Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

But you've already speculated Gordon.......You've speculated that it might not be true.
However there isn't then the luxury of leaving it like that.
A There has been no apparent examination of the NT by yourself and
B You have a duty to explore and similarly test the alternatives because history cannot have any holes.

[Gordon]

But you've already speculated Gordon.......You've speculated that it might not be true.
However there isn't then the luxury of leaving it like that.
A There has been no apparent examination of the NT by yourself and
B You have a duty to explore and similarly test the alternatives because history cannot have any holes.

Don't be silly: I think the risk of mistakes and lies is ubiquitous when it comes to people, and that those promoting the content of anything whatsoever as historical fact that involves the pronouncements of people, and especially when remarkable claims are involved, really do need to assess these risks carefully.

If they haven't, or they can't given the lack of alternative reliable sources, if there are likely inconsistencies in the details of what is being claimed or if they are clearly resistant to doing so and seem inclined to accept the details at face-value - then I can quite reasonably conclude that the risks of mistakes or lies is such that whatever it is they are promoting can't be considered as a serious proposition if it is, effectively, indistinguishable from fiction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: I think the risk of mistakes and lies is ubiquitous when it comes to people, and that those promoting the content of anything whatsoever as historical fact that involves the pronouncements of people, and especially when remarkable claims are involved, really do need to assess these risks carefully.

If they haven't, or they can't given the lack of alternative reliable sources, if there are likely inconsistencies in the details of what is being claimed or if they are clearly resistant to doing so and seem inclined to accept the details at face-value - then I can quite reasonably conclude that the risks of mistakes or lies is such that whatever it is they are promoting can't be considered as a serious proposition if it is, effectively, indistinguishable from fiction.

So long as you are applying this to all history Gordon then you avoid special pleading.
The extraordinary claims demand Schlick is I'm afraid a form of special pleading drawn from argument from disbelief. In other words we are special pleading when only considering the usual. You see logically if you take this line you end up believing anything that fits the usual. You end up with several equally usual versions.

The New Testament is out there Gordon. Any dispute over it is a suggestion of an alternative history.
To insist on people stating why they accept the biblical version while claiming immunity for having to justify their preferred alternative is by turns humbug and special pleading. It is the Default delusion I'm afraid.

[Gordon]

So long as you are applying this to all history Gordon then you avoid special pleading.

Which I do, and to current as well as historical stuff.

The extraordinary claims demand Schlick is I'm afraid a form of special pleading drawn from argument from disbelief.

No it isn't, unless you are prepared to accept highly unusual claims on the assurances of people you approve of.

In other words we are special pleading when only considering the usual. You see logically if you take this line you end up believing anything that fits the usual. You end up with several equally usual versions.

You're being silly again: scepticism in all things is quite reasonable.

The New Testament is out there Gordon. Any dispute over it is a suggestion of an alternative history.

Nope - it is the observation that it may contain mistakes or lies, and that its enthusiastic supporters seem reluctant to address these risks.

To insist on people stating why they accept the biblical version while claiming immunity for having to justify their preferred alternative is by turns humbug and special pleading. It is the Default delusion I'm afraid.

Which isn't my position, as you well know so why misrepresent what I've regularly explained, and I'm not offering an 'alternative' since, as I've said, I have as much evidence for an 'alternative' story for these characters (assuming for the sake of argument they existed) as you do for the NT narrative - which is none that would stand scrutiny. 

You'd do better to explain how you've assessed the risks of mistake or lies in the NT instead of evading this point - or acknowledging that there is no basis to assess these risks so that accepting the NT details is a matter of personal belief and not historical fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which I do, and to current as well as historical stuff.

No it isn't, unless you are prepared to accept highly unusual claims on the assurances of people you approve of.

You're being silly again: scepticism in all things is quite reasonable.

Nope - it is the observation that it may contain mistakes or lies, and that its enthusiastic supporters seem reluctant to address these risks.

Which isn't my position, as you well know so why misrepresent what I've regularly explained, and I'm not offering an 'alternative' since, as I've said, I have as much evidence for an 'alternative' story for these characters (assuming for the sake of argument they existed) as you do for the NT narrative - which is none that would stand scrutiny. 

You'd do better to explain how you've assessed the risks of mistake or lies in the NT instead of evading this point - or acknowledging that there is no basis to assess these risks so that accepting the NT details is a matter of personal belief and not historical fact.

I'm afraid that unless you can reference it you don't have as much evidence as the New Testament. 

[Gordon]

I'm afraid that unless you can reference it you don't have as much evidence as the New Testament.

What on earth are you blabbering about: I'm not presenting any 'evidence' and I'm simply asking you about how you have assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in the New Testament since, as far as I can see, you accept the New Testament as being accurate history.

I'm assuming from your persistent evasion that you can't.

[floo]

I'm afraid that unless you can reference it you don't have as much evidence as the New Testament.

You cannot assume the NT actually presents evidence that is verifiable, where the deeds of the characters it profiles are concerned.

[Dicky Underpants]

The New Testament is out there Gordon.

And tells several inconsistent stories, not just one smooth narrative.

 

Any dispute over it is a suggestion of an alternative history.

The use of the singular here is inappropriate, as suggested above. You don't seem very familiar with the criticism the NT has been subjected to over the last 200 years or so (continual reference to C.S. Lewis just shows the paucity of your critical awareness btw).

Judging from your comments over the years, it doesn't look as though you've even read Schweitzer, let alone one of the first major figures of the Higher Criticism, David Friedrich Strauss.

If you'd prefer some more up to date research, try Professor Barry Wilson, who may at least persuade you to see the inconsistencies between Paul's writings and the account in the Book of Acts.

[Dicky Underpants]

as far as I can see, you accept the New Testament as being accurate history.

I'm assuming from your persistent evasion that you can't.

As far as I can tell, Vlad doesn't claim to be a fundamentalist, believing every jot and tittle as divine truth. Trouble is, there can be no doubt that he believes the 'big' claims (resurrection, etc.). What his criteria are for distinguishing between the historicity of Jesus supposedly saying "Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire" or talk about forgiveness, peace and love - or indeed the historicity of a literal, bodily resurrection - I expect we may never get a straightforward answer.

[Alan Burns]

What on earth are you blabbering about: I'm not presenting any 'evidence' and I'm simply asking you about how you have assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in the New Testament since, as far as I can see, you accept the New Testament as being accurate history.

I'm assuming from your persistent evasion that you can't.

Of course it will not be feasible to convince sceptics such as you, Gordon, of the authenticity of the New Testament.  However there have been numerous attempts by sceptics to prove that he NT is a work of fiction.  None have succeeded, and the evidence they discovered brought some of the sceptics to become converts to Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And tells several inconsistent stories, not just one smooth narrative.

 
The use of the singular here is inappropriate, as suggested above. You don't seem very familiar with the criticism the NT has been subjected to over the last 200 years or so (continual reference to C.S. Lewis just shows the paucity of your critical awareness btw).

Judging from your comments over the years, it doesn't look as though you've even read Schweitzer, let alone one of the first major figures of the Higher Criticism, David Friedrich Strauss.

If you'd prefer some more up to date research, try Professor Barry Wilson, who may at least persuade you to see the inconsistencies between Paul's writings and the account in the Book of Acts.

I am familiar with a range of writers of Christianity including Schweitzer through the Blackwell collections edited by McGrath......which include the criticism of the higher critics.

As for your last Paragraph your statement actually means antitheist's common demand of multiple attestation of the same subject matter has been satisfied.

When you talk about stuff being more up to date....isn't that the fallacy of modernity whereby the more up to date a thing is the better it is?

[jeremyp]

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?

Assuming it has how does that help Spud's case? The version he is working from is still inaccurate no matter how it became that way.

[Gordon]

Of course it will not be feasible to convince sceptics such as you, Gordon, of the authenticity of the New Testament.  However there have been numerous attempts by sceptics to prove that he NT is a work of fiction.  None have succeeded, and the evidence they discovered brought some of the sceptics to become converts to Christianity.

I'm not trying to show the NT is a work of fiction: I'm simply asking how you guys can accept it as historical fact (all or in part) if you can't explain how you've addressed the risks of mistakes or lies. It seems you haven't considered these risks at all. Perhaps you should demonstrate that the NT is a work of fact without recourse to the usual plethora of fallacies.

That some people get sucked into Christianity may say something about them but it says nothing about whether what they get sucked into is in any sense reasonable (especially if the can't acknowledge and address the risks of mistakes or lies).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can tell, Vlad doesn't claim to be a fundamentalist, believing every jot and tittle as divine truth. Trouble is, there can be no doubt that he believes the 'big' claims (resurrection, etc.). What his criteria are for distinguishing between the historicity of Jesus supposedly saying "Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire" or talk about forgiveness, peace and love - or indeed the historicity of a literal, bodily resurrection - I expect we may never get a straightforward answer.

How do you propose to extract the 'big' claims from the rest then since proposing to in the first place represents a prior bias in approach. On the other hand it is an alternative history which nobody else around here seems to have the guts for.

What you or we need to do, as an academic exercise of dubious value, is to excise the 'big' claims and see whether the remaining history hangs together.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assuming it has how does that help Spud's case? The version he is working from is still inaccurate no matter how it became that way.

As you know Jeremy too many mutations and you have something which is unviable to the point where nobody could say, as Christian's do, ''this story is the fulfilment of human existence.''

What other inaccuracies other than the dating would you be a alluding too?

[Gordon]

How do you propose to extract the 'big' claims from the rest then since proposing to in the first place represents a prior bias in approach. On the other hand it is an alternative history which nobody else around here seems to have the guts for.

What you or we need to do, as an academic exercise of dubious value, is to excise the 'big' claims and see whether the remaining history hangs together.

This 'alternative history' is just another of your evasion tactics: expressing reasonable doubt about the details of one account does not require the advancement of an alternative account.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This 'alternative history' is just another of your evasion tactics: expressing reasonable doubt about the details of one account does not require the advancement of an alternative account.

Expressing doubt reasonable or otherwise is a de facto advancement of an alternative account via suggestion or innuendo. I wish you would own that.

[Gordon]

Expressing doubt reasonable or otherwise is a de facto advancement of an alternative account via suggestion or innuendo. I wish you would own that.

No it isn't: the burden of proof is yours no matter how much you wriggle.

[jeremyp]

Of course it will not be feasible to convince sceptics such as you, Gordon, of the authenticity of the New Testament.  However there have been numerous attempts by sceptics to prove that he NT is a work of fiction.  None have succeeded, and the evidence they discovered brought some of the sceptics to become converts to Christianity.

What do you mean? Bits of it are absolutely certainly fiction beyond doubt.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't: the burden of proof is yours no matter how much you wriggle.

No, history is not an entity. Whereas you can propose a world without leprechauns FSM or pink unicorns, you cannot have a world with no history. So if you doubt history was this then you are unavoidably suggesting a different history. As I said earlier, you have got a case of 'default delusion'. That is you think you have no burden of proof.

Christians have their evidence, the bible and archeology. You can accept that or have a reason not to. Since this is history, those reasons will be historical.

[Maeght]

Of course it will not be feasible to convince sceptics such as you, Gordon, of the authenticity of the New Testament.  However there have been numerous attempts by sceptics to prove that he NT is a work of fiction.  None have succeeded, and the evidence they discovered brought some of the sceptics to become converts to Christianity.

Could you give some examples of these conversions please Alan

[Gordon]

No, history is not an entity. Whereas you can propose a world without leprechauns FSM or pink unicorns, you cannot have a world with no history. So if you doubt history was this then you are unavoidably suggesting a different history. As I said earlier, you have got a case of 'default delusion'. That is you think you have no burden of proof.

Christians have their evidence, the bible and archeology. You can accept that or have a reason not to. Since this is history, those reasons will be historical.

Just no: to express doubt over accounts that may contains mistakes or lies, and where those supporting the veracity of these accounts seem unaware of these risks or reluctant to address them, does not require the advancement of an alternative account. If you were to think about this for more than a nanosecond you'd realise that any alternative account without sources that could be assessed as being unlikely to contain mistakes or lies would be folly - there don't seem to be any, and as such only a fool would make stuff up.

Archaeology may well support some of the content of the Bible: names of places or people that can be verified - but archaeology doesn't provide evidential support for its miracle claims: but you already know this. 

 

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean? Bits of it are absolutely certainly fiction beyond doubt.

Which parts of the NT to you think are fiction?
(apart from the obvious parables of course)

[Alan Burns]

Could you give some examples of these conversions please Alan

I have read of several, but can't recall them all.  The one I do recall is Frank Morrison, author of "Who Moved The Stone?"

[Maeght]

I have read of several, but can't recall them all.  The one I do recall is Frank Morrison, author of "Who Moved The Stone?"

Thanks. Not read it but will see if I can get hold of it.