Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

One step at a time:

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read.

Well - I thought we were making progress, but all you did was cut out the first half of what I wrote and repost it. Does that you mean you are agreeing it describes your beliefs?

Again - I wrote:

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it all historically correct and some of them got it at least partially historically wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded all of the historically inaccurate ones as well as some of the historically accurate ones, incorporating only 100% historically accurate texts into what came to be known as the NT.

Does this accurately describe what you believe? If you still disagree with this wording, please suggest wording that makes it correct.

Who are these other 1st century non-canonical writers? Are you just speaking of the The Didache, Barnabas and Clement or do you have others?

This is irrelevant to the question being asked, so I'm not going to go down this tangent. I apologize for not recognizing it as a tangent earlier and nipping it in the bud, but I'm nipping it now. Please either agree that I have correctly captured your beliefs, or disagree and tell me what is wrong with the statement.

I have no idea why you are SO resistant to this discussion. Clearly, it is not possible for me to show that your claims about the historical Jesus are not adequately rooted if I do not have a clear and correct understanding of your beliefs, but you consistently dodge actually providing that clear and unambiguous understanding. I agree one step at a time. First step: come to a clear and unambiguous understanding of Seer's claims about the NT and its relationship to the historical Jesus.

[Tassman]

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read.

What was written down 20-70 years later was dependent on tradition which had been passed down among Jesus’ followers and converts and almost certainly grew with the telling. Especially given that they were attempting to promote their beliefs and win others to the cause.

[seer]

Well - I thought we were making progress, but all you did was cut out the first half of what I wrote and repost it. Does that you mean you are agreeing it describes your beliefs?

Again - I wrote:

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts, witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it all historically correct and some of them got it at least partially historically wrong. Over the course of about 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, discarded all of the historically inaccurate ones as well as some of the historically accurate ones, incorporating only 100% historically accurate texts into what came to be known as the NT.

Does this accurately describe what you believe? If you still disagree with this wording, please suggest wording that makes it correct.



This is irrelevant to the question being asked, so I'm not going to go down this tangent. I apologize for not recognizing it as a tangent earlier and nipping it in the bud, but I'm nipping it now. Please either agree that I have correctly captured your beliefs, or disagree and tell me what is wrong with the statement.

I have no idea why you are SO resistant to this discussion. Clearly, it is not possible for me to show that your claims about the historical Jesus are not adequately rooted if I do not have a clear and correct understanding of your beliefs, but you consistently dodge actually providing that clear and unambiguous understanding. I agree one step at a time. First step: come to a clear and unambiguous understanding of Seer's claims about the NT and its relationship to the historical Jesus.

No Carp, I'm not going to follow your lead. You need to explain what you mean:

"they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it all historically correct and some of them got it at least partially historically wrong."

Before I agree I need to know who these other writers are and what these other writers got wrong. How can I agree when I have no idea what or who you are speaking of.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I'm not going to follow your lead. You need to explain what you mean:

"they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Some of them got it all historically correct and some of them got it at least partially historically wrong."

Before I agree I need to know who these other writers are and what these other writers got wrong. How can I agree when I have no idea what or who you are speaking of.

So...another dodge...

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts. Witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Over the course of approximately 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, ensuring that only historically accurate text were included in the canon of what came to be known as the NT.

OK - I have removed the text you seem to be objecting to. So now, have we arrived at a statement that correctly describes your beliefs concerning the NT? Or are you going to dodge again instead of just adjusting the text to accurately reflect your beliefs, as I have been asking now for pages?

Seer - I truly am beginning to think you are working really hard to avoid this discussion because some part of you knows where it is going. You will not be able, as I have been saying, to substantiate your historical claims about the man named Jesus of Nazareth.

[seer]

So...another dodge...

So clarity is a dodge?

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts. Witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. Over the course of approximately 500 years, the Christian community identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, ensuring that only historically accurate text were included in the canon of what came to be known as the NT.

OK - I have removed the text you seem to be objecting to. So now, have we arrived at a statement that correctly describes your beliefs concerning the NT? Or are you going to dodge again instead of just adjusting the text to accurately reflect your beliefs, as I have been asking now for pages?

Nope. Canon was pretty much settled in 393 at the Synod of Hippo. Though the included books had a long acceptance in the Church. And I believe they chose the texts that they believed were the earliest writings, as I said with an Apostolic connection.

Seer - I truly am beginning to think you are working really hard to avoid this discussion because some part of you knows where it is going. You will not be able, as I have been saying, to substantiate your historical claims about the man named Jesus of Nazareth.

Stop being a hypocrite and assuming my motives, something you don't like done to you.

[carpedm9587]

So clarity is a dodge?

No perpetually avoiding the question is a dodge. I've been asking you for pages now to a) confirm I have it right, or b) adjust it to be right. Instead, of doing either of those, you're engaging in this back and forth tactic constantly trying to get me to defend a position I have not taken.

Nope. Canon was pretty much settled in 393 at the Synod of Hippo. Though the included books had a long acceptance in the Church. And I believe they chose the texts that they believed were the earliest writings, as I said with an Apostolic connection.

So, trying again:

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts. Witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. By 393, the Christian community had identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, ensuring that only historically accurate text were included in the canon of what came to be known as the NT.

So have we arrived at an accurate statement of your beliefs? If not - would you consider just fixing the statement so that it IS accurate instead of playing these ridiculous games?

Stop being a hypocrite and assuming my motives, something you don't like done to you.

Then start actually answering the questions.

[seer]

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts. Witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. By 393, the Christian community had identified a subset of the various texts that had been written, ensuring that only historically accurate text were included in the canon of what came to be known as the NT.

OK here you go:

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts. Witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. By the early second century Church fathers were already identifying specific texts that would later make it in to the Canon during Synod of Hippo...

[carpedm9587]

OK here you go:

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts. Witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. By the early second century Church fathers were already identifying specific texts that would later make it in to the Canon during Synod of Hippo...

I notice that your statement says absolutely nothing about historical accuracy. So would it be correct to amend it as follows:

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts. Witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. By the early second century Church fathers were already identifying specific texts that would later make it in to the Canon during Synod of Hippo[/I], ensuring that only historically accurate information about Jesus of Nazareth would be included in the NT canon.

I presume you believe the added line?

And thanks, BTW, for finally responding to the question.

[seer]

I notice that your statement says absolutely nothing about historical accuracy. So would it be correct to amend it as follows:

Jesus did all of the things described in the canonical NT texts. Witnesses to all of these deeds then began to spread the word and, 20-70 years later, they and other 1st century writers wrote down everything that had happened for subsequent generations to read. By the early second century Church fathers were already identifying specific texts that would later make it in to the Canon during Synod of Hippo[/I], ensuring that only historically accurate information about Jesus of Nazareth would be included in the NT canon.

I presume you believe the added line?

And thanks, BTW, for finally responding to the question.

We already went over the "person, places, things" historical question. So I'm generally good with the above. Now what?

[carpedm9587]

We already went over the "person, places, things" historical question. So I'm generally good with the above. Now what?

So now you need to show that the deliberations of the christian community through the Synod of Hippo successfully included ONLY historically accurate claims about Jesus of Nazareth in the NT. Unless you can do that, your claims to historical certainty about Jesus of Nazareth based on the NT documents simply doesn't work.

I frankly do not see how you can achieve that.

[seer]

So now you need to show that the deliberations of the christian community through the Synod of Hippo successfully included ONLY historically accurate claims about Jesus of Nazareth in the NT. Unless you can do that, your claims to historical certainty about Jesus of Nazareth based on the NT documents simply doesn't work.

I frankly do not see how you can achieve that.

Are you giving me an impossible task? How about something more rational and definitive - present first century works that counter the narrative we find in Scripture. That was one of the main standard they used, books that had an Apostolic connection, in other words first century works. And until you can offer competing works I see no logical reason to suspect the books that we have.

[carpedm9587]

Are you giving me an impossible task?

Yes. That is the entire point. You cannot do it - ergo you cannot support your claims about the historical Jesus. How is it possible to do that if you cannot show that the texts selected for inclusion into the NT canon were selected in a way so as to ensure they were historically accurate?

How about something more rational and definitive - present first century works that counter the narrative we find in Scripture. That was one of the main standard they used, books that had an Apostolic connection, in other words first century works. And until you can offer competing works I see no logical reason to suspect the books that we have.

"They were written in the first century" does not ensure historical accuracy. And while I can appreciate your need to try to shift the burden to me the try to disprove the NT texts (you've been trying to shift the discussion in that direction from the outset), I am not making the claim "the NT texts are false" nor am I going to defend that claim because you want me to.

I am claiming, "Seer does not have an adequate basis for his historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth." You base your claims on the NT, but you cannot show that these texts are historically accurate with respect to their claims about Jesus. Few of the requirements for a reasonable level of certitude about historical accuracy exist. Your claims go WAY beyond what we can reasonably conclude from the texts of the various books in the NT.

Take a simple case in point: the gospels are full of direct quotes of not only public speeches but private conversations. None of these have ANY record of being put down before the late 60s. So we have a claim that the literal words of Jesus were somehow conveyed for 30+ years after the death of Jesus, sometimes by people who could not possibly have been a witness to the conversations, and they are accurately and historically conveyed in the NT. The best you can do is claim that people who were eyewitnesses to those events could have been around and could have conveyed the stories. I grant you "could." What you cannot establish is "did." So you are guessing.

Further, I find not a single other instance anywhere in modern historical analysis where this claim is made about any other historical figure with this kind of separation, and the claim is made that there is no room for doubt about what was said and specific, personal things that were done. We're not talking about things like the Gaelic Wars, which are vast events reported in largely general terms (where battles were had, who the leaders were, etc.). We're talking about specific, detailed claims about daily personal activities and words spoken. If you know of one, I'd love to examine it and see if it is in any way parallel.

I repeat, you cannot adequately support your claims about the historical Jesus.

[Tassman]

Are you giving me an impossible task? How about something more rational and definitive - present first century works that counter the narrative we find in Scripture. That was one of the main standard they used, books that had an Apostolic connection, in other words first century works. And until you can offer competing works I see no logical reason to suspect the books that we have.

You have yet to address the problem that what we have is not supported by any contemporary external evidence - especially the wildly improbable events surrounding the crucifixion and the disposal of the body. All we have are narratives set down 20-70 years later by believers which are completely dependent on tradition and hearsay.

[seer]

Yes. That is the entire point. You cannot do it - ergo you cannot support your claims about the historical Jesus. How is it possible to do that if you cannot show that the texts selected for inclusion into the NT canon were selected in a way so as to ensure they were historically accurate?

Yet you already agreed that we do have historical pedigree. Like that the early believers did believe that Christ was resurrected. Why do you believe that is historical?

"They were written in the first century" does not ensure historical accuracy. And while I can appreciate your need to try to shift the burden to me the try to disprove the NT texts (you've been trying to shift the discussion in that direction from the outset), I am not making the claim "the NT texts are false" nor am I going to defend that claim because you want me to.

But that is the point, we have no other first century writings that undermine what we have. Why on earth would I not take them as face value?

I am claiming, "Seer does not have an adequate basis for his historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth." You base your claims on the NT, but you cannot show that these texts are historically accurate with respect to their claims about Jesus. Few of the requirements for a reasonable level of certitude about historical accuracy exist. Your claims go WAY beyond what we can reasonably conclude from the texts of the various books in the NT.

Good grief, how would you apply that standard to Herodotus' Histories or Caesar's Gallic War? Please explain how that would work?

The best you can do is claim that people who were eyewitnesses to those events could have been around and could have conveyed the stories. I grant you "could." What you cannot establish is "did." So you are guessing.

But they were around, according to the texts. So I'm not guessing.

Further, I find not a single other instance anywhere in modern historical analysis where this claim is made about any other historical figure with this kind of separation, and the claim is made that there is no room for doubt about what was said and specific, personal things that were done. We're not talking about things like the Gaelic Wars, which are vast events reported in largely general terms (where battles were had, who the leaders were, etc.). We're talking about specific, detailed claims about daily personal activities and words spoken. If you know of one, I'd love to examine it and see if it is in any way parallel.

That is just false, there is a lot of history based on personal testimonies and personal reflection. Verbal orders Lee gave to Jackson, or AP Hill for instance. Accurate recollections of personal events and conversations in the Stephen Ambrose's "Band of Brothers" written over 40 years after the events.

[seer]

You have yet to address the problem that what we have is not supported by any contemporary external evidence - especially the wildly improbable events surrounding the crucifixion and the disposal of the body. All we have are narratives set down 20-70 years later by believers which are completely dependent on tradition and hearsay.

No Tass, you have eyewitnesses still around then. Paul and the writer of Luke and Acts were companions of the Apostles.