If I picked up the bible, and I knew absolute nothing about it, I'd assume it was a fictional story book, vaguely based around some historic events.

Why should I think differently? Why I should I even think the intention of the authors is to be taken as non-fiction? Just because we don't know who they are, doesn't mean we can just decide for them why they wrote it. We can only speculate as to the real reasons. Even Christians would be sceptical about the accuracy and intentions of the authors if it were any other book involving gods.

I wish I could somehow set it up so that Christians could, for one day, lose all memory of anything to do with Christianity, and then present them with the bible. What would they make of it? Would they come to the conclusions they hold now, or would they dismiss it as fiction, delusion or propaganda? I'd bet a weeks worth of slop on the latter being almost always the case.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: If I picked up the bible, and I knew absolute nothing about it, I'd assume it was a fictional story book, vaguely based around some historic events.

Why should I think differently? Why I should I even think the intention of the authors is to be taken as non-fiction? Just because we don't know who they are, doesn't mean we can just decide for them why they wrote it. We can only speculate as to the real reasons. Even Christians would be sceptical about the accuracy and intentions of the authors if it were any other book involving gods.

It is hard to know what, exactly, the intentions are of writers, particularly ancient ones whose view of the world was radically different from ours.  Early writers seem to have a very loose grasp on the concept of history, and have a hard time sticking to facts.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: I wish I could somehow set it up so that Christians could, for one day, lose all memory of anything to do with Christianity, and then present them with the bible. What would they make of it? Would they come to the conclusions they hold now, or would they dismiss it as fiction, delusion or propaganda? I'd bet a weeks worth of slop on the latter being almost always the case.

That is wishing for magic, so it isn't going to happen.

There is, though, this interesting lesson to learn from it.  How do you know that your most basic beliefs are not equally nonsensical?  As billions of religionists prove, one can feel absolutely certain of ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.  The inability to think otherwise is no indication that one is not believing utter rubbish.

Pyrrho: Sure, I absolutely don't know that my most basic beliefs aren't rubbish. That is why I'm happy to have any of them challenged, and I'd never claim I'm certain about them. I am only working with what I have concluded as most likely given my current information. I don't even have a firm belief that what I'm experiencing is anything other than an induced delusion, or a dream. Anything like that. I just play along like it's "real", whatever that means, because I have no other option.

I watched a video by Richard Carrier (I think) where he describes the style of writing in the gospels. He says it is exactly what you would expect from mythmaking/storytelling. It's not written as a historical record, but uses all sorts of literary devices as you would expect to see in a story or a poem. So to believe they happened to actually be writing the truth while doing it "in the club style" is breaking credulity to breaking point. Even if I had any reason to think they were writing anything true in the first place. I'll try and find the video if anyone is interested.

---

Edit: Forget it. Why do I do this to myself. Haha.

(June 1, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 31, 2015 at 11:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Actually, yes, it is. If the authors are unknown, it damages the credibility of what is supposed to be an eye-witness account. 

Uh...no. All that matters is that we determine whether the authors wrote early, had access to inside information, desired to write accurate history and did so. If that was done by an actual apostle, then so much the better.

The fact that the writers are unknown is one of a list of reasons why most historians do not think the authors either were or had access to eyewitness. If they were they would have attempted to add veracity to their books by telling you they were. Instead: they wrote in a language other than the languages most of the events would have taken place in; wrote at least thirty years after the events they describe (news flash that's not early); are literate when the bulk of the participants and spectators would not have been; frequently contradict each other and what we know of history from other sources.

(June 1, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 31, 2015 at 11:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: it is indisputable that if the gospels can be shown to be written by eyewitnesses or by men who had access to eyewitnesses, the argument for the reliability of the New Testament as a whole is greatly advanced.

Actually, no. Eye-witness testimony is the weakest evidence in a court of law and of no value whatsoever in science. Furthermore, this statement conflates eye-witness testimony with hearsay testimony (reporting what someone else heard or saw), the latter being totally inadmissible in a court of law. 


So, which is it, DP?

Is it really critical that the gospels be written by an eye-witness as you first said? Or is it that "Eye-witness testimony is the weakest evidence" as you have just said?

If eye-witness testimony is the weakest, then it shouldn't really matter who those weak witnesses were, should it?

But this is another example of you trying to have it both ways.

Now to be fair, I gave you quite a bit of time when I responded - no, destroyed - your "Occam's Razor" post(s).

You had your chance. Now, you need to let the other children have a turn.

Now you are just being silly.

Eyewitness testimony is indeed a very weak form of evidence in comparison with physical or circumstantial evidence. But it is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers. That ought to be obvious. And that is what we have in the gospels.

What might we expect to read HAD the Gospel writers been credible eyewitnesses?

- The author going to great lengths to document precisely when and where each event occurred
- names of everyone who was present so as to encourage the reader to investigate matters for his or her self
- details of the various reactions such genuine miracles would have evoked
- questions and answers as to the different hypotheses of what was witnessed
- references to other specific written accounts of the same events
- delineation as to when the author was personally present at an event and when he is relating what others have told him, including who those others were, what relation to the event they have, and why they are to be trusted

I'm sure there could be much more added to this preliminary list, but being that the materials we possess completely fail this basic test of moderate skepticism and credibility that any actual eyewitness would display, it's pretty obvious that the authors were no more genuine in their attempts to convey accurate history than modern-day Christians like Randy are in their efforts to read them as such.

(June 1, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Randy......you wrote that.....not DP......did you not read your copy paste or do you not remember your own words?  #548 buddy........It's -your opinion- that eyewitness testimony is critical.

I just reviewed post #548, and I don't see the word "critical" anywhere in the post. Would you be kind enough to quote exactly what I said that you are taking issue with?

Quote:You did manage to get it right, though, by the end - when it comes to eye witness testimony, it doesn't matter who's giving it - it's unreliable regardless.

Wrong. And this is something that DP hasn't considered, apparently. He DOESN'T have eye-witnesses standing in his bedroom trying to tell him about the resurrection...that's what he calls the "weakest form of evidence". Instead, he has TRANSCRIPTS of eye-witness testimony that cannot change or lie...they are locked forever thus enabling scholars to examine them from all sorts of angles...to determine if the story changed through the passage of centuries, etc. The gospels are, therefore, just the kind of cold-case evidence that Detective J. Warner Wallace prefers to work with when convicting murderers of crimes they committed long ago. It was his investigation of the gospels AS COLD-CASE EVIDENCE that led the street-wise cop to abandon atheism and become a Christian.

Quote:Are you looking to sue us?

Just looking to provide answers to those who are lurking in the forum and trying to decide if Christianity is true.

Who knows? Maybe I'll be in heaven one day and someone will walk up to me and say, "You don't know me, but I was a member of the Atheist Forums when you were posting there..."

That will be a joyful meeting.

---

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: If I picked up the bible, and I knew absolute nothing about it, I'd assume it was a fictional story book, vaguely based around some historic events.

Which is why Jesus formed a Church before writing the book. An inerrant book without an infallible Church is not much use to anyone.

Quote:Why should I think differently? Why I should I even think the intention of the authors is to be taken as non-fiction? Just because we don't know who they are, doesn't mean we can just decide for them why they wrote it. We can only speculate as to the real reasons. Even Christians would be sceptical about the accuracy and intentions of the authors if it were any other book involving gods.

The book was written by the Church for the Church. It was never intended to be a brochure for perspective members. It's not even terribly complete in terms of theology (the word trinity never appears for example).

Quote:I wish I could somehow set it up so that Christians could, for one day, lose all memory of anything to do with Christianity, and then present them with the bible. What would they make of it? Would they come to the conclusions they hold now, or would they dismiss it as fiction, delusion or propaganda? I'd bet a weeks worth of slop on the latter being almost always the case.

Rob, you forget that the Christian is filled with and led by the Holy Spirit. If we lost all memory of the Bible, and God wanted us to get back into it, He would lead us back to it.

---

(June 2, 2015 at 8:26 am)Pyrrho Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: If I picked up the bible, and I knew absolute nothing about it, I'd assume it was a fictional story book, vaguely based around some historic events.

Why should I think differently? Why I should I even think the intention of the authors is to be taken as non-fiction? Just because we don't know who they are, doesn't mean we can just decide for them why they wrote it. We can only speculate as to the real reasons. Even Christians would be sceptical about the accuracy and intentions of the authors if it were any other book involving gods.

It is hard to know what, exactly, the intentions are of writers, particularly ancient ones whose view of the world was radically different from ours.  Early writers seem to have a very loose grasp on the concept of history, and have a hard time sticking to facts.

Are we could simply read what they said such as:

Luke 1:3-4
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theoph′ilus,[b] 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 am)robvalue Wrote: I wish I could somehow set it up so that Christians could, for one day, lose all memory of anything to do with Christianity, and then present them with the bible. What would they make of it? Would they come to the conclusions they hold now, or would they dismiss it as fiction, delusion or propaganda? I'd bet a weeks worth of slop on the latter being almost always the case.

That is wishing for magic, so it isn't going to happen.

There is, though, this interesting lesson to learn from it.  How do you know that your most basic beliefs are not equally nonsensical?[/quote]

He has a point, Rob. Everything you believe could be rubbish. It might pay to set aside a few preconceived ideas and think objectively.

The Gospel of Luke would be a great place to begin your quest.

---

(June 2, 2015 at 10:25 am)Jenny A Wrote: Now you are just being silly.

Eyewitness testimony is indeed a very weak form of evidence in comparison with physical or circumstantial evidence.  But it is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers.  That ought to be obvious.   And that is what we have in the gospels.

I'm guessing you didn't read the OP very carefully - or my follow-up regarding the traditional authorship.

(June 2, 2015 at 9:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I just reviewed post #548, and I don't see the word "critical" anywhere in the post. Would you be kind enough to quote exactly what I said that you are taking issue with?

The level of dishonesty you'll stoop to for christ is impressive. :golfclap:

-something tells me, though, he doesn't need your kind of "help".

(June 2, 2015 at 9:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 10:25 am)Jenny A Wrote: Now you are just being silly.

Eyewitness testimony is indeed a very weak form of evidence in comparison with physical or circumstantial evidence.  But it is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers.  That ought to be obvious.   And that is what we have in the gospels.

I'm guessing you didn't read the OP very carefully - or my follow-up regarding the traditional authorship.  

You would be guessing wrong.  Even most Christian scholars have long since admitted the the traditional authorship has no basis in fact.  Your posts have not been remotely persuasive as the to authorship of the gospels.

But and I repeat what ought to be obvious to you is that eyewitness testimony "is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers."

(June 2, 2015 at 9:56 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: ...

(June 2, 2015 at 8:26 am)Pyrrho Wrote: It is hard to know what, exactly, the intentions are of writers, particularly ancient ones whose view of the world was radically different from ours.  Early writers seem to have a very loose grasp on the concept of history, and have a hard time sticking to facts.

Are we could simply read what they said such as:

Luke 1:3-4
it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theoph′ilus,[b] 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

...

When trying to evaluate a book, trusting the truth of what is in it is just plain stupid.  It is getting the cart before the horse (if you will pardon the homely expression).  If you read a book, in which the author claims that it is all pure truth, that is absolutely no reason to believe it is true at all.

What you are doing is essentially begging the question.  You are ASSUMING that the book is true, and so when it says that it is for a particular purpose, you accept it as fact.  But if the book is not true, then trusting what it says it is, is giving you false ideas.

The trouble with this entire thread is, you are not going into the matter with an open mind, unbiassed, but have already decided that it is true, and so your starting point has already assumed the conclusion that you are trying to prove.

"The Historical Reliability of the New Testament"


Very little