Follow up to: Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[BeRational]

So what do you think put the inotion into your head?

Because they are possible if not downright common.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Would you say that error is more common than accuracy.
I dont think I would.
Saying that something is common without a context is meaningless imho.

[BeRational]

Would you say that error is more common than accuracy.
I dont think I would.
Saying that something is common without a context is meaningless imho.

Spud made the claim and has the burden of proof.
It's very simple.
We all know that he cannot justify his claim, so it can be dismissed

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spud made the claim and has the burden of proof.
It's very simple.
We all know that he cannot justify his claim, so it can be dismissed

If it is a historical claim you have an equal burden to justify your alternative history as no history cannot possibly be the default.

[BeRational]

If it is a historical claim you have an equal burden to justify your alternative history as no history cannot possibly be the default.

Untrue.
We just have to note the weakness.
We make no positive claim just raise questions.
Spud on the other hand has made a claim that means he has the burden of proof

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Untrue.
We just have to note the weakness.
We make no positive claim just raise questions.
Spud on the other hand has made a claim that means he has the burden of proof

The weakness in what? Spuds claim, whatever that is? Your default position?

If for example no God is the default position in another debate then the implication is the universe is self driving and self necessary....although what actual evidence there is for that I know not.

Again.....if Spuds claim is wrong what is the correct history?
I wonder whether your evasion here  is if you own the implied alternative position you have to explain it.....

If you are claiming no history then clearly that isnt an option and you should commit yourself to a more useful purpose.

[Gordon]

So what do you think put the inotion into your head?

Try reading what I actually said and not what you imagine I said.

Humans are fallible, so they make mistakes, and human artifice is also a factor in that some humans can seek to deceive: these are risks in relation to all human accounts about anything, and history is littered with examples of both. Therefore anyone advancing the cause of anecdotal accounts of uncertain providence, and especially where there has been a considerable passage of time since the alleged events, would in my view need to consider these risks if the anecdotes in question are to be distinguished from fiction.

I'm simply asking Spud by what means he has assessed the risks of mistake, exaggeration, bias and lies in the NT accounts of Jesus - the burden of proof here is his, and not mine.

[BeRational]

The weakness in what? Spuds claim, whatever that is? Your default position?

If for example no God is the default position in another debate then the implication is the universe is self driving and self necessary....although what actual evidence there is for that I know not.

Again.....if Spuds claim is wrong what is the correct history?
I wonder whether your evasion here  is if you own the implied alternative position you have to explain it.....

If you are claiming no history then clearly that isnt an option and you should commit yourself to a more useful purpose.

I am not making any claim,  I am simply asking that the person making the claim provide the evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Gordon,
Yes. Mistakes, exaggeration, bias and lies have been excluded.

That's an astonishing claim. How on earth do you think that's been done?

[Roses]

So you might accept the credible bits like Jesus teaching from a boat, but not the less than credible bits like walking on water? Well, since all the natural explanations for being seen walking on water can be eliminated, the only explanation left is that he did actually walk on water.
Your claim about the gospels being written well after Jesus was around is based on the assumption that the prophecy in them could not be predictive.

The most credible explanation is that he didn't walk on water.

I think the gospel writers created the life of Jesus to fit in with ancient so call 'prophesies'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Well, since all the natural explanations for being seen walking on water can be eliminated, the only explanation left is that he did actually walk on water.

Did you mean to say that? I can think of several non-miraculous possible explanations for the story without even trying. How would you propose to eliminate them even as possibilities?

One of the problems with your approach is that, when you set the evidential bar so low, you can't just put it there for the miracle stories you happen to favour but not for miracle stories you don't buy. It's a one size fits all deal - set the bar at floor level for your miracles and it's set just as low for any other miracle stories too.

[Enki]

So you might accept the credible bits like Jesus teaching from a boat, but not the less than credible bits like walking on water? Well, since all the natural explanations for being seen walking on water can be eliminated, the only explanation left is that he did actually walk on water.
Your claim about the gospels being written well after Jesus was around is based on the assumption that the prophecy in them could not be predictive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycncqy7S66E

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycncqy7S66E

As it ticks all of Spud's evidence tests that must be a kosher miracle too then! 

[Roses]

Of course Jesus could have been a magician, it doesn't take much to take people in.

[Spud]

How: by what method?

If I tried to be unbiased I might unknowingly be unsuccessful, so by talking to you guys I get a balanced view of the possible causes of error. Yet all the arguments you use are dealt with in the Bible or elsewhere.

For example, Jeremy says "how do you know Ignatius knew John?" so I google that question and find that although there's no direct evidence that he did, the theme of some of his letters was the same as one of John's letters. See 2 John v.7, which is about those who were not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (ie they claimed Jesus only seemed to exist). Ignatius deals with this heresy in his epistle to the Trallians:

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with(18) Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life."
 
More pertinent to Jeremy's question is that Polycarp is mentioned in a writing by his disciple Irenaeus, who says that Polycarp was taught by John and some of the other apostles:
"Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ..." (Against Heresies 3:3:4)

Hope that answers yours and Jeremy's questions.

[Roses]

If I tried to be unbiased I might unknowingly be unsuccessful, so by talking to you guys I get a balanced view of the possible causes of error. Yet all the arguments you use are dealt with in the Bible or elsewhere.

For example, Jeremy says "how do you know Ignatius knew John?" so I google that question and find that although there's no direct evidence that he did, the theme of some of his letters was the same as one of John's letters. See 2 John v.7, which is about those who were not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (ie they claimed Jesus only seemed to exist). Ignatius deals with this heresy in his epistle to the Trallians:

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with(18) Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life."
 
More pertinent to Jeremy's question is that Polycarp is mentioned in a writing by his disciple Irenaeus, who says that Polycarp was taught by John and some of the other apostles:
"Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ..." (Against Heresies 3:3:4)

Hope that answers yours and Jeremy's questions.

The Harry Potter books deal with questions about Voldemort etc, but that doesn't make them credible, anymore than what is stated in the Bible about Jesus is credible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

If I tried to be unbiased I might unknowingly be unsuccessful, so by talking to you guys I get a balanced view of the possible causes of error. Yet all the arguments you use are dealt with in the Bible or elsewhere.

They can't be answered in the Bible because that would be circular reasoning - "the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible".   

For example, Jeremy says "how do you know Ignatius knew John?" so I google that question and find that although there's no direct evidence that he did, the theme of some of his letters was the same as one of John's letters. See 2 John v.7, which is about those who were not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (ie they claimed Jesus only seemed to exist). Ignatius deals with this heresy in his epistle to the Trallians:

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with(18) Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life."

Which still tells you nothing whatever about whether the person saying a resurrection to be the explanation was right about that. Even if you had some means of eliminating being made up, exaggerated, misunderstood in the many retellings etc (and you haven't) you'd still have no way to eliminate honest mistake.   
 

More pertinent to Jeremy's question is that Polycarp is mentioned in a writing by his disciple Irenaeus, who says that Polycarp was taught by John and some of the other apostles:
"Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ..." (Against Heresies 3:3:4)

Hope that answers yours and Jeremy's questions.

Not even close - see above.

[Gordon]

If I tried to be unbiased I might unknowingly be unsuccessful, so by talking to you guys I get a balanced view of the possible causes of error. Yet all the arguments you use are dealt with in the Bible or elsewhere.

How do you know that these arguments you refer to in the Bible are free of mistakes, exaggeration, bias or lies? That the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is circular - you must surely know this.

For example, Jeremy says "how do you know Ignatius knew John?" so I google that question and find that although there's no direct evidence that he did, the theme of some of his letters was the same as one of John's letters. See 2 John v.7, which is about those who were not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (ie they claimed Jesus only seemed to exist). Ignatius deals with this heresy in his epistle to the Trallians:

"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with(18) Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life."
 
More pertinent to Jeremy's question is that Polycarp is mentioned in a writing by his disciple Irenaeus, who says that Polycarp was taught by John and some of the other apostles:
"Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ..." (Against Heresies 3:3:4)

Hope that answers yours and Jeremy's questions.

All you've shown is that you have no method to address the risks I've raised with you, and as such the stuff you mention above could well be wrong in some way, or be outright lies: you have decided to accept these accounts on the basis of your personal faith but I'm sure, if you think about it, you must also accept that if you can't exclude the possibility that they are wrong or untrue then your personal faith could be misplaced. 

[Spud]

Guys. The Bible interprets itself because it is a collection of books by different authors. I could refer you to the cold case Christianity website which has lots of relevent stuff on eliminating the possibility of mistakes, lies, bias etc. But I didn't start the thread to address all those issues, more to encourage people to look at the ways in which the gospels corroborate each other. Happily I think I've found another one similar to the two examples in he op.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon and Bluehillside shaking hands with the NPF here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Harry Potter books deal with questions about Voldemort etc, but that doesn't make them credible, anymore than what is stated in the Bible about Jesus is credible.

Harry Potter books are proven books of fiction with acknowledge authorship...…...a bit like the flying spaghetti monster.

Mind you any assembly that can get inadequate nerdy antitheist inadequates in the company of others is possibly a goodthing.

[Gordon]

Gordon and Bluehillside shaking hands with the NPF here.

Nope: our position is very different, and you've just confirmed that you don't understand the NPF (or fallacies in general for that matter).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope: our position is very different, and you've just confirmed that you don't understand the NPF (or fallacies in general for that matter).

No Gordon you are saying that Spud cannot prove there are mistakes etc. therefore there might be.....I believe Hillside says there most certainly are. Therefore you are at least shaking hands with an NPF...…..History is not I think your strong suit.

[BeRational]

No Gordon you are saying that Spud cannot prove there are mistakes etc. therefore there might be.....I believe Hillside says there most certainly are. Therefore you are at least shaking hands with an NPF...…..History is not I think your strong suit.

Spud has claimed that there are no errors and he has ruled them all out.

He now has the burden of proof

[Gordon]

No Gordon you are saying that Spud cannot prove there are mistakes etc. therefore there might be.....I believe Hillside says there most certainly are. Therefore you are at least shaking hands with an NPF...…..History is not I think your strong suit.

Utterly wrong: do you ever read for comprehension?

I didn't ask Spud to 'prove there are [no, which I think you meant to say] mistakes', so I suggest you read back. I simply asked him if he had checked that there were none, and if so how he did so: and that is a reasonable question to ask of anyone who is supporting the claims of ancient anecdotal accounts.

You really do need to think a little more about what people are actually saying before posting responses that you get wrong.