Quoting Jesus

[Shaker]

You need to say why

Really?

Really really?

Really really really?

You do not in the suggestion of lying hold any default position

Nobody has claimed this.

Since the material presented as truth by Paul is historical.

.
Prove it.

I am being entirely reasonable.

You have never been even remotely reasonable, let alone entirely.

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

Demonstrate their historicity.

Now present your historical evidence for lies

Nobody is claiming lies. You are being asked how you exclude the real and distinct possibility of lies (or mistakes) from texts which on no basis whatever you merely assume to be true at face value.

You can exclude the possibility of lie or mistake by an accurate and appropriate methodology.

Either you have one - in which case let's hear all about it - or you don't and the discussion ends here, since you are simply asserting, not defending, an unsupported, unevidenced personal opinion about some documents.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really?

Really really?

Really really really?
Nobody has claimed this..
Prove it.
You have never been even remotely reasonable, let alone entirely.Demonstrate their historicity.
Nobody is claiming lies. You are being asked how you exclude the real and distinct possibility of lies (or mistakes) from texts which on no basis whatever you merely assume to be true at face value.

You can exclude the possibility of lie or mistake by an accurate and appropriate methodology.

Either you have one - in which case let's hear all about it - or you don't and the discussion ends here, since you are simply asserting, not defending, an unsupported, unevidenced personal opinion about some documents.

There is no historic evidence of a historic conspiracy.
The ressurection fits. Given research into conspiracies.

Now why do you suggest the possibility of lies. Be careful now avoiding the genetic fallacy, argument from incredulity etc.

[Shaker]

Now why do you suggest the possibility of lies. Be careful now avoiding the genetic fallacy, argument from incredulity etc.

I'm flabbergasted that you even have to ask, but since we appear finally to have hit your typical level with the shovel of a stupid question, it seems I have to humour you.

Because people lie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm flabbergasted that you even have to ask, but since we appear finally to have hit your typical level with the shovel of a stupid question, it seems I have to humour you.

Because people lie.

And what is your evidence that they have done so in this case?

[Shaker]

And what is your evidence that they have done so in this case?

It's in the same pile as the evidence that they have not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's in the same pile as the evidence that they have not.

Yes ...but what is it?

[Shaker]

Yes ...but what is it?

Do you not even know the meaning of the word possibility now, along with many others?

Nobody is claiming lies. You are being asked how you exclude the real and distinct possibility of lies (or mistakes) from texts which on no basis whatever you merely assume to be true at face value.

You can exclude the possibility of lie or mistake by an accurate and appropriate methodology.

Either you have one - in which case let's hear all about it - or you don't and the discussion ends here, since you are simply asserting, not defending, an unsupported, unevidenced personal opinion about some documents.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you not even know the meaning of the word possibility now, along with many others?

Non sequitur

Now why dou think there is a real possibility of lies in this case? Given we have historical documents pointing to several hundred witnesses and no real motive for such a lie.
Given that we have accounts of the events and that they are consistent with the foundational creed as described in the letters. Can you at least model where in the process the so called lies would be?

[Gordon]

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.

No I haven't: so stop lying

I've observed that people making mistakes and telling lies are risks associated with anecdotal accounts. Then I asked how you assessed these risks in respect of the NT accounts and your unwillingness to answer suggests to me that you haven't.

[Gordon]

Non sequitur

Now why dou think there is a real possibility of lies in this case? Given we have historical documents pointing to several hundred witnesses and no real motive for such a lie.

Lying is always a risk, and you don't have several hundred witness reports - you have reports os several hundred witnesses. So, do you think there a risk of exaggeration regarding the number of witnesses? As we saw recently, when Trump was inaugurated, exaggeration of numbers of people attending/witnessing is a definite risk.

Given that we have accounts of the events and that they are consistent with the foundational creed as described in the letters.

They may well be, but how do you know that these letters don't contain mistakes and lies? After all, unless you've assessed these risks then this creed might be founded on falsehoods.

Can you at least model where in the process the so called lies would be?

That is what I'm asking you: how have you assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT accounts of Jesus that you accept as true on a personal basis?

[Gordon]

There is no historic evidence of a historic conspiracy.

Super - and the method you used to conclude this is what exactly?

The ressurection fits.

Fits what?

Given research into conspiracies.

Even superer - what research methods were used to exclude the risk that those writing the NT conspired?

Now why do you suggest the possibility of lies. Be careful now avoiding the genetic fallacy, argument from incredulity etc.

Don't be silly: mistakes and lies are known risks when dealing with accounts provided by people. Asking how these risks have been assessed in relation to specific accounts isn't remotely fallacious.

You could try answering rather than indulging in evasion.

[Shaker]

Well, clearly Vlad is going to try to smarm, squirm, duck, dodge, bob, weave and evade his way out of answering the question for another few pages ...

[SusanDoris]

How do you know - there is certainly no evidence for that as there is precious little even close to being contemporary. And, of course, we have no way of knowing whether what was written is accurate.

I find it so annoying when I hear supposed authorities on God and Jesus saying, 'Well, Jesus said....' and then quote some words from the NT
.as if they are known and accepted by all as the 100%  verbatim words. If they added, 'as far as we know' every now and again it might help, but they never do.

[Gordon]

Well, clearly Vlad is going to try to smarm, squirm, duck, dodge, bob, weave and evade his way out of answering the question for another few pages ...

No doubt - but the question wont go away just because he'd rather not answer it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon
The Gospels are to be treated like any other document from that time otherwise one falls foul of the genetic fallacy and argument from personal incredulity.

The resurrection is considered true in the epistles and Gospel evidence. The accounts do have doubts expressed and remedy, 500 witnesses is offered.

People lie yes but that is an assertion. It is not a default. What methods have you used to establish lying.
There has been good research on conspiracies and this would fit. It would be a major conspiracy.
Conspiracies fall this one didn't.

Subsequent history fits the resurrection. No alternative explanations are provided indeed the communities reported in the epistle are based on the resurrection

Finally no historical evidence for a historical conspiracy.

The scriptures are the most riggourously investigated documents of ancient times.

Now to you. Do you believe any historical document? What then is your method of establishing lying or not lying in those contexts?
I think rather your approach is the same as I describe. You look at the document, you look for clues to truth, you trust to Scholarship and you look to see if it fits the surrounding history.

Any other expectation is special pleading and a singular expectation that I am the one that needs to be interrogated and you can make suggestions which you don't have to support is a deluded torquemadian fantasy.

Now then since I have said why it is highly probably true please state your historical evidence for historical conspiracy.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Gospels are to be treated like any other document from that time otherwise one falls foul of the genetic fallacy and argument from personal incredulity.

So I presume that you accept as true the many other impossible things written in stories from antiquity - many of which claim witnesses and are also interspersed within context that is historically verifiable.

[ProfessorDavey]

The scriptures are the most riggourously investigated documents of ancient times.

But mostly by bible scholars and theologians - not by historians.

[DaveM]

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.

Morning Prof,

Many thanks for finding the link.  Much appreciated.

I gather from your post that while you skimmed through most of the book to get a feel for its approach, Chapter 5 on the subject of the gospel miracles was the focus of your initial look.  Quite understandable considering your standpoint on matters of faith.  But you might find Chapters 2 on the  Date and Attestation of the Documents and Chapter 7 dealing specifically with the writings of Luke of interest. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So I presume that you accept as true the many other impossible things written in stories from antiquity - many of which claim witnesses and are also interspersed within context that is historically verifiable.

I have outlined how we can approach any ancient document.Changing the rules for any ancient document would be special pleading wouldn't it.

There is also the Myth truth thing but that is down to literary analysis.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have outlined how we can approach any ancient document.Changing the rules for any ancient document would be special pleading wouldn't it.

There is also the Myth truth thing but that is down to literary analysis.

Now you are doing the special pleading - trying to make a distinction between type of ancient literary document, both of which contain context which has historical veracity but also impossible claims.

That we don't describe the gospels as 'myth' or 'legend' is merely due to the continuing presence of christianity as a major religion. Had the Norse religion retained its position as a major religion we wouldn't talk of Norse 'myths' or 'legends'.

So it is you that is spacial pleading - first on the basis of creating artificial different categories for ancient documents, but then on using the argument from personal incredulity for some claims in some documents, but not for other similar claims in other documents.

There is no special pleading in my case - I use a consistent approach to the gospels, as I do (for example) for Icharus.

[Gordon]

Gordon
The Gospels are to be treated like any other document from that time otherwise one falls foul of the genetic fallacy and argument from personal incredulity.

I agree: with appropriate scepticism given the content. So, we have accounts of uncertain provenance that claim supernatural miracles so any comparison needs to involve similar content. We have attestations of flying horses in another religious account so do you accept that on the same basis you accept the resurrection?

The resurrection is considered true in the epistles and Gospel evidence. The accounts do have doubts expressed and remedy, 500 witnesses is offered.

In relation to this, your assessment of mistake or lies being involved is?

People lie yes but that is an assertion.

No - it is a fact.

It is not a default.

No, but it is a risk.

What methods have you used to establish lying.

I'm asking you that, remember!

There has been good research on conspiracies and this would fit. It would be a major conspiracy.

It would: so how have you assessed the risk that it is?

Conspiracies fall this one didn't.

Which is a claim, so show us your workings.

Subsequent history fits the resurrection.

Which doesn't mean the resurrection was true: just that it was portrayed as being true.

No alternative explanations are provided indeed the communities reported in the epistle are based on the resurrection

That it is lies is an alternative possibility: have you assessed this risk?

Finally no historical evidence for a historical conspiracy.

How do you know this?

The scriptures are the most riggourously investigated documents of ancient times.

That doesn't mean they are accurate in terms of supernatural claims: there are risks attached to anecdotal accounts .

Now to you. Do you believe any historical document?

Nope: I am sceptical of anecdotal accounts.

What then is your method of establishing lying or not lying in those contexts?

Not my problem: the supporters of these accounts (like you) have offered no risk assessment so I remain highly sceptical about the veracity of the NT in relation to its supernatural claims: I await reassurance.

I think rather your approach is the same as I describe. You look at the document, you look for clues to truth, you trust to Scholarship and you look to see if it fits the surrounding history.

I don't have an approach: neither, it seems, do you since it seems you accept these accounts at face value.

Any other expectation is special pleading and a singular expectation that I am the one that needs to be interrogated and you can make suggestions which you don't have to support is a deluded torquemadian fantasy.

I'm not pleading anything: I'm just asking a reasonable question. Any special pleading here is all yours.

Now then since I have said why it is highly probably true please state your historical evidence for historical conspiracy.

I don't: I'm asking NT supporters (like you) to explain how they've excluded the risks of human artifice, and in the absence of a reply I can only conclude you haven't (and would rather not).

[floo]

Gordon
The Gospels are to be treated like any other document from that time otherwise one falls foul of the genetic fallacy and argument from personal incredulity.

The resurrection is considered true in the epistles and Gospel evidence. The accounts do have doubts expressed and remedy, 500 witnesses is offered.

People lie yes but that is an assertion. It is not a default. What methods have you used to establish lying.
There has been good research on conspiracies and this would fit. It would be a major conspiracy.
Conspiracies fall this one didn't.

Subsequent history fits the resurrection. No alternative explanations are provided indeed the communities reported in the epistle are based on the resurrection

Finally no historical evidence for a historical conspiracy.

The scriptures are the most riggourously investigated documents of ancient times.

Now to you. Do you believe any historical document? What then is your method of establishing lying or not lying in those contexts?
I think rather your approach is the same as I describe. You look at the document, you look for clues to truth, you trust to Scholarship and you look to see if it fits the surrounding history.

Any other expectation is special pleading and a singular expectation that I am the one that needs to be interrogated and you can make suggestions which you don't have to support is a deluded torquemadian fantasy.

Now then since I have said why it is highly probably true please state your historical evidence for historical conspiracy.

Just because something is believed to be true, doesn't necessarily give it credibility. If someone is actually dead, they don't come to life again. However, supposing Jesus did resurrect why did he conveniently disappear up to heaven instead of staying down here?

[Gordon]

Tell me, Vlad, by any chance are you one of those who thinks the Bible is inerrant?

[ProfessorDavey]

I have outlined how we can approach any ancient document.Changing the rules for any ancient document would be special pleading wouldn't it.

There is also the Myth truth thing but that is down to literary analysis.

Actually the term myth is applied to a range of stories some of which are considered to be:

'myths are distorted accounts of historical events. According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborate upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gain the status of gods'.

That seems to be a perfect description of the gospels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree: with appropriate scepticism given the content. So, we have accounts of uncertain provenance that claim supernatural miracles so any comparison needs to involve similar content. We have attestations of flying horses in another religious account so do you accept that on the same basis you accept the resurrection?

In relation to this, your assessment of mistake or lies being involved is?

No - it is a fact.

No, but it is a risk.

I'm asking you that, remember!

It would: so how have you assessed the risk that it is?

Which is a claim, so show us your workings.

Which doesn't mean the resurrection was true: just that it was portrayed as being true.

That it is lies is an alternative possibility: have you assessed this risk?

How do you know this?

That doesn't mean they are accurate in terms of supernatural claims: there are risks attached to anecdotal accounts .

Nope: I am sceptical of anecdotal accounts.

Not my problem: the supporters of these accounts (like you) have offered no risk assessment so I remain highly sceptical about the veracity of the NT in relation to its supernatural claims: I await reassurance.

I don't have an approach: neither, it seems, do you since it seems you accept these accounts at face value.

I'm not pleading anything: I'm just asking a reasonable question. Any special pleading here is all yours.

I don't: I'm asking NT supporters (like you) to explain how they've excluded the risks of human artifice, and in the absence of a reply I can only conclude you haven't (and would rather not).

And that has been outlined to you several times on this thread.
Please provide reasons why you even suspect lying has gone on in this case.