Quoting Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The official report of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 noted that some of the police accounts made at the time contained outright lies - confirming that witness accounts, even comparatively recent ones where the witnesses were known to have been on the scene, aren't necessarily true.

Yes, but the law proceeds today on police evidence...and historic crimes will receive justice based on recollections of witnesses. Are you suggesting that because some lie all should be thought of as liers. That is the Genetic fallacy surely.

[Shaker]

Which is like expressing doubts if someone wrote about 1987.

Not really.

The comparison would work:

1. If in 1987 we never had the kind of mass instant communication and mass media that we in fact did have; and

2. If in 1987 we had lived in a pre-scientific society or culture where superstitious/magical thinking held sway.

Other than that, though ...

[floo]

Yes. But also I need only convey the sense. And Let's remember Jesus quotes in early Christian documents are a fraction or highlights.

I can't see you applying these sentiments to other documents and so I have to ask you whether you are serious.

Conveying the sense of something is what you make it out to be, it could be very different to what was intended.

[floo]

Yes, but the law proceeds today on police evidence...and historic crimes will receive justice based on recollections of witnesses. Are you suggesting that because some lie all should be thought of as liers. That is the Genetic fallacy surely.

How do you know the gospels claims about Jesus are factual?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really.

The comparison would work:

1. If in 1987 we never had the kind of mass instant communication and mass media that we in fact did have; and

2. If in 1987 we had lived in a pre-scientific society or culture where superstitious/magical thinking held sway.

Other than that, though ...

Firstly any recollections based on whether the science was right would not be historical recollections but scientific result recording therefore red herring.
Secondly People did not believe in resurrections in the first century...That's for the umpteenth time of telling.
Thirdly, many recollections from 1987 are not validatable by the means of mass communication you appeal were not used in most recollections from 1987 in other words, they weren't taped, or videod or selfied or facebooked..........That's slapdash assumption on your part.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

[Owlswing]

The desperation of losing the argument.
1. Biblical chapter and verse for what you are saying.
2.Are you actually serious about the  unreliability of everything written retrospectively about 1987? You did express doubts because the earliest Christian literature being written 30 years after Christ.
3. If you are going to introduce some kind of statute of limitations on this do so uniformly.

Three words for you to consider with regard to this responce Q2C

COMPLETE UNADULTERATED RUBBISH

[Gordon]

Yes, but the law proceeds today on police evidence...and historic crimes will receive justice based on recollections of witnesses. Are you suggesting that because some lie all should be thought of as liers. That is the Genetic fallacy surely.

I didn't say that though: you do like misrepresenting what is posted.

What I have said, and often, is that since mistakes and lies are known risks and that when it comes to any anecdotal accounts (or witness accounts if you prefer) then these are risks that need to be at least assessed.

So, how have you assessed these risks in relation to the NT contents?

[Owlswing]

I didn't say that though: you do like misrepresenting what is posted.

What I have said, and often, is that since mistakes and lies are known risks and that when it comes to any anecdotal accounts (or witness accounts if you prefer) then these are risks that need to be at least assessed.

So, how have you assessed these risks in relation to the NT contents?

He hasn't.

Having been spoon-fed them, via his ears, over the years they are accepted without question.

This is, I believe, called both brainwashing and indoctrination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say that though: you do like misrepresenting what is posted.

What I have said, and often, is that since mistakes and lies are known risks and that when it comes to any anecdotal accounts (or witness accounts if you prefer) then these are risks that need to be at least assessed.

So, how have you assessed these risks in relation to the NT contents?

It was a question. Gordon.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say that though: you do like misrepresenting what is posted.

What I have said, and often, is that since mistakes and lies are known risks and that when it comes to any anecdotal accounts (or witness accounts if you prefer) then these are risks that need to be at least assessed.

So, how have you assessed these risks in relation to the NT contents?

I have filed the reasons I think lying has not occurred...... on this forum AND more than once. If you remember you and I discussed whether a diagnosis of death was a mistake in the case of the Resurrection.
What is still outstanding is your version of the historical events and any evidence you have that these people were lying or mistaken.
This could be that none is possible
That it is possible and you are about to treat us to it.
In other words my version stands unchallenged unless you admit than in our conversations you have already disputed my grounds for eliminating the possibility of lies in which case why are you NOW claiming these haven't been given?

[floo]

I have filed the reasons I think lying has not occurred...... on this forum AND more than once. If you remember you and I discussed whether a diagnosis of death was a mistake in the case of the Resurrection.
What is still outstanding is your version of the historical events and any evidence you have that these people were lying or mistaken.
This could be that none is possible
That it is possible and you are about to treat us to it.
In other words my version stands unchallenged unless you admit than in our conversations you have already disputed my grounds for eliminating the possibility of lies in which case why are you NOW claiming these haven't been given?

When discussing events which lack credibility, like much of those relating to Jesus, it is for those claiming them to be factual to come up with the evidence, as has been stated many times.

[BeRational]

I have filed the reasons I think lying has not occurred...... on this forum AND more than once. If you remember you and I discussed whether a diagnosis of death was a mistake in the case of the Resurrection.
What is still outstanding is your version of the historical events and any evidence you have that these people were lying or mistaken.
This could be that none is possible
That it is possible and you are about to treat us to it.
In other words my version stands unchallenged unless you admit than in our conversations you have already disputed my grounds for eliminating the possibility of lies in which case why are you NOW claiming these haven't been given?

How did you eliminate the chance of mistakes or lies?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When discussing events which lack credibility, like much of those relating to Jesus, it is for those claiming them to be factual to come up with the evidence, as has been stated many times.

Credibility is about what can be believed not what actually happened. It appears then that this can both be believed and argued that it happened.
 Gordon and I are debating the happening or otherwise of it. This is why if one wersion of history is disputed then there has to be an alternative because there cannot be a lack of history. The alternative must be susceptible to the same considerations as the original. The same because any less is special pleading.

If you want to say it lacks credibility state what criteria it doesn't fulfil. 

[Gordon]

I have filed the reasons I think lying has not occurred...... on this forum AND more than once. If you remember you and I discussed whether a diagnosis of death was a mistake in the case of the Resurrection.

What did we conclude?

What is still outstanding is your version of the historical events and any evidence you have that these people were lying or mistaken.

Nice try, but no dice: it isn't my claim and all I'm asking is how the risks of mistakes and lies have been assessed: I haven't asserted anything regarding whether mistakes were made or lies told.

This could be that none is possible
That it is possible and you are about to treat us to it.

What are you saying here?

In other words my version stands unchallenged unless you admit than in our conversations you have already disputed my grounds for eliminating the possibility of lies in which case why are you NOW claiming these haven't been given?

I've yet to see any Christian here tackle how the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT have been assessed in any meaningful sense: indeed they seem reluctant to even acknowledge these risks. On you go then!

[Gordon]

Credibility is about what can be believed not what actually happened. It appears then that this can both be believed and argued that it happened.

What about being dead and then not: that doesn't seem at all credible.

 

Gordon and I are debating the happening or otherwise of it. This is why if one wersion of history is disputed then there has to be an alternative because there cannot be a lack of history.

Which requires the assessment of the 'happening', where one possibility is that the 'happening' didn't happen: therefore mistakes and lies are risks that need to be assessed.

The alternative must be susceptible to the same considerations as the original. The same because any less is special pleading.

Don't be silly: no it isn't. There alternative may be of a fundamentally different character from the 'original' if the alternative involves, say, a wholly fictitious claim.

If you want to say it lacks credibility state what criteria it doesn't fulfil.

I think the claimant is the one who needs to state criteria that will stand scrutiny.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What about being dead and then not: that doesn't seem at all credible.

 
Which requires the assessment of the 'happening', where one possibility is that the 'happening' didn't happen: therefore mistakes and lies are risks that need to be assessed.

Don't be silly: no it isn't. There alternative may be of a fundamentally different character from the 'original' if the alternative involves, say, a wholly fictitious claim.

I think the claimant is the one who needs to state criteria that will stand scrutiny.

And yet people believe that somebody did it probably because they have encountered the risen Christ in whatever state he comes to them
We can analyse why and why people don't since incredulity is due to underlying philosophy which is IMHO there because of God dodgery.

For some strange reason Gordon you guys believe you have the default position on pretty much everything you don't you have no more default position than I do.
I am not the one trying to deny my burden. You guys are.

Any version of history has a burden. We all know how the Christians answer questions of historicity. It is the  bankruptcy of New atheism which seeks to change the playing field from history to statistical probability and science and avoid the same questions.

[floo]

Credibility is about what can be believed not what actually happened. It appears then that this can both be believed and argued that it happened.
 Gordon and I are debating the happening or otherwise of it. This is why if one wersion of history is disputed then there has to be an alternative because there cannot be a lack of history. The alternative must be susceptible to the same considerations as the original. The same because any less is special pleading.

If you want to say it lacks credibility state what criteria it doesn't fulfil.

The Bible cannot be considered a historical novel.


No one comes back to life if they are really dead. If Jesus did appear to his disciples after his supposed death, then he didn't actually die. Surely if Jesus had really resurrected he would have appeared to Pilate, Herod and the religious mafia who wanted him dead. Apart from his disciples, no independent observer appears to have seen him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Bible cannot be considered a historical novel.


No one comes back to life if they are really dead.

Bzzzzzzzzz Problem of induction.

[Gordon]

And yet people believe that somebody did it probably because they have encountered the risen Christ in whatever state he comes to them

So they say: but not convincingly.

We can analyse why and why people don't since incredulity is due to underlying philosophy which is IMHO there because of God dodgery.

Which is both a non sequitur and sounds like begging the question (by presuming there is a god to be dodged).

For some strange reason Gordon you guys believe you have the default position on pretty much everything you don't you have no more default position than I do.

No idea what you're on about, Vlad.

I am not the one trying to deny my burden. You guys are.

I'm sure you think you have a 'burden': but that might just be you.

Any version of history has a burden. We all know how the Christians answer questions of historicity. It is the  bankruptcy of New atheism which seeks to change the playing field from history to statistical probability and science and avoid the same questions.

History doesn't deal with the events you have faith in - it just recognises that people have different religious faiths and the consequences of that in terms of what people do (or don't). What you have faith in is another matter, and investigating that requires a method other than history.

No amount of flailing about addresses the problem of there being no current method to investigate claims of the divine: for crying out loud you seem reluctant to even consider the risks of mistakes or lies involving the human aspects of the NT.

[floo]

Bzzzzzzzzz Problem of induction.

Ehhhhh?

Blimey Vlad you change your name more often than you change your pants!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So they say: but not convincingly.

Which is both a non sequitur and sounds like begging the question (by presuming there is a god to be dodged).

No idea what you're on about, Vlad.

I'm sure you think you have a 'burden': but that might just be you.

History doesn't deal with the events you have faith in - it just recognises that people have different religious faiths and the consequences of that in terms of what people do (or don't). What you have faith in is another matter, and investigating that requires a method other than history.

No amount of flailing about addresses the problem of there being no current method to investigate claims of the divine: for crying out loud you seem reluctant to even consider the risks of mistakes or lies involving the human aspects of the NT.

I have outlined why I think lies or mistakes are unlikely to have played a part in this part of History. It is untrue to say that I am reluctant.
It was me after all who mooted that a conspiracy would not have lasted and the motivation of the authorities to establish lying....... In other words Gordon I have tested other hypotheses unfavourable to my own.

I do not invoke the divine since resurrection merely postulates a rearrangement of matter. You would be unwise to claim impossibility here not least in light of the induction problem, In other words God doesn't have to be invoked. You introduce the divine as a red herring.

In terms of Goddodgery it could involve dodging the idea of God 9although we are left with the question why.

I rather think we are waiting of your take on history for scrutiny

[floo]

I have outlined why I think lies or mistakes are unlikely to have played a part in this part of History. It is untrue to say that I am reluctant.
It was me after all who mooted that a conspiracy would not have lasted and the motivation of the authorities to establish lying....... In other words Gordon I have tested other hypotheses unfavourable to my own.

I do not invoke the divine since resurrection merely postulates a rearrangement of matter. You would be unwise to claim impossibility here not least in light of the induction problem, In other words God doesn't have to be invoked. You introduce the divine as a red herring.

In terms of Goddodgery it could involve dodging the idea of God 9although we are left with the question why.

I rather think we are waiting of your take on history for scrutiny

Wow, I have just come up with a good username for you when you change it again, 'Vlad the Confused'!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wow, I have just come up with a good username for you when you change it again, 'Vlad the Confused'!

Very Good and I have a new name for you when you change yours. ''Antony Floo gave up atheism'' Ha Ha Ha.

[Gordon]

I have outlined why I think lies or mistakes are unlikely to have played a part in this part of History. It is untrue to say that I am reluctant.

You are reluctant, just like other Christians I've asked this of, since you haven't explained how you've assessed these risks - dismissing them out of hand isn't the same thing.

It was me after all who mooted that a conspiracy would not have lasted and the motivation of the authorities to establish lying....... In other words Gordon I have tested other hypotheses unfavourable to my own.

What hypothesis is this? The authorities at the time Jesus was executed had no reasons to treat this as being anything other than routine for those times. 

I do not invoke the divine since resurrection merely postulates a rearrangement of matter.

Do tell.

You would be unwise to claim impossibility here not least in light of the induction problem, In other words God doesn't have to be invoked. You introduce the divine as a red herring.

It's actually unclear what you're claiming: you say you've had an encounter with the divine then you deny you're invoking the divine and suggest that what most Christians regard as the key miracle involving divine intervention (the resurrection of Jesus) was some kind of physical change to matter. I think you need to think this through a bit more.

In terms of Goddodgery it could involve dodging the idea of God 9although we are left with the question why.

So are we dodging 'God' or the 'idea of God'? 

I rather think we are waiting of your take on history for scrutiny

I don't have a 'take' on history - since you guys haven't addressed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT as regards the claimed divinity of Jesus then I don't think its something I need to take seriously, especially since the claims involved are outwith the scope of the historical methods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have a 'take' on history -

OOOHHHKAAAAYYYYYYYY!!?