The testimony of the NT writers

[Subduction Zone]

1 Again with independent I mean that they didn’t copied from each other, if your understanding of the word “independent” is different then we simply have a semantic disagreement (which is irrelevant)

2 the burial story is corroborated and the empty tomb are corroborated by multiple independent sources (weather if Mathew copied from Mark in other events is relevant because we are not discussing these other events)

3 I accept independent sources are a good and strong line of evidence that corroborates the truth of a historical event. If you have different standards please share them and explain why your standards are better than mine.

And that is not what "independent" means. Why is this so hard to understand? Not plagiarizing alone does not mean independent.

Where else besides the Bible is the burial myth repeated? The Bible is one source. It went through a homogenization process. The other gospels do not even exist any longer to contradict it. Once that happens you cannot say "independent.

As to 3 it is a good thing that you accept independent sources, but you only seem to have one.

 

[leroy]

And that is not what "independent" means. Why is this so hard to understand? Not plagiarizing alone does not mean independent.

Where else besides the Bible is the burial myth repeated? The Bible is one source. It went through a homogenization process. The other gospels do not even exist any longer to contradict it. Once that happens you cannot say "independent.

As to 3 it is a good thing that you accept independent sources, but you only seem to have one.

he Bible is one source. It went through a homogenization process.

Aja, and will you support that claim? Or should I add it to the list of random unsupported claims made by you?

1 what examply do you mean by homogenization

2 how do you know that the bible went through that process

And that is not what "independent" means.............Not plagiarizing alone does not mean independent.

says who?
But irrelevant, this is just semantics.

If that makes you feel more conformable I can use the word “not plagiarized” instead of independent.

The point is that the authors didn’t copied from each other, nor form a common source, you can call them however you whant.

The argument is that even if we grant that the authors where liars, it would have been unlikely for them to have invented the exact same lie (Jesus was buried) so at least that event is likely to be historical.

For example the fact that we see the tween towers both in Spider Man and The Simpsons, strongly suggest that the buildings are real, because even though the authors of both cartoons where not interested in real history or in reporting real events, it would have been unlikely for them to have invented the exact same buildings in the same city.

In other words Spiderman + Simpsons is enough to establish that the Tween Towers likely existed in New York even if you dismiss the rest of the cartoon as “fiction”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aja, and will you support that claim? Or should I add it to the list of random unsupported claims made by you?

1 what examply do you mean by homogenization

2 how do you know that the bible went through that process



says who?
But irrelevant, this is just semantics.

If that makes you feel more conformable I can use the word “not plagiarized” instead of independent.

The point is that the authors didn’t copied from each other, nor form a common source, you can call them however you whant.

The argument is that even if we grant that the authors where liars, it would have been unlikely for them to have invented the exact same lie (Jesus was buried) so at least that event is likely to be historical.

For example the fact that we see the tween towers both in Spider Man and The Simpsons, strongly suggest that the buildings are real, because even though the authors of both cartoons where not interested in real history or in reporting real events, it would have been unlikely for them to have invented the exact same buildings in the same city.

In other words Spiderman + Simpsons is enough to establish that the Tween Towers likely existed in New York even if you dismiss the rest of the cartoon as “fiction”

No, I am not going to even bother.

You are way behind when it comes to supporting any of your claims. When you can support your claims and admit when you have been shown to be wrong then you can make demands. Otherwise if I feel like it I will provide more material, if I don't then you will have to try to find it yourself.

I have had several discussions about the nativity myth in Luke. There were articles linked from historical sources. You can try to find those or simply Google search the topic yourself. Just remember to ignore apologists. They are not valid sources.

 

[leroy]

No, I am not going to even bother.

You are way behind when it comes to supporting any of your claims. When you can support your claims and admit when you have been shown to be wrong then you can make demands. Otherwise if I feel like it I will provide more material, if I don't then you will have to try to find it yourself.

I have had several discussions about the nativity myth in Luke. There were articles linked from historical sources. You can try to find those or simply Google search the topic yourself. Just remember to ignore apologists. They are not valid sources.

What a surprise, once again you will not support your claim

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No disagreement, if you xan show that Homer
1 was well informed
2 had the honest intention to report what happened

It would be a good reliable source , this would mean that homer would have the benefit of the doubt and all the claims in the illiad should considered true unless you have a good argument against a particular claim .

I'm both well-informed and honest. Does that mean that you will accept anything I say as correct? For example, the Christian god has been ruled out both empirically and using pure reason. Can we assume that the matter is settled and you are in agreement, since I meet both of your criteria for giving the benefit of the doubt?

I am not familiar with the illiad, and I have no bias for or against say the troyan horse, so I have an open mind........ if you can show that 1 and 2 are true I would accept the historicity of thectroyan horse unless and untill a good positive argument against is presented.

Trojan. The adjectival form of Troy is Trojan. And you should not believe that there was an actual Trojan horse based on Homer's report. There might have been, and perhaps someday it will be shown that there was, but until that day, one should remain agnostic about the matter, not credulous.

My argument is that you are raising the bar unrealistically too high, when you claim to accept only eye witness testimony as evidence

My bar is even higher. I would need to be the eye witness myself, and even then, I would not assume that I understood the evidence of my senses properly. Seriously, if I saw what appeared to be a dead body get up and float away, I still wouldn't believe that I had seen a resurrection. Some magician made the Stature of Liberty appear to disappear. Spoiler: it was an illusion.

Nothing based only in hearsay should be assumed to be correct.

You would also have to confirm that homer had the intent of reporting history (what actually happend) if you do it, then yes I would accept homer as evidence for a miracle

I have to agree with @SkepticThinker here. Your standards for belief are too low. They allow you to believe untrue things. You can never know what Homer's intent was, nor that of any of the principal characters in the New Testament. Trump probably thinks he's reporting history when he says that the election was stolen from him. Certainly many of his idolators do. And that theft would be a miracle indeed, since it happened with zero evidence left behind. It doesn't matter whether he or any of his minions believe it or not.

in the case of the gospels, we know that the purpose of the author was to promote Christianity and convince the readers that Jesus is the Messiah

That makes it unreliable right there. That's the agenda of all preaching, missionary work, and Christian apologetics, and the ethics of this process are well understood and roundly rejected in humanism. It's called pious fraud, or "lying for Jesus":

"Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks."

why don’t you simply admit that you reject the gospels by default because they contain miracles

OK, I admit it. That's the proper position to take regarding insufficiently evidenced extraordinary claims.

If the authors of the gospels where just inventing random stories with the purpose of promoting Christianity , it is unlikely that they would have invented those events. If the author is reporting stuff that goes against his agenda or goal, then the author is likely honest and reporting what he thinks is true (rather than inventing lies)

You're unfamiliar with liars, aren't you? A smart tax cheat ALWAYS makes a few small errors in the government's favor along with the lies that benefit him much, much more in order to maintain plausible deniability. His answer will be just like yours. If he were inventing deductions with the purpose of defrauding the government, you wouldn't find the other kind of errors as well.

they were well informed, because most of the verifiable information is true

They were well-informed because some of the things they said that have been shown to be correct? That neither makes them well-informed nor trustworthy.

If the author is well informed and if his intent was to right history then the source is reliable, which means that it deserves the benefit of the doubt, which means that the claims should be granted as true, unless you have a good reason to conclude the opposite. Is this clear? Do you have any questions on what is it what I am saying. ?

It's clear, but unsound. Also, giving somebody the benefit of the doubt is not believing him. It's doubting him.

we have multiple independent sources testifying in favor of the empty tomb

I don't. I just have one source - the Bible the Romans cobbled - and I have no reason to think an empty tomb is evidence of resurrection, or that there even was one that it was at the time claimed to be Christ's tomb.

Ok so we have Luke and Josephus contradicting each other…………. Why are you assuming that Josephus was correct and Luke was wrong?

Doesn't Josephus meet your requirement for being well-informed and a sincere historian? If so, by your own reckoning, you need to give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, you might believe the same about Luke, which demonstrates the problem with your approach to belief. You need to give both of them the benefit of the doubt knowing that at least one is wrong if they are making contradictory statements of fact. And this is the problem with faith anyway. It allows one to believe either of two contradictory positions.

 

[leroy]

I'm both well-informed and honest. Does that mean that you will accept anything I say as correct? For example, the Christian god has been ruled out both empirically and using pure reason. Can we assume that the matter is settled and you are in agreement, since I meet both of your criteria for giving the benefit of the doubt?

I am talking about historical events/testimonials no about a philosophical conclusion about your alleged empirical evidence against the existenceof God.

(But I would like to know what empirical evidence is that)

Trojan. The adjec ival form of Troy is Trojan. And you should not believe that there was an actual Trojan horse based on Homer's report. There might have been, and perhaps someday it will be shown that there was, but until that day, one should remain agnostic about the matter, not credulous.

Ok and what would you need in order to belive in the Trojan Horse?

1 contemporary documents reporting that event?

2 multiple sources confirming that event?

My bar is even higher. I would need to be the eye witness myself, and even then, I would not assume that I understood the evidence of my senses properly. Seriously, if I saw what appeared to be a dead body get up and float away, I still wouldn't believe that I had seen a resurrection. Some magician made the Stature of Liberty appear to disappear. Spoiler: it was an illusion.

Ok but the problem is that you only set the bar that high with things that contradict your philosophical assumptions (like miracles) you are being arbitrary .

Nothing based only in hearsay should be assumed to be correct.

It is your burden to show that a particular alleged event (like the resurrection)is based just un hearsay.

I have to agree with @SkepticThinker here. Your standards for belief are too low.

Ok so what standard do you suggest? How can we know if an ancient source is reliable?

That makes it unreliable right there. That's the agenda of all preaching, missionary work, and Christian apologetics, and the ethics of this process are well understood and roundly rejected in humanism. It's called pious fraud, or "lying for Jesus":

You failed to address my point.

The fact that the authors of the gospels reported things that goes against their agenda suggest that the authors where honestly reporting what they though was true. (They where not intentionally lying)

Please address this point.


This doesn't show that everything most be true, just that the author deserves the benefit of the doubt and that any accusation of "lie" should be supported with conclusive evidence

You're unfamiliar with liars, aren't you? A smart tax cheat ALWAYS makes a few small errors in the government's favor along with the lies that benefit him much, much more in order to maintain plausible deniability. His answer will be just like yours. If he were inventing deductions with the purpose of defrauding the government, you wouldn't find the other kind of errors as well.

Again the point is that the author is unlikely to lie, if such lie would go against his agenda.


If your agenda is to pay less taxes , why would you say you earned 10,000usd if you only earned 5,000?

They were well-informed because some of the things they said that have been shown to be correct? That neither makes them well-informed nor trustworthy.

They where well because most of the verifiable historical facts are true.....if this criteria is not good enough what other criteria for determing if the author is well informed do you suggest?

It's clear, but unsound. Also, giving somebody the benefit of the doubt is not believing him. It's doubting him.

Yes that is and has always been my point .

Giving him the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean that you should belive everything he said. It simply means that you have to provide evidence if you think that a particular claim is wrong.

I don't. I just have one source - the Bible the Romans cobbled -

The Bible is a series of multiple independent sources

or that there even was one that it was at the time claimed to be Christ's tomb.

Well evidence for the emty tomb has been provided.

Care to refute it?

E]Doesn't Josephus meet your requirement for being well-informed and a sincere historian? If so, by your own reckoning, you need to give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, you might believe the same about Luke, which demonstrates the problem with your approach to belief. You need to give both of them the benefit of the doubt knowing that at least one is wrong if they are making contradictory statements of fact. And this is the problem with faith anyway. It allows one to believe either of two contradictory positions.

Yes Josephus meets my standards


1 which means that he has the benefit of the doubt

2 which means that I will accept his testimonybas true unless I have good reasons to doubt

3 the fact that he contradicts with Luke, is a good reason to doubt josephus on that particular event. (In the same way we have good reasons to doubt Luke for the same reason)


But if you dont like this standard then which standard do you suggest? How dobyou know ifcan author is reliable?

How do you know that Josephus is reliable and homer isn't? What standard do you suggest.

 

[rational experiences]

If humans agree once in life time past some men wrote a testimonial ...as they did.

That predicted for whoever was alive in a humans future as humans all of us returned life as to be Sacrificed. Again. The theme.

The testimonies taught men changed by spatial earths heavens heating using technology of dusts.. nuclear the wandering asteroid star changed.

Wandering he said became as dusts...the scattering of stars mass. Laws of gods stone body in space.

That outcome earths vacuum void had used as lights fuel.

History of earth gases that arose out of the body leaving were eventual as immaculate. No light.

So no dusts...no light.

Space law would eventually re snap freeze life on earth. As laws was for planets existence. In space held position.

Men said dusts own life on earth as we need light to exist above. Suns stars.

Pretty basic teaching.

Too many corrupt humans since gave their own interpretation of readings. We know as we have lived the abuses.

Humans with intent I use the book to enable monetary benefit.

Pretty basic as a real review.

So return to earth as a body mass hits and it was proven. Increased burning by mass above not just particles .......removes life's heavenly body support of biological life. Light.

Basic reason for having written the testimonial.

Mass removal to consume eat light mass by 12. Stated new caves opened at humans feet of life. Sin holes. Sin X k constant holes.

K man's science symbol.

A confess of Sion.

Body mass wrapped in tombs is entombed God. Left mass opening holes.

Pretty basic science.

Theory for nothing as science caused nothing as they meant it. Science was practiced and is the practice of first temple. Not religious first.

Is the mistake you all argue about to day.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would like to know what empirical evidence is that

The evidence that rules out the god of the Christian Bible is the evidence that currently supports the theory of biological evolution. It doesn't rule out the possibility of a deceptive intelligent designer that has fooled us, which is what we would have to accept if the theory were ever falsified, but it does rule out an honest creator.

Also, you ignored, "I'm both well-informed and honest. Does that mean that you will accept anything I say as correct?" That's your criteria for belief, correct? If not, why do you keep citing it?

Ok and what would you need in order to belive in the Trojan Horse?
1 contemporary documents reporting that event?
2 multiple sources confirming that event?

Belief to an empiricist is always tentative, and always less than certitude. The better the supporting evidence and the more mundane the claim, the more likely it is to be correct. As far as I know, the Trojan horse may well have existed, or not. It's not unbelievable, but it is a little far out to think that anybody could fall for that. Belief should always be commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence, and tentative, meaning amenable pending further relevant evidence making the claim more or less likely to be correct.

the problem is that you only set the bar that high with things that contradict your philosophical assumptions (like miracles) you are being arbitrary .

I wrote, "I would need to be the eye witness myself, and even then, I would not assume that I understood the evidence of my senses properly. Seriously, if I saw what appeared to be a dead body get up and float away, I still wouldn't believe that I had seen a resurrection. Some magician made the Stature of Liberty appear to disappear. Spoiler: it was an illusion."

I use the same standard here as elsewhere - the one I just cited. I don't assume that Homer or Shakespeare existed as characters from history, just that those are the pen names of one or more writers. Shakespeare might be two women. The claim that he is a single man fitting the biography of him that we have is plausible and maybe likely, but not confirmed.

Give me compelling evidence that the laws of nature were suspended, and I will believe that they were, which is tautologically true with a competent, open-minded critical thinker. Of course, that may be difficult or impossible, but that doesn't mean one should believe with less.

what standard do you suggest?

The one just suggested - compelling evidence.

You failed to address my point. The fact that the authors of the gospels reported things that goes against their agenda suggest that the authors where honestly reporting what they though was true. (They where not intentionally lying) Please address this point.

I did address that point. I gave an illustration of somebody lying to make himself appear more credible in other areas where he is also lying. You can't show that that didn't happen in the case of the Gospel writers. That doesn't mean that it did, just that we need to remain open-minded to the possibility (agnostic) until it is ruled out.

This doesn't show that everything must be true, just that the author deserves the benefit of the doubt and that any accusation of "lie" should be supported with conclusive evidence

Nobody deserves the benefit of the doubt, if by that you mean believing them despite their claims not being compellingly argued or evidenced. Sometimes, we give people a chance to prove themselves because it suits us to do so, but that doesn't mean we believe them. Unproven claims should be doubted. You don't agree, but that is what skepticism is.

If your agenda is to pay less taxes , why would you say you earned 10,000usd if you only earned 5,000?

You wouldn't. You would take illegitimate deduction or fail to declare taxable income. But if you intend to do that, you may be facing tax evasion charges if you are found out. So, you put a few small errors in the return that raise your tax debt along with the much larger and more numerous ones that lower it to create reasonable doubt about your intent.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean that you should believe everything he said. It simply means that you have to provide evidence if you think that a particular claim is wrong.

I don't call that giving the benefit of the doubt. And yes, I have a burden of proof if I claim he is wrong, but not if I simply refuse to accept his insufficiently supported claims.

The Bible is a series of multiple independent sources

Not to me. I understand that there are multiple authors, but I do not know that they didn't read and influence one another. In fact, it seems very unlikely that they did. You might call the Gospels independent sources for example, but I don't. Your standards for belief are much different than mine. You seem to think that that which can't be disproved should be believed.

Well evidence for the empty tomb has been provided. Care to refute it?

Why? I can stipulate to the claim that there was an area called a tomb that was empty. And you just called the evidence testimony. Testimony never needs refuting to be doubted. You seem to think otherwise.

How do you know that Josephus is reliable and homer isn't? What standard do you suggest.

I don't, and I don't rely on the words attributed to either.

 

[rational experiences]

The human teaching is about human presence owner ship.

That says I'm owner of the ship hence the ship owns my life.

Man names. Man human said in legal reviews earth is our stone ark ship. It's journey travels flows through space.

Propelled by the spirit...gases sacrificed. Legal. As it is legal. Planet earth every status exists as mass term the body type a God. Before any human.

Reflective human now. Is only aware now stating as I've evolved body mind.

Proof lived scientific technology was not practiced for about 1500 years. From timed agreement 0 to count earths ark travel around the sun.

We began again.

So no past time references beyond 0 was allowed by theists. As infinity the law mother of God is zero owning all mass energy by zero.

Now.

Science medical as no other science exists ...the determined review being reactive science.

Reactive science says the past now is all one of any base substance..s that each one evolved from as the base energy.

Now.

Practiced science is the occult as it destroys the past as past owned holy One...s.

Said rational humans.

Rational is an assessment of a conscious human only behaviours versus irrational human by choices only.

Medical science says microbe types equals human only is to be a human. Owns two mutual human adults present. First. No human microbial thesis before the two humans.

Was legally stated.

Answer is equals equals equals. Three.

Not the theists.

Sex from human is a given single each microbial life form of humans adult non consciousness. That then bring's forth from one body only a woman human the baby life.

Baby life leaves parent body begins its evolving life form from innocence into its adults behaviours.

The human only journey. From innocence. Baby holy law the human.

Said by men for men as men. As human men are the theists of science by ownership a man. Thinking as a man. Named by men. Agreed.

Says the legal teaching no man is God.

As medical science studies says baboons or apes or monkeys pre living body...is no human type I compare myself... but a total cellular biology presence as the subject.

Total body mass type living biology legal.

By titled presence man's god in scientific terminology living state now. It cannot be theoried against to be any scientists thinking ability now.

Is exact and non arguable humans medical advice to the living human biology. Now. Age of your biology inside waters mass oxygenated is exact.

Medical wisdom how old human biology is by cell presence human only microbial types.

Said legal science medical. History of legal rights of humans to live as humans naturally on earth.

As water mass history presence isn't human.
Nor is oxygen in its origin formed position...not human.

The topic chosen by humans and the subject chosen by humans is why at your bio age now any human thinker is told the exact same advice.

Our actual cell human bio age already stated not very old on earth inside mass.

No argument even exists. Said legal rights.

Why occult satanic sciences were proven life's destroyer says humans past life legal position.

The humans ability of coercion is an acquired evil minded human only behaviour.

Based on control by threats of murder over family versus how to be a rich man. How a greedy man I'm not going to alter my thoughts as a liar and a controller of their particular lifestyle.

Basic origin all human families life was involved with mutual trade. Not by a false evaluation. It was by personal need. Was agreed upon a long time ago.

Given away to own life's destruction on planet earth. Termed review when man's mind chemical bases changed. In returned earths falling burning sun stars mass.

The blasting of the Russian forest proves where men gained the advice of suns mass terms nuclear destruction from.

The evidence says why that event had not created life.

The Satan body not of earths mass.

Review as the sun was stopped attacking of origin mass freezing it's energy type within all planets bodies.

It had been incepted.

As conceived history earths God was immaculate clear cold non burning gases out of planetary mass in Infinty space. The natural evidence.

As we all live not in the reacted position now. It is the future.

In the future now there is no reaction.

 

[leroy]

The evidence that rules out the god of the Christian Bible is the evidence that currently supports the theory of biological evolution. It doesn't rule out the possibility of a deceptive intelligent designer that has fooled us, which is what we would have to accept if the theory were ever falsified, but it does rule out an honest creator.

In what way does evolution disproves the existence of God (an honest creator) ?

Also, you ignored, "I'm both well-informed and honest. Does that mean that you will accept anything I say as correct?" That's your criteria for belief, correct? If not, why do you keep citing it?

I didn’t ignored you.

I said that this criteria applies to events and testimonies, (it doesn’t apply to deep philosophical stuff like the existence of God)

As an example

Assume that you report the results of the last 20 soccer games in some league.

Of all the 20 games that you reported I only watched 10 of them…….. and I can confirm that your reported the results accurately on those 10 games,

So given that you accurately reported the result in those 10 games, I can conclude that you are well informed, and I would trust that the other 10 games where also accurately reported, unless I have good evidence against those results. In other words you would have the benefit of the doubt.

This is why historians usually trust Josephus or Tacitus, or Plutarch, because even though they are not perfect they usually report things accurately, so if any of these authors mentions an event it would be considered historical, unless good evidence against is given.

I am suggesting the same thing about the Gospels, given that the authors are well informed, because they accursedly reported most of the testable events, they have the benefit of the doubt on events that can´t be confirmed. And should be granted as true unless you have good reasons to reject them.

If you disagree with this santandrs, then please provide your own standards and explain why is that standard better than mine.

I wrote, "I would need to be the eye witness myself, and even then, I would not assume that I understood the evidence of my senses properly. Seriously, if I saw what appeared to be a dead body get up and float away, I still wouldn't believe that I had seen a resurrection. Some magician made the Stature of Liberty appear to disappear. Spoiler: it was an illusion."

Yes and my issue is that you only seem to have those standards with stuff that contradict your philosophical view of the world,

Why don’t you apply those standard to evolution? How do you know that the genetic evidence is real? How do you know that the fossils (say Tiktaalik) that support the theory are real? Where you a witness? where you in the excavations? And even then, How do you know that the fossils that you saw where not illusions?

That is why I am accusing you for being arbitrary, there are many truths that you accept despite not being a witness. Why are you making an exception with the events reported in the gospels?

Give me compelling evidence that the laws of nature were suspended, and I will believe that they were, which is tautologically true with a competent, open-minded critical thinker. Of course, that may be difficult or impossible, but that doesn't mean one should believe with less.

well we know that the law of abiogenesis was suspended atleast once .

The one just suggested - compelling evidence.

Well the gospels where written by well-informed people that where trying to report what actually happened.

Why isn’t this compelling evidence?

You probably accept Josephus or Plutarch as reliable for this reason …….. so why making an exception with the Gosples?

I did address that point. I gave an illustration of somebody lying to make himself appear more credible in other areas where he is also lying. You can't show that that didn't happen in the case of the Gospel writers. That doesn't mean that it did, just that we need to remain open-minded to the possibility (agnostic) until it is ruled out.

Well by that logic, you should reject or be agnostic all ancient history................and everythign else (including evolution)

Nobody deserves the benefit of the doubt, if by that you mean believing them despite their claims not being compellingly argued or evidenced. Sometimes, we give people a chance to prove themselves because it suits us to do so, but that doesn't mean we believe them. Unproven claims should be doubted. You don't agree, but that is what skepticism is.

So by your logic, I shouldn’t accept that you live (or use to live) in Mexico , because I haven’t corroborated that claim and you testimony is not good enough .

Given your testimony I concluded that it is very likely that you live or lived in Mexico , would you say that my conclusion is flawed?

You wouldn't. You would take illegitimate deduction or fail to declare taxable income. But if you intend to do that, you may be facing tax evasion charges if you are found out. So, you put a few small errors in the return that raise your tax debt along with the much larger and more numerous ones that lower it to create reasonable doubt about your intent.

Sounds unlikely that Luke would have made all the web of lies and tricks just to confuse modern scholars. And 21 century people

If anything he would have made tricks to full people from his time, it is unlikely (ridicously unlikely) that he would tune his text such that they appear reliable according to modern day standards,

You seem to think that that which can't be disproved should be believed.

Yes if the author has proven to be well informed then yes I would accept his claims until proven otherwise.

The same is true when the author had no reasons to lie, that is why I trusted the claim that you lived in Mexico,

This is why I trust the newspaper when they inform about a result of a soccer game, this is why I trust journals when they report the discovery of a new fossil etc.

And if I were to bet, I´LL bet that these are also your standards, you don’t say things like “no no we don’t know the result of the game, because the newspaper could have been lying”………….you would say “this is likely the true result, because newspapers usually report true results” you are just making an exception with stuff that contradict your world view

Why? I can stipulate to the claim that there was an area called a tomb that was empty. And you just called the evidence testimony. Testimony never needs refuting to be doubted. You seem to think otherwise.

I didnt understand your point

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In what way does evolution disproves the existence of God (an honest creator) ?

Not the theory, but the evidence in its support. If the theory were falsified tomorrow, that evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of that falsifying find. Suppose undeniable proof were found that all of those strata of fossils arranged from less familiar forms with older radiodating dates in the deepest strata to younger, more familiar ones above them. Who did that and why? Not the Christian god. Satan, maybe, or some other liar god like Loki.

Assume that you report the results of the last 20 soccer games in some league. Of all the 20 games that you reported I only watched 10 of them…….. and I can confirm that your reported the results accurately on those 10 games. So given that you accurately reported the result in those 10 games, I can conclude that you are well informed, and I would trust that the other 10 games where also accurately reported, unless I have good evidence against those results. In other words you would have the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, but I could be wrong, which you know, and which is why you still have doubt. But I'd bet you tried to independently confirm that I wasn't before relying on the information if the cost of being wrong was considerable. If the cost of being wrong is low, it is reasonable to accept the claim provisionally, but that is not the same as belief. Also, the claim needs to be credible. Telling me that the score was 4-2 is a lot easier to accept without fact-checking than a score of 104-2. Ans when we get to biblical claims, many are in that latter category. There is no reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected or was a demigod, so I don't, however honest and well-informed you say the witnesses were.

I am suggesting the same thing about the Gospels, given that the authors are well informed, because they accursedly reported most of the testable events, they have the benefit of the doubt on events that can´t be confirmed. And should be granted as true unless you have good reasons to reject them. If you disagree with this standard, then please provide your own standards and explain why is that standard better than mine.

My standard for belief is compelling evidence according to the rules of critical analysis. What you offer as evidence isn't compelling. The reason why empiricism is a better epistemology than faith is because the former filters out wrong ideas (and also fails to accept some correct ones if they haven't been shown to be correct), whereas the latter, faith, has no mechanism for identifying wrong ideas, and if this is one's method of deciding what's true about the world, you hold a lot of wrong beliefs and if one is religious, a lot of "not even wrong" (unfalsifiable) beliefs.

my issue is that you only seem to have those standards with stuff that contradict your philosophical view of the world, Why don’t you apply those standard to evolution? How do you know that the genetic evidence is real? How do you know that the fossils (say Tiktaalik) that support the theory are real? Where you a witness? where you in the excavations? And even then, How do you know that the fossils that you saw where not illusions? That is why I am accusing you for being arbitrary, there are many truths that you accept despite not being a witness. Why are you making an exception with the events reported in the gospels?

I have direct evidence that the scientific method is a valid means of deciding what is true about nature. I've seen the agenda, methods, values, and results of the scientific community, and have found them reliable, which is why I bought this computer. But they are not infallible, and all pronouncements are tentative, but many at a high level of probability. Do black holes exist?

well we know that the law of abiogenesis was suspended at least once .

There is no law of abiogenesis in the sciences in the sense you probably mean it, namely, that life always comes from preexisting life. That's a creationist trope, falsely generalizing from the experiments of Pasteur and Redi that if rotting meat cannot produce maggots or corn and rag cannot produce mice over hours or days, that the prebiotic earth could not have generated the first life over eons. That's simply incorrect.

Well the gospels where written by well-informed people that where trying to report what actually happened. Why isn’t this compelling evidence?

I don't know that, and even if I did, it's still not good evidence for extraordinary claims. I believe that they are probably loosely based on an actual person who probably did some of the mundane things that he is said to have done such as wandering and preaching, but I don't know if there was a Last Supper for Jesus and the disciples, for example. It's plausible, but it's also plausible that it is myth.

You probably accept Josephus or Plutarch as reliable for this reason …….. so why making an exception with the Gospels?

No, I don't accept either as reliable in the sense that I assume that they must be correct. Also, I'm less skeptical of mundane claims like theirs than claims of miracles, meaning that I might consider their claims 80% likely to be accurate and those of the miracles much less than 1% likely to be accurate.

Well by that logic, you should reject or be agnostic all ancient history................and everything else (including evolution)

I am.

So by your logic, I shouldn’t accept that you live (or use to live) in Mexico , because I haven’t corroborated that claim and you testimony is not good enough . Given your testimony I concluded that it is very likely that you live or lived in Mexico , would you say that my conclusion is flawed?

No, you shouldn't assume that it's true, just likely, because the claim is mundane and you know I live somewhere. But maybe I'm hiding in another country and trying to deceive somebody into looking for me in Mexico or not look for me at all. I know a woman here in Mexico who did the opposite and tried to create the impression that she lived in the States to elude a stalker.

Sounds unlikely that Luke would have made all the web of lies and tricks just to confuse modern scholars. And 21 century people If anything he would have made tricks to full people from his time, it is unlikely (ridiculously unlikely) that he would tune his text such that they appear reliable according to modern day standards,

I didn't claim otherwise.

Yes if the author has proven to be well informed then yes I would accept his claims until proven otherwise. The same is true when the author had no reasons to lie, that is why I trusted the claim that you lived in Mexico,

You should not assume that I am telling you the truth, since lying, however unlikely in this setting, is a logical possibility.

I didn't understand your point

I wrote, "Testimony never needs refuting to be doubted. You seem to think otherwise." You just testified that you didn't understand my point. I consider the claim likely, but not fact beyond doubt. That's what it means to be a skeptic. And testimony is about the weakest evidence there is compared to the alternatives. That's why the phrase "he said-she said" refers to a situation without a resolution if physical evidence isn't adduced.

 

[Firenze]

I am suggesting the same thing about the Gospels, given that the authors are well informed, because they accursedly reported most of the testable events, they have the benefit of the doubt on events that can´t be confirmed. And should be granted as true unless you have good reasons to reject them.

The fact that they may have been well informed does not mitigate the obvious errors and outright frauds they committed. It is clear that they were either ignorant of the attributes of the Messiah - which I don't believe is the case - or that they outright lied about them. An honest review of what the the OT authors wrote about how we would recognize the Messiah, does NOT include the following: a virgin birth, a crucifixion, a resurrection, a birth in Bethlehem, a life in Nazareth, and most damning - any divine attributes. I think the NT authors knew this full well - yet lied about it anyway. And so Christianity fails from the beginning. The fact that the NT authors were 'well informed' enough to invent Messianic prophesies out of thin air in order to fool their ignorant pagan audience, is hardly something to be proud of.....

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

As far as I know, the Trojan horse may well have existed, or not. It's not unbelievable, but it is a little far out to think that anybody could fall for that.

Given Trumpism, this is WAY more believable.