Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[carpedm9587]

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?

No - it's a confirmation of what I have said from the outset: you cannot adequately substantiate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. That has always been my statement, despite your repeated attempts to turn it into something else. So where we sit now is here:

1) You have eliminated standard historical methodology as a way to support historical claims concerning miracles.
2) You have not shown that it can be used to support historical claims about spoken words and day-to-day activities (i.e., important elements are missing).
3) You have offered only "accept them at face value" as an alternative for supporting historical claims about any of these things, which has been shown to be not viable and you don't use it for anything else.
4) You are left, therefore, with no means for establishing the truth of your historical clams about Jesus of Nazareth with respect to miracles, spoken words, and day-to-day activities.

Have I missed something? It seems to me we are at QED - unless you have another methodology to explore?

[seer]

No - it's a confirmation of what I have said from the outset: you cannot adequately substantiate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. That has always been my statement, despite your repeated attempts to turn it into something else. So where we sit now is here:

1) You have eliminated standard historical methodology as a way to support historical claims concerning miracles.
2) You have not shown that it can be used to support historical claims about spoken words and day-to-day activities (i.e., important elements are missing).
3) You have offered only "accept them at face value" as an alternative for supporting historical claims about any of these things, which has been shown to be not viable and you don't use it for anything else.
4) You are left, therefore, with no means for establishing the truth of your historical clams about Jesus of Nazareth with respect to miracles, spoken words, and day-to-day activities.

Have I missed something? It seems to me we are at QED - unless you have another methodology to explore?

Carp can historical methodology be applied to supernatural events like the resurrection or not?

[carpedm9587]

Carp can historical methodology be applied to supernatural events like the resurrection or not?

That is point #1, Seer. I'm not sure why you are asking. The answer is no. And given that this is the only tool available for analyzing and assessing historical claims, you therefore have no means for adequately supporting your historical claims about miraculous events - nor the spoken words - nor the day-to-day activities. That has been my point from the outset.

Like I said, you made the point nicely. Are we done here?

[seer]

That is point #1, Seer. I'm not sure why you are asking. The answer is no. And given that this is the only tool available for analyzing and assessing historical claims, you therefore have no means for adequately supporting your historical claims about miraculous events - nor the spoken words - nor the day-to-day activities. That has been my point from the outset.

Like I said, you made the point nicely. Are we done here?

No, you are being disingenuous. If you can't use historical methodology to access the supernatural then not meeting that criterion is a meaningless request. It has no bearing, at all, on the subject.

[carpedm9587]

No, you are being disingenuous. If you can't use historical methodology to access the supernatural then not meeting that criterion is a meaningless request. It has no bearing, at all, on the subject.

Seer - I don't care if you use classic historical methodology or "Methodology X." At the end of the day, if you have no means for examining the truth of your historical claims - then you have no means of defending them. THAT has been my point from the outset. The focus went to classic historical methodology because, frankly, it's the only means I know of for analyzing historical claims. The fact that it does not apply to some of your claims is not my problem. Indeed, the fact that it does not apply to those claims MAKES my case with respect to those claims.

Isn't it about time that you just acknowledge that this is the inescapable reality? You seem to be avoiding it pretty seriously. You are making historical claims (i.e., claims about something that happened in the past) with absolutely no mechanism for showing them to be true (i.e., the miracles) and for those where you DO have a mechanism (e.g., spoken words, day-to-day activities), inadequate evidence to substantiate the claims. You cannot extricate yourself from this reality, AFAICT. Indeed, you yourself were the one who raised one of the points that made the case. I'm not sure why you are now resorting to a variation of "it's not fair." Fairness has nothing to do with it. It is what it is. And disingenuity has nothing to do with it either.

The fact is - you cannot substantiate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth with respect to miracles, spoken words, and day-to-day activities. If you disagree with this statement, then all you need to do is show a mechanism as well as the associated evidence, for analyzing and defending the truth of your historical claims. If you can't, then my statement is true.

[Tassman]

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?

There is NO means to "certify" that a miracle occurred - historically or scientifically. Belief in miracles occurring can only be a leap of faith, no more than that. This is Ehrmans' point.

[Tassman]

But as Ehrman said that is not unexpected or unusual.

Not unexpected for a mere mortal MAN, as Ehrman believes Jesus to have been. But somewhat unexpected for a miracle-working god/man not to have rated a mention. One who, according to biblical accounts (and ONLY biblical accounts), was a highly visible figure – what with his cleansing of the temple, triumphal entry into Jerusalem and stupendous events at his crucifixion such as the darkness, the temple veil, earthquake and corpses wandering around etc. etc. etc.

[seer]

Seer - I don't care if you use classic historical methodology or "Methodology X." At the end of the day, if you have no means for examining the truth of your historical claims - then you have no means of defending them. THAT has been my point from the outset. The focus went to classic historical methodology because, frankly, it's the only means I know of for analyzing historical claims. The fact that it does not apply to some of your claims is not my problem. Indeed, the fact that it does not apply to those claims MAKES my case with respect to those claims.

Isn't it about time that you just acknowledge that this is the inescapable reality? You seem to be avoiding it pretty seriously. You are making historical claims (i.e., claims about something that happened in the past) with absolutely no mechanism for showing them to be true (i.e., the miracles) and for those where you DO have a mechanism (e.g., spoken words, day-to-day activities), inadequate evidence to substantiate the claims. You cannot extricate yourself from this reality, AFAICT. Indeed, you yourself were the one who raised one of the points that made the case. I'm not sure why you are now resorting to a variation of "it's not fair." Fairness has nothing to do with it. It is what it is. And disingenuity has nothing to do with it either.

The fact is - you cannot substantiate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth with respect to miracles, spoken words, and day-to-day activities. If you disagree with this statement, then all you need to do is show a mechanism as well as the associated evidence, for analyzing and defending the truth of your historical claims. If you can't, then my statement is true.

We know these facts: The early Christians believed Jesus was the Son of God, a miracle worker, and rose from the grave (these facts can be gleaned using standard historical methods). So the question is, what best explains these beliefs. I see three possibilities:

1. A legend grew up within 20 years while the original disciples and Apostles were still in play.

2. The original disciples and Apostles colluded to lie.

3. It was true, Christ was a miracle worker, rose from the dead thereby confirming his claim to Sonship.

This is a philosophical question: Inference to the Best Explanation

[seer]

Belief in miracles occurring can only be a leap of faith, no more than that. This is Ehrmans' point.

It is a leap of faith to assume that you are not merely a character in my nightmare...

[carpedm9587]

This part of your post appears to be my own words...

Isn't it about time that you just acknowledge that this is the inescapable reality? You seem to be avoiding it pretty seriously. You are making historical claims (i.e., claims about something that happened in the past) with absolutely no mechanism for showing them to be true (i.e., the miracles) and for those where you DO have a mechanism (e.g., spoken words, day-to-day activities), inadequate evidence to substantiate the claims. You cannot extricate yourself from this reality, AFAICT. Indeed, you yourself were the one who raised one of the points that made the case. I'm not sure why you are now resorting to a variation of "it's not fair." Fairness has nothing to do with it. It is what it is. And disingenuity has nothing to do with it either.

The fact is - you cannot substantiate your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth with respect to miracles, spoken words, and day-to-day activities. If you disagree with this statement, then all you need to do is show a mechanism as well as the associated evidence, for analyzing and defending the truth of your historical claims. If you can't, then my statement is true.

We know these facts: The early Christians believed Jesus was the Son of God, a miracle worker, and rose from the grave.

Yes - they did.

So the question is what best explains these beliefs. I see three possibilities:

1. A legend grew up within 20 years while the original disciples and Apostles were still in play.

2. The original disciples and Apostles colluded to lie.

3. It was true, Christ was a miracle worker, rose from the dead thereby confirming his claim to Sonship.

Basically, the options are: they were mistaken, they were misled, they were right. The three scenarios you describe above are examples of these, especially the first two. There are several ways they could have become mistaken. There are several ways they could have been misled. There are scenarios that involve the blending of the two. But 3) is useless to you: you have stripped yourself of any methodology for assessing its truth value or probability. The only thing you have is "if these things happened to you, wouldn't you remember?"

But you have many problems there. You don't have the recountings of the eyewitnesses - you have the recountings of the listeners to the eyewitnesses (at best). You know it is possible the eyewitnesses were still alive at the time of writing, but you don't know which eyewitnesses or what they eyewitnessed.

Defense Attorney: I would like to put forward this set of documents to attest to the events in question.
Judge: Do we know who wrote them?
Defense Attorney: Well, not exactly, but we know they were present in the house at the time of the event.
Judge: How do we know they are trustworthy? Have they written other things?
Defense Attorney: Well, a couple of them wrote several of these documents.
Judge: Did they witness the events?
Defense Attorney: Well, no, but they say others in the house witnessed the events
Judge: Do we know who these witnesses are?
Defense Attorney: Not really
Judge: And if these documenters were in the same house, doesn't that mean they were friends of the person in question?
Defense Attorney: Yes, sir, they were.
Judge: So how do we know they were impartially relating the events in question?
Defense Attorney: Yes, sir, they are really nice guys!
Judge: How do we know they actually spoke to these others and actually correctly documented what they said?
Defense Attorney: Well, umm, they say they do?
Judge: These documents appear to be dated from last week. Aren't we talking about events that happened over 20 years ago?
Defense Attorney: Yes, your honor.
Judge: Yet these documents have extensive quotes of exact words spoken, incredible details of daily life, and some amazingly fantastical claims.
Defense Attorney: Yes, your honor.
Judge: And we're supposed to believe that these hearsay witnesses talking to unidentified witnesses accurately captured the exact words and activities of daily living of the person in question? Really?
Defense Attorney: Well, umm, we'd kind of like you to.
Judge: Can you point me to even one other instance were such a feat has occurred and been shown to be true?
Defense Attorney: Well...how about the ancient Roman and Greek histories?
Judge: Have you ever read those? You understand, don't you, that those histories deal with large scale events and not detailed verbal quotes and the minutiae of daily living. They also don't make any of these fantastical claims.
Defense Attorney: Well, still..
Judge: Are these the original documents as written by these supposed witnesses to the witnesses?
Defense Attorney: No.
Judge: Where are those?
Defense Attorney: We don't have them - but that's to be expected - after all, it's been such a long time.
Judge: What exactly do you have?
Defense Attorney: We have these (hands over large bag of scraps from various sources and places gathered over a period of years)
Judge: OK, let me get this right - we're going to accept as definitively true a set of events, some of which are fantastical and some of which are incredibly detailed, on the basis of the word of unknown authors who spoke to unknown witnesses (with whom they were probably friends) about events that preceded the documentation thereof by at least 20 years and for which we have none of he original writings?
Defense Attorney: (gulping) We are really, really hoping for that, your honor.
Judge:

And you consider 3) the Inference to the best explanation?

Seer, we have examples of legends growing up around people who are still alive! Just look at your history of the old west. Look at the history of Mormonism. Legends grow under a wide variety of circumstances, and even with the participation of primaries. 1) with some elements of 2) is (by far) a more likely situation than 3).

[seer]

Yes - they did.



Basically, the options are: they were mistaken, they were misled, they were right. The three scenarios you describe above are examples of these, especially the first two. There are several ways they could have become mistaken. There are several ways they could have been misled. There are scenarios that involve the blending of the two. But 3) is useless to you: you have stripped yourself of any methodology for assessing its truth value or probability. The only thing you have is "if these things happened to you, wouldn't you remember?"

But you have many problems there. You don't have the recountings of the eyewitnesses - you have the recountings of the listeners to the eyewitnesses (at best). You know it is possible the eyewitnesses were still alive at the time of writing, but you don't know which eyewitnesses or what they eyewitnessed.


And you consider 3) the Inference to the best explanation?

Seer, we have examples of legends growing up around people who are still alive! Just look at your history of the old west. Look at the history of Mormonism. Legends grow under a wide variety of circumstances, and even with the participation of primaries. 1) with some elements of 2) is (by far) a more likely situation than 3).

You don't have legends growing up where the principles are still available. Unless they are intentionally deceiving. And yes Carp, these are things that one will not misremember, whether you want to admit it or not. And yes in many cases we do know who the eyewitness were. Peter, John, James the brother of Christ the other Apostles (save Judas) and a large number of the five hundred witnesses as referenced in the book of Acts, the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul. His earliest Epistles BTW.

[carpedm9587]

You don't have legends growing up where the principles are still available. Unless they are intentionally deceiving.

Which you cannot rule out. And yes - legends do start with principals still alive. You are assuming, Seer, that the principals were everywhere. The early Christian community was widely dispersed, and was already showing signs of growing stories and trends. Even the epistles constantly remonstrate with communities for various things.

And yes Carp, these are things that one will not misremember, whether you want to admit it or not.

Again, an assumption on your part that flies in the face of how we know memory works. You need this assumption, Seer, because without it, your case falls apart.

And yes in many cases we do know who the eyewitness were. Peter, John, James the brother of Christ the other Apostles (save Judas) and a large number of the five hundred witnesses as referenced in the book of Acts, the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul. His earliest Epistles BTW.

We know who the writers claim they were, and we have a handful of names. You have proximity. You do not have connectivity. And you have "a big group." Luke and Acts date to at least 30-40 years after the events reported, so the time gap is even larger.

Sorry, Seer - you are piling assumption on top of assumption - to make a case for something you have already acknowledged historical methodology cannot confirm, as well as levels of detail that are unprecedented in the historical record AFAIK. You are engaging in special pleading. For the life of Jesus of Nazareth, we can safely say he lived, he was executed, he preached, he is the person on whom a new cult (which eventually became a full religion and then a collection of religions) was formed.

The rest is conjecture built on assumption.

[seer]

Which you cannot rule out. And yes - legends do start with principals still alive. You are assuming, Seer, that the principals were everywhere. The early Christian community was widely dispersed, and was already showing signs of growing stories and trends. Even the epistles constantly remonstrate with communities for various things.

Except on the core questions, the very things that made Christ unique, one can not demonstrate that these claims rose from legend. We do not find any early Christian community (first century) that disagree with my three claims. Unless you know of one?

Again, an assumption on your part that flies in the face of how we know memory works. You need this assumption, Seer, because without it, your case falls apart.

Again Carp, this is not like remembering a mundane fact like who got to the empty tomb first. These specific three claims are unique, and would stand out. Like I said I can remember with perfect recall what everyone of my loved ones died of going back 50 years (because they stood out from the mundane). And I KNOW you can too. So don't disassemble, it is not honest.

We know who the writers claim they were, and we have a handful of names. You have proximity. You do not have connectivity. And you have "a big group." Luke and Acts date to at least 30-40 years after the events reported, so the time gap is even larger.

What is your point? Paul's earliest letters are 20 years later, with Luke and Acts and the other Gospels (Save John) and most Epistles the original Apostles and disciples are still in play. And what do you mean we don't have connectivity? Paul and Luke were not companions of the original Apostles and disciples?

Sorry, Seer - you are piling assumption on top of assumption - to make a case for something you have already acknowledged historical methodology cannot confirm, as well as levels of detail that are unprecedented in the historical record AFAIK. You are engaging in special pleading. For the life of Jesus of Nazareth, we can safely say he lived, he was executed, he preached, he is the person on whom a new cult (which eventually became a full religion and then a collection of religions) was formed.

The rest is conjecture built on assumption.

More BS, I have not assumed anything. I'm am relating what the actual texts state. You are assuming legend with out one lick back up, you are assuming a possible different understanding by first century Christians without reason.

[carpedm9587]

Except on the core questions, the very things that made Christ unique, one can not demonstrate that these claims rose from legend. We do not find any early Christian community (first century) that disagree with my three claims. Unless you know of one?

Seer, please try to stay with the arguments I am actually making - and not the ones you want me to make so you can refute. I didn't say I could demonstrate that the legends arose. I'm saying that you cannot demonstrate they didn't. All you can do is assume it. You cannot eliminate the possibility of them arising or even make a coherent statement about their probability.

Again Carp, this is not like remembering a mundane fact like who got to the empty tomb first. These specific three claims are unique, and would stand out. Like I said I can remember with perfect recall what everyone of my loved ones died of going back 50 years (because they stood out from the mundane). And I KNOW you can too. So don't disassemble, it is not honest.

Again - flies in the face of what we know about memory. You cannot show that their memory was accurate, that it was correctly documented, or that the documenters were even in proximity to the eyewitnesses. You have no way of knowing how many people were between the eyewitnesses and documenters. You are piling assumption on top of assumption.

What is your point? Paul's earliest letters are 20 years later, with Luke and Acts and the other Gospels (Save John) and most Epistles the original Apostles and disciples are still in play. And what do you mean we don't have connectivity? Paul and Luke were not companions of the original Apostles and disciples?

So you are arguing for minute details like exact words spoken and minutiae of daily living, and even the events of Jesus birth and young life that even the eyewitnesses could not have been present for. Again, assumption piled on assumption.

More BS, I have not assumed anything. I'm am relating what the actual texts state. You are assuming legend with out one lick back up, you are assuming a possible different understanding by first century Christians without reason.

And your assumptions are about how that information came to be in the texts and whether or not it accurately reflects "what actually happened." You cannot make the case for any of this. Most of the elements of basic historical methodology are not present, and for the miracle claims, you have acknowledged they don't even apply.

Were back to: Seer cannot substantiate his historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth, except you are certainly not going to acknowledge that - despite having actually made the argument yourself!

[seer]

Seer, please try to stay with the arguments I am actually making - and not the ones you want me to make so you can refute. I didn't say I could demonstrate that the legends arose. I'm saying that you cannot demonstrate they didn't. All you can do is assume it. You cannot eliminate the possibility of them arising or even make a coherent statement about their probability.

Except there is zero evidence that legends did arise. So I see no reason why my position is not justified. Do you?

Again - flies in the face of what we know about memory. You cannot show that their memory was accurate, that it was correctly documented, or that the documenters were even in proximity to the eyewitnesses. You have no way of knowing how many people were between the eyewitnesses and documenters. You are piling assumption on top of assumption.

You are just being dense now. The texts do say that the writers were in proximity to the eyewitnesses. Do you have evidence that they weren't? So Carp, did a love one of yours die 20-30 years ago? Do you remember what they died of or did you forget?

So you are arguing for minute details like exact words spoken and minutiae of daily living, and even the events of Jesus birth and young life that even the eyewitnesses could not have been present for. Again, assumption piled on assumption.

What are you talking about. Luke knew Jesus' mother, Acts chapter one. And again, I'm speaking here of three specific unique claims. Christ as the Son of God, miracle worker, who came back from the dead.

And your assumptions are about how that information came to be in the texts and whether or not it accurately reflects "what actually happened." You cannot make the case for any of this. Most of the elements of basic historical methodology are not present, and for the miracle claims, you have acknowledged they don't even apply.

What are you even talking about? Historical methodology does apply for the letters of Paul, the Gospels and Acts. And the majority of scholars do hold that Paul wrote the first seven of his letters, two more are contended, but possible. They pass your historical criterion. That criterion can not apply to miracles however.

Were back to: Seer cannot substantiate his historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth, except you are certainly not going to acknowledge that - despite having actually made the argument yourself!

No we are back to Carp having no good reason to deny what is written in the New Testament, beside personal bias.