NT writers, in general.

Oh I am under no illusion that I am going to successfully offer anything that will make you question the honesty of the NT writers, Seer. That ship has long since sailed. And, frankly, I don't see them as "dishonest." I think it is most likely that they are honestly putting down the beliefs they held which reflect the beliefs of the nascent Christian church. That just doesn't make those beliefs "true."

And I'm not sure what science has to do with it.

That much is evident. There is, however, science in most of what we do in life - including history.

Like I said, it should make one wonder, it is completely unique in human history. You can not find anything comparable.

I cannot find anything taller than Mount Everest either, Seer. I cannot find anyone taller than "X" or wiser than "Y." There is, for any given category, something or someone at the top. So in the collection of "greatest rise from obscurity to prominence, Jesus is arguably at the top of that heap. Again, it says nothing about the truth of the claims about him, no matter how many times you suggest we should be "wondering." It's a sideshow to the argument - nothing more.

[seer]

That is the narrative of your religion, so it is understandable that you would see it that way.

Well you're an atheist so you assumed that I believe because Christianity because it fulfills a "need" that I have. Now it may fulfill a need but I became a Christian because I believe it is true.

Oh I am under no illusion that I am going to successfully offer anything that will make you question the honesty of the NT writers, Seer. That ship has long since sailed. And, frankly, I don't see them as "dishonest." I think it is most likely that they are honestly putting down the beliefs they held which reflect the beliefs of the nascent Christian church. That just doesn't make those beliefs "true."

So how does any of this remotely suggest that those beliefs originally were false or made up?

That much is evident. There is, however, science in most of what we do in life - including history.

How does that answer my point? Are you suggesting that science precludes the supernatural? I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I cannot find anything taller than Mount Everest either, Seer. I cannot find anyone taller than "X" or wiser than "Y." There is, for any given category, something or someone at the top. So in the collection of "greatest rise from obscurity to prominence, Jesus is arguably at the top of that heap. Again, it says nothing about the truth of the claims about him, no matter how many times you suggest we should be "wondering." It's a sideshow to the argument - nothing more.

It is a sideshow to you, but I see the providence of God...