Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and p

[jeremyp]

Yes.  I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.

Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.

I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.

[Gordon]

Yes.  I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.

Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.

I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.

I get it now - you're adopting the 'Hope strategy' 

[Rhiannon]

Yes.  I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.

Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.

I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.

Do you also know many non-atheists who happen to agree with you, and for good reason?

[Alien]

What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?

What people?

The gospels are not historically reliable — maybe even wholesale fiction — and you ignoring that fact will not stop it from being true.

You have never come up with anything to substantiate that claim.

[Alien]

Yes.  I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.

Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.

I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.

Please point us to one example. Thank you.

[Outrider]

(1) But nor do we know that it didn't, Floo.

The onus isn't on us to show that something extraordinary didn't happen - you have to give sufficient grounds to think it did, or you just have an assertion.

(2) Yet you have never been able to produce any evidence to support this suggestion, despite making it on numerous occasions on different forums and threads. The English 11th century leader Hereward the Wake has very little written about him but he is still regarded as having lived.  He is mentioned in 4 documents - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Domesday Book, Liber Eliensis and - most importantly - the Gesta Herewardi.  This last is thought to have been written between 1109 and 1131 by one of Hereward's brothers-in-arms - and therefore an eye-witness account.  Even if we discount everything that occurred before the Battle of Senlac Ridge, that's still 40-60 years after the events.  Why should taht be any more reliable than - say Mark's Gospel - which was likely written 30-40 years after the events it records and may have been written by someone who both experienced the events, and at the dictation of someone who was there.

Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, from a vested interest group, making extraordinary claims in a vacuum of mentions from what would be considered the expected reliable sources of the area in that era. That combination of extraordinary claim, uncorroborated account and the lack of any sort of commentary from the areas that might be expected to carry such information given what we understand of that time period make your claim more difficult to accept than the accept historicity of Hereward.

That said, the prevailing opinion is that the Jesus myth is most likely based on someone real, there is enough evidence to suggest someone was preaching in that area who elicited some attention, but the supernatural elements would need an supremely high level of support for us to accept, and instead they have a highly questionable level of support.

O.

[Hope]

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...

Evidence please.

[Alien]

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...

Evidence please.

O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul. There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.

As for "tampering", yes, there was some, but the question is whether we can get back to what the authors wrote. Ehrman in his appendix to "Misquoting Jesus", p252 of the American paperback edition, wrote, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?

NS, I did notice once I'd posted that post that you don't regard theism to be a world view either.  I would disagree, for the very reasons that these definitions express, thus putting atheism within the same bracket.

Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world


Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.

I think that is a stretch since if there is no God then naturalism is then what informs subsequent speculations about 'the big questions'.

Vlad waits for inevitable stream of abuse.

[Nearly Sane]

Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?

NS, I did notice once I'd posted that post that you don't regard theism to be a world view either.  I would disagree, for the very reasons that these definitions express, thus putting atheism within the same bracket.

Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world


Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.

I think that is a stretch since if there is no God then naturalism is then what informs subsequent speculations about 'the big questions'.

Vlad waits for inevitable stream of abuse.

No abuse, just pointing out you are wrong. You can be atheist bit not a believer in naturalism. Atheism is not a philosophy.

[jeremyp]

I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.

Please point us to one example. Thank you.

I don't see you calling out Hope when he does the same thing.

One law for the people you agree with and another for the people you don't it seems.

[jeremyp]

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...

Evidence please.

O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul.

How do you know it's independent?  They may all have had the same source, who may or may not have been around when Jesus was.

There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.

Oh dear. The Josephus account is forged. The other accounts tell us nothing except that there were Christians.

[Outrider]

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...

Evidence please.

It's called the New Testament, I'm pretty sure you've heard of it. It has chapters which have different names. There are suggestions from writing style analysis and the like that these 'chapters' have different authors, and that some copied others and that many parts were edited after their initial conception. Ultimately, though, we have one source - the New Testament.

O.

[Outrider]

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...

Evidence please.

O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul. There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.

Josephus and Tacitus don't talk about Jesus, they talk about a cult of followers of Jesus, after the fact. The Gospel writers are all in one source - the New Testament - of questionable provenance and with evidence that some of them copied others. You only have one source document.

As for "tampering", yes, there was some, but the question is whether we can get back to what the authors wrote. Ehrman in his appendix to "Misquoting Jesus", p252 of the American paperback edition, wrote, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

In the main, no that's not the question, because the overwhelming majority of Christians couldn't give a crap what the original might have been intended say, they have their opinion based on the modern poetic translation of the inaccurate Latin translations of the selectively edited Greek works which may or may not be the originals.

O.

[Alien]

I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.

Please point us to one example. Thank you.

I don't see you calling out Hope when he does the same thing.

One law for the people you agree with and another for the people you don't it seems.

When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out. For example, you will be aware that I have these last couple of days agreed with you against Hope (sort of) about textual variants and against Spud about Mark being the first gospel written. I have also disagreed with Hope over many months, on and off, about Noah's Flood being an actual, historical event.

Now, enough of your tu quoque. For the fourth time (from me), please point us to one example of your "many" examples that "The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction." as you claimed in #140.

[Alien]

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...

Evidence please.

O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul.

How do you know it's independent?  They may all have had the same source,

Which can be said of any two accounts written from roughly the same time in history. Now, if you think they were not independent, please tell us why.

who may or may not have been around when Jesus was.

Not actually relevant when determining whether certain accounts are independent of each othere.

There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.

Oh dear. The Josephus account is forged. The other accounts tell us nothing except that there were Christians.

Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found (Jesus outside the New Testament, Van Voorst, Eerdmans 2000). Now it might be that they are wrong to think that, but if you think they are, please defend your position.

[Alien]

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...

Evidence please.

It's called the New Testament, I'm pretty sure you've heard of it. It has chapters which have different names. There are suggestions from writing style analysis and the like that these 'chapters' have different authors, and that some copied others and that many parts were edited after their initial conception. Ultimately, though, we have one source - the New Testament.

O.

O,
That is actually a pretty ignorant way of describing the New Testament. Those are not different "chapters". They are separate books, 27 of them with at least 8 different authors. Yes, it is highly likely that parts of Matthew's and Luke's gospels were copied from Mark, but it may also be that they got other stuff from another source, known as "Q", which would make at least 9 authors (if Luke and Matthew did a straight copy from there, if it existed). Remember that both Matthew and Luke have stuff which is not in any of the other gospels, known as "Special M" and "Special L".

And, no, it is not just "suggestions from writing style analysis" that we know that the books have different authors. Are you seriously suggesting that this is the only reason we think that? If so, you are the first person that I've heard suggest it in 37 years of discussing such stuff with people.

[Alien]

By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...

Evidence please.

O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul. There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.

Josephus and Tacitus don't talk about Jesus, they talk about a cult of followers of Jesus, after the fact.

For Josephus, please see my reply to JeremyP above. Josephus does, according to the vast majority of scholars, speak about Jesus, although there are also very likely Christian insertions into the text. As for Tacitus, here is what Annals 15:4 says,

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Are you suggesting that this does not refer to Jesus? If so, why, pray?

The Gospel writers are all in one source - the New Testament - of questionable provenance and with evidence that some of them copied others. You only have one source document.

Nope. See my reply to you above. We have one collection of documents, not one document (apart from the external sources of course).

As for "tampering", yes, there was some, but the question is whether we can get back to what the authors wrote. Ehrman in his appendix to "Misquoting Jesus", p252 of the American paperback edition, wrote, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

In the main, no that's not the question, because the overwhelming majority of Christians couldn't give a crap what the original might have been intended say, they have their opinion based on the modern poetic translation of the inaccurate Latin translations of the selectively edited Greek works which may or may not be the originals.

O.

And your evidence for this is what? Something you feel in your water or you read on some atheist website?

[Outrider]

O,
That is actually a pretty ignorant way of describing the New Testament. Those are not different "chapters". They are separate books, 27 of them with at least 8 different authors. Yes, it is highly likely that parts of Matthew's and Luke's gospels were copied from Mark, but it may also be that they got other stuff from another source, known as "Q", which would make at least 9 authors (if Luke and Matthew did a straight copy from there, if it existed). Remember that both Matthew and Luke have stuff which is not in any of the other gospels, known as "Special M" and "Special L".

What we have is a single work. Various derivations have suggested that it is a composite of other works, and there's a fair degree of justification for at least some of those claims, but that doesn't change the fact that what we actually have is just that singular work.

That's the reality - that's not the entirety of the story, but bare bones facts in comparison to Hereward, we only have one source. We can reasonably deduce from this one source that there are a small group of associated authors, possibly from a wide timeframe, but those are deductions - the source is singular.

By contrast, for Hereward, we have two or three entirely independent sources.

I wasn't intending to impugn the scholarly work done on the New Testament, but rather to highlight why there was qualitatively and quantitatively different levels of confidence in the existence of Hereward against the existence of Jesus.

O.

O.

[Rhiannon]

I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.

Please point us to one example. Thank you.

I don't see you calling out Hope when he does the same thing.

One law for the people you agree with and another for the people you don't it seems.

When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out. For example, you will be aware that I have these last couple of days agreed with you against Hope (sort of) about textual variants and against Spud about Mark being the first gospel written. I have also disagreed with Hope over many months, on and off, about Noah's Flood being an actual, historical event.

Now, enough of your tu quoque. For the fourth time (from me), please point us to one example of your "many" examples that "The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction." as you claimed in #140.

I think Jeremy was parodying Hope's tendency to refuse to give his 'evidence' by saying that he's done so before 'on numerous occasions' despite the fact that nobody else can remember him doing so.

[Alien]

O,
That is actually a pretty ignorant way of describing the New Testament. Those are not different "chapters". They are separate books, 27 of them with at least 8 different authors. Yes, it is highly likely that parts of Matthew's and Luke's gospels were copied from Mark, but it may also be that they got other stuff from another source, known as "Q", which would make at least 9 authors (if Luke and Matthew did a straight copy from there, if it existed). Remember that both Matthew and Luke have stuff which is not in any of the other gospels, known as "Special M" and "Special L".

What we have is a single work. Various derivations have suggested that it is a composite of other works, and there's a fair degree of justification for at least some of those claims, but that doesn't change the fact that what we actually have is just that singular work.

That's the reality - that's not the entirety of the story, but bare bones facts in comparison to Hereward, we only have one source. We can reasonably deduce from this one source that there are a small group of associated authors, possibly from a wide timeframe, but those are deductions - the source is singular.

By contrast, for Hereward, we have two or three entirely independent sources.

I wasn't intending to impugn the scholarly work done on the New Testament, but rather to highlight why there was qualitatively and quantitatively different levels of confidence in the existence of Hereward against the existence of Jesus.

O.

O.

No, we do not have a single work. We have the work of at least 8 authors and some of them have several works in that one collection. It is meaningless and silly to describe the NT as a "single work". It is not just a case of "scholarly work" arguing for this. No-one, that I know of (I haven't read all the conspiracy websites) has ever suggested it is anything other than the result of a number of different people writing stuff. There is far more than a "suggestion" that it is "a composite of other works".

This is getting silly.

[Alien]

I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.

Please point us to one example. Thank you.

I don't see you calling out Hope when he does the same thing.

One law for the people you agree with and another for the people you don't it seems.

When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out. For example, you will be aware that I have these last couple of days agreed with you against Hope (sort of) about textual variants and against Spud about Mark being the first gospel written. I have also disagreed with Hope over many months, on and off, about Noah's Flood being an actual, historical event.

Now, enough of your tu quoque. For the fourth time (from me), please point us to one example of your "many" examples that "The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction." as you claimed in #140.

I think Jeremy was parodying Hope's tendency to refuse to give his 'evidence' by saying that he's done so before 'on numerous occasions' despite the fact that nobody else can remember him doing so.

Fair enough if he wants to "discuss" stuff with Hope like that. However, I've asked him a specific question.

[Outrider]

No, we do not have a single work. We have the work of at least 8 authors and some of them have several works in that one collection. It is meaningless and silly to describe the NT as a "single work". It is not just a case of "scholarly work" arguing for this. No-one, that I know of (I haven't read all the conspiracy websites) has ever suggested it is anything other than the result of a number of different people writing stuff. There is far more than a "suggestion" that it is "a composite of other works".

This is getting silly.

I'm obviously not being clear enough. I freely accept that there is sufficient evidence to think that the New Testament is the product of multiple authors, I'm not suggesting that it's been written as a single piece at a single time.

What I am saying, though, is that as a work it's not externally corroborated. The earliest known fragments of any of those works we have are either already accumulated into the single volume, or it's indeterminate if they are or aren't.

That's an evidentiary difference from the structurally independent references for Hereward we have.

I'm not in any way trying to question the nature of the New Testament in this, but rather the 'chain of evidence' that lends strength to claims.

O.

[Alien]

No, we do not have a single work. We have the work of at least 8 authors and some of them have several works in that one collection. It is meaningless and silly to describe the NT as a "single work". It is not just a case of "scholarly work" arguing for this. No-one, that I know of (I haven't read all the conspiracy websites) has ever suggested it is anything other than the result of a number of different people writing stuff. There is far more than a "suggestion" that it is "a composite of other works".

This is getting silly.

I'm obviously not being clear enough. I freely accept that there is sufficient evidence to think that the New Testament is the product of multiple authors, I'm not suggesting that it's been written as a single piece at a single time.

What I am saying, though, is that as a work it's not externally corroborated. The earliest known fragments of any of those works we have are either already accumulated into the single volume, or it's indeterminate if they are or aren't.

That's an evidentiary difference from the structurally independent references for Hereward we have.

I'm not in any way trying to question the nature of the New Testament in this, but rather the 'chain of evidence' that lends strength to claims.

O.

Not externally corroborated? What in all its details? Of course not. In some of its details? Yes, it is, e.g. the (original) Josephus texts and Tacitus.

Not being externally corroborated does not make something "a single work". That is irrelevant to whether it is a single work or not. Here's a reductio ad absurdum for you.

Consider all the literary works (all written texts) ever written by the human race. Everything. There is no written work outside that group. Thus this collection of literary works has not been externally corroborated. According to your reasoning that makes it a singe work.

[Outrider]

Not externally corroborated? What in all its details? Of course not. In some of its details? Yes, it is, e.g. the (original) Josephus texts and Tacitus.

Josephus and Tacitus are well after the fact, talking about the claims made by people on behalf of Jesus or about the fact there is a cult rising which follows someone called Jesus.

Not being externally corroborated does not make something "a single work". That is irrelevant to whether it is a single work or not.

It kind of does.

Here's a reductio ad absurdum for you. Consider all the literary works (all written texts) ever written by the human race. Everything. There is no written work outside that group. Thus this collection of literary works has not been externally corroborated. According to your reasoning that makes it a singe work.

If we found a folio with the entire works of Shakespeare on it, that would be a single work. If that's the oldest copy of those that we have, then it's a single work, even if we have reason to suspect that parts of it were written by someone else (Bacon, say).

It's not until we get independent accounts - contemporary reports of the first showing of different plays, for instance, that we have corroboration that they are independent works.

Likewise with the New Testament, there are structural clues that give reason to think that the singular work we have is a composite, but no physical evidence and no external corroboration.

O.