Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

No, Ehrman's point, which he speaks to in my link, is that he takes the letters of Paul and the synoptic Gospels as primary historical sources. That we wouldn't expect extra biblical independent sources. And he takes these these books as independent sources.

So the letters of Paul are indeed primary: for the community in which they were written. And synoptic gospels are also sources, but how "primary" is being defined in this context is not clear. Taking them as "independent sources" however is not justified.

It doesn't matter Carp, I'm using your standard!

No - you're not. If you were, then you would be making the arguments I am making.

Don't be dishonest Carp, I'm not using the historical methodology and you know it. But you are! So when a scholar like Ehrman disagrees with you on the historicity of many of the New Testament books on what basis would you disagree?

I actually agree with many of Ehrman's points. Jesus existed. He was a preacher in the early half of the first century. The general content of his message we have documented in the NT sources. All of these claims have many (though not all) of the elements of a proper historical methodology (secondary evidence, lack of conflicting evidence, etc.). I don't recall Ehrman making claims that there was adequate historical evidence to substantiate the claims of miracles, the specific quotes attributed to Jesus, or the specific details of events in Jesus' life. I'd have to go back and review. Or you can point to a specific historical claim you think Erhman is making that I disagree with.

Either way. I won't be reviewing Ehrman in the near future, so the second option is the better one.

Meanwhile...I don't know why you are even beginning to engage in this discussion. You have dismissed all historical methodology and substituted for it your arbitrarily chosen approach, which you still cannot demonstrate is not arbitrary. I note that you cut out the points I made about "face value." I conclude you have no response and have dropped that line of argumentation. You have not shown any way in which I am applying historical methodology differently in different contexts. And you still have not demonstrated any reason for accepting your claims about the historical Jesus except to assert (without support) that we must take it all on "face value."

Not exactly a compelling argument.

[seer]

So the letters of Paul are indeed primary: for the community in which they were written. And synoptic gospels are also sources, but how "primary" is being defined in this context is not clear. Taking them as "independent sources" however is not justified.

Well Bart says the Gospels are independent sources, so who is correct? You or the scholar?

I actually agree with many of Ehrman's points. Jesus existed. He was a preacher in the early half of the first century. The general content of his message we have documented in the NT sources. All of these claims have many (though not all) of the elements of a proper historical methodology (secondary evidence, lack of conflicting evidence, etc.). I don't recall Ehrman making claims that there was adequate historical evidence to substantiate the claims of miracles, the specific quotes attributed to Jesus, or the specific details of events in Jesus' life. I'd have to go back and review. Or you can point to a specific historical claim you think Erhman is making that I disagree with.

So you agree that New Testament books are historically viable. And Bart is an atheist so miracles are non starters.

Meanwhile...I don't know why you are even beginning to engage in this discussion. You have dismissed all historical methodology and substituted for it your arbitrarily chosen approach, which you still cannot demonstrate is not arbitrary. I note that you cut out the points I made about "face value." I conclude you have no response and have dropped that line of argumentation. You have not shown any way in which I am applying historical methodology differently in different contexts. And you still have not demonstrated any reason for accepting your claims about the historical Jesus except to assert (without support) that we must take it all on "face value."

Not exactly a compelling argument.

I don't expect you to take anything on face value, that is your subjective choice. But you will disagree with Bart about the Gospels being independent sources - why, based on what? Is your knowledge superior to his? Or is it an arbitrary judgement on your part.

[carpedm9587]

Well Bart says the Gospels are independent sources, so who is correct? You or the scholar?

If I thought "the scholar" was correct, I would have already said so. The gospels cannot be shown to be "independent." They all arise from within the same community, and three of them depend heavily upon one another as well as at least one additional source we have no access to. I see no basis for calling them "independent," and don't believe he can make that case. That being said, I do not remember his specific argument, so I'd have to review.

So you agree that New Testament books are historically viable. And Bart is an atheist so miracles are non starters.

I've repeatedly said that the NT books (indeed ALL of the books of the bible) provide historical information. Where we have disagreed is on the nature of that historical information: what it tells us.

I don't expect you to take anything on face value, that is your subjective choice.

Not taking things on face value is the default choice for most people, Seer, including you. You have not given me a single example of a text that you take "on face value." In every case you have cited, you have a body of surrounding information that supports your choice to accept the text as true. If you truly take texts as you suggest, that means you would take ANY text that makes a historical claim, and accept its claim as true until proven otherwise. You and I both know you do not do that. If you did, it would render any discussion with you about history pointless. Indeed, you would have absolutely no basis for comparing conflicting claims. This is the hole you have dug for yourself that I referenced earlier.

But you will disagree with Bart about the Gospels being independent sources - why, based on what?

See above.

Is your knowledge superior to his?

I don't see the relevance of this question, nor do I have the ability to answer it.

Or is it an arbitrary judgement on your part.

See above.

And you still have not addressed the original claim: "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth." You simply continue to try to divert the discussion.

[Tassman]

Well Bart says the Gospels are independent sources, so who is correct? You or the scholar?





So you agree that New Testament books are historically viable. And Bart is an atheist so miracles are non starters.





I don't expect you to take anything on face value, that is your subjective choice. But you will disagree with Bart about the Gospels being independent sources - why, based on what? Is your knowledge superior to his? Or is it an arbitrary judgement on your part.

And yet, while not denying that the man Jesus probably existed, your star scholar says: "In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence". Prof. Bart Ehrman

[carpedm9587]

And yet, while not denying that the man Jesus probably existed, your star scholar says: "In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence". Prof. Bart Ehrman

There is good cause for that. Even the internal documents of the early Christian community show it to be a comparatively small and scattered community. They are a "fringe cult" of Judaism at first, and then slowly break off from the "mothership." They would very likely be beneath the radar for most of that first century. The view we have of their place in society and even their persecution comes almost entirely from within the community until we get to the second and third centuries, by which time the cult has gained prominence and following. I suspect, if you were to go to the Moonies and talk to them about the experience of their cult, the picture you would get from inside is very, very, different than the picture you would get from outside, where the vast majority of us have little/no contact with (or thought about) this cult.

[seer]

And yet, while not denying that the man Jesus probably existed, your star scholar says: "In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence". Prof. Bart Ehrman

Right and if you listen to my link he says that is not unusual or disqualifying. Watch the first 35 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA&t=8175s

[seer]

If I thought "the scholar" was correct, I would have already said so. The gospels cannot be shown to be "independent." They all arise from within the same community, and three of them depend heavily upon one another as well as at least one additional source we have no access to. I see no basis for calling them "independent," and don't believe he can make that case. That being said, I do not remember his specific argument, so I'd have to review.

OK, so you disagree with a scholar on this issue. So we again have arbitrary standards.

Not taking things on face value is the default choice for most people, Seer, including you. You have not given me a single example of a text that you take "on face value." In every case you have cited, you have a body of surrounding information that supports your choice to accept the text as true. If you truly take texts as you suggest, that means you would take ANY text that makes a historical claim, and accept its claim as true until proven otherwise. You and I both know you do not do that. If you did, it would render any discussion with you about history pointless. Indeed, you would have absolutely no basis for comparing conflicting claims. This is the hole you have dug for yourself that I referenced earlier.

Nonsense Carp, I take the daily paper on face value and so do you. Until I have reason to do otherwise - that however does not mean I stop there, that is why I referenced persons, places and things in the New Testament that can be independently confirmed.

And you still have not addressed the original claim: "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth." You simply continue to try to divert the discussion.

Adequately support according to whose standard? Yours? Bart's? Robert Brown's? Paul Maier's? John Dominic Crossan's? N. T. Wright's? Michael R. Licona? etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7-QljtixEM

[carpedm9587]

OK, so you disagree with a scholar on this issue. So we again have arbitrary standards.

I'm done responding to your misuse of "arbitrary," Seer. At this point, it is pretty evident you are pulling this canard out intentionally to bait me.

Nonsense Carp, I take the daily paper on face value and so do you.

No - you don't, and neither do I. There is a long history of accurate reporting that results in our accepting the truth of what we read in the paper. You may be familiar with the byline of the reporter. There is also the redundancy of the printed word and video media. Finally, there is the fit between what you are reading and what you know about the world. Again, many of the elements of historical methodology are there, and it is those elements that give us confidence in the truth. Even then, our confidence in the truth of what we read has been badly eroded by the hammering theme of "fake news" and "fictitious unnamed sources."

Again - if you accept things in the way you describe, I should be able drop paper on your doorstep, with no identified author, making any historical claim, and you will take it to your breakfast nook, consume it, and then accept it as truth as your default position and continue to hold that as "truth" until something comes along to convince you it is wrong. You and I both know you will not do that. You will immediately begin to assess what you are reading against what you already know. Even if it aligns, you will hold the "truth" value of the claims in a doubt position until you have some form of confirmation. After all, the only thing you have is a piece of paper from an unknown author making claims you cannot verify. You have no idea why they wrote it, whether or not they could know the things they are claiming, and what motivated them to leave it on your doorstep.

You're in a hole, Seer - and you're not recognizing and/or acknowledging it.

Until I have reason to do otherwise - that however does not mean I stop there, that is why I referenced persons, places and things in the New Testament that can be independently confirmed.

So then you don't accept it "at face value." If you did - you would not bother looking further. This whole "at face value" thing is a canard, Seer. You cannot even begin to sustain it. I'm not sure why you continue to try.

Adequately support according to whose standard? Yours? Bart's? Robert Brown's? Paul Maier's? John Dominic Crossan's? N. T. Wright's? etc...

Adequately supporting according to the basic tools of historical methodology. Those tools are not so precise as to make it possible to make definitive statements and never have been. They provide us with a means of saying "what we think happened" and to give them a greater or lesser degree of confidence. They provide a context for the discussion: "I believe this because of the presence of that." They are subject to varying interpretation by varying historians, which is why you can have different outcomes and disagreement between historians. It is why good historians never speak in absolutes and always remain open to the next piece of information that might shift their perspective. History is in a constant state of revision because we peer into the past through a glass whose opacity changes from situation to situation.

And you would replace this imperfect system with what, Seer? Your "face value" claim? When you cannot even bring the imperfect tools we have to explore history to bear on your claims, I submit that your claims about the historical Jesus are beyond weak. With your argument, you have tossed the baby out with the bathwater. You have left yourself without ANY tool to explore history, which only substantiates my claim that "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth." Now you cannot do it because you deny that any tool for exploring history is viable.

It is a very deep hole you have dug for yourself, Seer.

[seer]

I'm done responding to your misuse of "arbitrary," Seer. At this point, it is pretty evident you are pulling this canard out intentionally to bait me.

Nonsense Carp, you obviously have a different standard than Bart on this, which means that these are arbitrary, or person subjective.

No - you don't, and neither do I. There is a long history of accurate reporting that results in our accepting the truth of what we read in the paper. You may be familiar with the byline of the reporter. There is also the redundancy of the printed word and video media. Finally, there is the fit between what you are reading and what you know about the world. Again, many of the elements of historical methodology are there, and it is those elements that give us confidence in the truth. Even then, our confidence in the truth of what we read has been badly eroded by the hammering theme of "fake news" and "fictitious unnamed sources."

Again - if you accept things in the way you describe, I should be able drop paper on your doorstep, with no identified author, making any historical claim, and you will take it to your breakfast nook, consume it, and then accept it as truth as your default position and continue to hold that as "truth" until something comes along to convince you it is wrong. You and I both know you will not do that. You will immediately begin to assess what you are reading against what you already know. Even if it aligns, you will hold the "truth" value of the claims in a doubt position until you have some form of confirmation. After all, the only thing you have is a piece of paper from an unknown author making claims you cannot verify. You have no idea why they wrote it, whether or not they could know the things they are claiming, and what motivated them to leave it on your doorstep.

You're in a hole, Seer - and you're not recognizing and/or acknowledging it.

So then you don't accept it "at face value." If you did - you would not bother looking further. This whole "at face value" thing is a canard, Seer. You cannot even begin to sustain it. I'm not sure why you continue to try.

Taking something initially at face value does not mean that that ends further investigation. That is why I have said a dozen times I take a work at face value UNTIL I have reason do do otherwise. In other words investigation goes on. Giving a work the benefit of the doubt does not mean that I don't go beyond that. UNTIL I HAVE REASON TO DO OTHERWISE

Adequately supporting according to the basic tools of historical methodology. Those tools are not so precise as to make it possible to make definitive statements and never have been. They provide us with a means of saying "what we think happened" and to give them a greater or lesser degree of confidence. They provide a context for the discussion: "I believe this because of the presence of that." They are subject to varying interpretation by varying historians, which is why you can have different outcomes and disagreement between historians. It is why good historians never speak in absolutes and always remain open to the next piece of information that might shift their perspective. History is in a constant state of revision because we peer into the past through a glass whose opacity changes from situation to situation.

So arbitrary! Watch my link, Dr. Michael R. Licona lays out six historical criterion as they apply to the New Testament. A criterion you will probably disagree with.

And you would replace this imperfect system with what, Seer? Your "face value" claim? When you cannot even bring the imperfect tools we have to explore history to bear on your claims, I submit that your claims about the historical Jesus are beyond weak. With your argument, you have tossed the baby out with the bathwater. You have left yourself without ANY tool to explore history, which only substantiates my claim that "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth." Now you cannot do it because you deny that any tool for exploring history is viable.

It is a very deep hole you have dug for yourself, Seer.

Imperfect? No, arbitrary. And did I not speak to historical references in the New Testament?

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, you obviously have a different standard than Bart on this, which means that these are arbitrary, or person subjective.

As I said - I'm done with this intentional misrepresentation of the meaning of "arbitrary." And yes, given the number of times the definition has been offered and you continue to misuse it, I have to conclude the choice is intentional. It's very dishonest, IMO.

Taking something initially at face value does not mean that that ends further investigation. That is why I have said a dozen times I take a work at face value UNTIL I have reason do do otherwise. In other words investigation goes on. Giving a work the benefit of the doubt does not mean that I don't go beyond that. UNTIL I HAVE REASON TO DO OTHERWISE

Again, you have shown over and over again that you do NOT take things at face value, despite your claims to the contrary. If you actually did, historical discussion would be impossible.

So arbitrary! Watch my link, Dr. Michael R. Licona lays out six historical criterion as they apply to the New Testament. A criterion you will probably disagree with.

Arguing by web link is against site policy. Links are intended to be a confirming resource to be used to dig deeper. I'm not going to do the work of making your argument for you. Put your argument forward, or don't. It's up to you.

Imperfect? No, arbitrary. And did I not speak to historical references in the New Testament?

Again, I am not going to continue to address points I have already addressed and you have not - except to continue to assert the claim misusing language. There is nothing about historical methodology that is "arbitrary" as I have shown. An inability to arrive at precise numbers or a precise outcome does not mean "arbitrary." That is not the meaning of that word. And you cannot speak to "historical references" in the NT, Seer - you have disassembled historical methodology as a strategy. Since you have substituted nothing but "face value," you have left yourself with nothing by which to assess historical claims.

So take the test case I offered you, Seer. By your methodology, you would accept the historical claims on the paper you found on your front step, author unknown, as "true" by default. You say you "go further" than face value, but you dismiss the tools of historical methodology as "arbitrary." So how do you "go further" without recourse to any of these tools?

I submit you cannot answer that question - and I predict you will dodge around it or possibly even cut it out of your response entirely. The question exposes the hole you have dug for yourself. I await your response.

[seer]

As I said - I'm done with this intentional misrepresentation of the meaning of "arbitrary." And yes, given the number of times the definition has been offered and you continue to misuse it, I have to conclude the choice is intentional. It's very dishonest, IMO.

How can it be dishonest when I clearly showed that you and Bart have different standards that disagree? How is that not arbitrary?

Again, you have shown over and over again that you do NOT take things at face value, despite your claims to the contrary. If you actually did, historical discussion would be impossible.

There is nothing inconsistent in saying that I take a work at face value while not shutting the door on further study. That is why I kept making the point: until I have reason do do otherwise. Which clearly points to further investigation. In other words I see no problem with giving a work the benefit of the doubt.

Arguing by web link is against site policy. Links are intended to be a confirming resource to be used to dig deeper. I'm not going to do the work of making your argument for you. Put your argument forward, or don't. It's up to you.

It was for the discussion about differing standards for historical investigation. And how subjective they really are.

Again, I am not going to continue to address points I have already addressed and you have not - except to continue to assert the claim misusing language. There is nothing about historical methodology that is "arbitrary" as I have shown. An inability to arrive at precise numbers or a precise outcome does not mean "arbitrary." That is not the meaning of that word. And you cannot speak to "historical references" in the NT, Seer - you have disassembled historical methodology as a strategy. Since you have substituted nothing but "face value," you have left yourself with nothing by which to assess historical claims.

Well that is completely self serving on your part Carp. You were complaining about the lack of independent (non-biblical) references to the risen Christ. That was my launching point. So I asked how many such references would one need to have a high confidence in the resurrection. You could not offer an objective number because there isn't one - the answer would be what an individual historian would subjectively accept or not - and that is arbitrary.

So take the test case I offered you, Seer. By your methodology, you would accept the historical claims on the paper you found on your front step, author unknown, as "true" by default. You say you "go further" than face value, but you dismiss the tools of historical methodology as "arbitrary." So how do you "go further" without recourse to any of these tools?

I submit you cannot answer that question - and I predict you will dodge around it or possibly even cut it out of your response entirely. The question exposes the hole you have dug for yourself. I await your response.

And how can you deny that it is arbitrary (or subjective) when I have proved that point time and time again? It is a fact. And in this case of the New Testament I would use my subject criterion. Or rather I would accept Licona's standard.

1.We can verify numerous elements reported by an ancient author to be true in their essence though not necessarily in every detail.
2.We have reason to believe the author was neither overly indiscriminate in his use of sources nor credulous.
3.We have reason to believe the author intended to write an accurate account of what occurred notwithstanding his use of compositional devices appropriate for the historical/biographical genre and the occasional appearance of errors and legend.
4.We have no good reasons to believe more than a very small percentage of stories reported by an ancient author are false.

Now I doubt that you would accept these, but why would that matter? What would make your opinion more correct?

[carpedm9587]

How can it be dishonest when I clearly showed that you and Bart have different standards that disagree? How is that not arbitrary?

See my previous posts on this topic.

There is nothing inconsistent in saying that I take a work at face value while not shutting the door on further study. That is why I kept making the point: until I have reason do do otherwise. Which clearly points to further investigation. In other words I see no problem with giving a work the benefit of the doubt.

It was for the discussion about differing standards for historical investigation. And how subjective they really are.

Well that is completely self serving on your part Carp. You were complaining about the lack of independent (non-biblical) references to the risen Christ. That was my launching point. So I asked how many such references would one need to have a high confidence in the resurrection. You could not offer an objective number because there isn't one - the answer would be what an individual historian would subjectively accept or not - and that is arbitrary.

And how can you deny that it is arbitrary (or subjective) when I have proved that point time and time again? It is a fact. And in this case of the New Testament I would use my subject criterion. Or rather I would accept Licona's standard.

Now I doubt that you would accept these, but why would that matter? What would make your opinion more correct?

As predicted, you dodged the question posed. So I'll pose it again. You claim that historical methodology is arbitrary and presumably therefore useless. You claim you accept things "at face value," but then claim you "proceed from there." Consider this scenario:

You awaken and go to your front porch to get the newspaper, and find a sheet of paper with text on it claiming to be a recounting of an event that happened in the past (i.e., historical). No author. No source.

By your rules, you read it and "accept it at face value" as true. I sincerely doubt that is actually the case, but it is what you claim. Then you claim to "proceed further." But the tools of historical methodology are "arbitrary" and therefore useless to you. So how, exactly, do you "proceed further" without recourse to any of these tools?

I predict you will dodge the question again...because it exposes the folly of your argument. You cannot answer it, so you will ignore it or claim it is not pertinent. However, the question gets to the heart of your claims, and puts to rest the claim that the tools of historical methodology are "arbitrary" and thus useless. As previously noted, you threw the baby out with the bath water.

It also put to rest the claim that you accept any written thing "at face value."

[seer]

See my previous posts on this topic.



As predicted, you dodged the question posed. So I'll pose it again. You claim that historical methodology is arbitrary and presumably therefore useless. You claim you accept things "at face value," but then claim you "proceed from there." Consider this scenario:

You awaken and go to your front porch to get the newspaper, and find a sheet of paper with text on it claiming to be a recounting of an event that happened in the past (i.e., historical). No author. No source.

By your rules, you read it and "accept it at face value" as true. I sincerely doubt that is actually the case, but it is what you claim. Then you claim to "proceed further." But the tools of historical methodology are "arbitrary" and therefore useless to you. So how, exactly, do you "proceed further" without recourse to any of these tools?

I predict you will dodge the question again...because it exposes the folly of your argument. You cannot answer it, so you will ignore it or claim it is not pertinent. However, the question gets to the heart of your claims, and puts to rest the claim that the tools of historical methodology are "arbitrary" and thus useless. As previously noted, you threw the baby out with the bath water.

Where did I say useless? And stop being an ass Carp, I have proved that it is arbitrary and subjective, that is a fact that you can not refute. So I would use my subjective standards.

[carpedm9587]

Where did I say useless? And stop being an ass Carp, I have proved that it is arbitrary and subjective, that is a fact that you can not refute. So I would use my subjective standards.

So you dodged it again. And now you are claiming that you will apply things you claim to be arbitrary to come to historical conclusions.

I rest my case, Seer. Your own argument shows that you have no basis for making any historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, you have widened the scope to show you have no basis for making any historical claims about anything whatsoever. You destroyed your own tool set, leaving yourself with no basis for a historical discussion.

I cannot see how we can proceed with a historical discussion since I would be having that discussion with an opponent who has disarmed himself completely.

[seer]

So you dodged it again. And now you are claiming that you will apply things you claim to be arbitrary to come to historical conclusions.

I rest my case, Seer. Your own argument shows that you have no basis for making any historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, you have widened the scope to show you have no basis for making any historical claims about anything whatsoever. You destroyed your own tool set, leaving yourself with no basis for a historical discussion.

I cannot see how we can proceed with a historical discussion since I would be having that discussion with an opponent who has disarmed himself completely.

BS Carp, you have not, nor can you, refute the subjective nature of these things. Trying to turn it around does not change that fact. So yes I do have my own standards to satisfy. But are they your standards? Doubtful. Are historical criterion written in stone - no they are changeable as you have said. So I'm not sure what you are defending.