Logical fallacy: "false cause" or what?

[jimmo42]

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..

And your point is what? So there were previous writings about the historical Jesus that the Gospel writers used as a source, changing things to fit their own specific theology. Granted.

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.

Granted. One of the criteria for accepting documents into the canon was that they had to have an "orthodox" theology. Other criteria were "being ancient" and "apostolic" in origin. There were documents, such as the Gospel of Peter, that were considered "ancient" and "apostolic" in origin, and even used in some churches until it was decided that some of the theology was heretical.

And your point is what?

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 wishes were horses, then rides would be free. The fact is they didn't find and destroy everything. Second, you are talking about theology and doctrine, not about the historical Jesus. EVEN IF the early church fathers were successful in destroying every heretical document, that would have little effect on the historicity of Jesus. A common thread through all of them is that Jesus existed!

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.

You arguments are filled with gaping defects in logic. Simply because one part of the book is embellished does not imply that it all is. As I already pointed out, it was common for historians and other writers of the time to embellish stories to make them more exciting. It is the job of the modern historian to wade through all of that. The embellishments have effects only on the parts embellished not the rest.

Your claim "Nor is the bible an historically accurate collection of texts" is patently FALSE, WRONG, IN ERROR. Independent of Jesus, there have been a number of archaelogical discoveries made as a direct result of following descriptions in the bible. This applies to both the old and the new testament.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

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.

You also don't seem to understand that that lack of reliability undermines your certainty. More importantly, I think we need to backtrack a bit... what the hell does "historical Jesus" even mean? You have no reliable documents to establish the existence of a person who walked on water, raised from the dead, etc., so whatever "Jesus " you think you mean isn't the guy described in the Bible. Later sources are only repeating the claims of believers, and count for nothing of value.

So, what exactly is a "historical Jesus" and what possible meaning would it have?

 

[jimmo42]

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..

No apologies necessary. If you were focusing on me, that's fine. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just want to know why and not some unsupported opinion from someone who obviously does not know what they are talking about.

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.

To some extent I agree with that statement. However, my experience is that they simply do not agree with the interpretation. I find relatively little variance in the basic methodology. However, I do find that fundies tend to ignore the fact that explanations need to be plausible and simply not that they could explain everything if you simply accept "god dun it."

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.

OK. Point made. Looking at it within the context of the passion and resurrection it is a good example of the criteria that Ehrman would use. I can say that WLC or Gary Habermas intepret things quite a bit differently.

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...

Sorry, I missed that. Obviously within the context of the video that is a valid assertion. I have frequently considered the hypothesis that Mark ends with the women running away, then the later Gospel writers need something to explain the "visions" people had of Jesus, so they added the resurrection story. Later, someone figured Mark needed a resurrection story so they added one there, too.

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.

That is certainly a valid point.

Though truthfully I tend not to care about early Christianity beyond what it borrows from and contributes to nearby dualist religions.

"dualist" like the Marcionites? Gnostics?

Personally, I am very interested in early Christianity. I think it is primarily do to the fact that most Christians don't know the history of their own religion and often think there is an uninterrupted line of doctrine from Jesus to Paul and then to us. I love it when then make claims about their own religions and I can contradict them. :twisted:

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.

:lol:
Well, if you are discussion gnosticism, you really cannot avoid mentioning her. I have a copy of The Gnostic Gospels as a PDF, but I really couldn't get it into. However, if she gets into it simply as a "devitation", I will give it a another shot.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Seriously, Ken, that's just pathetic. The vast majority of historical documents are not written by historians, they are disparate scraps written by whomever was powerful, or lucky, enough to have their writings preserved. Have you ever read an ancient history? Say, Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome? He never includes a bibliography and only ever obliquely refers to any sources for his claims. It's considered one of the most historically valuable pieces of writing from that era but it contains plenty within it that can be considered fairly apocryphal. Should we toss it out because he often speaks of details that he could have no verifiably accurate knowledge of? Or should we, perhaps, take the details with a grain of salt but consider the account to be evidence that the events themselves took place? Jesus, dude, I believe Uri Geller existed but not that he could bend spoons with his mind. Do you not get the distinction between conceding the existence of something and believing every other claim made about it?

 

[jimmo42]

You also don't seem to understand that that lack of reliability undermines your certainty.

First, the gospels do not "lack reliability". They are simply reliable to a limited extent. There are certain aspects that are contested and some that are almost universally accepted. Am I so certain that Jesus existed that I would bet my life? No. Am I so certain that I would bet a case of beer. Certainly. It's like the burden of proof in a criminal trial versus a civil trial. There is a preponderance of the evidence which leads me to the conclusion that Jesus existed.

More importantly, I think we need to backtrack a bit... what the hell does "historical Jesus" even mean?

Within this context, it is a commonly accepted term. It would be like a conversation about cosmology and someone asked "what the hell does the 'big bang' even mean?" Simply google it.

You have no reliable documents to establish the existence of a person who walked on water, raised from the dead, etc.,

I never once asserted that I believe Jesus walked on water or performed any other violation of physical laws.

so whatever "Jesus " you think you mean isn't the guy described in the Bible.

Incorrect. The "guy described in the Bible" was an itinerant preacher that had a following of peasants. He preached only for a couple of years, before he ended up being executed for sedition. There are a number of other characteristics are are commonly accepted and "described in the Bible", but that such suffice for this discussion.

Later sources are only repeating the claims of believers, and count for nothing of value.

Historiographically, that is incorrect. Frequently all you have are the written accounts based on an oral tradition dating back decades or even centuries. Historians most certainly value the information passed orally. Naturally, when that information is specific to their beliefs, it is clear to historians that the information is likely to be biased. However, the claim that these stories "count for nothing of value" is patently false. Further, the time between the death of Jesus and the gospels is relatively short in historical terms. Often the only information comes a century or more after the events.

So, what exactly is a "historical Jesus" and what possible meaning would it have?

"historical Jesus", as mentioned, is standard term. At a minimum, it represents the following assertions:
1. Jesus existed
2. He was a teacher/preacher
3. He had followers
4. He was executed by the Romans.

 

[jimmo42]

Jesus, dude, I believe Uri Geller existed but not that he could bend spoons with his mind.

Ahhh, but Uri Geller is still alive doing TV shows in Holland and Germany. (pathetic ones, but people do watch them)


(shut up, jimmo, you're just being an ass....)

 

[kenandkids]

Seriously, Ken, that's just pathetic. The vast majority of historical documents are not written by historians, they are disparate scraps written by whomever was powerful, or lucky, enough to have their writings preserved. Have you ever read an ancient history? Say, Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome? He never includes a bibliography and only ever obliquely refers to any sources for his claims. It's considered one of the most historically valuable pieces of writing from that era but it contains plenty within it that can be considered fairly apocryphal. Should we toss it out because he often speaks of details that he could have no verifiably accurate knowledge of? Or should we, perhaps, take the details with a grain of salt but consider the account to be evidence that the events themselves took place? Jesus, dude, I believe Uri Geller existed but not that he could bend spoons with his mind. Do you not get the distinction between conceding the existence of something and believing every other claim made about it?

You seriously don't get that the events of which Tacitus spoke had other other witnesses often enough that an assumption of accuracy can be granted? My point wasn't that ancient documents need to include citations, it is that either citations or external sources are needed to validate something. Just because the bible mentions real places or people does not mean that it is accurate, no external sources speak to the material. What is pathetic is jimmo's claim that because we have found places mentioned in the bible, the bible is accurate. The majority of fiction on this planet contains names of real people and places, this does not make them historically accurate. This is why historians look for supplemental accounts. Some writers, such as Tacitus, have provided accounts that have enough external verification that we can reasonably assume the portions of his writing without such may be accurate.

The simple fact is that the bible was constructed of a handful of documents and the vast majority of material was excluded for dogmatic reasons, not account accuracy. A collection of one-off writers whose works are edited and selected for nothing more than a dogmatic bias and placed into a single book are NOT historical documents.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

"dualist" like the Marcionites? Gnostics?

Zoroastrians and Manichaeans.

 

[Memeticemetic]

You seriously don't get that the events of which Tacitus spoke had other other witnesses often enough that an assumption of accuracy can be granted?[

Of course I do, don't be absurd. However, much of which he wrote about also had no witnesses at all, like his numerous speculations about Tiberius' motives and alleged personal conversations. These would be bits of an otherwise very useful document we would view with great skepticism, if not outright incredulity. We wouldn't necessarily throw out the whole work because it contains parts that are speculative or even completely apocryphal.

My point wasn't that ancient documents need to include citations, it is that either citations or external sources are needed to validate something.

And those citations or external sources are very often lacking. We work with what we have and come to the best conclusions we can.

Just because the bible mentions real places or people does not mean that it is accurate, no external sources speak to the material.

And just because the Bible mentions miracles and other ludicrous events doesn't mean that it is wholly inaccurate either. Plenty of outside sources speak to many events, places and people contained therein.

What is pathetic is jimmo's claim that because we have found places mentioned in the bible, the bible is accurate. The majority of fiction on this planet contains names of real people and places, this does not make them historically accurate.

Jimmo deserves more respect than this ridiculous strawman of his position. He never made this claim and you are being blatantly dishonest by repeating it ad nauseum.

This is why historians look for supplemental accounts. Some writers, such as Tacitus, have provided accounts that have enough external verification that we can reasonably assume the portions of his writing without such may be accurate.

Yes, historians look for them; as well they should. When none are to be found, they work with what they have.

The simple fact is that the bible was constructed of a handful of documents and the vast majority of material was excluded for dogmatic reasons, not account accuracy. A collection of one-off writers whose works are edited and selected for nothing more than a dogmatic bias and placed into a single book are NOT historical documents.

Every ancient scrap of writing is an historical document. No one here has made the claim that the Bible is an overall accurate document and that every claim therein should be accepted. You, however, are making the claim that because the Bible contains claims that are laughably incorrect, stupid and/or impossible (a point upon which all involved in this discussion seem to agree) everything contained should be regarded as useless historically. And that, my good man, is shortsighted and foolish.

 

[jimmo42]

You seriously don't get that the events of which Tacitus spoke had other other witnesses often enough that an assumption of accuracy can be granted?

Oh, no...They didn't. At least not always. There are many events in early histories for which the only record of it is that single history. There are many events, not written by historians, for which we only have a single document. Historians still consider them valid historical sources.

My point wasn't that ancient documents need to include citations

Well, you certain fooled me and it seems Memeticemetic, as well.

it is that either citations or external sources are needed to validate something.

Are you unwilling or unable to understand? The early historians typically didn't have "either citations or external sources", but we usually still consider them reliable in terms of the events occurring and the people existing.

"validate"? Often historians cannot "validate" things because there is only a single source.

Just because the bible mentions real places or people does not mean that it is accurate, no external sources speak to the material.

"no external sources speak to the material."??? Those are weasle words and have no real meaning. How do we know that the places and people were "real" without external sources? Magic? ESP?

What is pathetic is jimmo's claim that because we have found places mentioned in the bible, the bible is accurate.

What is really pathetic is how you twist what other people say. The bible mentions real people and places, but is not accurate about those real people and places? How can it not be accurate if those places are real? Obviously you cannot say that I ever claimed that the bible was 100% accurate because we can all see I never did that. In fact, I had repeatedly discussed inaccuracies in the bible. Further the whole thread is based on a topic indicating the bible is NOT accurate. So the only logical conclusion is that when I talk about the accuracy of the bible, I am talking about specific aspects. I have be extremely clear about what I believe is historically accurate.

The majority of fiction on this planet contains names of real people and places, this does not make them historically accurate. This is why historians look for supplemental accounts.

Yes, but what you repeatedly refuse to accept or are unable to accept is that often there are NO "supplemental accounts" and, as already pointed out by others on this thread, historians don't simply throw out things for which there are no "supplemental accounts". Your insistance that only things with "supplemental accounts" are considered historically acceptable is not only ludicrous, it contradicts what historians actually do.

Some writers, such as Tacitus, have provided accounts that have enough external verification that we can reasonably assume the portions of his writing without such may be accurate.

...facepalm... Why it is so hard to understand? As we have said repeatedly, sometimes there is only ONE SINGLE SOURCE. Historians still consider those sources as valid historical sources. Whether they consider the content 100% reliable is an entirely different matter. They still consider them historically valid documents.

The simple fact is that the bible was constructed of a handful of documents and the vast majority of material was excluded for dogmatic reasons, not account accuracy.

"Fact"??? Exactly what are YOUR sources to make that assertion? What books on early christian history have YOU read? You have the assumtion the bible is 100% inaccurate and your assertion is based solely on that claim and not any evidence.

"vast majority"? Exactly what percentage do YOU consider "vast majority"? 80% 90% Where are you getting your information? What books? Who wrote them?

"dogmatic reasons, not account accuracy."? As far as I have ever seen, that is patently wrong. The majority of the ancient texts that I have ever heard about were not included because they either not apostolic or not considered old enough. In my experience, the minority of the texts were exlcuded for theological reason. What sources do you have?

I have asked that kind of question repeatedly in this discussion and you have never once mentioned a single source. It is always your simply contradicting what others say without one single reference. The reason is pretty clear to me, and probably to the others: you have no sources.

A collection of one-off writers whose works are edited and selected for nothing more than a dogmatic bias and placed into a single book are NOT historical documents.

"nothing more than a dogmatic bias"? Please do tell us what your source is for that statement? You are obviously not familiar with either the bible or what constitutes an "historical document", at least not what historians consider it to be. If you consider an "historical document" to be something written close to the time of the events they describe and they are considered by historians as valid sources of information, you have described most of the documents from the 1st century, INCLUDING the gospels.

Further, these documents were not placed into a single book for at least three centuries. In any event, that it was "placed into a single book" is non sequitor, Mr. Gish. Your assertions are simply dogmatic, as you have nothing to support them.

 

[jimmo42]

"dualist" like the Marcionites? Gnostics?

Zoroastrians and Manichaeans.

Hmmmm....something new to investigate.

 

[kenandkids]

No one here has made the claim that the Bible is an overall accurate document

Your claim "Nor is the bible an historically accurate collection of texts" is patently FALSE, WRONG, IN ERROR. Independent of Jesus, there have been a number of archaelogical discoveries made as a direct result of following descriptions in the bible. This applies to both the old and the new testament.

Yes he did. And, yet again, the fact that some places were mentioned is his "proof." This isn't a strawman, it is his repeated assertion.

Every ancient scrap of writing is an historical document.

Quite right, I neglected the word accurate, my mistake.

 

[kenandkids]

How can it not be accurate if those places are real?

For the last time:

By your own logic in this sentence, repeated throughout this thread, you are saying that the Turtledove book is accurate because it contains mention of real people and places.

 

[kenandkids]

What is pathetic is jimmo's claim that because we have found places mentioned in the bible, the bible is accurate. The majority of fiction on this planet contains names of real people and places, this does not make them historically accurate.

Jimmo deserves more respect than this ridiculous strawman of his position. He never made this claim and you are being blatantly dishonest by repeating it ad nauseum.

The bible mentions real people and places, but is not accurate about those real people and places? How can it not be accurate if those places are real?

 

[jimmo42]

No one here has made the claim that the Bible is an overall accurate document

Your claim "Nor is the bible an historically accurate collection of texts" is patently FALSE, WRONG, IN ERROR. Independent of Jesus, there have been a number of archaelogical discoveries made as a direct result of following descriptions in the bible. This applies to both the old and the new testament.

Yes he did. And, yet again, the fact that some places were mentioned is his "proof." This isn't a strawman, it is his repeated assertion..

Once again, you twist things in a dishonest attempt to be right. I have repeated and demonstably discussed the inaccuracies in the bible. As I just mentioned, this thread was started BY ME with a topic directly related to the inaccuracy of the bible. I have repeatedly stated that bible is inaccurate in places. And you have the audacity to say I claim the bible is an overall accurate document ?

What you quoted above is quite obviously a response to your claim that the bible is completely inaccurate, and most certainly not a claim that the bible is 100% accurate.

 

[kenandkids]

Your claim "Nor is the bible an historically accurate collection of texts"

What you quoted above is quite obviously a response to your claim that the bible is completely inaccurate, and most certainly not a claim that the bible is 100% accurate.

Please point out where I said the words "completely" or "wholly" and then point out where I claimed that you said that it was "100% accurate." What was that about twisting?

 

[jimmo42]

By your own logic in this sentence, repeated throughout this thread, you are saying that the Turtledove book is accurate because it contains mention of real people and places.

OK, since I have never read it, I cannot make any claims about the details. So, for all of us involved, name one place described in the Turtledove book that the location was previously unknown, but it was discovered through descriptions in Turtledove's book. Just one is all I am asking for.

Besides all that, Mr. Gish, you are wandering from the subject. The subject here is the historicity of Jesus. Whether or not the bible has described locations or people that have been later verifed to be correct is not the issue.

Do historians consider the gospels valid historical evidence to support the existance of Jesus? Yes.
Do most historians accepted the existance of Jesus? Yes.

 

[kenandkids]

OK, since I have never read it, I cannot make any claims about the details. So, for all of us involved, name one place described in the Turtledove book that the location was previously unknown, but it was discovered through descriptions in Turtledove's book.

Ooohhh... so the goalpost now sits at "discoverable" places.
Keep calling names, it really helps you.

 

[jimmo42]

Your claim "Nor is the bible an historically accurate collection of texts"

What you quoted above is quite obviously a response to your claim that the bible is completely inaccurate, and most certainly not a claim that the bible is 100% accurate.

Please point out where I said the words "completely" or "wholly" and then point out where I claimed that you said that it was "100% accurate." What was that about twisting?

It is an interpretation that both Memeticemetic and I have. Further, you have made the claim "Nor is the bible an historically accurate collection of texts". That statement obviously implies totality.

In addition you have repeatedly claimed that the bible is not an "historical document", insisting I didn't know what an "historical document" is. Now, when someone else points out that you are wrong, you make the ludicrous claim, "Quite right, I neglected the word accurate, my mistake." although in post after post you instisted they weren't historical documents.

 

[jimmo42]

Ooohhh... so the goalpost now sits at "discoverable" places.
Keep calling names, it really helps you.

At least try and pay attention. I said "discovered" and not "discoverable", as you claim. The word is sitting right in front of you and you can simply cut-and-paste, but instead to you decide to use a word with a different meaning, then accuse me of moving the goalpost. That is a strawman if ever there was one. Sorry, but I find that kind of thing dishonest.

As I already said:

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.

It is for this reason, (among others) that historians look at the bible as a valid historical document. I am curious as to which historians consider the Turtledove a valid historical document.