On religion

[MyUserName]

But why would you consider an alternative narrative more likely?

Because the NT is, by definition, biased. Obviously pretty much all sources have their bias but one can cross reference things to see what is probably true.

If the NT was accurate then I find it very hard to believe that other historians would not have mentioned Jesus, apart possibly from Josephus who remains a grey area in terms of his authenticity. Hence IMHO what is in the bible is more likely to be legend than fact although some real people and places are mentioned. I see no reason to even believe that the historical figure existed and even if the legends were being pinned to a single man at the time the distortions (magic and miracles) are likely to be so severe that the man worshipped is nothing like the actual man anyway hence it is not really based on him either.

Although I am getting bored of going in circles. I will have a look at Josephus as you suggested and see whether he is actually more credible than I originally gave him credit for.

Are there any other points I made earlier that you care to discuss?

[NotAllThere]

... I find it very hard to believe that other historians would not have mentioned Jesus, apart possibly from Josephus who remains a grey area in terms of his authenticity...

Tacitus. Don't forget him.

My bias is quite rational. I am reluctant to accept the NT as evidence that the NT is true, especially when it is heavily contradictory and does not have support from any other sources...

Let me try to make it clear what I meant about rationality and bias.

Only if you've already got an irrational bias against the NT documents as a historical source. Historians consider the NT a useful historical resource. You don't. Your position has no backup from reputable historians, therefore it is irrational.

Your insistance that there is no real evidence that Jesus existed is also irrational.

Your argument has degenerated into "nya nya nya, not listening, nya nya nya". And, btw - your "I will let Bart D. Ehrman ... provide my closing statement" comment earlier didn't half make you sound like an Attempting, and failing, to sound scholarly.

[d000hg]

MUN: OK. Whatever you say then. If you won't even agree with scholars there is no point arguing the other stuff.

[MyUserName]

What if it was so convincing they all became believers and wrote the NT?!

The gospels were written in Greek after Jesus had died, logically the local historians would have written something in their own language at the time they were being converted?

Because even then it would ruin their credibility.

Do you have any sources to back that claim?

Christus fits with Jesus.
Executed under Tiberius fits with Jesus.

You have no better fit.

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the argument from ignorance?

[NotAllThere]

The gospels were written in Greek after Jesus had died, logically the local historians would have written something in their own language at the time they were being converted?

Do you have any sources to back that claim?

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the argument from ignorance?

You have proven beyond doubt that you are an excellent practitioner of it.

[d000hg]

The gospels were written in Greek after Jesus had died, logically the local historians would have written something in their own language at the time they were being converted?

What if they were Greek?

[speling bee]

Because the NT is, by definition, biased. Obviously pretty much all sources have their bias but one can cross reference things to see what is probably true.

If the NT was accurate then I find it very hard to believe that other historians would not have mentioned Jesus, apart possibly from Josephus who remains a grey area in terms of his authenticity. Hence IMHO what is in the bible is more likely to be legend than fact although some real people and places are mentioned. I see no reason to even believe that the historical figure existed and even if the legends were being pinned to a single man at the time the distortions (magic and miracles) are likely to be so severe that the man worshipped is nothing like the actual man anyway hence it is not really based on him either.

Although I am getting bored of going in circles. I will have a look at Josephus as you suggested and see whether he is actually more credible than I originally gave him credit for.

Are there any other points I made earlier that you care to discuss?

As you say all sources are biased. History was written from a viewpoint. Tacitus was disparaging about Christians because of a prevailing Roman elite viewpoint against Eastern culture and particularly Eastern cults.

You overstate your case very badly. You say 'no evidence', or 'I see no reason', not ' unconvincing evidence'. This suggests that you are unwilling to acknowledge the weakness of sources and then come to a measured conclusion as to what is most likely.

You need to have a balanced approach to ancient history with an open mind. I don't throw out Tacitus because he reports the omen of the Thames turning red.

This is an extract from Ammianus Marcellinus. He is the best source of his time but we don't dismiss him for nonsense like this.

1 Meanwhile Fortune's rapid wheel, which is always interchanging adversity and prosperity, armed Bellona in the company of her attendant Furies, and transferred to the Orient melancholy events, the coming of which was foreshadowed by the clear testimony of omens and portents. 2 For after many true predictions of seers and augurs, dogs leaped back when wolves howled, night birds p379rang out a kind of doleful lament, the sun rose in gloom and dimmed the clear morning light; at Antioch, in quarrels and riots of the common people, it became usual that whoever thought that he was suffering wrong shouted without restraint: "Let Valens be burned alive!" and the words of public criers were continually heard, directing the people to gather firewood, to set fire to the baths of Valens, in the building of which the emperor himself had taken such interest. 3 All this almost in plain speech showed that this kind of death1 threatened him. Furthermore, the ghostly form of the king of Armenia and the piteous shades of those who shortly before had been executed in connection with the fall of Theodorus,2 shrieking horrible songs at night, in the form of dirges, tormented many with dire terrors. 4 A heifer was found lying lifeless with its windpipe cut, and its death was an indication of great and widespread sorrow from funerals of the people. Finally, when the old walls of Chalcedon were torn down,3 in order that a bath4 might be built at Constantinople, and the rows of stones were taken apart, there was found on a squared block hidden in the midst of the structure of the wall an inscription containing the following Greek verses, clearly revealing what was to happen:

p3815 When gaily through the city's festal streets
Shall whirl soft maidens in a happy dance,
When mournfully a wall shall guard a bath,
Then countless hordes of men spread far and wide
With warlike arms shall cross clear Istrus' stream
To ravage Scythia's fields and Mysia's land.
But mad with hope when they Pannonia raid,
There battle and life's end their course shall check.

[speling bee]

The gospels were written in Greek after Jesus had died, logically the local historians would have written something in their own language at the time they were being converted?



Are you familiar with the fallacy of the argument from ignorance?

Local historian may have written in Aramaic but more likely in Greek which was lingua franca for the Eastern Med.

Mine is not an argument from ignorance. We have some sources. They are imperfect. We decide what is most likely. NAT's point about anti-Christian ancient sources not doubting the existence of Jesus is an important building block, but not on its own overwhelming.

There were some splendidly anti-Christian polemicists in the ancient world. They worked tirelessly to discredit Christianity, but the non-historicity of Jesus was not part of their armory. We should ask ourselves why that might be.

[NotAllThere]

I'm kind of reminded of the objections made to Hume's argument against "argument from (to) design". In and of themselves, each objection has some weight, but taken together, the balance of the debate is generally take to leaning towards Hume.

[speling bee]

I'm kind of reminded of the objections made to Hume's argument against "argument from (to) design". In and of themselves, each objection has some weight, but taken together, the balance of the debate may lean towards Hume.

Exactamundo.