Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A weak message is one that fails to convince - there is a subtle difference between that and what you suggest.

So the message of later evangelists (most of whom would never have met Jesus, including Paul) was strong in that it convinced many. However the actual teaching of Jesus was weak in that despite the fact that thousands heard him message directly from him (if we accept the bible claims of preaching to thousands) he failed to convince many - indeed a tiny number ended up as adherents.

See my previous post where I accept that subtle difference and the explanation you are giving here by way of clarification.

However what evidence do you have that a tiny amount of his audience ended up as adherents? What troubles me here is your use of imprecise terms and what the bible actually talks about is the fall off in Jesus adherence to what some consider Zero.

What this suggests is that Jesus's charismatic following, dropped markedly (from what level we have no statistics).

There is therefore a mystery here in that the effect of Jesus in person and as a charismatic personality flatlined as people saw what was good for them in the light of Jesus pariah and state criminal status is not as profound as the message of the apostles who were able to add in the crucifixion and resurrection.

F

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the contrary - I think believers argue that the details of Jesus' grave are believable because it suit them, as believers.

The key test is one of consistency. Were there to be a similar story with similar paucity of evidence would you believe it. For Jeremy and myself I guess we'd take exactly the same sceptical line as we do with the story of Jesus - we are consistent. Christians tend to cherry pick and engage in special pleading, accepting as true claims in the bible without hesitation that they would accept in a million years in another context.

I don't think people are accepting a resurrection on the basis of the mere story but on the implications of the resurrection and return to 'heaven'. People hear the story as part of the whole teaching that we need salvation and that is met in Christ. A resurrection suggests that Jesus is not dead in the sense that William the conqueror is dead. They also consider the divine claim. If there is an encounter with Christ also.

I think people like yourself try to divide and rule. While the believer is influenced by many aspects you seek to divide these up to reduce the whole and it's effect.

That's not to say that doubt or recognition that this doesn't normally happen hasn't been there from the start....see the epistles....but doubt is not final conversion to atheism.
After all, all Paul is prepared to concede is that if Christ had not been resurrected then we are still trapped in our sins.

[ProfessorDavey]

What this suggests is that Jesus's charismatic following, dropped markedly (from what level we have no statistics).

But we do if we use the claims in the gospels, which suggest that thousands of people (out of a relatively small population at the time) went to hear Jesus preach. Indeed there is also the (rather hyperbolic) claim of 500 people witnessing a dead man alive again in one place.

Yet that population (i.e. those living at the time and in the same place as Jesus during his ministry) remained resolutely Jewish.

In a manner I am not suggesting that his charismatic following dropped - i.e. people were convinced and then lost that conviction. Rather I am suggesting that they weren't convinced in the first place. And we need to recognise two further issues - those of potential exaggeration or misrepresentation by those writing decades later, with an agenda. Exaggeration - that perhaps Jesus reached very few people in his ministry rather than the thousands claimed. Misrepresentation - that the message of his ministry was not as claimed in the bible - rather that his message was a specifically Jewish one and actually quite successful in cementing those who heard him as good Jews - with a small number going 'off message' making messianic claims when that may not have been the message at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.

Just repost of the post which ''started it all''

First of all I've noticed you seem to be equating profound effect with becoming a believer. I'm not sure that's safe.

Secondly you talk in later posts about Jesus lack of ability to garner following as opposed to the later evangelists. Here you talk about Christianity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just repost of the post which ''started it all''

First of all I've noticed you seem to be equating profound effect with becoming a believer. I'm not sure that's safe.

Secondly you talk in later posts about Jesus lack of ability to garner following as opposed to the later evangelists. Here you talk about Christianity.

See my comments in my last post which addresses these issues.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But we do if we sue the claims in the gospels, which suggest that thousands of people (out of a relatively small population at the time) went to hear Jesus preach. Indeed there is also the (rather hyperbolic) claim of 500 people witnessing a dead man alive again in one place.

Yet that population (i.e. those living at the time and in the same place as Jesus during his ministry) remained resolutely Jewish.

In a manner I am not suggesting that his charismatic following dropped - i.e. people were convinced and then lost that conviction. Rather I am suggesting that they weren't convinced in the first place. And we need to recognise two further issues - those of potential exaggeration or misrepresentation by those writing decades later, with an agenda. Exaggeration - that perhaps Jesus reached very few people in his ministry rather than the thousands claimed. Misrepresentation - that the message of his ministry was not as claimed in the bible - rather that his message was a specifically Jewish one and actually quite successful in cementing those who heard him as good Jews - with a small number going 'off message' making messianic claims when that may not have been the message at all.

Convinced about what though?. In the original post you say Christianity did not convince them. Jesus preaching and teaching could not convincingly include the death and resurrection components.
All they had was the teaching and we don't know what his audience did with that psychologically.

As for your charges of exaggeration and misrepresentation as they are positive assertions they would have to be justified.

Perhaps you could tell us what the significance to you that the population remained resolutely Jewish.( Be Careful of argumentum ad populum, mind ).

[bluehillside Retd.]

The professor is only correct if he defines a weak message as one which does not garner much support.
That would however make the person who claims that christianity is a strong message correct.

However if he was saying loads of supporters so must be strong in truth terms that is incorrect or conversely if few supporters then the message is weak in truth terms then that is also incorrect.

Philosophicalsociety.com gives this as an example. It is close to what the professor is arguing imho

''argumentum ad populum -- This fallacy occurs when an argument panders to popular passion or sentiment. When, for instance, a politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is committing the fallacy. The legitimacy of a statement depends not on its popularity, but on its truth credentials.''

In which Lieutenant Pigeon makes several errors:

1. Weak vs strong is ambiguous because it implies some relationship to the truth value of the statement – the sun orbiting the earth would have been a “strong” message once using this term. Persuasive vs not persuasive is closer to it, and the point made is that Jesus does not appear to have been persuasive for those who heard him.

2. “Christianity” (or actually the bewildering varieties of it) is only persuasive for those who identify as Christians, and the extent to which they are persuaded rather than got at before their critical faculties have developed is moot to say the least.

3. An argumentum ad populum is the assertion that popularity implies truthfulness. The Prof said no such thing – rather he merely made the point that the Christ narrative only caught the wind with the distance of space and time – ie, with the opportunity for the stories to be added to, embellished, edited for their eventual audience.

4. If the quote is correct, then it’s wrong – or at least incomplete. When a “politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is not committing the ad pop fallacy. This could just be a statement of fact. For there to be an ad pop the politician would also have to say, “because there are more people in the audience who think X and only one of you who thinks Y, the audience must be correct.”

And again none of that reflects what the Prof actually said in any case.

Apart from that though…   

[Maeght]

I think people like yourself try to divide and rule. While the believer is influenced by many aspects you seek to divide these up to reduce the whole and it's effect.

That's not what divide and rule means.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jesus preaching and teaching could not convincingly include the death and resurrection components.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon implies that being persuasive to an audience was beyond the ability of a demigod, but the party trick reported to and believed by others long after the event and far away is sufficient to establish his bona fides.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon makes several errors:

1. Weak vs strong is ambiguous because it implies some relationship to the truth value of the statement – the sun orbiting the earth would have been a “strong” message once using this term. Persuasive vs not persuasive is closer to it, and the point made is that Jesus does not appear to have been persuasive for those who heard him.

2. “Christianity” (or actually the bewildering varieties of it) is only persuasive for those who identify as Christians, and the extent to which they are persuaded rather than got at before their critical faculties have developed is moot to say the least.

3. An argumentum ad populum is the assertion that popularity implies truthfulness. The Prof said no such thing – rather he merely made the point that the Christ narrative only caught the wind with the distance of space and time – ie, with the opportunity for the stories to be added to, embellished, edited for their eventual audience.

4. If the quote is correct, then it’s wrong – or at least incomplete. When a “politician exclaims in a debate that his opponent "is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience," he/she is not committing the ad pop fallacy. This could just be a statement of fact. For there to be an ad pop the politician would also have to say, “because there are more people in the audience who think X and only one of you who thinks Y, the audience must be correct.”

And again none of that reflects what the Prof actually said in any case.

Apart from that though…   

Good morning Sir, I'm afraid cook was unable to order brown speckled due to an outbreak of chicken mange at the farm, here are your papers and sir needs to properly read the message board posts subsequent to the post sir is commenting on.......unless of course sir recognises that the professor could be in deep plop over the Privates request for the significance of the jewish population in first century Palestine remaining jewish and sir isattempting a diversionary derail?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Good morning Sir, I'm afraid cook was unable to order brown speckled due to an outbreak of chicken mange at the farm, here are your papers and sir needs to properly read the message board posts subsequent to the post sir is commenting on.......unless of course sir recognises that the professor could be in deep plop over the Privates request for the significance of the jewish population in first century Palestine remaining jewish and sir isattempting a diversionary derail.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon forgets that, if a (false) accusation of an ad pop was a derail, then it was his own derail.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Eh? what I'm saying is that even Davey's clarification of what he meant by a weak argument was doesn't explain the significance of mentioning jews of Jesus time remaining jewish.

By all means attempt to explain without incurring argumentum ad populum if you can.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon fails to grasp that Jesus failing to persuade those who actually heard him would be surprising for a (supposed) demigod, and that that statement has bugger all to do with attempting an ad pop.

Rather than make him an unpersuasive orator so he'd have to die horribly later on (albeit only for a bit) in the hope that that story would be believed long after and far away by people who weren't there, why wouldn't Dad just have made him a charismatic speaker in the first place?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon fails to grasp that Jesus failing to persuade those who actually heard him would be surprising for a (supposed) demigod, and that that statement has bugger all to do with attempting an ad pop.

Rather than make him an unpersuasive orator so he'd have to die horribly later on (albeit only for a bit) in the hope that that story would be believed long after and far away by people who weren't there, why wouldn't Dad just have made him a charismatic speaker in the first place?   

But in his original Davey does not say Jesus. He says Christianity,

Here it is:
Quote from: ProfessorDavey on January 31, 2018, 03:36:04 PM
''If witnessing (or even being involved in) a dialogue with Jesus 'would have had a profound effect', how do you explain that Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose - amongst those very people (apparently thousands of them) who heard Jesus preach. Clearly all those people - the actual witnesses - weren't impressed or convinced enough to become believers. Why was Jesus' message so weak that it failed to attract sizeble numbers of believers where he lived and preached, rather than amongst distant communities receiving the message via 'third party' salesmen.''
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=716107;topic=14901.525#


So what is the significance of the majority remaining jewish.

I suggest that there were disciples and that at the end of the ministry the bible says all abandoned their discipleship.

There is significance therefore of Davey mistaking Christianity with Jesus precrucifixion discipleship.

The question remains therefore what is significant for Christianity that the jews in Palestine remained jewish.

In terms of making Jesus an insignificant orator o fpoor abilities. That is not biblical since he was powerful enough to present a threat to National authorities both roman and jewish authoritiesand that belies Davey's claims.

[ProfessorDavey]

In terms of making Jesus an insignificant orator o fpoor abilities. That is not biblical since he was powerful enough to present a threat to National authorities both roman and jewish authoritiesand that belies Davey's claims.

Cherry picking again - the only evidence we have for this is in documents written by early Christians years later. Where is the evidence from specific Roman or Jewish sources (rather than Christian sources) to indicate that they considered him powerful enough to present a threat.

Also, to note, even within the Christian writing two other people met exactly the same end as Jesus at the same time - were they also considered 'powerful enough to present a threat to National authorities both roman and jewish authorities' - or were they considered to be simply guilty of criminal activity which was punishable by death. How do we know (from non partial sources) that Jesus was also simply considered to be guilty of criminal activity which was punishable by death, rather than to be a threat.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cherry picking again - the only evidence we have for this is in documents written by early Christians years later. Where is the evidence from specific Roman or Jewish sources (rather than Christian sources) to indicate that they considered him powerful enough to present a threat.

Oh dear
Back to the extancy of ancient documentation.
The complete dismissal of Christian source (The genetic fallacy)
The Gap theory of history (That we can edit out history we don't like without having to substitute an alternative.)
There are no safely non partial sources here. You are being naive
Innuendo of exaaggeration and misrepresentation (To be fair you did openly suggest these earlier but have failed to Justify)....

Also How was the fact that many Jews did not become convert to christianity significant for christianity?or anything else?

[Spud]

On the contrary - I think believers argue that the details of Jesus' grave are believable because it suit them, as believers.

The key test is one of consistency. Were there to be a similar story with similar paucity of evidence would you believe it. For Jeremy and myself I guess we'd take exactly the same sceptical line as we do with the story of Jesus - we are consistent. Christians tend to cherry pick and engage in special pleading, accepting as true claims in the bible without hesitation that they would accept in a million years in another context.

I thought it was the miracles you found impossible to accept as historical, but now apparently it's the rest too, including the burial. Reverse cherry picking??

[Gordon]

I thought it was the miracles you found impossible to accept as historical, but now apparently it's the rest too, including the burial. Reverse cherry picking??

Nope - just than even in the routine claims in the NT, in addition to the miracles, there seems to be no way to either confirm the details or exclude the risks of mistakes or lies. In effect they are indistinguishable from fiction.

[wigginhall]

A lot of historians accept the broad outline of Jesus' career, but not the miracles, and not most of the 'fine detail', except stuff which contradicts Jewish theology.    The acceptance is based on parsimony really, I think, i.e. it explains all the literature economically, if there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus.   But not supernatural stuff, as history excludes that obviously. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - just than even in the routine claims in the NT, in addition to the miracles, there seems to be no way to either confirm the details or exclude the risks of mistakes or lies. In effect they are indistinguishable from fiction.

And when was that fiction written.
And who wrote it.
And who was the audience.
And when did the fiction become accepted as fact
and who accepted it as fact
and who remained in the knowledge that it was fiction
 and why was it not considered fiction for centuries
and how and why was it rediscovered as fiction
and why is it even now the thesis that it was fiction not widely recognised.

Come on then Gordon, Sky subscriptions could be cancelled in anticipation of you enlightening us.

[Gordon]

And when was that fiction written.
And who wrote it.
And who was the audience.
And when did the fiction become accepted as fact
and who accepted it as fact
and who remained in the knowledge that it was fiction
 and why was it not considered fiction for centuries
and how and why was it rediscovered as fiction
and why is it even now the thesis that it was fiction not widely recognised.

Come on then Gordon, Sky subscriptions could be cancelled in anticipation of you enlightening us.

No idea: not my claim you see, and if you read for comprehension you'll note I'm not claiming it is fiction: but that it is indistinguishable from fiction, given the risks of mistakes and lies.

All you need do now is some distinguishing and explain how you've meaningfully excluded these risks.

[Spud]

Christianity failed to establish itself where it arose

Because Jesus was not the kind of Messiah the Jews wanted or expected. When face to face with a righteous king they swapped him for the yoke of Rome (we have no king but Caesar)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea: not my claim you see, and if you read for comprehension you'll note I'm not claiming it is fiction: but that it is indistinguishable from fiction,

Yes, Gordon that is a positive assertion. If it is indistinguishable from fiction why is it indistinguishable from fiction?

Since you haven't been able to justify it to date I think we can take it that with you it is an article of faith. Have a nice day.

[floo]

Because Jesus was not the kind of Messiah the Jews wanted or expected. When face to face with a righteous king they swapped him for the yolk of Rome (we have no king but Caesar)

Which probably means he wasn't any sort of Messiah!

[Gordon]

Yes, Gordon that is a positive assertion. If it is indistinguishable from fiction why is it indistinguishable from fiction?

Since you haven't been able to justify it to date I think we can take it that with you it is an article of faith. Have a nice day.

Don't be silly, Vlad - all you need do is explain the basis for your concluding that the risk of mistakes or lies in the NT is negligible. Failing you doing that, so that these risks remain, is the answer to your 'why' question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad - all you need do is explain the basis for your concluding that the risk of mistakes or lies in the NT is negligible. Failing you doing that, so that these risks remain, is the answer to your 'why' question.

This has been explained to you before. Gordon with reference to the early epistles.
Are you saying this hasn't been done or you don't accept the explanation.

I think it is clear that you dont want to justify any assertion.

Since I'm not obliged to be here to have my time wasted I shall bid you goodbye.