What would you have done?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your rhetorical question is intellectually dishonest and meaningless. Its like saying what would you do if you witnessed a real miracle. It makes assumptions about what was witnessed. It assumes the miracle took place. Well, miracles are subject of debate, not something we have to agree that could even be witnessed in the first place. It is a cheap debating trick.

If that's your understanding of my question then why on earth did you wait several days before raising this specific objection?

It doesn't make assumptions about what was witnessed it very clearly puts "miracle" in quotation marks, as a term indicating astonishment and inexplicability, asking what steps you'd take to pass on the details of such an observation IF you had witnessed it.

Asking what would you do "if X" is called a hypothetical question not an assumption, you yourself have asked these kind of questions, they are a common thing in such discussions, you've asked me "what would happen if you dropped a hammer that was held directly over your foot", a hypothetical question.

I'll gladly rephrase the question though if this specific format bothers you, then we can move on to what steps you'd take.

Your whole position now is founded upon the supposed impossibility of you witnessing and astonishing, inexplicable event, but you'd have to emphatically prove that in order to claim my hypothetical question is invalid.

I agree asking "what if X" where X is proven to be impossible is a grounds for rejecting the question but that simply is not the case here David.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you honestly wanted an answer to the question, I imagine that you wouldn't have embedded it in a wall of logical fallacies.

Please do point out what you regard as fallacious.

But fine, I'll play.

First, I would question my own cognition. Then I would try to recall how much of that "water" I already had to drink. Then I would ask everyone else if they saw what I saw, and then I'd talk to hundreds of people to figure out if there was a way it could have been a trick. After all that, if I were still convinced it was an actual miracle, I most definitely would not wait for someone else to write it down based on twentieth-hand storytelling a generation or more later.

Very well, that tells me what you would not do, so what would you do?

 

[watsup]

If that's your understanding of my question then why on earth did you wait several days before raising this specific objection?

It doesn't make assumptions about what was witnessed it very clearly puts "miracle" in quotation marks, as a term indicating astonishment and inexplicability, asking what steps you'd take to pass on the details of such an observation IF you had witnessed it.

Asking what would you do "if X" is called a hypothetical question not an assumption, you yourself have asked these kind of questions, they are a common thing in such discussions, you've asked me "what would happen if you dropped a hammer that was held directly over your foot", a hypothetical question.

I'll gladly rephrase the question though if this specific format bothers you, then we can move on to what steps you'd take.

Your whole position now is founded upon the supposed impossibility of you witnessing and astonishing, inexplicable event, but you'd have to emphatically prove that in order to claim my hypothetical question is invalid.

I agree asking "what if X" where X is proven to be impossible is a grounds for rejecting the question but that simply is not the case here David.

Sherlock considers himself a master debater, but if you take the “de” out of those two words, you bet a more accurate description of him.

 

[devildavid]

If that's your understanding of my question then why on earth did you wait several days before raising this specific objection?

It doesn't make assumptions about what was witnessed it very clearly puts "miracle" in quotation marks, as a term indicating astonishment and inexplicability, asking what steps you'd take to pass on the details of such an observation IF you had witnessed it.

Asking what would you do "if X" is called a hypothetical question not an assumption, you yourself have asked these kind of questions, they are a common thing in such discussions, you've asked me "what would happen if you dropped a hammer that was held directly over your foot", a hypothetical question.

I'll gladly rephrase the question though if this specific format bothers you, then we can move on to what steps you'd take.

Your whole position now is founded upon the supposed impossibility of you witnessing and astonishing, inexplicable event, but you'd have to emphatically prove that in order to claim my hypothetical question is invalid.

I agree asking "what if X" where X is proven to be impossible is a grounds for rejecting the question but that simply is not the case here David.

It is not a hypothetical question at all,. It is phrased such as to lead to only one answer. That is a rhetorical question. it is a transparent attempt to get agreement to something that you will then say supports what you are trying to get at: That the written word is evidence of a real event. But the obvious answer you are looking for does not support that conclusion.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is not a hypothetical question at all,.

I disagree.

It is phrased such as to lead to only one answer. That is a rhetorical question. it is a transparent attempt to get agreement to something that you will then say supports what you are trying to get at: That the written word is evidence of a real event. But the obvious answer you are looking for does not support that conclusion.

This is untrue, the questions is what would you do - you could answer, "nothing" or "I'd get drunk" or "I'd tell my wife, get her opinion" or "see if anyone else saw this" or any number of things, there's absolutely no basis for your belief that the question has only one answer, none whatsoever.

I just do not understand why you'd be struggling with this.

 

[devildavid]

I disagree.



This is untrue, the questions is what would you do - you could answer, "nothing" or "I'd get drunk" or "I'd tell my wife, get her opinion" or "see if anyone else saw this" or any number of things, there's absolutely no basis for your belief that the question has only one answer, none whatsoever.

I just do not understand why you'd be struggling with this.

Of course you disagree. So what? The evidence of the question speaks for itself. It is phrased such that it narrows the response to the one answer that you already know. Your conditions make it such with two ifs and and only. If you witnessed a miracle and if you want people 2,000y ears from now to know about it and the only means you have is to write it down. Do you really see another answer to this question that would lead to a logical debate?

You didn't even accept my answer that I would spread it verbally, which is what I would do today as well. Do you accept this answer as legitimate?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course you disagree. So what? The evidence of the question speaks for itself. It is phrased such that it narrows the response to the one answer that you already know.

You are very much mistaken David, here's the question - I'd like to see you show that this has "only one answer". (I highlighted the term or so you can see that I list at least three possible answers).

"What would you have done if you had lived 2,000 years ago and if you had witnessed a "miracle" (like those described in the Gospels, e.g. turning vats of water into wine) I put it to you that you would have no option other than to create a written record of the event OR ask someone else to do so, OR do nothing, ignore the information."

See? at least three answers are suggested, I can only assume you misread what was written.

Your conditions make it such with two ifs and and only. If you witnessed a miracle and if you want people 2,000y ears from now to know about it and the only means you have is to write it down. Do you really see another answer to this question that would lead to a logical debate?

I think that if you did care about passing on the details of what you saw then you'd have only one option given the technology of the day, but that is not the same as saying the question has only one answer, if you did not care about passing it on you could just take no action.

You didn't even accept my answer that I would spread it verbally, which is what I would do today as well. Do you accept this answer as legitimate?

Yes it is a legitimate answer (it's not what I would have done but that doesn't matter) of course, so congratulations you've just proven yourself wrong by showing there is more than one answer.

The intent of my OP of course is to argue that what we find in terms of manuscripts, dates, linguistic style, transcription integrity and so on is exactly what a reasonable person would expect to find if the original witnesses took steps to have written records created due to the huge impact the events had.

This does not nor did I ever say it did, prove that the events really occurred, all I say is that I find it unlikely they did not.

 

[devildavid]

You are very much mistaken David, here's the question - I'd like to see you show that this has "only one answer". (I highlighted the term or so you can see that I list at least three possible answers).



See? at least three answers are suggested, I can only assume you misread what was written.



I think that if you did care about passing on the details of what you saw then you'd have only one option given the technology of the day, but that is not the same as saying the question has only one answer, if you did not care about passing it on you could just take no action.



Yes it is a legitimate answer (it's not what I would have done but that doesn't matter) of course, so congratulations you've just proven yourself wrong by showing there is more than one answer.

The intent of my OP of course is to argue that what we find in terms of manuscripts, dates, linguistic style, transcription integrity and so on is exactly what a reasonable person would expect to find if the original witnesses took steps to have written records created due to the huge impact the events had.

This does not nor did I ever say it did, prove that the events really occurred, all I say is that I find it unlikely they did not.

Once again, you add an "if". Why does it matter if the witness cares or not about relating what they saw?

Your initial reaction to this answer was quite different. So, how does my answer lead to a logical debate?

When you express you reaction to something, that is personal opinion. We can't debate personal opinion. It doesn't matter what anyone finds likely or unlikely. All that matters are facts and what actually happens. You can't debate a hypothetical. So how can this question lead to real debate?

Who is to say what a reasonable person is or what it means to be reasonable? Once again, that is personal opinion. And we can't debate personal opinion. So whart kind of debate do you think this question is going to lead to involving rigorous logic and facts devoid of personal opinion?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Please do point out what you regard as fallacious.

The entire thing is a huge non sequitur. The fact that you could reasonably expect someone to write about a remarkable event doesn't even remotely lead to the conclusion that every remarkable event likely happened simply because someone bothered to write about it a generation or more later and those writings were well-preserved. If that were the case, every religion would be true and pretty much nothing would be fiction.

Very well, that tells me what you would not do, so what would you do?

It's like you didn't actually read what I wrote. I most certainly did tell you what I would do, at more than one level.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Once again, you add an "if". Why does it matter if the witness cares or not about relating what they saw?

I did not add an "if" it was present in my OP.

So, that's my question what would a reasonable person have done two thousand years ago IF they witnessed something apparently miraculous, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with a rather straightforward hypothetical question.

Your initial reaction to this answer was quite different. So, how does my answer lead to a logical debate?

Few things you've said so far in this thread seem to have any significant logical content.

When you express you reaction to something, that is personal opinion. We can't debate personal opinion. It doesn't matter what anyone finds likely or unlikely. All that matters are facts and what actually happens. You can't debate a hypothetical. So how can this question lead to real debate?

So you are unwilling to tell me what you'd do in this or that hypothetical situation? if asked what would you do if you were out of food at home, the answer "I'd plan a trip to the food store" would be completely beyond your ability to consider? you'd regard as completely unreasonable to consider that to speculate that?

Who is to say what a reasonable person is or what it means to be reasonable? Once again, that is personal opinion. And we can't debate personal opinion. So what kind of debate do you think this question is going to lead to involving rigorous logic and facts devoid of personal opinion?

You can express a personal opinion when asked a hypothetical question David. A debate always involves opinions, for example you and I might choose different premises at the start of a debate because we hold different beliefs, why is this giving you so much difficulty?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The entire thing is a huge non sequitur. The fact that you could reasonably expect someone to write about a remarkable event doesn't even remotely lead to the conclusion that every remarkable event likely happened simply because someone bothered to write about it a generation or more later and those writings were well-preserved. If that were the case, every religion would be true and pretty much nothing would be fiction.

But I never argued "every remarkable event likely happened simply because someone bothered to write about it" so this is a strawman.

I argued that if someone did witness an apparently miraculous event, astonishing beyond anything ever see before, and this was two thousand years ago, then one might well be moved to go to great lengths to try and ensure the event was recorded, try to do one's best to communicate it to future generations.

I then pointed out several facts 1) No written information from antiquity is as extant as the New Testament and 2) The period between the event's date and the earliest written material is much shorter than is the case for other comparable written records from antiquity.

In addition we have the high integrity of the copying itself, scribes making very few errors or changes over many centuries based on comparisons between fragments separated by sometimes centuries.

I find these facts to be consistent with what we'd expect if as I say, someone was so astonished that they would go to great lengths to preserve a record of it.

The atheists continually grumble there's "no evidence" Jesus existed or performed miracles yet when it's obvious that the ONLY EVIDENCE we could expect (a history of faithful duplication for twenty centuries) is EXACTLY WHAT WE DO IN FACT FIND they start throwing their toys out of the crib!

The amount of trouble this simple and reasonable discussion is giving to some atheists here beggars belief.

 

[watsup]

I argued that if …...

I then pointed out several facts 1) No written information from antiquity is as extant as the New Testament and 2) The period between the event's date and the earliest written material is much shorter than is the case for other comparable written records from antiquity.

In addition we have the high integrity of the copying itself, scribes making very few errors or changes over many centuries based on comparisons between fragments separated by sometimes centuries.

You start with an "if", and then you transition to an "is" as regards the New Testament, etc and base an "is" conclusion on that.
So your little trick, as usual, is to change back-and-forth between your "if" and your "is" and then blame others for pointing that out.
And your normal ad hom, of course.
And I don't think that I have ever run across anyone who is so good at rote repletion for weeks on end.

 

[devildavid]

I did not add an "if" it was present in my OP.

So, that's my question what would a reasonable person have done two thousand years ago IF they witnessed something apparently miraculous, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with a rather straightforward hypothetical question.



Few things you've said so far in this thread seem to have any significant logical content.



So you are unwilling to tell me what you'd do in this or that hypothetical situation? if asked what would you do if you were out of food at home, the answer "I'd plan a trip to the food store" would be completely beyond your ability to consider? you'd regard as completely unreasonable to consider that to speculate that?



You can express a personal opinion when asked a hypothetical question David. A debate always involves opinions, for example you and I might choose different premises at the start of a debate because we hold different beliefs, why is this giving you so much difficulty?

Too many ifs designed to narrow down to the answer you want to get. A truly open hypothetical would have simple asked what would you have done. But in order to answer this, one would have to know what the available options that there factually were at the time and if we would have been aware of these options or even had the means to avail ourselves of them. Personal opinions are not the subject matter of debate. What we would do in a hypothetical situation is not a matter of debate. It may be good for entertainment purposes, but it does nothing to advance any arguments. It's like asking what would you do if Zeus was real and appeared to you. Debating ideas is not jsut a game of my opinion vs. yours. That leads nowhere. Debate is about backing your ideas with facts and logic, not hypotheticals and what ifs.

Your question was designed purposely to make it appear as if there is only one answer that makes sense so if you agree to it it means you are in agreement with the underlying point you are trying to slip in. It is very obvious what you attempted to do and I called you out on it. Instead of this cheap debating trick, just state your case as to why written evidence of the supernatural should be considered valid. Don't try to get agreement through a cheap debating ploy and think that you have won some debating point.

What would I have done? I would have told everyone I had gone mad and not to listen to anything I claimed.

 

[devildavid]

But I never argued "every remarkable event likely happened simply because someone bothered to write about it" so this is a strawman.

I argued that if someone did witness an apparently miraculous event, astonishing beyond anything ever see before, and this was two thousand years ago, then one might well be moved to go to great lengths to try and ensure the event was recorded, try to do one's best to communicate it to future generations.

I then pointed out several facts 1) No written information from antiquity is as extant as the New Testament and 2) The period between the event's date and the earliest written material is much shorter than is the case for other comparable written records from antiquity.

In addition we have the high integrity of the copying itself, scribes making very few errors or changes over many centuries based on comparisons between fragments separated by sometimes centuries.

I find these facts to be consistent with what we'd expect if as I say, someone was so astonished that they would go to great lengths to preserve a record of it.

The atheists continually grumble there's "no evidence" Jesus existed or performed miracles yet when it's obvious that the ONLY EVIDENCE we could expect (a history of faithful duplication for twenty centuries) is EXACTLY WHAT WE DO IN FACT FIND they start throwing their toys out of the crib!

The amount of trouble this simple and reasonable discussion is giving to some atheists here beggars belief.

There are no facts that support your idea. There is no evidence that anyone in history performed miracles. Written records that were copied over and over cannot help but be subject to human error. But most importantly, the reason for the written records is critical to how they should be looked. The bible was written by believers in a particular religion for the promotion of that religion. Historians always consider the source of written records, and take nothing as factual that comes from a potentially biased source, for various reasons. If a great leader writes about himself, this is taken into account. Without multiple sources, we must interpret intent.

You are not presenting a reasonable and simple topic for discussion, but making unsubstantiated claims biased by your own beliefs.

 

[MaryP]

I've always read that the miracles, or at least some of them, were more metaphorical-- for instance that he fed the crowd in the loaves and fishes miracle with his words, his faith, his inspiration, not literal fish and bread. I've always wondered though about his healing. My cousin, who was crippled with MS in her early 30's, went to a faith healer and went from a wheelchair to a cane for several years. It was pretty miraculous. So I've always wondered about the healing miracles.

 

[Noodlegawd]

But I never argued "every remarkable event likely happened simply because someone bothered to write about it" so this is a strawman.

I argued that if someone did witness an apparently miraculous event, astonishing beyond anything ever see before, and this was two thousand years ago, then one might well be moved to go to great lengths to try and ensure the event was recorded, try to do one's best to communicate it to future generations.

I then pointed out several facts 1) No written information from antiquity is as extant as the New Testament and 2) The period between the event's date and the earliest written material is much shorter than is the case for other comparable written records from antiquity.

In addition we have the high integrity of the copying itself, scribes making very few errors or changes over many centuries based on comparisons between fragments separated by sometimes centuries.

I find these facts to be consistent with what we'd expect if as I say, someone was so astonished that they would go to great lengths to preserve a record of it.

The atheists continually grumble there's "no evidence" Jesus existed or performed miracles yet when it's obvious that the ONLY EVIDENCE we could expect (a history of faithful duplication for twenty centuries) is EXACTLY WHAT WE DO IN FACT FIND they start throwing their toys out of the crib!

The amount of trouble this simple and reasonable discussion is giving to some atheists here beggars belief.

Oh boy, there's so much stupid here to pick apart, I hardly have the time. Try reading my comment again before you say I'm beating up a straw man, in the process putting up one of your own. Your analysis is patently absurd. There are explanations that account for the supposed facts you recited that are far more plausible than the claim that the events actually happened. Based on your own "logic," it certainly shouldn't have taken so long for someone to write down an account of the claimed events. In fact, nobody who supposedly witnessed the events wrote them down that we know of, and the timeline is exactly what you'd expect from someone trying to promote a religion based on a highly embellished account of the life of someone who may or may not have even existed.

 

[blarg]

just being among all the people you create so they know you exist, what you can do, and what you want . still seems like the clear choice if you want people to know about you their god

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What would I have done? I would have told everyone I had gone mad and not to listen to anything I claimed.

At last you write something I can agree with.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There are no facts that support your idea. There is no evidence that anyone in history performed miracles.

If there were evidence what could that be other than some written text? None, it could only be some written record.

Written records that were copied over and over cannot help but be subject to human error.

Of course.

But most importantly, the reason for the written records is critical to how they should be looked. The bible was written by believers in a particular religion for the promotion of that religion.

But we're not talking about the Bible, we're talking about documents that centuries later were compiled into the Bible, centuries after the events they recorded.

Historians always consider the source of written records, and take nothing as factual that comes from a potentially biased source, for various reasons. If a great leader writes about himself, this is taken into account. Without multiple sources, we must interpret intent.

All sources are biased, every document written by a human will reflect some aspect of their character, their perception, their understanding.

You are not presenting a reasonable and simple topic for discussion, but making unsubstantiated claims biased by your own beliefs.

There are facts though David that are noteworthy, certainly to an honest and open minded investigator.





Do you dispute the information in either of these two charts? the facts depicted in these charts?

That you find this complicated is not my concern nor my fault David.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Oh boy, there's so much stupid here to pick apart, I hardly have the time. Try reading my comment again before you say I'm beating up a straw man, in the process putting up one of your own. Your analysis is patently absurd. There are explanations that account for the supposed facts you recited that are far more plausible than the claim that the events actually happened. Based on your own "logic," it certainly shouldn't have taken so long for someone to write down an account of the claimed events. In fact, nobody who supposedly witnessed the events wrote them down that we know of, and the timeline is exactly what you'd expect from someone trying to promote a religion based on a highly embellished account of the life of someone who may or may not have even existed.

Let me dwell on this remark:

Based on your own "logic," it certainly shouldn't have taken so long for someone to write down an account of the claimed events.

The reasoning here is quite flawed. How long did it take for someone to write down the initial account?

Are you assuming it took at least 150 years because the oldest fragment we have dates from that period?

If so why? why are you assuming there were not earlier copies now lost that served as the source material for the copies we have from about 150 AD?

Obviously you have no idea, someone may have written something the very next day after Christ's "ascent" and that text is either long ago decayed or simply not yet discovered.

The oldest example we have found is not proven to be the oldest that ever existed.

 

[watsup]

Let me dwell on this remark:



The reasoning here is quite flawed. How long did it take for someone to write down the initial account?

Are you assuming it took at least 150 years because the oldest fragment we have dates from that period?

If so why? why are you assuming there were not earlier copies now lost that served as the source material for the copies we have from about 150 AD?

Obviously you have no idea, someone may have written something the very next day after Christ's "ascent" and that text is either long ago decayed or simply not yet discovered.

The oldest example we have found is not proven to be the oldest that ever existed.

You have built a huge tower of “ifs” and it is leaning quite severely.

 

[watsup]

If there were evidence what could that be other than some written text? None, it could only be some written record.



Of course.



But we're not talking about the Bible, we're talking about documents that centuries later were compiled into the Bible, centuries after the events they recorded.



All sources are biased, every document written by a human will reflect some aspect of their character, their perception, their understanding.



There are facts though David that are noteworthy, certainly to an honest and open minded investigator.

View attachment 67301607

View attachment 67301608

Do you dispute the information in either of these two charts? the facts depicted in these charts?

That you find this complicated is not my concern nor my fault David.

Do you have a URL for those charts? I thought that you were supposed to include it for second-hand material? It is important to know who compiled them in order to check for bias.

 

[devildavid]

If there were evidence what could that be other than some written text? None, it could only be some written record.



Of course.



But we're not talking about the Bible, we're talking about documents that centuries later were compiled into the Bible, centuries after the events they recorded.



All sources are biased, every document written by a human will reflect some aspect of their character, their perception, their understanding.



There are facts though David that are noteworthy, certainly to an honest and open minded investigator.

View attachment 67301607

View attachment 67301608

Do you dispute the information in either of these two charts? the facts depicted in these charts?

That you find this complicated is not my concern nor my fault David.

Those charts do not support your claim at all. They are not meaningful to the discussion. What you ignore is the original source that led to the written word. Where did it come from? What are the facts behind that? You can't just fill it in with a hypothetical eyewitness.

You also present no facts as to why these documents were preserved. Who preserved them and why? You must answer this question with facts, not hypotheticals.

 

[watsup]

Okay , I see that Sherlock did indeed include a URL for this chart source in the OP. I just thought that it had to be included every time. Anyway, it turns out that his info came from a “Bible apologetics” blog, clearly biased, being from a self-described “apologist” whose goal is to “prove” the “truth” of the Bible rather than to offer an objective look at it. Her is what he says about himself:

“Paul Gibson was first exposed to Christian Apologetics by his high school Bible teacher. About 25 years later he and his wife went to an apologetics conference at their home church, and Paul got interested in the subject again. About five years after that, he decided to start the blog BibleQuestions.info to help him keep his studying organized and share his research with others.”

About – Paul Gibson - BibleQuestions.info

Paul Gibson was first exposed to Christian Apologetics by his high school Bible teacher. About 25 years later he and his wife went to an apologetics conference at their home church, and Paul got interested in the subject again. About five years after that, he decided to start the blog...

biblequestions.info

And here is where Sherlock is getting his info about the Bible in this thread:

How Many New Testament Manuscripts Exist? - BibleQuestions.info

I've been wanting to write about the number of New Testament Manuscripts for a while, but I haven't been able to find the types of resource I thought would be available. In my article What is the Gregory-Aland Numbering System?, I showed the most common system scholars use to track Greek New...

biblequestions.info

Biased, just as I thought.

 

[devildavid]

Let me dwell on this remark:



The reasoning here is quite flawed. How long did it take for someone to write down the initial account?

Are you assuming it took at least 150 years because the oldest fragment we have dates from that period?

If so why? why are you assuming there were not earlier copies now lost that served as the source material for the copies we have from about 150 AD?

Obviously you have no idea, someone may have written something the very next day after Christ's "ascent" and that text is either long ago decayed or simply not yet discovered.

The oldest example we have found is not proven to be the oldest that ever existed.

You can only go by the evidence you have, not some hypothetical evidence. 100 years is too long to allow for the possibility of an eyewitness writing anything down or relating it to a scribe. Your whole argument is peppered with hypotheticals.