Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

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?

Pedigree? Seer, what I said was that we have a record of what the Christian community believed 20-70 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Given that the writings were for the community that was concurrent to the writings (e.g., some were even letters to them), I see no basis for assuming that the writers wrote down things the communities did not believe.

But there is also no basis to leap from "we have an accurate record of what they believed" to "what they believed was true" and you have offered nothing but speculation.

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?

Your argument is akin to "the only evidence I have of what my son did with the car is what he told me. Why would I not take it at face value?" The fact is, if you have limited evidence, you have limited evidence. The evidence you DO have does not contain the essentials that would give a historian reason to say "the claims made by this evidence are historically accurate."

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

You are comparing apples to oranges. You love the "Gallic War" meme, but the histories of the Gallic War give us sweeping understanding of an event in time at a broad level, most of which are confirmed by secondary independent sources. They do not give us the kind of personal narrative asserted by the NT.

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

Yes - you are. You cannot demonstrate authorship of a single NT text by an eyewitness. Not one. You have to assume it "must have been."

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.

Prove that these recollections of conversations recorded 40 years after the events they relate are accurate to the original words of the speakers. I submit that you cannot.

[seer]

Pedigree? Seer, what I said was that we have a record of what the Christian community believed 20-70 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Given that the writings were for the community that was concurrent to the writings (e.g., some were even letters to them), I see no basis for assuming that the writers wrote down things the communities did not believe.

But you believe that is historical.

But there is also no basis to leap from "we have an accurate record of what they believed" to "what they believed was true" and you have offered nothing but speculation.

But then what explains their belief? You already said you didn't believe that the Apostles or the early disciples (who were largely still around) lied. Why shouldn't I assume that they believed what they did because it was true? I mean the idea of a friend coming back from the dead is not something one would misremember. It would be a life changing event.

Your argument is akin to "the only evidence I have of what my son did with the car is what he told me. Why would I not take it at face value?" The fact is, if you have limited evidence, you have limited evidence. The evidence you DO have does not contain the essentials that would give a historian reason to say "the claims made by this evidence are historically accurate."

First Carp, you have a number of New Testament writers, in agreement (conspiracy?). With the majority of the writings done well within the life times of those who knew Christ. And my son may have motive for lying - I don't see the motive for lying with the early Christians - the desire for persecution?

Yes - you are. You cannot demonstrate authorship of a single NT text by an eyewitness. Not one. You have to assume it "must have been."

Are you saying that Paul and the writer of Luke and Acts were not companions of the Apostles?

Prove that these recollections of conversations recorded 40 years after the events they relate are accurate to the original words of the speakers. I submit that you cannot.

Funny, most historians would give credence to their recollections. I mean have you ever read anything related to WW2, The Civil War, The Great War, The Cuba Missile Crisis, etc... Historians often rely on anecdotal stories and evidence.

[carpedm9587]

But you believe that is historical.

A historical account of what the authors (and presumably their community) believed.

But then what explains their belief?

There are many possible explanations. The fact is, we don't know which is true.

You already said you didn't believe that the Apostles or the early disciples (who were largely still around) lied.

I have no cause to accuse the authors of lying. Whether or not the authors were the original apostles cannot be established. Some clearly were not.

Why shouldn't I assume that they believed what they did because it was true?

That is the point, Seer. You can "assume" whatever you wish. You simply cannot support your belief with adequate evidence to make a case for the truth of those beliefs about the historical Jesus, for all of the reasons I have previously cited.

I mean the idea of a friend coming back from the dead is not something one would misremember. It would be a life changing event.

Assumption. This is only one of many possible scenarios.

First Carp, you have a number of New Testament writers, in agreement (conspiracy?).

You have a number of writings from within the same community (i.e., the early Christian community). It may be different authors, but it is not truly a separation of sources.

With the majority of the writings done well within the life times of those who knew Christ.

An assumption, again. You cannot show this to be true, except a few claims by authors to know witnesses. That makes the writings second hand at best, and written at least 20 years after the fact.

And my son may have motive for lying - I don't see the motive for lying with the early Christians - the desire for persecution?

I have already addressed the "lying" issue.

Are you saying that Paul and the writer of Luke and Acts were not companions of the Apostles?

Again, I will not be drawn into a defense of a position I did not take in this discussion. I am making no claims about the truth or untruth of the claims made in the NT books about Jesus of Nazareth. I am saying that you do not have adequate evidence to support YOUR claims about it. I am saying that all we have to base that belief on is the word of the authors - whose identity is not known, and for whom there is no additional body of writing we can refer to so as to attest to their writing styles, habits, or truthfulness. We cannot definitively establish authorship and have no original manuscripts. You are building your belief on a tissue of assumptions. Your evidence does not meet the minimum requirements of historicity, AFAICT.

Funny, most historians would give credence to their recollections. I mean have you ever read anything related to WW2, The Civil War, The Great War, The Cuba Missile Crisis, etc... Historians often rely on anecdotal stories and evidence.

I have read many things related to all of those things, all of which have an enormous body of primary, secondary, and even tertiary evidence surrounding them. Where that evidence does not exist, confidence about the historical claims is weakened. That is how history works. Confidence in historical claims is increased by multiple independent corroborating sources, and weakened by a paucity thereof. You have nowhere near the kind of historical evidence that exists for all of these events. You have a collection of books from within the same community written by largely unknown authors well after the facts they related in a foreign language with no original manuscripts, slightly differing accounts, and almost no secondary external evidence except a few references to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, his role as a teacher/preacher, and that he was killed by the Romans. These, therefore, are the only claims that are historically on a reasonably sound footing.

[Tassman]

No Tass, you have eyewitnesses still around then.

Do you really? What we have are narratives set down 20-70 years after Jesus died by believers which are completely dependent on tradition and hearsay. Many are highly improbable, e.g. (Matt. 27:52) - the dead leaving their tombs and wandering into Jerusalem, which stupendous event seems to have escaped notice by ANY contemporary.

Paul and the writer of Luke and Acts were companions of the Apostles.

[carpedm9587]

Exactly

This is one of many possible scenarios describing "what happened" that Seer dismisses with a wave of his hand, but cannot show to be impossible or even unlikely.

[seer]

A historical account of what the authors (and presumably their community) believed.



There are many possible explanations. The fact is, we don't know which is true.



I have no cause to accuse the authors of lying. Whether or not the authors were the original apostles cannot be established. Some clearly were not.



That is the point, Seer. You can "assume" whatever you wish. You simply cannot support your belief with adequate evidence to make a case for the truth of those beliefs about the historical Jesus, for all of the reasons I have previously cited.

I have no idea what you subjectively consider adequate or why I or anyone is bound by that opinion. And we can establish that these were written (for the most part) within the lifetimes of the Apostles and original disciples by people like Paul and the writer of Luke and Acts who were companions.

You have a number of writings from within the same community (i.e., the early Christian community). It may be different authors, but it is not truly a separation of sources.

The point is there are no first century writings that contradict what we have.

An assumption, again. You cannot show this to be true, except a few claims by authors to know witnesses. That makes the writings second hand at best, and written at least 20 years after the fact.

Right, again, if a friend died, was buried and came back to life that is something that you would always remember. Twenty years is a meaningless time line.

Again, I will not be drawn into a defense of a position I did not take in this discussion. I am making no claims about the truth or untruth of the claims made in the NT books about Jesus of Nazareth. I am saying that you do not have adequate evidence to support YOUR claims about it. I am saying that all we have to base that belief on is the word of the authors - whose identity is not known, and for whom there is no additional body of writing we can refer to so as to attest to their writing styles, habits, or truthfulness. We cannot definitively establish authorship and have no original manuscripts. You are building your belief on a tissue of assumptions. Your evidence does not meet the minimum requirements of historicity, AFAICT.

List the agreed minimum requirements of historicity...

I have read many things related to all of those things, all of which have an enormous body of primary, secondary, and even tertiary evidence surrounding them. Where that evidence does not exist, confidence about the historical claims is weakened. That is how history works. Confidence in historical claims is increased by multiple independent corroborating sources, and weakened by a paucity thereof. You have nowhere near the kind of historical evidence that exists for all of these events. You have a collection of books from within the same community written by largely unknown authors well after the facts they related in a foreign language with no original manuscripts, slightly differing accounts, and almost no secondary external evidence except a few references to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, his role as a teacher/preacher, and that he was killed by the Romans. These, therefore, are the only claims that are historically on a reasonably sound footing.

Given the time and place and the people involved I don't see how they could have made their case any better. They wrote what they believed to be true. And it may not meet some arbitrary standard but that does not mean that they were not truthful or accurate.

[seer]

Exactly

This is one of many possible scenarios describing "what happened" that Seer dismisses with a wave of his hand, but cannot show to be impossible or even unlikely.

Really Carp, how many times have you been accused of hand waving on these boards! Don't be hypocritical.

[seer]

Do you really? What we have are narratives set down 20-70 years after Jesus died by believers which are completely dependent on tradition and hearsay. Many are highly improbable, e.g. (Matt. 27:52) - the dead leaving their tombs and wandering into Jerusalem, which stupendous event seems to have escaped notice by ANY contemporary.

Of course miracles are both improbable and rare. And we don't know how many actually came back to life. It says many. A few, more, a lot?



Actually no Luke and Acts are closer to 60, and written by a person who traveled with the Apostles (that is what the texts state). And Paul's earliest letters are around 49, 50 AD and he too was a companion of the Apostles.

[carpedm9587]

I have no idea what you subjectively consider adequate or why I or anyone is bound by that opinion.

I consider "adequate" the same requirements historians use for any claims about the past. I apply the same methodology and assert claims about the past with the same nuanced levels of "confidence" based on the nature of the source information. This is the problem with your claims, Seer, despite all of your claims to the contrary, you are giving claims about Jesus of Nazareth special treatment that defies normal historical methodology. You are free to do so, but it is a form of special pleading that is not going to convince anyone who does not start with your unprovable assumptions.

And we can establish that these were written (for the most part) within the lifetimes of the Apostles and original disciples by people like Paul and the writer of Luke and Acts who were companions.

We can establish that some of these writings were written within the possible lifetime of the original disciples. We cannot establish that they were written by any of the original disciples. We cannot establish that the author correctly captured the narratives of the original disciples. We cannot establish that the original disciples correctly recalled the events, right down to the spoken words from Jesus, some 20 to 70 years after the fact. We cannot exclude the possibility (probability?) of theological development over the course of those 20-70 years. YOu are piling assumption on assumption to arrive at your beliefs. You are free to do so - but it will not convince the serious historian.

The point is there are no first century writings that contradict what we have.

And that tells you only a) Jesus was apparently not significant enough to come to the notice of other first century historians, except as a passing reference to the growing cult of the Nazarean, and b) the authors who did write it down, who were all from within the cult of the Nazarean, generally agreed in their beliefs. It tells you nothing about the historical accuracy of their beliefs.

Right, again, if a friend died, was buried and came back to life that is something that you would always remember. Twenty years is a meaningless time line.

Assumption on your part. There are multiple other possible scenarios to the resurrection other than "it actually happened as described" that you cannot exclude. The best you can do is assert (without any real evidence) that they are "unlikely."

List the agreed minimum requirements of historicity...

I think you know them as well as I do, Seer. When a historical claim is made, the confidence in its accuracy is proportional to several factors: the existence of multiple, independent, conforming sources. The more independent sources, the higher the confidence. The more the sources differ in type, the higher the confidence. It can also be affected by knowledge of the author and their writing style/dependability. So if we have a body of work from Writer X that has been shown to be reliable and accurate, a new work from Writer X will be seen as more dependable than it would be if it were the work of a new, unknown author. Finally, confirmation that takes a form that cannot be skewed by human intervention is stronger than confirmation that can. For example, if a document is found that describes a massive volcano erupting, and several other historians note the same volcano and can be shown to be independent of each other, that is pretty strong evidence. But if the actual eruption site is found and can be dated to that specified period, that is a clincher.

These are history 101. History is not an exact science. It does not deal with absolutes. It deals with "what most probably happened." When it is limited to "this event happened," it tends to be on stronger ground. When it drifts to "this caused that," the ground gets shakier and the bias of the historian can begin to creep in. When it begins to suggest motivations and thoughts, the ground is even shakier. When it goes down to specific words spoken - time is the enemy of accuracy.

Given the time and place and the people involved I don't see how they could have made their case any better. They wrote what they believed to be true. And it may not meet some arbitrary standard but that does not mean that they were not truthful or accurate.

It likely means they were most likely accurately reflecting what they believed. It does not mean what they believed was necessarily historically true. It is this last part you cannot show. But I suspect you will dive through the gap of the inability of historical methodology to make definitive, absolute, statements about history and simply assert that your interpretation of the history is justified.

[carpedm9587]

Really Carp, how many times have you been accused of hand waving on these boards! Don't be hypocritical.

Being accused of hand-waving by those who regularly hand-wave away data and structured arguments doesn't concern me all that much, Seer. I'm more interested in the arguments than I am in what people think of me. And that includes accusations of hypocrisy.

However, I will admit that, when I am tired or stressed, my ability to shrug off the personal attacks weakens and I have struck back in ways I consider inappropriate. For those times, I apologize. I'm working to remind myself "it's just a forum" and "what someone else says about you doesn't change who/what you actually are." If anything, this forum has done a great deal to help me practice patience. My wife and boys have actually noted it...

[seer]

I think you know them as well as I do, Seer. When a historical claim is made, the confidence in its accuracy is proportional to several factors: the existence of multiple, independent, conforming sources. The more independent sources, the higher the confidence. The more the sources differ in type, the higher the confidence. It can also be affected by knowledge of the author and their writing style/dependability. So if we have a body of work from Writer X that has been shown to be reliable and accurate, a new work from Writer X will be seen as more dependable than it would be if it were the work of a new, unknown author. Finally, confirmation that takes a form that cannot be skewed by human intervention is stronger than confirmation that can. For example, if a document is found that describes a massive volcano erupting, and several other historians note the same volcano and can be shown to be independent of each other, that is pretty strong evidence. But if the actual eruption site is found and can be dated to that specified period, that is a clincher.

So if all these criterion were reasonably met would you believe that Christ was raised from the dead?

[carpedm9587]

So if all these criterion were reasonably met would you believe that Christ was raised from the dead?

So, I left one thing off the list: an absence of conflicting evidence. When there is conflicting evidence, the historical claim is weakened.

And with that added, yes - if all of these criteria were met, I would be a fool not to accept that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Unfortunately for your claims, they are not all met. That is essentially what I have been telling you from the outset. You are not limiting yourself to what the available evidence can tell us - you are piling assumption upon assumption to accept the historical claims of the NT as true - including spoken words, miracles, rising from the dead, daily deeds, etc. The so called "natural" as well as the so-called "supernatural."

[seer]

So, I left one thing off the list: an absence of conflicting evidence. When there is conflicting evidence, the historical claim is weakened.

And we have no conflicting evidence for what the first century Christians believed.

And with that added, yes - if all of these criteria were met, I would be a fool not to accept that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. Unfortunately for your claims, they are not all met. That is essentially what I have been telling you from the outset. You are not limiting yourself to what the available evidence can tell us - you are piling assumption upon assumption to accept the historical claims of the NT as true - including spoken words, miracles, rising from the dead, daily deeds, etc. The so called "natural" as well as the so-called "supernatural."

So if you had a few Roman soldiers or even a Pontius Pilate or non-Christian Jewish leaders document that they encountered the risen Christ you would believe it?

[carpedm9587]

And we have no conflicting evidence for what the first century Christians believed.

Umm...if you are limiting yourself to the written records of the NT, you are correct. However, if you are casting your net a bit more broadly, we do have evidence that runs counter to the NT narrative. But you reject that evidence out of hand (or at least you have in the past).

So if you had a few Roman soldiers or even a Pontius Pilate or non-Christian Jewish leaders document that they encountered the risen Christ you would believe it?

That depends entirely on the nature of the "documentation." Do we have a body of work from the authors that establishes their reliability? Do we have any original works? Can we verify authorship? Historians would look at all of these issues to establish their level of confidence. I would as well. If all of these check out, then it wold strengthen the claim that "Jesus rose from the dead."

This is how history works, Seer: evidence presented either strengthens or weakens a historical claim. The level of "absolute knowledge" you claim to have is not consistent with historical methodology.

[Tassman]

Of course miracles are both improbable and rare. And we don't know how many actually came back to life. It says many. A few, more, a lot?

No

Actually no Luke and Acts are closer to 60, and written by a person who traveled with the Apostles (that is what the texts state). And Paul's earliest letters are around 49, 50 AD and he too was a companion of the Apostles.