Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

If it happened, the people who witnessed it may could well have remembered it correctly. Your problem is showing that it happened, and you can't get there by appealing to "they remembered it correctly" because you don't know that and would be arguing in circles. You cannot show this scenario to be the only one, or even the most likely one. There are multiple possible explanations for the contents of the NT books. You lack any basis for declaring one of them superior to any other. That was the entire point. For the record - neither can I. As I've repeatedly said, there is inadequate evidence to make detailed assertions about the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Again Carp, there is nothing written in stone concerning what is adequate or not. Since we know writers like Luke (will use Luke for the sake of brevity) and Paul were companions of the Apostles and that their writings are consistent with the other New Testament books I see no good reason to bring their claims into question. Never mind the fact that you can not even offer a number for how many independent sources it would take to have high confidence in the resurrection. Your deck is stacked from the get go.

[seer]

Nevertheless, Prof Ehrman's claim that "in the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet etc. etc. etc." - is indicative that Jesus made very little impact outside of his little circle of followers during his own lifetime nor in the 100 years after his death.

But as Ehrman said that is not unexpected or unusual.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, there is nothing written in stone concerning what is adequate or not.

And that is the best excuse you can come up with? Historians are using poor tools?

Ok - then by your argument - you are using poor tools - and again you cannot substantiate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, you cannot substantiate ANY historical claims. The baby went out with the bathwater...

Since we know writers like Luke (will use Luke for the sake of brevity) and Paul were companions of the Apostles and that their writings are consistent with the other New Testament books I see no good reason to bring their claims into question.

We know from the very documents we are questioning that the author of "Luke" and the epistles attributed to Paul were companions of at least some of the original apostles. The consistency is entirely within books that are not independent of one another because they arise from within the same community and can be shown, in many cases, to depend on one another.

Never mind the fact that you can not even offer a number for how many independent sources it would take to have high confidence in the resurrection. Your deck is stacked from the get go.

I cannot offer a number because this is not how historical methodology works, so you are creating a strawman and busily knocking it down. There is no magic point at which one says "we have the proof that it happened." Each piece of evidence, whatever the type, increases confidence in the claim. You are claiming to be able to hold, with high certainty, facts about the past while you are busily tearing apart the tools we use to achieve any level of confidence about our historical claims. The entire argument is absurd.

This is your quandary, Seer. The hole you have dug. Accept the tools of historical methodology and you cannot adequately demonstrate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Alternatively, you can dismiss/discount the tools, and the result is you cannot adequately demonstrate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth.

You cannot escape this dilemma. You are holding beliefs you cannot adequately defend. It is entirely your right to do so. Just don't expect them to convince someone who is truly looking at all of this critically. It will only convince those who are ignorant of the process of historical analysis or apply it incorrectly, those who desperately need the "Christian message" for any number of psychological reasons, or those who are simply gullible or unwilling to make the effort to examine a claim.

[carpedm9587]

But as Ehrman said that is not unexpected or unusual.

"Not unexpected or unusual" does not change the fact of it, Seer.

I truly do not understand this argument.

Citizen Scientist: I can calculate the age of the earth with certainty
Scientist: Umm...the information you need to do that is missing.
Citizen Scientist: That is not unexpected or unusual for events so far in the past.
Scientist: I know that, but it also means you cannot make the calculations you claim you are making
Citizen Scientist: You're not being consistent. We calculate the age of many old things.
Scientist: Yes, and we always identify it as an approximate or a range subject to clarification with new information, if it is ever found.
Citizen Scientist: But I am telling you I can calculate the age of the earth with certainty
Scientist: And I'm telling you the information you need to do that is not available - you cannot be that precise with your dating because the information required to do so is not available.
Citizen Scientist: That is not unexpected or unusual for events so far in the past.
....



(I can't remember the head banging emoji - but it fits here...)

[seer]

And that is the best excuse you can come up with? Historians are using poor tools?

Ok - then by your argument - you are using poor tools - and again you cannot substantiate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, you cannot substantiate ANY historical claims. The baby went out with the bathwater...

Well as you agreed these things are often subjective. More on that later.

We know from the very documents we are questioning that the author of "Luke" and the epistles attributed to Paul were companions of at least some of the original apostles. The consistency is entirely within books that are not independent of one another because they arise from within the same community and can be shown, in many cases, to depend on one another.

Well of course since these book are coming the same community, the only first century Christian community we know of. And they are consistent, with no known counter. In other words this community was in the best position to know what actually happened.

I cannot offer a number because this is not how historical methodology works, so you are creating a strawman and busily knocking it down. There is no magic point at which one says "we have the proof that it happened." Each piece of evidence, whatever the type, increases confidence in the claim. You are claiming to be able to hold, with high certainty, facts about the past while you are busily tearing apart the tools we use to achieve any level of confidence about our historical claims. The entire argument is absurd.

Again Carp, if there is no objective number to show a high confidence in the resurrection then the whole exercise is meaningless. There is no bar I could reach. And that is why I said, concerning this point, that it is arbitrary. And the deck it staked.

This is your quandary, Seer. The hole you have dug. Accept the tools of historical methodology and you cannot adequately demonstrate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Alternatively, you can dismiss/discount the tools, and the result is you cannot adequately demonstrate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth.

Again adequate to whom? I have the first century texts, they are consistent, they are historical (referencing persons, places and things). There are no first century writings that counter the Biblical narrative. There is no evidence that these writers tried to deceive. In other words I see no good reason to reject them.

You cannot escape this dilemma. You are holding beliefs you cannot adequately defend. It is entirely your right to do so. Just don't expect them to convince someone who is truly looking at all of this critically. It will only convince those who are ignorant of the process of historical analysis or apply it incorrectly, those who desperately need the "Christian message" for any number of psychological reasons, or those who are simply gullible or unwilling to make the effort to examine a claim.

Oh please, get off your high horse. There is no looking at this objectively if there was you could tell me how many independent attestations it would take to have high confidence in the resurrection. But for those who would like to look into this a bit more, here is a good debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5_nJYSKyk&t=5992s

[carpedm9587]

Well as you agreed these things are often subjective. More on that later.

Well of course since these book are coming the same community, the only first century Christian community we know of. And they are consistent, with no known counter. In other words this community was in the best position to know what actually happened.

And the most likely to be biased by their involvement in the very thing they were reporting and their investment (not unlike yours) in their faith system. That is the problem with sources that are not independent.

Again Carp, if there is no objective number to show a high confidence in the resurrection then the whole exercise is meaningless. There is no bar I could reach. And that is why I said, concerning this point, that it is arbitrary. And the deck it staked.

Another misrepresentation of "arbitrary."

Again adequate to whom?

Serious historians.

I have the first century texts, they are consistent,

..but not independent and not verified by independent sources for many of their claims.

they are historical (referencing persons, places and things).

...and those things that CAN be verified independently are accepted with high confidence. Those that cannot are not.

There are no first century writings that counter the Biblical narrative.

...limiting to first century narratives and positive contradictions is the very definition of "arbitrary." You have no basis for doing so except your whim.

There is no evidence that these writers tried to deceive.

...deception is only one of many possibilities. And I have already acknowledged that there is inadequate evidence to support ANY claims about the words spoken, specific daily activities, or claims of the miraculous.

In other words I see no good reason to reject them.

You also have no reason to accept them, Seer, which was the point. You turn a blind eye to any analysis of your historical methodology that undermines your case, and then claim historical justification. If it works for you - so be it. It doesn't work for anyone serious about looking at the evidence and what it tells us.

Oh please, get off your high horse. There is no looking at this objectively if there was you could tell me how many independent attestations it would take to have high confidence in the resurrection. But for those who would like to look into this a bit more, here is a good debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5_nJYSKyk&t=5992s

And more miss-use of the concept of "arbitrary," and critiques about a methodology based in a misunderstanding of how the methodology works. And arguing by link is still against TWeb policy. Make your own arguments and provide supporting links, or don't

[seer]

Serious historians....

Carp let me quote Bart Ehrman, I do this as an example because what he says is pretty much accepted across the board by your "serious historians."

Yesterday I started to talk about why historians cannot demonstrate that a miracle such as the resurrection happened because doing so requires a set of presuppositions that are not generally shared by historians doing their work. Over the years I’ve thought a lot about this question, and have tried to explain on several occasions why a “miracle” can never be shown, on historical grounds, to have happened — even if it did. Here is a slightly different way of approaching the matter, as I expressed it in an earlier publication on the historical Jesus:

People today typically think of miracles as supernatural violations of natural law, divine interventions into the natural course of events. I should emphasize that this popular understanding does not fit particularly well into modern scientific understandings of “nature,” in that scientists today are less confident in the entire category of natural “law” than they were, say, in the nineteenth century. For this reason, it is probably better not to speak of supernatural violations of “laws,” but to think of miracles as events that contradict the normal workings of nature in such a way as to be virtually beyond belief and to require an acknowledgment that supernatural forces have been at work.

This understanding is itself the major stumbling block for historians who want to talk about miracles, since the historian has no access to “supernatural forces” but only to the public record, that is, to events that can be observed and interpreted by any reasonable person, of whatever religious persuasion. If a “miracle” requires a belief in the supernatural realm, and historians by the very nature of their craft can speak only about events of the natural world, events that are accessible to observers of every kind, how can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order — that is, a miracle — occurred?

https://ehrmanblog.org/historians-pr...racle-members/

So Ehrman's point is that supernatural events are beyond the ability of the historian to discover or confirm. So Carp, what criterion, what historical methods, would the "serious historian" employ to show the likelihood of the resurrection for instance, or any other miracle? How can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order occurred?

[carpedm9587]

Carp let me quote Bart Ehrman, I do this as an example because what he says is pretty much accepted across the board by your "serious historians."

So Ehrman's point is that supernatural events are beyond the ability of the historian to discover or confirm. So Carp, what criterion, what historical methods, would the "serious historian" employ to show the likelihood of the resurrection for instance, or any other miracle? How can they ever certify that an event outside the natural order occurred?

Congratulations...you just made my case.

[seer]

Congratulations...you just made my case.

So there is no historical method to confirm the possibility of miracles. So why do you keep asking me to follow a historical method? And since there isn't such a method, it is a meaningless point that has nothing to do with whether miracles happen or not.

[carpedm9587]

So there is no historical method to confirm the possibility of miracles. So why do you keep asking me to follow a historical method? And since there isn't such a method, it is a meaningless point that has nothing to do with whether miracles happen or not.

My point, Seer, is that you cannot make a case to support your historical claims about many claims made in the NT about Jesus of Nazareth. I have been saying this from the outset. You've been fighting tooth and nail to defend your historical claims, and now you just acknowledged that you have no basis for making historical claims about at least one of the three things I listed: the miracles. You cannot even use historical methodology to support these claims, which leaves you with...nothing.

The claims about the spoken words and day-to-day details likewise fall, but these fall on the basis of actual historical methodology. You cannot support these claims to be "known with confidence" using any of those tools. The best you can do is support:

1) Jesus of Nazareth existed.
2) He was a Judaic preacher in the area known as Isreal
3) He was executed
4) His life became the basis for a collection of religions now called "Christian"
5) The general outlines of his messaging (love before law, turn the other cheek, care for neighbor, depend on my father in heaven, etc.)

The other three things I cited you cannot support was historical claims.

[seer]

My point, Seer, is that you cannot make a case to support your historical claims about many claims made in the NT about Jesus of Nazareth. I have been saying this from the outset. You've been fighting tooth and nail to defend your historical claims, and now you just acknowledged that you have no basis for making historical claims about at least one of the three things I listed: the miracles. You cannot even use historical methodology to support these claims, which leaves you with...nothing.

The claims about the spoken words and day-to-day details likewise fall, but these fall on the basis of actual historical methodology. You cannot support these claims to be "known with confidence" using any of those tools. The best you can do is support:

1) Jesus of Nazareth existed.
2) He was a Judaic preacher in the area known as Isreal
3) He was executed
4) His life became the basis for a collection of religions now called "Christian"
5) The general outlines of his messaging (love before law, turn the other cheek, care for neighbor, depend on my father in heaven, etc.)

The other three things I cited you cannot support was historical claims.

Nonsense Carp, from the get go I have been bringing up the resurrection, since this is the core claim of Christianity. And you have been demanding that I support that with certain historical methods. But those methods do not, and can not, apply, that is why I kept asking you how many independent attestations one would need to have high confidence in the resurrection. Something you could never answer. Nor would any "serious historian" even entertain that idea. That is why I said the deck is stacked. Requiring me to meet a standard that can not apply in the first place is more than disingenuous on your part.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, from the get go I have been bringing up the resurrection, since this is the core claim of Christianity. And you have been demanding that I support that with certain historical methods.

I'm not "demanding" anything, Seer. I made a statement: "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth." I listed my reasons why this is the case. You just provided another reason - that historical methodology cannot be used to make the case for miracles.

But those methods do not, and can not, apply, that is why I kept asking you how many independent attestations one would need to have high confidence in the resurrection.

If they cannot apply, and you have no other tools to work with, then you cannot make the historical case This is not complex, Seer. You appear to be acknowledging my point.

Something you could never answer.

When you ask a meaningless question, which ignores the subject matter you are dealing with, an answer is essentially impossible.

Nor would any "serious historian" even entertain that idea. That is why I said the deck is stacked. Requiring me to meet a standard that can not apply in the first place is more than disingenuous on your part.

That you cannot make the historical case is now a matter of record, Seer. You've made most of the argument yourself. I'm not sure where else this can go. That normal historical methodology cannot be used (for miracles) doesn't support your case - it supports mine.

It seems to me we're done here, but I'll check back if you have other observations.

[seer]

I'm not "demanding" anything, Seer. I made a statement: "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth." I listed my reasons why this is the case. You just provided another reason - that historical methodology cannot be used to make the case for miracles.

But why would you require a process that has nothing to do with the question?

If they cannot apply, and you have no other tools to work with, then you cannot make the historical case This is not complex, Seer. You appear to be acknowledging my point.


When you ask a meaningless question, which ignores the subject matter you are dealing with, an answer is essentially impossible.

That is the point - historical methodology has NOTHING to say on the issue. The question is meaningless and disingenuous.

That you cannot make the historical case is now a matter of record, Seer. You've made most of the argument yourself. I'm not sure where else this can go. That normal historical methodology cannot be used (for miracles) doesn't support your case - it supports mine.

It seems to me we're done here, but I'll check back if you have other observations.

No Carp, it supports what I have been saying, why do you think I kept asking you how many independent attestations one would need to have high confidence in the resurrection? It is apples and oranges. Historical criterion can not apply. It can not confirm or deny - so it is a meaningless vehicle for discovery in this case. So why bring it up?

[carpedm9587]

But why would you require a process that has nothing to do with the question?

If you have an alternate methodology for establishing the probable/possible truth of historical claims, by all means present it. So far, all you have offered is "accept it at face value," which is not a methodology and provides no mechanism that will allow you to eliminate bogus claims. We've already shown that you don't actually do that anyway.

Meanwhile, if you don't have another approach to offer, and you cannot use the existing historical methodology - then we are back to my initial claim: "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth."

That is the point - historical methodology has NOTHING to say on the issue. The question is meaningless and disingenuous.

First, the case can only be made that historical methodology says nothing about miracles. That leaves claims about spoken words and day-to-day activities that should be amenable to historical analysis insofar as they do not defy any known "laws of nature."

Second, if you do not have a methodology for determining the truth of a historical claim, then we're back to my original statement: "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth."

No Carp, it supports what I have been saying, why do you think I kept asking you how many independent attestations one would need to have high confidence in the resurrection? It is apples and oranges. Historical criterion can not apply. It can not confirm or deny - so it is a meaningless vehicle for discovery in this case. So why bring it up?

See above.

At this point, I think we have more than adequately demonstrated that you cannot support the historical claims you are making about Jesus of Nazareth, beyond the few facts I noted that we can confirm with reasonable certainty.

[seer]

If you have an alternate methodology for establishing the probable/possible truth of historical claims, by all means present it. So far, all you have offered is "accept it at face value," which is not a methodology and provides no mechanism that will allow you to eliminate bogus claims. We've already shown that you don't actually do that anyway.

Meanwhile, if you don't have another approach to offer, and you cannot use the existing historical methodology - then we are back to my initial claim: "Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he is making about Jesus of Nazareth."

OK, so it is some kind of demerit, or fault on my end because I can't apply a methodology that doesn't apply? Are you listening to yourself Carp?