Logical fallacy: "false cause" or what?

[jimmo42]

We have as much evidence for him as we do for other historical figures.

Nope... no we don't. In fact, there is more evidence for known fictions to have existed than there is to show that jesus did.

uh...YES, we do. I am not saying there is as much evidence for Jesus as for Alexander the Great, Julius Caeser, etc. Nor am I saying the available evidence is "proof" he existed. However, using the basic principles of the historical method (similar to the scientific method), most historians come to the conclusion that there was probably an historical Jesus. In addition, in many cases the evidence for other historical figures comes much later (relatively) than for Jesus.

Further, from an historiographical pespective the fact these are "known fictions" eliminates them as being "evidence" by definition.

 

[kenandkids]

uh...YES, we do. I am not saying there is as much evidence for Jesus as for Alexander the Great, Julius Caeser, etc. Nor am I saying the available evidence is "proof" he existed. However, using the basic principles of the historical method (similar to the scientific method), most historians come to the conclusion that there was probably an historical Jesus. In addition, in many cases the evidence for other historical figures comes much later (relatively) than for Jesus.

Further, from an historiographical pespective the fact these are "known fictions" eliminates them as being "evidence" by definition.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between "a bunch of people think he existed" and "here is evidence he existed."

Proof of Jesus: Bible and adulterated account of Josephus.

Proof of Caesar and Alexander: You have to be kidding here, nearly every known society west of China has records of them.

Proof of Odysseus: Multiple accounts of multiple cultures and stories that spread across numerous societies.


We all know Odysseus was Homer's creation and yet so many people think that Jebus was real? No account whatsoever outside of the one small cult recorded "The Christ's" existence.

edit: and before you claim again that we "know" Odysseus to be a fiction and "historians" accept Jebus to be real, remember that there really are historians that believe Odysseus to be based on a real person.

 

[jimmo42]

I'm not sure you understand the difference between "a bunch of people think he existed" and "here is evidence he existed."

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the difference between the evidence historians accept and what you choose to accept. The historical evidence IS the bible and near-contemporary accounts of various historians, regardless of what you choose to accept. Exactly that is the kind of evidence historians use because most of the time, that's all they have. I'm, sorry to disappoint you, but historiographically speaking the bible IS evidence.

Proof of Jesus: Bible and adulterated account of Josephus.

I can only interpret that one of two ways: 1) You are unfamiliar with the other sources 2) You willfully ignore them. There are a number of extra-biblical sources, including roman historians, other documents similar to the canonical gospels, etc. These kinds of documents are the only thing historians have, in many cases. That is one reason why they speak of probability and likelihood, and not proof. Historiographically speaking, the fact that these extra-biblical sources conflict with each other as well as with the canonical sources, is strong evidence for the historical Jesus. While some historians believe that as little as 5% of the canonical gospels accurately reflect Jesus' life, you cannot reach even 5% unless you accept the historicity of Jesus.

Even ignoring the questionable parts of Josephus, you still have a relatively contemporary account that mentions Jesus by name. What do you want, a video? Sorry, Josephus was a couple of years too early.

Without looking, how many modern historians (not history teachers) can you name that deny an historical Jesus? I doubt you can name a single one. I'll name you one that does accept an historical Jesus : Bart Ehrman. He is one of the world's leading experts on New Testament history and was once a born-again evangelical Christian. He believes in an historical Jesus. Find me just one person with the same kind of credentials that denies an historical Jesus.

edit: and before you claim again that we "know" Odysseus to be a fiction and "historians" accept Jebus to be real, remember that there really are historians that believe Odysseus to be based on a real person.

If there are a sufficient number of historians (read: experts) who maintain "Odysseus to be based on a real person", then I have little cause to doubt Odysseus was "based on a real person". Whether the Iliad and Odyssey are 100% reliable is a completely different issue. Can you even name one modern historian who has this belief? (modern = last 100 years)

Can you prove the big bang? Evolution? Do you accept them as truth? Why? Because you believe the experts. You know the tools they use, understand the claims and thus believe their conclusion. Some people who are equally qualified (e.g. Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe) may claim that evolution did not occur and present counter-evidence. In most cases, this counter-evidence is refuted. However, they still provide that counter-evidence.

You are simply waiving your hands and making an unsubstantiated claim that what historians normally use as evidence is somehow magically not evidence in this case. Where is your evidence to refute the claim that historians use the bible and near-contemporary source as evidence? The fact that in many other cases we have far more evidence, does not alter the fact of what historians use as evidence.

Denying the historical Jesus necessarily implies he was invented. It also implies that one or more persons created, at a minimum, a base story that was then relatively quickly spread across multiple cultures, countries and languages. Based on key differences in the story between different Christain groups, Jesus is unlikely an invention. It is highly unlikely, for example, that the story was invented with Jesus having the divine characteristics in the canonical gospels and then alterted by docetic communities to deny the human characterics. Further, it is illogical to assume that a greek speaking community in the 1st century would invent a story involving a completely different culture and language, and even include elements of that language in the story. That does not fit any of the stories of the time.

 

[australopithecus]

However, using the basic principles of the historical method (similar to the scientific method), most historians come to the conclusion that there was probably an historical Jesus.

Evidence plz.

 

[kenandkids]

...near-contemporary accounts of various historians...

Name a few.

 

[Squawk]

Can you prove the big bang? Evolution? Do you accept them as truth? Why? Because you believe the experts. You know the tools they use, understand the claims and thus believe their conclusion. Some people who are equally qualified (e.g. Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe) may claim that evolution did not occur and present counter-evidence. In most cases, this counter-evidence is refuted. However, they still provide that counter-evidence.

I know this is somewhat off topic, but I can't let that paragraph slide. Your notion of the term "evidence" requires a real rethink. A person making a claim is not providing evidence. Evidence is not subjective. Evidence is factual data. What conclusions can be extrapolated from that evidence is dependent on numerous factors, such as how reliable the evidence can be considered to be and how much of a factor that evidence is in addressing the issue at hand.

As an example, it is a simple fact that mutations occur in genomes. It is a further fact that reproduction allows novel gene varients to spread through a population. These facts, when combined, are evidence, evidence that points to Universal common descent. On their own, not sufficient to conclude common descent, but thats irrelevent.

What Behe and Wells provide is not evidence, it's outright denial that the evidence which has been presented points to the conclusion of Universal common descent. Find me a single piece of evidence that they have provided, anywhere? They haven't, once. What they do is choose parts of the evidence for universal common descent and then lie about them.

An idea presented by someone is not evidence. In the case of Behe and Well's, it's misrepresentation of evidence in order to further a goal. It's lying, it's dishonesty, and I can't believe you used that as an example when trying to make a point.

#edit.
And as an aside, I'm having a hard time finding many historians who will nail their colours to the mast either way on historical Jesus. I'm no history scholar though, so perhaps you could enlighten me on how I find such information that enables a claim such as "no serious historians deny historical Jesus".

I'll just offer up one to be going on with though, R. Joseph Hoffmann

 

[jimmo42]

And as an aside, I'm having a hard time finding many historians who will nail their colours to the mast either way on historical Jesus. I'm no history scholar though, so perhaps you could enlighten me on how I find such information that enables a claim such as "no serious historians deny historical Jesus".

I'll just offer up one to be going on with though, R. Joseph Hoffmann

If they do not accept the historical Jesus, then they are not serious. Anyone who does not accept the evidence is being unrealistic. It's axiomatic. ;-)

 

[jimmo42]

...near-contemporary accounts of various historians...

Name a few.

The gospel writers, Saul of Tarsus, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius

 

[kenandkids]

The gospel writers, Saul of Tarsus, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius

Those are not contemporaries, most lived, or the accounts were written, up to one hundred years later and NONE could agree with the others.

 

[jimmo42]

Those are not contemporaries, most lived, or the accounts were written, up to one hundred years later and NONE could agree with the others.

I'm new here, so I have a question. It is common practice here for people not to read posts correctly and simply make comments? If that is the standard practice, then I will change how I post in the future and emphasize the key words to ensure that they are noticed.

In my post, I said "near-contemporary". Historiographically speaking, the people I mentioned are most definitely "near-contemporary". Further, it is common, if not expected, that in the writings of ancient historians, there are going to be some differences. You even see this today with eye witness testimony of crimes. Expecting them to agree in every single detail is unrealistic and I know of no historian who expects ancient accounts to match 100%. Ignoring accounts simply because "NONE could agree with the others", you would end up throwing out most of the historical documents we have. Perhaps you choose to do it, but professional historians do not. Any decent book on historiography will tell you that.

I actually think the wikipedia article on "Historical method" is a good place to start. Even as superficial as Wikipedia articles can be, it does address the key aspects. One of which is that you are often forced to deal with conflicting accounts. (see specifically the section "Procedures")

Personally, I think the section "Argument to the best explanation" does not do C. Behan McCullagh justice. Admittedly they mentioned his "Justifying Historical Descriptions" and I only have his "The Logic of History". He puts much more emphasis on the plausiblity of the explanation than that short section seems to imply. You can see in arguments by Craig, Habermas, Licona, etc. when they put a lot of emphasis on explanatory scope and ingore the fact that naturalistic explanations are more plausible in that they do not contradict existing beliefs or do not require more assumptions. (e.g. the possibility natural laws can be violated) However since Craig, et al are fundamentalists, they naturally start off from the position that not only are such violations possible (i.e. miracles) they actually do happen.

 

[kenandkids]

In my post, I said "near-contemporary". Historiographically speaking, the people I mentioned are most definitely "near-contemporary".

In 1935, there was a man that walked through Europe and repeated every one of christ's miracles. I didn't see him, nor did any person of the era record such a thing even though he was seen doing it by thousands of people. Because I'm a "near-contemporary" you have to take my word for it.

Doesn't quite work, does it?

Further, it is common, if not expected, that in the writings of ancient historians, there are going to be some differences. You even see this today with eye witness testimony of crimes. Expecting them to agree in every single detail is unrealistic and I know of no historian who expects ancient accounts to match 100%. Ignoring accounts simply because "NONE could agree with the others", you would end up throwing out most of the historical documents we have. Perhaps you choose to do it, but professional historians do not. Any decent book on historiography will tell you that.

Do you realise that people disagreeing on minor aspects like speed and distance and motivation is a far cry from major details like who governed a land, what years something happened, whether or not something happened, etc.?

To use your example, the bible is like having 5 witnesses to a murder. One witness says that no crime occurred, one says that a woman was the victim, another claims a man was. The fourth claims that the weapon was a knife, the fifth that he heard a gunshot. None of these are reliable because none agree on even the most basic aspects. To take your example one step further, investigators aren't even finding records of people who witnessed the crime, instead they are told that there was a body, although none can be found, and that these witnesses are the only available.

The only finding that the investigator can make is that either no crime occurred or that each of these people is relating an entirely different event.

 

[jimmo42]

In 1935, there was a man that walked through Europe and repeated every one of christ's miracles. I didn't see him, nor did any person of the era record such a thing even though he was seen doing it by thousands of people. Because I'm a "near-contemporary" you have to take my word for it.

:facepalm: and in words ...facepalm.... It's seems you have no clue about the historical method or the criteria historians use.

1. We are not talking about one single witness. I'm disappointed you missed that part.
2. We are not tallking about miracles, but the historical Jesus. I guess it is common practice here not to read the post before you comment.
3. Historians typically do not talk about "proof", but probability. I have never read any non-fundie historian who claims we have "proof" Jesus exists. Even people like William Craig, Michael Licona and Gary Habermas do not claim there is proof of the resurrection, but rather it is the best explanation, and always talk about "probability".
4. Historians do not "take the word" of a single source unless it meets a number of criteria. Your analogy fails those criteria.

Your analogy is so full of holes that you could drive a truck through it.

Do you realise that people disagreeing on minor aspects like speed and distance and motivation is a far cry from major details like who governed a land, what years something happened, whether or not something happened, etc.?

"far cry" in what context? Most certainly in the context of deciding what cities were involved or who was governor of a province. However, that is not what we are discussing here. If two gospels said Jesus had no followers, thus conflicting with the other two gospels, then we would have a problem. They don't. If two gospels said Jesus baptized John, thus conflicting with the other two gospels, then we would have a problem. They don't. If two Gospels conflict about who was in charge of Judea when he was born, then you have a problem in pinpointing exactly when he was born and not the fact that he was born.

A writer 2000 years ago did not have the internet to check their facts. Further, most people could not even read and certainly could not write. Therefore, the historians relied primarily on oral transmission of the information, at least initially. It is not unexpected that 50 years after the event, the person telling the story mixed things up about who was governor or exactly how many people were involved, for example. Further, it is likely (if not even expected) that historians of the time embellished the stories to make them more exciting. (See Michael Grant's "Greek and Roman Historians", chapter 4 "Misinformation and Mistakes", or Jody Magness' TTC course "Holy Land Revealed" ) This is a problem with historical writing up to at least to the early renaissance. Insisting historians do or even should ingore conflicting reports simply because they conflict clearly demonstates that historiography is a subject you have little experience with.

To use your example, the bible is like having 5 witnesses to a murder. One witness says that no crime occurred, one says that a woman was the victim, another claims a man was. The fourth claims that the weapon was a knife, the fifth that he heard a gunshot.

Uh, no....Please do pay attention. The issue here is the historicity of Jesus. ALL of the witnesses claim Jesus existed, or a "crime occurred". Your entire argument is fallacious. The central claim is attested to by ALL of the witnesses, plus others I didn't mention.

None of these are reliable because none agree on even the most basic aspects.

That statement is patently false. First, simply because they do not agree on certain details, does not make them unreliable. That is basic Historiography 101.

Second, you will find extremely few historians who agree with any part of what you are saying. There are several key aspects related to the historicity of Jesus that are almost universally agreed upon by historians:
1. Jesus existed
2. He was a teacher/preacher
3. He had followers
4. He was executed by the Romans.

To make the claim that the "none agree on even the most basic aspects" means you have not bothered to look at the sources, nor bothered to look at what historians write. Your statement "Proof of Jesus: Bible and adulterated account of Josephus" is a evidence of this.

Historians who deny the historicity of Jesus? Richard Carrier, R. Joseph Hoffmann, Michael Martin....someone help me, I am running out of names real fast....

Historian Michael Grant (see above) called the hypothesis that Jesus never existed an "extreme view." If you want to take that view, that is obviously your choice. However, most of the experts disagree with you.

To take your example one step further, investigators aren't even finding records of people who witnessed the crime, instead they are told that there was a body, although none can be found, and that these witnesses are the only available.

...facepalm....and how is that different from most historical figures? There is more evidence for an historical Jesus than for Arminius, who defeated the Roman general Varus in the battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. Should we simply wipe him out of the history books because you are not satisfied with the evidence? Most of history comes from (at best) second-hand sources. Apparently, you were not aware of this fact, but up until recently, you didn't have people capturing events and uploading the videos to CNN. Or do you think Mark and Luke had an iPhone and should have been able to record things as they occurred? Typically, (read: for most of history) the description of the events and people was passed orally for years, if not decades before it was written down. Obviously "investigators aren't even finding records of people who witnessed the crime". Welcome to Historiography 101!

The only finding that the investigator can make is that either no crime occurred or that each of these people is relating an entirely different event.

...facepalm...NONSENSE!!!! Claiming "an entirely different event" is ludicrous. Whether there were two angels or one at the tomb does not make it "an entirely different event". Conflicts in the description of the trial and cruxification, do not imply "an entirely different event". Differences in what Jesus said when he was baptised do not imply "an entirely different event". Perhaps you have some specific events that most historians agree upon?

Further, those kind of differences are what you expect!!! If they were all 100% identical, then it would be obvious there was either collusion between the writers or there was copying. Granted there is obvious copying of Mark (and possibily Q) by both Matthew and Luke, but that has little impact on the historicity of Jesus. Differences are exactly what historians expect! Again, Historiography 101! Are you aware that "history" comes from the Greek word ἱστορία which originally meant 'to inquire' and specifically meant to choose wisely among conflicting accounts?

In his book History-A Very Short Introduction, John Arnold writes "A historian, Baudouin suggested, should be like a lawyer: balancing conflicting accounts, trying to establish the exact sequence of events, treating 'witnesses' (documents) with dispassionate and objective suspicion." (Franà§ois Baudouin was a French jurist and historian. Sorry, I don't have the original from Baudouin)

Arnold also said, "For the audience to the battle of truth and falsehood must also decide the import of the conflicting stories. And in history, unlike in law, the same case can be re-tried many times."

The problem of conflicting reports has been an issue for as long as their have been historians. A claim that "conflicting reports" are not "reliable" simply because they conflict indicates quite clearly, you do not know what you are talking about.

Sorry, but your argument has no substance.

 

[jimmo42]

I know this is somewhat off topic, but I can't let that paragraph slide. Your notion of the term "evidence" requires a real rethink. A person making a claim is not providing evidence. Evidence is not subjective. Evidence is factual data. What conclusions can be extrapolated from that evidence is dependent on numerous factors, such as how reliable the evidence can be considered to be and how much of a factor that evidence is in addressing the issue at hand.

The problem is the definition of "fact" in terms of history. This is by no means the same as a "fact" in science. Most of what we consider as historical facts do not meet the criteria for a scientific fact. Most of the time we make assumptions whether an event occurred or not, whether a document is legitimate or not and the conclusions are often simply a matter of opinion. Simply by the "fact" you typically cannot disprove history, there is a different set of criteria to call something an historical "fact".

What Behe and Wells provide is not evidence, it's outright denial that the evidence which has been presented points to the conclusion of Universal common descent. Find me a single piece of evidence that they have provided, anywhere? They haven't, once. What they do is choose parts of the evidence for universal common descent and then lie about them.

Here, I see a problem with the definition. When a person in a criminal trial says he saw the victim and defendant arguing, this is not necessarily a fact in that it really happened as described, but is still evidence. I tend to discuss things very passionately, as it has been interpreted as being aggressive. Is that a "fact". I say, no. But someone saying I was being aggressive could be considered evidence. In this context, the onus is on me to prove I was not aggressive. The same kind of thing applies to history.

An idea presented by someone is not evidence. In the case of Behe and Well's, it's misrepresentation of evidence in order to further a goal. It's lying, it's dishonesty, and I can't believe you used that as an example when trying to make a point.

While I do not trust either of them, I still think that their arguments are evidence, but only within the context of discussion by non-experts. I certainly am not in a position to refute what they say without investigating it. That was part of my question if YOU can prove the big bang or evolution. My guess is that YOU cannot. You take the word of experts who claim they have done the experiments. Epistemically speaking, I say your claim that the big bang is "true" is no different from the claim Jesus existed.

And as an aside, I'm having a hard time finding many historians who will nail their colours to the mast either way on historical Jesus. I'm no history scholar though, so perhaps you could enlighten me on how I find such information that enables a claim such as "no serious historians deny historical Jesus".

I have looked and found few. Admitted, saying "no serious historians" is incorrect. I count Richard Carrier as a "serious historian", but interestingly enough, using his own criteria, I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe in the historicity of Jesus.

 

[kenandkids]

So just to be clear:

1) You accept the bible as proof of the bible's historical accuracy.
2) You accept the proven fraud of Josephus' writings as proof of the bible's historical accuracy.
3) You accept the Tacitus quoting of christians as proof of the historical accuracy of the bible.
4) You accept the flawed historical judgements based on these first three as proof of them.

When and where does actual evidence enter the equation for you?

 

[jimmo42]

1) You accept the bible as proof of the bible's historical accuracy.

No.

2) You accept the proven fraud of Josephus' writings as proof of the bible's historical accuracy.

No.
What exactly about Josephus' writings is "proven fraud"??? Seems you are using criteria for "proof" that you are denying me.

3) You accept the Tacitus quoting of christians as proof of the historical accuracy of the bible.

No.

4) You accept the flawed historical judgements based on these first three as proof of them.

Just so we are clear, what credentials do YOU have to claim the commonly accepted opnions are "flawed historical judgements"? Have you even ever read a book on historiography? Taken a class? Or is it simply you believe that YOU know what is right in this context, despite what experts say?

When and where does actual evidence enter the equation for you?

...facepalm... Within an historiographical context, the bible IS "actual evidence". Why is that so hard for you to understand? The question itself, indicates you have no clue about the historical method, historigraphy or any of the criteria historians use to determine the probablitlity events occured or people existed. Other than your own personal opinion, what are you using to base your claim that the gospels are not evidence of the historicity of Jesus? Can you point us to any historian who makes that assertion?

You are not paying attention. Your comments are clear evidence of this. Either you are unwilling or unable. Be so kind as to tell me which. (alternatively, you could be a troll, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.)

 

[kenandkids]

1) You accept the bible as proof of the bible's historical accuracy.

No.

2) You accept the proven fraud of Josephus' writings as proof of the bible's historical accuracy.

No.
What exactly about Josephus' writings is "proven fraud"??? Seems you are using criteria for "proof" that you are denying me.

3) You accept the Tacitus quoting of christians as proof of the historical accuracy of the bible.

No.

Really? Because back a ways up the thread these were your "sources."

Within an historiographical context, the bible IS "actual evidence".

The bible is "actual evidence" that stories and myths were collected. It is an historical document of the era in the same fashion that this is an historical document regarding WWII.

 

[jimmo42]

Really? Because back a ways up the thread these were your "sources."

Yes, and your point is? Again, it seems pretty clear you are not paying attention. Please read what I wrote and reply to that. Please do not make things up or use words I did not simply in order to try and "win". That is a typical fundie tactic. I find that annoying and dishonest.

The bible is "actual evidence" that stories and myths were collected. It is an historical document of the era in the same fashion that this is an historical document regarding WWII.

The troll explanation is becoming more and more plausible. You are claming that an admitted work of fiction "in the same fashion that this is an historical document" as the gospels? Despite what most experts in the field say? Seriously???

1. Turtledove is a writer of fiction. (Apparently you are not aware of that fact) This is something he admits freely. He has never claimed that what he is writing is intended to be a factual representation of what occured. None of the gospel writers or the other sources made such statements.
2. We have multiple attestation of the events in the gospels, we do not for Tutledove's book.
3. An alien fleet arriving on earth is extremely implausible and contradicts commonly accept belief. Or do YOU believe in UFOs?
4. Tutledove's book does not have the necessary explanatory power to explain why our world is the way it is today.
5. Tutledove's book does not have the necessary explanatory scope to explain the documents and other records we have about WW2 and events aftewards
6. We have overwhelming evidence that directly contradicts what Turtledove suggests in his book. No such evidence exists for the historicity of Jesus in the gospels. (although there is contradictory evidence for some parts of the gospels) There are dozens if not hundreds of book on World War 2, some even close to the events that are all consistent in the claim there was no alien invasion, which all support each other, yet directly contradict Tutledove's book.
7. Tutledove's book contradicts eyewitness testimony of people we can question today. (and I have)
8. Tutledove's book contradicts the physical evidence that you can find all over western Europe. (some of which I have seen myself)

Now, do you still insist this is "in the same fashion" an historical document? Do you realize I am not the only one who can read your posts?

You are arguing from the same kind of tautology that fundies do. You claim the bible is work of fiction, therefore it is a work of fiction. You have provided NO evidence to support your claim. Nor have you provided anything to refute my assertions other than your own opinion and really idiotic analogies.

If you insist that "In the Balance" has the same historical reliability as the gospels, then the only conclusion I can draw is that you are a troll. Your argument has absolutely no substance. How about some evidence? (analogies are not evidence)

Again, the questions:
- What exactly about Josephus' writings is "proven fraud"?
- Other than your own personal opinion, what are you using to base your claim that the gospels are not evidence of the historicity of Jesus?
- What credentials do YOU have to claim the commonly accepted opinions are "flawed historical judgements"?
- Should we simply wipe (Arminius) out of the history books because you are not satisfied with the evidence?

And a new one:
If my description of how historians work and determine what is acceptable as evidence is NOT correct, what do YOU say is the way historians work? Just how do historians decide what is probably occured and what did not?

 

[kenandkids]

1. Turtledove is a writer of fiction. (Apparently you are not aware of that fact) This is something he admits freely. He has never claimed that what he is writing is intended to be a factual representation of what occured. None of the gospel writers or the other sources made such statements.
2. We have multiple attestation of the events in the gospels, we do not for Tutledove's book.
3. An alien fleet arriving on earth is extremely implausible and contradicts commonly accept belief. Or do YOU believe in UFOs?
4. Tutledove's book does not have the necessary explanatory power to explain why our world is the way it is today.
5. Tutledove's book does not have the necessary explanatory scope to explain the documents and other records we have about WW2 and events aftewards
6. We have overwhelming evidence that directly contradicts what Turtledove suggests in his book. No such evidence exists for the historicity of Jesus in the gospels. (although there is contradictory evidence for some parts of the gospels) There are dozens if not hundreds of book on World War 2, some even close to the events that are all consistent in the claim there was no alien invasion, which all support each other, yet directly contradict Tutledove's book.
7. Tutledove's book contradicts eyewitness testimony of people we can question today. (and I have)
8. Tutledove's book contradicts the physical evidence that you can find all over western Europe. (some of which I have seen myself)

Now, do you still insist this is "in the same fashion" an historical document? Do you realize I am not the only one who can read your posts?

You're a funny little thing.

Creationists constantly appeal to these historical "authorities" also, yet their authorities are basing everything off of one assumption... yours. Most historians until the early 1800's did also. Since these historians were raised in the belief that the bible was an historical document, they proceeded out from that assumption.


Here's another "historical" document for you.

 

[jimmo42]

You're a funny little thing.

Creationists constantly appeal to these historical "authorities" also, yet their authorities are basing everything off of one assumption... yours. Most historians until the early 1800's did also. Since these historians were raised in the belief that the bible was an historical document, they proceeded out from that assumption.

...facepalm....

Seems you are taking argument lessons from Duane Gish. Please pay attention. We are not talking about creation, we are talking about the historicity of Jesus. Historians typically do not consider supernatural explanations, thus the "Creationists" aspects of the bible are not part of their discussion. Historians do NOT 'appeal to these historical "authorities"', except perhaps the fundamentalist historians, but only within the context of the creation of the universe. That is not what we are talking about, Mr. Gish.

Once again, you are making claims about what I said, but which I did not. I find that annoying and dishonest. I never made the claim that the gospels were 'historical "authorities"'. I have repeatedly said that they are simply evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. Nor, have I ever made the claim they are "proof" of anything. That is simply your strawman argument.

So, since these historians you refer to believed in the bible, that is your proof that the Gospels are not reliable? Sounds like a reverse argument from authority. So, since the big bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, it must be wrong, as well? Your "logic" is trully amazing. Seems pretty fallacious to me, but if you think that kind of argument is valid, go for it.

"Most historians until the early 1800's"? Exactly which ones are you referring to? I maintain that statement is flat-out wrong. The 17th and 18th century was not called the "Age of Enlightenment" for no reason. I submit that most of them did not simply accept the bible at face value.

People like Bart Ehrman and Gerd Là¼demann, who are New Testaments scholars, do not believe the religous aspects, but still see the gospels as legitmate historical sources. These are modern scholars who accept the historical legitmacy of the gospels. What are YOUR credentials or sources?

So, exactly what assumptions do I have? That the gospels are legitmate historical sources? That is not an assumption. It is the commonly accepted position by the majority of historians. Some like Ehrman and Là¼demann believe there is sufficient evidence to say Jesus probably existed. Some, like Richard Carrier, say the evidence is not suffient. None of these are religious fundamentals who assume the bible is correct. In any event, I have found NONE that maintain the gospels are not legitmate historical sources.

I seriously doubt YOU can prove evolution, you simply accept the word of the experts. So, when I read multiple books on historiography or the philosophy of history and they say documents of this type are valid historical sources, I believe them. When professionally, internationally reknown historians say that the gospels are valid historical sources, I believe them, especially when coming from people like Bart Ehrman and Gerd Là¼demann, who are not Christians. Again, what are YOUR credentials or sources? Bring them on!

If I am wrong, then like a good scientist, I am going to change my hypthothesis accordingly. However, you have provided ZERO evidence. So far, you have only presented unsubstantiated claims and ludicrous analogies. I have asked very direct questions and each time you simply ignore them and provide more unsubstantiated claims and ludicrous analogies.

In your opinion, how do you see the type of arguments you use as being different from arguments used by fundies?

Again, the questions:
- What exactly about Josephus' writings is "proven fraud"?
- Other than your own personal opinion, what are you using to base your claim that the gospels are not evidence of the historicity of Jesus?
- What credentials or sources do YOU have to claim the commonly accepted opinions are "flawed historical judgements"?
- Should we simply wipe (Arminius) out of the history books because you are not satisfied with the evidence?
- If my description of how historians work and determine what is acceptable as evidence is NOT correct, what do YOU say is the way historians work? Just how do historians decide what is probably occured and what did not?

And a new one:
If my assertion that the gospels are valid as evidence for the historicity of Jesus is wrong, what criteria do YOU say historians use to determine what is considered valid evidence and what isn't?

 

[Memeticemetic]

I'm a newbie. Please be gentle.

I do believe your signature is no longer called for. You are neither a newbie, nor do you require gentle treatment.