Quoting Jesus

[Shaker]

It is the cinematic testament of Jesus Myth theorists like Carrier.

OK. And?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looking at the wiki article on this chap says the following:

' He viewed the New Testament writings as historically reliable and the truth claims of Christianity as hinging on their being so. To Bruce this did not mean that the Bible was always precise, or that this lack of precision could not lead to some confusion. He believed, however, that the passages that were still open to debate were ones that had no substantial bearing on Christian theology and thinking.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce

This would imply he thinks that details such as the claimed miracles associated with Jesus (inc. the resurrection), which I'm assuming are examples of such truth claims, should be accepted as being historically reliable since they are noted in the NT.

Nope: it might be theology but it ain't history.

Last bit is rubbish and probably other bits as well.
You don't get what history is which is whatever happened and as such it cannot be beholden to any philosophy which states what should happen and you certainly have a poor grasp on the problem of induction...and while we're about it you aren't that up to speed on Karl Popper on science either.

[Shaker]

... except that to find out "whatever happened" you need a methodology to deploy as a procedural tool to that end - which is why history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... except that to find out "whatever happened" you need a methodology to deploy as a procedural tool to that end - which is why history, like science, is methodologically naturalistic.

Nope. I'm not saying there is no naturalistic history but it is very much like saying there is a Marxist history, or a Great man history. It is an approach.

[Gordon]

Last bit is rubbish and probably other bits as well.
You don't get what history is which is whatever happened and as such it cannot be beholden to any philosophy which states what should happen and you certainly have a poor grasp on the problem of induction...and while we're about it you aren't that up to speed on Karl Popper on science either.

Oh dear, you are confused.

For theology to make historical claims it would need to employ a historical method, which assumes naturalism. Theology doesn't assume naturalism, and has no comparable alternative method, therefore theology ain't history even though it may refer to historical people of events its core theological claims, such as miracles, can't be viewed as being historical facts.   

[Gordon]

Nope. I'm not saying there is no naturalistic history but it is very much like saying there is a Marxist history, or a Great man history. It is an approach.

Does history, as opposed to theology, ever treat miracle claims as being historical facts?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear, you are confused.

For theology to make historical claims it would need to employ a historical method, which assumes naturalism. Theology doesn't assume naturalism, and has no comparable alternative method, therefore theology ain't history even though it may refer to historical people of events its core theological claims, such as miracles, can't be viewed as being historical facts.

There are several historical methods. Besides a bodily resurrection is a material event But now we are arguing philosophy not history.

In other words since living things are material life must be an arrangement of material.

As for impossibility, have a chat with yer man nearly sane.

[Shaker]

Nope. I'm not saying there is no naturalistic history but it is very much like saying there is a Marxist history, or a Great man history. It is an approach.

"An approach" makes it sound like one amongst several, and I don't know of any others.

Marxist history (if there is such a thing?) would be only a particular interpretation of history gathered by other - i.e. naturalistic - means, for specifically ideological purposes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does history, as opposed to theology, ever treat miracle claims as being historical facts?

History is finding out what happened not what should have happened. History is not theology, nor is it science however since a bodily resurrection is an event of material it would be susceptible even to a materialistic approach to history.

The problem with your argument is that it is not historical but philosophical.

[Gordon]

There are several historical methods. Besides a bodily resurrection is a material event But now we are arguing philosophy not history.

In other words since living things are material life must be an arrangement of material.

As for impossibility, have a chat with yer man nearly sane.

As usual your proneness to hyperbole is much in evidence.

You are presuming the 'bodily resurrection is a material event' so I'd be interested to know how you've excluded the possibility that reports of this 'bodily resurrection' are lies.

[Gordon]

History is finding out what happened not what should have happened. History is not theology, nor is it science however since a bodily resurrection is an event of material it would be susceptible even to a materialistic approach to history.

The problem with your argument is that it is not historical but philosophical.

No it isn't - there are these reports of this 'bodily resurrection' in the NT and I'm asking on what basis you think these reports are accurate - if they are false then there is no 'event', so how have you assessed this risk?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As usual your proneness to hyperbole is much in evidence.

You are presuming the 'bodily resurrection is a material event' so I'd be interested to know how you've excluded the possibility that reports of this 'bodily resurrection' are lies.

Yes, recent research into conspiracies amongst other stuff Gordon. It's all been presented to you before hand.

How is your research into the resurrection conspiracy coming on?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - there are these reports of this 'bodily resurrection' in the NT and I'm asking on what basis you think these reports are accurate - if they are false then there is no 'event', so how have you assessed this risk?

It isn't? On what historical evidence do you base your questioning that lt could be lies on then?

[Gordon]

Yes, recent research into conspiracies amongst other stuff Gordon. It's all been presented to you before hand.

How is your research into the resurrection conspiracy coming on?

I see you've resorted to the evasive straw-man.

I'm simply asking on what basis you accept the NT miracle accounts as being accurate (assuming you do) and, if so, how you've assessed the risks of them involving mistakes or lies.

Any chance of an answer?

[Gordon]

It isn't? On what historical evidence do you base your questioning that lt could be lies on then?

I'm asking about assessing risks, Vlad.

The risk that anecdotal accounts may contain mistakes or lies applies to all such reports: for example, the police reports of the Hillsborough disaster contained lies. I'm asking how you've considered these risks in relation to the NT accounts of miracles. 

[Shaker]

I'm asking about assessing risks, Vlad.

The risk that anecdotal accounts may contain mistakes or lies applies to all such reports: for example, the police reports of the Hillsborough disaster contained lies.

... and almost any eyewitness testimony from more than two or three people (perhaps even then) contains mistakes, albeit quite honest and genuine ones.

I thought this sort of thing was widely known.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you have a link to it?

Does wiki summary accurately represent his views or not?

There you go:

http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/The%20New%20Testament%20Documents%20-%20Bruce.pdf

Haven't read in detail, just skimmed but cannot see anything revelatory - indeed seems pretty orthodox. Critically on the issue of miracles, he seems clear that these are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote:

'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'

In saying this he steps completely out of the world of history and into the world of theology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you've resorted to the evasive straw-man.

I'm simply asking on what basis you accept the NT miracle accounts as being accurate (assuming you do) and, if so, how you've assessed the risks of them involving mistakes or lies.

Any chance of an answer?

Gordon you have proposed the historical theory that there may have been lies.
That people are lying is not a default position.
Therefore you need to present your historical evidence that there may have been lies.

There is research into conspiracies and how long they last.
Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.
There must have been is argument from disbelief.
That they are lying because they are Christians is ad hominem and the genetic fallacy.

Your methodology here therefore looks slippery and fallacious unless you can present historical evidence of lying.

[Gordon]

There you go:

http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/The%20New%20Testament%20Documents%20-%20Bruce.pdf

Haven't read in detail, just skimmed but cannot see anything revelatory - indeed seems pretty orthodox. Critically on the issue of miracles, he seems clear that these are a matter of faith, not of historical veracity. To quote:

'The question whether the miracle-stories are true must ultimately be answered by a personal response of faith-not merely faith in the events as historical but faith in the Christ who performed them, faith which appropriates the power by which these mighty works were done.'

In saying this he steps completely out of the world of history and into the world of theology.

I had a quick skim and will read more thoroughly when I get home (on holiday just now, with pesky grandchildren demanding to be entertained). It is very detailed for sure, but in that it seems incredibly self-referential, and reads like the apologetics it is. Much of the thinking seems sloppy though, with numerous bits that betray I think the bias of the author. For example;

'Each of them was written in the first instance for a definite constituency, with the object of presenting Jesus of Nazareth as Son of God and Savior.' - a recipe for propaganda?

'They may even be willing to accept the stories of raising the dead, in view of well authenticated cases of people who have been technically dead for a few minutes and have then been restored to life. ' - contrasting the restoration of a 3-day corpse is not the same as, say, recovery from cardiac arrest due to medical intervention (having been involved in a few during my working life). Bearing in mind too this was written in 1943 (the version used being revised in 1959) then recovery from cardiac arrest at the time of writing would be less likely than currently so I think the comparison he attempts with supernatural intervention is hopeless.

'Or the disciples all with one consent became the victims of hallucination, or experienced something quite extraordinary in the nature of extrasensory perception. (The idea that they deliberately invented the tale is very properly discountenanced as a moral and psychological impossibility.) But the one interpretation which best accounts for all the data, as well as for the abiding sequel, is that Jesus' bodily resurrection from the dead was a real and objective event.' - an exercise in special pleading which also assumes that the disciples were immune from human artifice - hard not to laugh at this gem!

'The miracle', if such it be, is that Jesus knew in advance hat Peter would find the coin there,' so that once more we are brought to realize that we must first make up our minds about Christ before coming to conclusions about he miracles attributed to Him.'  - sounds like a recipe for confirmation bias.

No doubt this chap was a respected theologian with extensive knowledge of the bible - but this effort reeks of reification: a veritable fallacy-fest.   

[Shaker]

Gordon you have proposed the historical theory that there may have been lies.
That people are lying is not a default position.
Therefore you need to present your historical evidence that there may have been lies.

Do you read nothing?

That people are telling the truth isn't the default position either

The issue is, given how easy it is for people to be sincerely mistaken or to tell outright lies, what steps do you take to exclude either - or both - of these? We're still waiting for an answer.

There is research into conspiracies and how long they last.
Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.
There must have been is argument from disbelief.
That they are lying because they are Christians is ad hominem and the genetic fallacy.

Here's another fallacy: straw man.

Your methodology here therefore looks slippery and fallacious unless you can present historical evidence of lying.

Nope. The burden of proof raises its by now not so much weary as knackered head. People are often mistaken. People often lie. If you deny this I have to wonder what planet you're on.

You've presented no methodology whatever for excluding either possibility.

If you regard the texts in question as accurate on face value, that's a positive assertion and the burden of proof is - again - yours.

[Gordon]

Gordon you have proposed the historical theory that there may have been lies.
That people are lying is not a default position.
Therefore you need to present your historical evidence that there may have been lies.

There is research into conspiracies and how long they last.
Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.
There must have been is argument from disbelief.
That they are lying because they are Christians is ad hominem and the genetic fallacy.

Your methodology here therefore looks slippery and fallacious unless you can present historical evidence of lying.

Nope - I've simply pointed out that mistakes and lies are always risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts, so that those who support specific accounts would need to consider these risks in relation to the account they support - so have you done so in relation to the NT miracle stories?

I've not claimed that they are lies or that Christians are lying: indeed I've been careful not to, and have done no more that ask you how you dealt with these risks, so why not cut out the straw-man.

Since you say 'Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.' then you can presumably now explain the basis by which you discounted this risk so that we can critique your method.

Stop evading, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - I've simply pointed out that mistakes and lies are always risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts, so that those who support specific accounts would need to consider these risks in relation to the account they support - so have you done so in relation to the NT miracle stories?

I've not claimed that they are lies or that Christians are lying: indeed I've been careful not to, and have done no more that ask you how you dealt with these risks, so why not cut out the straw-man.

Since you say 'Historically I find no evidence of a conspiracy.' then you can presumably now explain the basis by which you discounted this risk so that we can critique your method.

Stop evading, Vlad.

You are the one who is evading Gordon.
You have made a suggestion of historical lying.
A mountain of evidence for the Gospels as history has been presented.
Where is the evidence for your historical conspiracy.
Present it now or forever hold your piece.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you read nothing?

That people are telling the truth isn't the default position either

The issue is, given how easy it is for people to be sincerely mistaken or to tell outright lies, what steps do you take to exclude either - or both - of these? We're still waiting for an answer.
Here's another fallacy: straw man.
Nope. The burden of proof raises its by now not so much weary as knackered head. People are often mistaken. People often lie. If you deny this I have to wonder what planet you're on.

You've presented no methodology whatever for excluding either possibility.

If you regard the texts in question as accurate on face value, that's a positive assertion and the burden of proof is - again - yours.

You are still a positive assertion unjustified. People in glasshouses etc.

[Shaker]

You are the one who is evading Gordon.
You have made a suggestion of historical lying.

Historical lying can indeed be suggested because it is a real possibility - unless you have a methodology for excluding it as a possibility.

Do you have one?

Yes or no?

If yes, what is it?

One more for the road: you can only dismiss the possibility of mistake or lie if you have an accurate method of doing so.

Do you or don't you? It's a simple question.

A mountain of evidence for the Gospels as history has been presented.

Well I for one certainly missed that. Where is it to be found?

To quote the salient point once more: You've presented no methodology whatever for excluding the possibility of either sincere misapprehension or explicit dishonesty (or some mixture of the two).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Historical lying can indeed be suggested because it is a real possibility

You need to say why, avoiding the genetic fallacy, argument for disbelief etc. You do not in the suggestion of lying hold any default position but further you need to present historic evidence of lying
Since the material presented as truth by Paul is historical.

I am being entirely reasonable.
Regarding your huffing about methodology I just have to present the historical evidence of the Gospels.

Now present your historical evidence for lies