Atheism

[sdelsolray]

SteveII has not yet had the lesson in relevancy, credibility, reliability, probative value, sufficiency and sources of evidence.  He appears limited to "counting" items of evidence.  And that's before his several cognitive biases are employed.

Lol. Please...enlighten me as to my "cognitive biases"!

I prefer to deal with your curious understanding of evidence.  We can deal with your cognitive biases afterwards.

Why do you count evidentiary items and avoid considering relevancy, credibility, reliability, probative value, sufficiency and source of each evidentiary item?

[SteveII]

SteveII has not yet had the lesson in relevancy, credibility, reliability, probative value, sufficiency and sources of evidence.  He appears limited to "counting" items of evidence.  

How very non-specific of you. I'll set up the NT evidence and then you can show me where the lists fails to meet these 'standards':

We can start on the list from the earlier post:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.


In addition to the consistency and connections drawn from above, we can break things into categories of evidence:

- Documentary (both actual and inferred--by careful textual examination). There has been no other set of writings so thoroughly investigated in the history of the world.
- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and somehow it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that. I read recently that over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

You could write books on any one of the points above (and people do).  There are layers upon layers of evidence to investigate.

Go ahead. Tell me where you think my two list fail your qualifications and I will expound.

[Amarok]

Seriously Steve this nonsense has already been refuted  .And once again atheism makes no claims or assertions this apologist game your playing has gotten sad .

[LadyForCamus]

SteveII has not yet had the lesson in relevancy, credibility, reliability, probative value, sufficiency and sources of evidence.  He appears limited to "counting" items of evidence.  

How very non-specific of you. I'll set up the NT evidence and then you can show me where the lists fails to meet these 'standards':

We can start on the list from the earlier post:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.


In addition to the consistency and connections drawn from above, we can break things into categories of evidence:

- Documentary (both actual and inferred--by careful textual examination). There has been no other set of writings so thoroughly investigated in the history of the world.
- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and somehow it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that. I read recently that over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

You could write books on any one of the points above (and people do).  There are layers upon layers of evidence to investigate.

Go ahead. Tell me where you think my two list fail your qualifications and I will expound.

Lol, Steve.  I took a college course on the Harry Potter series. That doesn’t mean anything in the damn books is true.

[SteveII]

How very non-specific of you. I'll set up the NT evidence and then you can show me where the lists fails to meet these 'standards':

We can start on the list from the earlier post:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.


In addition to the consistency and connections drawn from above, we can break things into categories of evidence:

- Documentary (both actual and inferred--by careful textual examination). There has been no other set of writings so thoroughly investigated in the history of the world.
- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and somehow it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that. I read recently that over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have.

You could write books on any one of the points above (and people do).  There are layers upon layers of evidence to investigate.

Go ahead. Tell me where you think my two list fail your qualifications and I will expound.

Lol, Steve.  I took a college course on the Harry Potter series. That doesn’t mean anything in the damn books is true.

Thanks for the attempt on respectful discourse. I'll have to pass on this thoughtful one though.

[Amarok]

Thanks for the attempt on respectful discourse. I'll have to pass on this thoughtful one though.

Mostly because you can't refute it

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, Steve.  I took a college course on the Harry Potter series. That doesn’t mean anything in the damn books is true.

Thanks for the attempt on respectful discourse. I'll have to pass on this thoughtful one though.

Nothing that I said was disrespectful to you.  I was a making a point that professionals analyzing and discussing literature isn’t evidence that the literature is non-fiction.

[SteveII]

Thanks for the attempt on respectful discourse. I'll have to pass on this thoughtful one though.

Nothing that I said was disrespectful to you.  I was a making a point that professionals analyzing and discussing literature isn’t evidence that the literature is non-fiction.

Then I apologize for the sarcasm. 

My "books have been written" line was meant to show that all of these topics have been given a lot of thought and can be expounded on. Note the comment I was replying to.

[Amarok]

Then I apologize for the sarcasm. 

My "books have been written" line was meant to show that all of these topics have been given a lot of thought and can be expounded on. Note the comment I was replying to.

Books have been written about false things all the time

[Silver]

Mythological literature can automatically be classified as fiction despite how much theists want their "holy" books to be considered non-fiction.