Why be good?

[IATIA]

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning that you've embarked on works just as well for the Greek gods, the Roman gods, Mithra, Allah, Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, Amun Ra, Isis, Thor...

And I posted a similar statement to both Randy and Tim which was ignored by both. I guess it is too damaging to their argument to address.

[Randy Carson]

And your credentials as a professional historian are...?

My degree from the University of Vienna.

And as for your Luke quote, that's standard procedure for the time in question. It's basically a plea for being taken seriously.

Bachelor's, Master's, or PhD?

Published in peer-reviewed journals? Any books you've written? Or how about an online article or two?

TimOneill is a forum member and a historian by training (though not by profession), and people disrespect him here all the time.

So, having a history degree is not much by itself. I'm gonna need a little more than that before I know I'm talking to a real historian.

You do understand that, I hope. Nothing personal.

---

Could the evidence and statements of the authors of the gospels be corroborated if one were so inclined as to put forth the time and effort?

Certainly. But corroborating a story requires primary sources, and, most importantly, not starting out with the conclusion that that they're real.

You Christians aren't so good at that last part. 

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning that you've embarked on works just as well for the Greek gods, the Roman gods, Mithra, Allah, Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, Amun Ra, Isis, Thor...

Mike-

What you're saying would be true of people who grew up in Christian homes, etc.

But there are countless examples of people who were atheists for most of their adult lives...famous atheists even...who came to a theist or deist point of view. Some of them did so after specifically setting out to prove that the Bible is not true or reliable, etc.

Now, if you REALLY want to go god by god through the list you've posted, I'm not the guy to do that with. But other Christians have worked through all of them in mind-numbing detail. It's slow going...but each of these gods has been investigated carefully and the parallels to Jesus are simply overblown.

[abaris]

So, having a history degree is not much by itself.

Other than actualy knowing of what I am talking about - as opposed to some others.

---

But there are countless examples of people who were atheists for most of their adult lives...famous atheists even...who came to a theist or deist point of view. Some of them did so after specifically setting out to prove that the Bible is not true or reliable, etc.

But now you got me curious. Let's have the list. Contemporary prominent atheists please, since in my not to believed expertise as a historian, earlier centuries didn't make that clear distinction between theism, deism and atheism, which is quite understandable since science had much less answers than today. Countless, you say - so there should at least be some memorable persons on that list.

[Crossless2.0]

So, having a history degree is not much by itself.

Other than actualy knowing of what I am talking about - as opposed to some others.

---

But there are countless examples of people who were atheists for most of their adult lives...famous atheists even...who came to a theist or deist point of view. Some of them did so after specifically setting out to prove that the Bible is not true or reliable, etc.

But now you got me curious. Let's have the list. Contemporary prominent atheists please, since in my not to believed expertise as a historian, earlier centuries didn't make that clear distinction between theism, deism and atheism, which is quite understandable since science had much less answers than today. Countless, you say - so there should at least be some memorable persons on that list.

Let me guess:  Anthony Flew (in his sad dotage) and that 'journalist' of undisputed integrity, Lee Strobel?

Pardon me while I go cackle in the corner.

[Randy Carson]

Could the evidence and statements of the authors of the gospels be corroborated if one were so inclined as to put forth the time and effort?

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning that you've embarked on works just as well for the Greek gods, the Roman gods, Mithra, Allah, Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, Amun Ra, Isis, Thor...

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning that you've embarked on works just as well for the Greek gods, the Roman gods, Mithra, Allah, Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, Amun Ra, Isis, Thor...

And I posted a similar statement to both Randy and Tim which was ignored by both.  I guess it is too damaging to their argument to address.  

You guys are aware that Tim O'Neill, an atheist member of this forum and historian by training (Master's) has written extensively against the Jesus Mythers, like Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald, right?

And that Bart Ehrman also agrees that Jesus was a real person?

But hey, if you feel that it would be beneficial to examine each and every one of the gods to determine whether one or more of them have some legitimate claims, even that has to be better than simply denying that no God exists at all simply because these have been discarded. Folks who HAVE undertaken such studies have come to the conclusions that Jesus, a a claimant, is in a class all His own.

[abaris]

And that Bart Ehrman also agrees that Jesus was a real person?

It's only that Bart Ehrman is a theologian.

[Esquilax]

It's kinda convenient to say that you had "suspected" the direction my line of questioning was leading AFTER the fact. But I do appreciate you letting everything play all the way out to the end. (If you really knew the cards I was playing, you might have given your friends a "heads up" by PM, though.) I won't call you a liar...let's just say you were "lax" in exposing of my intent.

I had no intention of spoiling things, I figured I'd let it play out as it were, hoping that you had something a little better than what you gave. It was the way you phrased your questions that gave you away, though, you consistent reliance on whether one should accept the accounts being offered on their own. You're not nearly as subtle as you think you are.

That's an interesting conclusion. Why do you think I have abandoned the reliability thread when we're here discussing the reliability of the authors in another thread. Obviously, it's not a concept I have abandoned; it's more like I've doubled-down, actually. Here, let's just say you were "lax" in making that connection between the threads.

I didn't say abandoned, I said ignored; for all your "lax" jokes here (you're hardly the first person to make those, either) you certainly don't seem to be paying a whole lot of attention to what I'm saying. The reliability thread is full of exactly the reasons why one should discount the gospels as entirely accurate testimony, and yet you're making the same argument that they're reliable here; hence, you are ignoring whatever anyone said in that thread for your own convenience.

Oh? To me, they are just login names and avatars...I can't confirm their identities. I'm not likely to meet any of them in person.

But you could meet them, if you were curious enough to confirm their claims further. It's actually possible to do so, unlike, say, a cadre of anonymous dead men. The fact that you aren't likely to meet any of them is testament to your investigative laziness, not some similarity between the two sets of claims. The blame lies with you.

Additionally, when you pressed them, what happened? You got additional details, documentary records and so on; further investigation was not only possible, it led to positive results. None of this is true for the gospel authors, and in fact further investigation would be next to impossible even if they were still alive, since they are, as I keep saying, anonymous.

And while there are people in the forum who CLAIM to have met them in person there are still problems:

1. Why should I believe anything that CD, Steel and Parkers (the boys) have said about their near-death experiences or speaking with others who had NDE's?

Because they can, should you decide to investigate further, furnish you with better details. If you were to come to my house, for example, you would find me and my wife there; that's one huge point at which we have the advantage over the gospel authors, we have confirmable identities that you can investigate. I could even login to my account here while you watch over my shoulder, to prove that I'm Esquilax here on the boards. You could talk to our families, learn our stories, even peruse the medical records and talk to the doctors. It's a level of possible evidence that far and away surpasses anything you could produce for the gospels.

2. Why should I believe the people who claim to have met the boys? They are friends and BIASED.

Then don't. But you don't then get to assert that your overly high barrier of skepticism means the two claims are exactly equal. That doesn't follow.

Of course, we can give you more than just friend's testimony, there's that too.

3. How do the people who have met the boys know with certainty that the boys are being truthful about their experiences?

Again, your overly high, self serving skepticism does not entail that therefore the two claims are equal. "I don't believe you because it suits my argument not to," is not persuasive.

4. While anyone one who has met them might be willing to "die" for their beliefs that the boys have told the truth, how does that prove that the boys were honest when these friends don't actually KNOW that the boys were being honest?

Ah, so when it suits you you can see through the "die for a lie" argument. Not that anyone was making that argument anyway; we've already established on our own that people can be compelled to lie under threat of force.

5. I have been told repeatedly in this forum that eyewitness testimony is the weakest forum of testimony; yet, here we are...relying on the eyewitness testimony of the boys (and Kitty, too, here) that what they experienced and heard is true. Isn't that weak testimony?

And now you're lying again, because you were given official documentary records from at least one of us when you opted to investigate further. Even the most cursory of additional questioning netted you far more than eyewitness testimony; you can reasonably be sure that additional investigation would yield yet more evidence. The fact that you refuse to investigate further shows your laziness, not that eyewitness testimony is all there is.

So, you see, objections that are raised about the reliability of the gospels could be raised against the boys, but no one here doubts the latter. Why is the former any less credible?

They aren't at all similar, both in the nature of the evidence that it is possible to collect, and in the content of the claims themselves. M'colleagues here are at least telling you things we can confirm are possible; not so for the gospel authors, whoever they are.

1. On the one hand, it does not ACTUALLY matter who the authors were; what matters is whether we can verify the truth of what they wrote.

Agreed... except that you can't do that for the pertinent claims they made.

2. OTOH, since the names of the authors WAS known in the Early Church (and hence added later to the flysheets of the books), it is a nice little bonus that these specific authors were in a position to speak authoritatively.

Meh. Second hand fiat assertions made decades after the fact, if not centuries, are not evidence. You wouldn't accept that from any other religion, so quit acting like it's so compelling now.

You mean other than the fact that extra-biblical evidence reports Nero was blaming the Christians for the fire in Rome, or that Roman officials recorded in their official correspondence that they were questioning Christians or even that the NT records the deaths, imprisonment and punishments of the early believers?

How do you know the gospel authors were among those executed, if you cannot confirm the identities of the gospel authors?

Lax, I have said repeatedly that people die for mistaken beliefs ALL THE TIME. However, people are not typically willing to be tortured and killed for something they know they made up.

People confess to crimes they didn't commit under duress sometimes. This idea that people would never do that is completely invalidated by things we know to happen in real life. Hell, people used to confess to being witches under torture, when there's no such thing as magic.

It might be good to recall that these were ADULT converts to Christianity. The earliest believers, the first generation, didn’t hear the gospel from their parents; so much for the “indoctrination” theory that is bandied about frequently in this forum. These were people who were just as intelligent as you, and they were actually members of another faith (Judaism), and they still accepted the gospel based upon the testimony and witness of the apostles. The apostles, by the way, had to go through the same process of coming to terms with who Jesus really was. They were just as skeptical as you are…but three years of witnessing miracles culminating is seeing the risen Jesus convinced them. And they never gave up those beliefs…even unto death.

Why are you assuming the early church fathers were sincere believers? Or as smart as me? Or any of the things you've just gotten through saying? You're adding details to the story there based solely on how well they suit the conclusion you've already come to.

Now, is it also reasonable to assume that members of this forum might be biased in their support of the boys? Just asking.

It's possible. Less important, given that you've been given records that confirm the stories being told at least once. And that the bias is one of friendship, rather than the respect and power afforded, say, an official of a religion.

“It is not reasonable at all”? Really? I think the amount of evidence is far more compelling than you suggest.

What evidence is that? "Some guys I don't know said so, and you believe some guys that said something too, so there"? You haven't even established that the claims made in the gospels are physically possible, and you keep ignoring me when I bring that point up.

I’m pretending to know? I laid out my argument for the traditional authorship in the Historical Reliability thread.

Sure. A lot of "because I said so," followed by huge, baseless exaggerations of what the scholarly consensus was.

Of course I’m sticking to my guns. There was no overreach, and there will be no apology because none is warranted.

But you weren't insulting anyone or anything, by asserting that we're insincere in our beliefs and will change them under pressure.

Now, I have responded to your post at length. Please return the courtesy by responding to the three questions I posed to Cthulhu Dreaming earlier this morning. Thanks.

I did, already. And the meat of what I would say to them specifically is also present here; you're making an equivocation by pretending that the claims of the gospels are remotely equal to the claims being made here. You're comparing apples to some kind of fruit you can't even establish really exists.

[Crossless2.0]

Of course, neither O'Neill nor Ehrman believe in Randy's magical Jewish god-man. So there's that . . .

[IATIA]

And that Bart Ehrman also agrees that Jesus was a real person?

I do not know or care if jesus was a real person. So what. He may very well be, but he was only a man. That jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead or was the son of god is where I say NOT! And there is no evidence to the contrary.

[rexbeccarox]

I see Randy's trying to change the subject.

Randy, I suggest you keep this on-topic.  You already have a thread for this discussion. Let's talk about your utter disingenuity.

Actually, I have a question for you: we've been discussing why atheists should be good, but what's your motivation?  Obviously, you don't hold any stock in honesty, so... where's the line?