Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Nearly Sane]

Well that's a claim that certainly needs justification.

And been done multiple times 0 your god proposal cannot be defined in any language coherent manner, acts inconsistently according to the books of your religion, which books argue that it can't be inconsistent

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And again that has been covered multiple times such as on your 'resurrection' thread so if you got what you wanted out of that thread you must have been hoping for that to be shown.

I put loads of points there that went unchallenged in favour of warmed over helpings of ''These things never happen'' and flagrant disregard of Popperian thought and the problem of induction. Sheer fundementalist Meldrewism i'm afraid.

[Nearly Sane]

I put loads of points there that went unchallenged in favour of warmed over helpings of ''These things never happen'' and flagrant disregard of Popperian thought and the problem of induction. Sheer fundementalist Meldrewism i'm afraid.

You raised a number of barely coherent points that undermined the importance of what you argue for the resurrection in order to pass some time

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You raised a number of barely coherent points that undermined the importance of what you argue for the resurrection in order to pass some time

Wrong I pointed out that three doctors pronounced a man dead presumably because of evidence, that there was no monitoring of the man in his presumed dead condition and he was later seen alive. In different ways.

The counterargument was that they had to be wrong and that counter argument was made without any evidence of the persons condition after the diagnosis.

The response from my opposition was that they erroneously accused me of making incorrect or incoherent statements.

You responded to me according to your conditioning and it was highly entertaining.

[Nearly Sane]

Wrong I pointed out that three doctors pronounced a man dead presumably because of evidence, that there was no monitoring of the man in his presumed dead condition and he was later seen alive. In different ways.

The counterargument was that they had to be wrong and that counter argument was made without any evidence of the persons condition.

The response from my opposition was that they erroneously accused me of making incorrect or incoherent statements.

You responded to me according to your conditioning and it was highly entertaining.

If you want to have a discussion of why the above is wrong, I suggest you go back to the thread and address the actual points made.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to have a discussion of why the above is wrong, I suggest you go back to the thread and address the actual points made.

No I don't think so. There is no actual evidence for the state of this guy after his diagnosis confirmed by three doctors so we have to extend our assumptionsphere a little further. Argue from disbelief, ignoring popper and the problem of induction in other words.

[Nearly Sane]

No I don't think so. There is no actual evidence for the state of this guy after his diagnosis confirmed by three doctors so we have to extend our assumptionsphere a little further. Argue from disbelief, ignoring popper and the problem of induction in other words.

Again if you want to deal with the actual arguments as opposed to your misrepresentations, happy to do it there.

[Spud]

That there was a Roman census that required people to go to a non Roman area to register 6 years before the governor claimed.
 was in power and 4 years after the king claimed was dead but apparently all of that was consistent.  Read the thread. And remember the title of the thread.

Perfect summary.

[Spud]

What events is it based on? The Iliad is fiction. Some of it takes place in the environs of a real city but then so does some of Harry Potter.

Anybody can place fictional events in a historical context. Note that Luke later fluffs his historicity when he invents a fictional census.

Fluffing the historicity doesn't mean it is fictional.

Quote from: NRSV
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you

Here Luke is admitting that he is using third hand accounts.

As in, the accounts were told by Peter et al to someone else, then Luke uses their reports. Yes, I can agree with that.

Even if they are third hand, and whether or not the historical details about the census are correct, I think Luke is trying to say primarily that the events actually happened: here are the names of the people who witnessed them, they were real people and it happened at a particular time in history.

So Theophilus would not have been able to cross-examine the eyewitnesses, but Luke wants him to be able to trace them so that he can be more certain about the facts than he otherwise would have been.

[Gordon]

Even if they are third hand, and whether or not the historical details about the census are correct, I think Luke is trying to say primarily that the events actually happened: here are the names of the people who witnessed them, they were real people and it happened at a particular time in history.

How do you know the writer of Luke isn't mistaken or lying?
 

So Theophilus would not have been able to cross-examine the eyewitnesses, but Luke wants him to be able to trace them so that he can be more certain about the facts than he otherwise would have been.

No risk of bias then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again if you want to deal with the actual arguments as opposed to your misrepresentations, happy to do it there.

Actual arguments? I hope you are not including any reaction which suggested I was automatically suggesting a supernatural resurrection?

What argument could there have been to a suggestion that three doctors diagnosed him as dead, he was unmonitored subsequently and found to be alive? To suggest there is an argument against that or even that this is unusual seems to be fight picking flannel.

[Gordon]

Actual arguments? I hope you are not including any reaction which suggested I was automatically suggesting a supernatural resurrection?

What argument could there have been to a suggestion that three doctors diagnosed him as dead, he was unmonitored subsequently and found to be alive? To suggest there is an argument against that or even that this is unusual seems to be fight picking flannel.

Perhaps we should revert to the other thread: btw have you checked your 'three doctors diagnosed' recently?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps we should revert to the other thread: btw have you checked your 'three doctors diagnosed' recently?

No as I said I've made all my observations regarding responses. They aren't my doctors and the world has moved on. I never stated my personal beliefs on the issue but I believe somehow a wrong diagnosis was probably made. Unless there is actual proof of error though that is as far as we can go.

I don't even believe I suggested divine activity

Sorry to disappoint by being , in no ways disappointed. Anyway.......so much for naturalistic resurrection......

[jeremyp]

Thanks Jeremy, it's an interesting puzzle because Joseph clearly did go to Bethlehem to register, if Luke is right.

Which makes no sense and is not supported by other sources. Therefore Luke is wrong.

[jeremyp]

He takes what is written, sees epistoliary backup, considers the historical context experiences Christianity as a societal phenomenon, considers the position philosophically, and has an encounter with Christ....not necessarily in that order.

No he doesn't. He wants the gospels to be true so he invents stuff to make it come out right. If you accept the possibility that Luke is not inerrant, the obvious solution to all the historical problems with his narrative is that it is not true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which makes no sense and is not supported by other sources. Therefore Luke is wrong.

I'm wondering what those around here who suggest that the bible has suffered all kinds of intervening interpolations and transcription errors would say on the matter.

''The original account has suffered a transcription error or deletion'' perhaps?

[Gordon]

I'm wondering what those around here who suggest that the bible has suffered all kinds of intervening interpolations and transcription errors would say on the matter.

''The original account has suffered a transcription error or deletion'' perhaps?

'The original account may have been wrong or fabricated', perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'The original account may have been wrong or fabricated', perhaps?

What, all of it?

[Gordon]

What, all of it?

It would be for those who feel any account is relevant to assess the risks of mistakes or lies in the details of whatever is claimed. This is especially the case for anecdotal accounts where the details are being portrayed as being highly significant in some way, and obviously the presence of any obvious factual errors would weaken confidence in the account.

In relation to what has been mentioned in this thread, involving the census story, it would seem that this does contain factual errors so it would be essential for those promoting the story to deal directly with these factual errors.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It would be for those who feel any account is relevant to assess the risks of mistakes or lies in the details of whatever is claimed.
 This is especially the case for anecdotal accounts where the details are being portrayed as being highly significant in some way, and obviously the presence of any obvious factual errors would weaken confidence in the account.

In relation to what has been mentioned in this thread, involving the census story, it would seem that this does contain factual errors so it would be essential for those promoting the story to deal directly with these factual errors.

First of all we know that a transcription error of one or two words can change the sense of something.
We know that typos can be made in any account.
What we know is that the new Testament has multiple authors and styles. That satisfies a demand for multiple accounts.
What is it then that these authors have all attested to. The Christian message.
There would have to be too many transcription errors or mistakes to conveniently mutate the bible into exactly what it's detractors wish it to be.

However we are dealing though with two factual errors concerning the same piece of history so at most we are dealing with a dating error in the original......So I would not counsel trying to turn this dating error into an all bets off conclusion or try to spread this mere hotel portion of butter over the whole loaf.

Lastly how does a dating error support the idea that the New testament is a work of fiction?

Since you have not been able to pen any discrimination between what has been offered to you by way of Why we think the new testament is sound and assessing the risks I take it that constant demands of assessing the risks are somekind of mindgaming ruse on your behalf.

On the plus side you can't avoid tracing out alternatives to Luke being correct because the counter evidence is wrong, or Luke just stuffing the date up, or transcription error through deletion of one or two words, alternative histories which will need their own ''assessment of risk''. 

[Gordon]

Which sounds like a treatise of special pleading: put simply, you can't know the extent to which mistakes or lies appear in the NT, especially given the uncertain provenance of some of it, the nature of some of the claims it contains and the potential bias of the authors, but prefer to proceed on an 'it's true for me' basis - which is fine for the purposes of your personal belief.

It isn't fine though for anyone trying to portray the NT content as being historical fact, and where they come unstuck is when it comes to assessing the risks of mistakes and lies - and it seems to me they are reluctant to even acknowledge these risks and much prefer to divert onto this 'Christian message', as you just did.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which sounds like a treatise of special pleading: put simply, you can't know the extent to which mistakes or lies appear in the NT, especially given the uncertain provenance of some of it, the nature of some of the claims it contains and the potential bias of the authors, but prefer to proceed on an 'it's true for me' basis - which is fine for the purposes of your personal belief.

It isn't fine though for anyone trying to portray the NT content as being historical fact, and where they come unstuck is when it comes to assessing the risks of mistakes and lies - and it seems to me they are reluctant to even acknowledge these risks and much prefer to divert onto this 'Christian message', as you just did.   

It's special pleading on your part if you are suggesting that a dating error invalidates everything in the NT.
In terms of not knowing the extent of the mistakes in the bible that is true for the whole of ancient historical literature for that period unless of course you specially plead.
The new testament reads in many places like slices of life.

You seem to be going in the opposite direction though that none of the NT is history. Well, that is special pleading to for reasons I've just outlined. That is why the NT as fiction is a fringe belief.
What you have to show therefore is that the community described in the earliest parts new testament did not exist since the Gospel is already implicit and explicit in there.

If you are not satisfied with the new testament then there must be another history which is more satisfactory and true. What then is this history and when was it written? I believe you are mistaking history for an entity. The world can be without an entity but not a history i'm afraid.

Given all of that. The statement that everything portrayed as historical in the new testament is false is i'm afraid the Fred and Ginger of bias and your low attempt to imbue such a totality of your own tendency onto the biblical writers is laughable.

I mention the Christian message because that is the call to practice and partake of precisely the same process as described historically in the New testament.

[Gordon]

It's special pleading on your part if you are suggesting that a dating error invalidates everything in the NT.

I didn't say that.

In terms of not knowing the extent of the mistakes in the bible that is true for the whole of ancient historical literature for that period unless of course you specially plead.

I agree with you, since the risks of human error and human artifice apply to all anecdotal accounts and presentations of events and people: hence the need to consider these risks.

The new testament reads in many places like slices of life.

It may well do, as do many other documents and even acknowledged fiction. For instance 'To Kill a Mockingbird' reads like a 'slice of life'.

You seem to be going in the opposite direction though that none of the NT is history. Well, that is special pleading to for reasons I've just outlined. That is why the NT as fiction is a fringe belief.

I didn't say that, and I'm not special pleading: there may well be elements in the NT that are trivially true and there may well be clear errors, as noted in this thread, but the main claims involving Jesus (such as him being dead and then not) need to be assessed so as to exclude the risks - and that is what you are avoiding like the plague.
 

What you have to show therefore is that the community described in the earliest parts new testament did not exist since the Gospel is already implicit and explicit in there.

No I don't - I'm simply asking how the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT have been assessed, so stop evading.

If you are not satisfied with the new testament then there must be another history which is more satisfactory and true.

There is certainly a history: but we are dealing with what the NT presents as being history.

What then is this history and when was it written? I believe you are mistaking history for an entity. The world can be without an entity but not a history i'm afraid.

No idea: remember I'm just asking you how you have assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in the version of history you've signed up to.

Given all of that. The statement that everything portrayed as historical in the new testament is false is i'm afraid the Fred and Ginger of bias and your low attempt to imbue such a totality of your own tendency onto the biblical writers is laughable.

Indeed it would be laughable: but then I haven't said that, but I can spot a straw man when I see one.

I mention the Christian message because that is the call to practice and partake of precisely the same process as described historically in the New testament.

Super: but that says nothing other than your personal commitment to the NT and ignores the risk that what you have committed to may involve mistakes and lies - this should worry you greatly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say that.

I agree with you, since the risks of human error and human artifice apply to all anecdotal accounts and presentations of events and people: hence the need to consider these risks.

It may well do, as do many other documents and even acknowledged fiction. For instance 'To Kill a Mockingbird' reads like a 'slice of life'.

I didn't say that, and I'm not special pleading: there may well be elements in the NT that are trivially true and there may well be clear errors, as noted in this thread, but the main claims involving Jesus (such as him being dead and then not) need to be assessed so as to exclude the risks - and that is what you are avoiding like the plague.
 
No I don't - I'm simply asking how the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT have been assessed, so stop evading.

There is certainly a history: but we are dealing with what the NT presents as being history.

No idea: remember I'm just asking you how you have assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in the version of history you've signed up to.

Indeed it would be laughable: but then I haven't said that, but I can spot a straw man when I see one.

Super: but that says nothing other than your personal commitment to the NT and ignores the risk that what you have committed to may involve mistakes and lies - this should worry you greatly.

You say you didn't say these things so what are you saying?
You say of course there is a history then what is it?

Time to front up Gordon.

[Gordon]

You say you didn't say these things so what are you saying?
You say of course there is a history then what is it?

Time to front up Gordon.

I'm asking you, for the umpteenth time, how you have assessed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT content.

That there is a history of those times is self-evident, but I'm not inclined to speculate on the details or on alternative scenarios for the fairly obvious reason that there are no sources that would allow me to do so with any confidence.

Is that clear enough?