Logical fallacy: "false cause" or what?

[jimmo42]

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.

Should I take that as a compliment?

 

[jimmo42]

Here's another "historical" document for you.

It's pretty ironic that you repeatedly refer to the Iliad as if that somehow disproves what I am saying. In fact, the history surrounding the Iliad and the Trojan War actually support my position.

Another name for the Iliad is the "Song of Ilium", as Ilium is another name for Troy. For centuries people believed that the Iliad was entirely fictious. However, in 1868, using the Iliad as a guide, Heinrich Schliemann found what most historians consider the ancient city of Troy/Ilium in what is now western Turkey. If you would bother to research it a bit, you will find that although few historians believe the Iliad accurately represents the events, many believe in the historicity of the Trojan War and Schliemann's city is the one described in the Iliad.

Many cities and towns have been discovered using the bible as a guide. (See Finkelstein and Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed" or Jody Magness' TTC Course "Holy Land Revealed") Archaeologists have found inscriptions and other writings confirming the existance of people mentioned in the Old Testament. While the discovery of these places and inscriptions by no means "proves" the bible, it would be irresponsible and illogical for an historian to discount any such text simply because they have religious implications.

So, why don't we move this discussion along and you stop simply gainsaying everything I post? Why don't you answer my questions?

 

[kenandkids]

It's pretty ironic that you repeatedly refer to the Iliad as if that somehow disproves what I am saying. In fact, the history surrounding the Iliad and the Trojan War actually support my position.

It's pretty ironic that you pretend to understand history and yet you cannot tell the difference between an historical document and one that just happens to contain real places or people. That was the point with Turtledove's book, it contains real nations and real people in it's narrative, and a couple hundred years from now there might be a "you" arguing for it's validity on that basis. Then, some other tool will do the same and use the future you as a reference. Then some other tool will do it yet again. In 500 - 1000 years, an entire religion might have sprung up, based on the historical "validity" of a text on the grounds that it contains real people and places and that "historians agree" on the original premise having been true... all because a place was mentioned and/or a politician quoted.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Should I take that as a compliment?

It was intended as such, so, yes, I think you should take it as such.

@ Kenandkids

Are you deliberately misunderstanding him for the lulz? He deliberately and unequivocally states, repeatedly, that he is not arguing for the validity of everything in the Bible based on the fact that it is, in some cases, historically accurate. His case is clear, I think, to everyone but you that the Bible can and does contain historically verifiable information, up to and including the existence of an itinerant rabbi who apparently pissed some blokes off by telling people not to be such assholes and got nailed to a tree for it . That's it. Now why don't you actually address the argument and/or answer his questions? You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[jimmo42]

It's pretty ironic that you pretend to understand history and yet you cannot tell the difference between an historical document and one that just happens to contain real places or people. That was the point with Turtledove's book, it contains real nations and real people in it's narrative, and a couple hundred years from now there might be a "you" arguing for it's validity on that basis. Then, some other tool will do the same and use the future you as a reference. Then some other tool will do it yet again. In 500 - 1000 years, an entire religion might have sprung up, based on the historical "validity" of a text on the grounds that it contains real people and places and that "historians agree" on the original premise having been true... all because a place was mentioned and/or a politician quoted.

Well, then why don't YOU tell us exactly what criteria historians use to "tell the difference between an historical document and one that just happens to contain real places or people"? Your ad hominem that I only "pretend" demonstrates to me that you have no real argument, otherwise you would have presented it by now. So, in your opinion, what criteria historians use?

I listed several reasons why, although it "contains real nations and real people in it's narrative", Turtledove's book would not be considered a reliable source. These are the same criteria that historians use. I even cited multiple sources where you can check for yourself the criteria historians use. Based on the criteria that the experts in the field use and which are taught in historiography/philosophy of history classes at universities throught the world, it is a reasonable conclusion that the bible is a legitimate historical document. I am using reason to come to that conclusion. That seems to be a primary goal of this site. Afterall, it is called the "League of Reason".

So, what is YOUR reason for claiming that historians do not see the bible as a valid historical document? What sources do you have to back it up?

 

[jimmo42]

@ Kenandkids

Are you deliberately misunderstanding him for the lulz? He deliberately and unequivocally states, repeatedly, that he is not arguing for the validity of everything in the Bible based on the fact that it is, in some cases, historically accurate. His case is clear, I think, to everyone but you that the Bible can and does contain historically verifiable information, up to and including the existence of an itinerant rabbi who apparently pissed some blokes off by telling people not to be such assholes and got nailed to a tree for it . That's it. Now why don't you actually address the argument and/or answer his questions? You're embarrassing yourself.

I am actually taking it one step further. I am saying that the gospels themselves can be and are used as evidence of the historicity of Jesus, not just that they contain "historically verifiable information". The four canonical gospels are just 4 of at least a dozen similar documents that attest to the historicity of Jesus, all of which were written within 100 years of Jesus. Historiographically speaking that is pretty amazing, in terms of both the number of documents and the time frame. Some, like the Gospel of Judas are so far removed from the theology of the canonical gospels, that any claim they were written by the same sect or community is ludicrous. I find this one particularly fascinating because it portrays Judas as the hero and the only one who "got it".

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I always feel uncomfortable when people who are not historians start talking about what historians do, and as this is sort of my field I thought I'd throw in.

Of course, as usually happens, other people have already said it better then I could:

(Ignore the moron who uploaded it)

There is also one of Theowarner's (whose videos I probably watch more then anyone else's on youtube) uploads called, "William Lane Craig is not a Historian," that is relevant to this, but it seems to have been taken down. The gist of it is a point I would agree with that we do not have multiple independent sources corroborating on the event in question, at best we have one (and then elaborations on that one.)

The Gospel of Judas (and others like it) is not what any historian would consider to be a secondary source. It is written much later, and clearly participates in an already established tradition deviating from what we would today call "orthodoxy" towards a series of beliefs that are now all crudely lumped together as "gnostic."

 

[jimmo42]

I always feel uncomfortable when people who are not historians start talking about what historians do, and as this is sort of my field I thought I'd throw in.

Please do.

Of course, as usually happens, other people have already said it better then I could:

<video snipped>

Interesting that you point to a video with Bart Ehrman. I've actually seen this one before. I got most of my understanding of historical methods from reading at least five of his books. He clearly says in this video, that the gospels are not the kind of sources historians would "want" and then proceeds to explain why they are not the kind of sources historians "want". He then concludes saying just that the passion narratives and accounts of the empty tomb are not reliable. If I am not mistaken this video is from a debate between Ehrman and Michael Licona. The topic was "Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead?" That is what Dr. Ehrman is addressing, and not whether the bible is generally unreliable, nor does he question the historicity of Jesus. So, I fail to see your goal in posting this video.

After reading "Misquoting Jesus", I sent him an email asking if he was implying the new testament was unreliable. He was actually indignant that so many people (like Daniel Wallace) implied that was what he is saying. In all of the books of his I have read, Ehrman never claims Jesus did not exist. There is an interview on YouTube of Dr. Ehrman by the infidel Guy and Ehrman is quite adamant that Jesus existed. In the process he tears the Infidel Guy apart. While Ehrman does believe many of the stories in the new testament were embellishments or outright fiction, you have a lot of work ahead of you to convince anyone he doubts the historicity of Jesus. You are going to have to start with Ehrman himself!

There is also one of Theowarner's (whose videos I probably watch more then anyone else's on youtube) uploads called, "William Lane Craig is not a Historian," that is relevant to this, but it seems to have been taken down. The gist of it is a point I would agree with that we do not have multiple independent sources corroborating on the event in question, at best we have one (and then elaborations on that one.)

I've seen the Theowarner video. In fact, I have seen several of his take-downs of WLC. I see two key differences. First, WLC is portraying himself as an "expert". Although he does not come out and say he is an historian, he is presenting himself in a public forum (typically debates) as a expert for his "side". I have been quite clear in saying that I am not an expert historian and I am quite clear where I get my information. If you have sources that contradict the methodology I described, I would appreciate hearing about it. In the video, Ehrman does not contradict it, but rather simply adds a few things.

Second, these are different venues. If people here limited themselves to comments only in areas where they are "experts", I estimate you can delete 95% of the threads. If there are users who have more experience in a particular area, their input is welcome. (or at least should be)

The Gospel of Judas (and others like it) is not what any historian would consider to be a secondary source. It is written much later, and clearly participates in an already established tradition deviating from what we would today call "orthodoxy" towards a series of beliefs that are now all crudely lumped together as "gnostic.")

I never claimed in was a secondary source. My understanding has always been that because of the extreme differences between the christiology in the Gospel of Judas, as well as the overall theology, they must have originated from traditions different from proto-orthodox christianity. If this is not the case, then I most certainly would like to know. I frequently used this argument to counter fundie claims that christian theoology was well established from the very beginning. If these theologies are simply "deviations" from the "already established tradition", then I definitely need to change my argument. Can you point me to some sources?

 

[kenandkids]

@ Kenandkids

Are you deliberately misunderstanding him for the lulz? He deliberately and unequivocally states, repeatedly, that he is not arguing for the validity of everything in the Bible based on the fact that it is, in some cases, historically accurate. His case is clear, I think, to everyone but you that the Bible can and does contain historically verifiable information, up to and including the existence of an itinerant rabbi who apparently pissed some blokes off by telling people not to be such assholes and got nailed to a tree for it . That's it. Now why don't you actually address the argument and/or answer his questions? You're embarrassing yourself.

Please look down a little where he does clarifies.

I am actually taking it one step further. I am saying that the gospels themselves can be and are used as evidence of the historicity of Jesus, not just that they contain "historically verifiable information".

See?

 

[jimmo42]

@ Kenandkids

Are you deliberately misunderstanding him for the lulz? He deliberately and unequivocally states, repeatedly, that he is not arguing for the validity of everything in the Bible based on the fact that it is, in some cases, historically accurate. His case is clear, I think, to everyone but you that the Bible can and does contain historically verifiable information, up to and including the existence of an itinerant rabbi who apparently pissed some blokes off by telling people not to be such assholes and got nailed to a tree for it . That's it. Now why don't you actually address the argument and/or answer his questions? You're embarrassing yourself.

Please look down a little where he does clarifies.

I am actually taking it one step further. I am saying that the gospels themselves can be and are used as evidence of the historicity of Jesus, not just that they contain "historically verifiable information".

See?

..facepalm...
Memeticemetic pointed out what I had posted up to that point. I am now (after the post by Memeticemetic) clarifying by adding that I do, in fact, take it "one step further". His post still stands.

 

[jimmo42]

The gist of it is a point I would agree with that we do not have multiple independent sources corroborating on the event in question, at best we have one (and then elaborations on that one.)

I missed something.

I am curious as to what you use to support the claim that there was only one source. I know of no new testament scholar who believes John is from the same source as the synoptic gospels. That is actually why they are called "synoptic" because they are "seen together". So, at very a minimum, you have two sources.

Further, most of the books I have read support the existence of Q (which admittedly is only an hypothesis). You then have at least three: Mark, Q and John (or John's source). Admittedly you could claim John copied from the source of the synoptics, but I find that very far fetched simply by reading them. The events they describe are completely different and theology is simply too different. If you believe the appropriate parts of Matthew and Luke were copied from independent source (M and L), you know have 5 independent source for the historicity of Jesus. Even without Q, you have 4. I know there are some historians who claim one source for the synoptics (i.e. Mark or Matthew), but everything I have ever read says that only a few scholar make that assertion. So, naturally I am curious about your one-source claim.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Didn't this thread start with the unreliability of the Bible?

 

[jimmo42]

Didn't this thread start with the unreliability of the Bible?

:lol:

It did end up getting side tracked a bit, didn't it?

The original post was in reference to a specific aspect. (the census in Luke) In this particular case, I think it was a later embellishment simply to wiggle Jesus into a position that he appears to be fulfilling prophecy. I have never asserted the claim that the bible is 100% unreliable.

 

[jimmo42]

See?

Well, one thing I don't see is the answers to the questions I repeatedly aksed, and which you most likely never will answer.

 

[kenandkids]

See?

Well, one thing I don't see is the answers to the questions I repeatedly aksed, and which you most likely never will answer.

I don't really give a crap about your questions. You admitted that you believe the bible to be historical evidence in no uncertain terms, and that is just too funny. Even many apologists admit that a book cannot be used as evidence of its own subject being true.

 

[jimmo42]

I don't really give a crap about your questions. You admitted that you believe the bible to be historical evidence in no uncertain terms, and that is just too funny.

Because it IS evidence! Are you claiming you know more about the subject than every single professional historian? Whether you believe the evidence is conclusive or not is a different matter.

Even many apologists admit that a book cannot be used as evidence of its own subject being true.

...facepalm... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Could you point us to just one?

A document cannot be used as evidence of its own subject being true???? Hmmmmm. So a contract cannot be used as evidence that there was a agreement between the two parties? The US Constitution cannot be used as evidence that laws were defined? The troop location documents (read: maps) found in Normandy during the invasion cannot be used as evidence about where the troops were located? Just where do you get evidence then?

What you are saying is that ABSOLUTELY NO historical document can ever be used because it is always "evidence of its own subject being true." Every single historical document needs to be ignored, because every single historical document contains evidence about its "own subject" being true. If you don't get evidence about the subject from the documents, that only leaves you with the archeaological evidence, which does not tell you much at all. Other than archeaological evidence, just where do you get evidence????

We are not talking about documents the discuss or describe the documents in question, but about ones which are describing specific events. Such documents are the primary source of historical evidence. I'll bet a case of beer that Anachronous Rex if not the others on this thread will agree with that much.

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm sorry, I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, jimmo, and I didn't mean for it to look as though I was focusing on you.

The reason I'm uncomfortable with people talking about how historians work is that... well... historians don't even know the answer to that. Or at least they can't seem to agree on the subject. The point of the Ehrman video (and the non-existent theowarner vid) was to give a feel for how actual historians tend to approach these subjects.

As for the one source claim, that was referring specifically to the burial of Jesus in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, and I should have made that more (or at all) clear. I had just woken up when I posted that and was really hoping that video would be there so I wouldn't have to think too hard before the caffeine kicked in...

Anyway, I think all of this quibbling on sources misses the greater point that a coherent story of the life of Jesus develops through the cannon, rather than the cannon having been based on a coherent understanding of the life of Jesus. If you want my opinion on the subject that's it. Though truthfully I tend not to care about early Christianity beyond what it borrows from and contributes to nearby dualist religions.

I never claimed in was a secondary source. My understanding has always been that because of the extreme differences between the christiology in the Gospel of Judas, as well as the overall theology, they must have originated from traditions different from proto-orthodox christianity. If this is not the case, then I most certainly would like to know. I frequently used this argument to counter fundie claims that christian theoology was well established from the very beginning. If these theologies are simply "deviations" from the "already established tradition", then I definitely need to change my argument. Can you point me to some sources?

Well if I didn't pug Elaine Pagels here it would probably be criminally negligent. Although I don't think the understanding of the subject you present here is wrong. The problem with the gnostic gospels is that they are strenuously tying to be strange, so it is hard for historians to engage them intelligibly besides just pointing that out.

 

[kenandkids]

What you are saying is that ABSOLUTELY NO historical document can ever be used because it is always "evidence of its own subject being true." Every single historical document needs to be ignored, because every single historical document contains evidence about its "own subject" being true. If you don't get evidence about the subject from the documents, that only leaves you with the archeaological evidence, which does not tell you much at all. Other than archeaological evidence, just where do you get evidence????

In all of your moronic examples do you note a common quality? Witnesses and supporting evidence. No book or paper can be accepted as its own evidence, supporting evidence is necessary. This is why every book you read on a subject has citations and bibliographies, so that the reader can track down and verify the claims of the book. This is a very basic concept, you should have learned it before now.

 

[kenandkids]

In all of your moronic examples do you note a common quality? Witnesses and supporting evidence. No book or paper can be accepted as its own evidence, supporting evidence is necessary. This is why every book you read on a subject has citations and bibliographies, so that the reader can track down and verify the claims of the book. This is a very basic concept, you should have learned it before now.

To further address the point, the bible itself is only a compilation of writings that were reworded in order not to conflict too badly. Many of the writings are and were contradictory. A vast number of other writings and letters were excluded because they made claims that were felt to not support the single over-reaching goal of the bible. These writings had just as much historical validity, their exclusion was simply a way to remove other concepts and information.

If the conservatives had their way and found and destroyed every piece of writing that demonstrated the founding father's intentions and religious leanings, would their views on this being a christian nation be correct? If they only only took the words and letters that seemed to support the idea that the poor should be kept chained "in their place" while corporations had their way with the environment and economy and put this in a book, would that book be historically accurate? No. Nor is the bible an historically accurate collection of texts.

 

[jimmo42]

In all of your moronic examples do you note a common quality? Witnesses and supporting evidence. No book or paper can be accepted as its own evidence, supporting evidence is necessary. This is why every book you read on a subject has citations and bibliographies, so that the reader can track down and verify the claims of the book. This is a very basic concept, you should have learned it before now.

"every book you read on a subject". Yes. However, the historical document ARE the subject. Where exactly is "supporting evidence" for the hundreads of thousands if not millions historical documents? Often there is only one single source. Where are the references and footnotes for these documents? The ones without refences or footnotes represented 99.999% of all the historical documents we have. Do you suggest that historians simply ignore them?

Is a Roman general who is writing a report about events in a remote province going include references and footnotes? Is a letter from a provincial governor to his wife in Rome going to have a bibliography? The gospels were not research papers. Further, references, citations, bibliographies, etc as you describe is a relatively new process. They didn't do that in the 1st century. I have never seen anything from the 1st century that contains anything near what you describe. I even have scanned copies of books from the mid-19 century. None of them have references, citations, bibliographies, or anything similar.

Added to that, you did not have massive libraries or other data sources like today. There was no way to reference things like we do now with ISBN numbers, publish dates, etc. Your expectation that the gospels contains "citations and bibliographies" is asinine! Do you seriously expect "citations and bibliographies" to be there? That's not the way things were written in the first century. This is a very basic concept, you should have learned it before now.