What would you have done?

[Sherlock Holmes]

For pure entertainment - then the same could be said for almost any written text from antiquity.
To promote a particular religion - yet you have no evidence that at that time in history any other group actively copied and propagated texts and letters, no religion was ever "promoted" until perhaps Islam came on the scene around 600 AD.
As parables to impart a moral lesson - They contain parables.
As part of the age old human tradition of myth making - again we can reject almost every document then from antiquity.
Because someone commissioned them to do it - and what of it? all that amounts to is there was someone eager to preserve it by supporting the effort with resources, in fact Luke opens with possibly such a statement

Luke 1:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Even at that time, it says "many" had been involved in creating written accounts of these events, this is not something that has any parallel in ancient history David, all of these many many details are consistent with a truly extraordinary event.

It was part of their religious duties - But you have no evidence, nothing in the documents themselves call for such a devoted effort to perpetuate the written texts, nothing in Judaism encourages Jews to act this way.
For fun - Again any ancient document then could be for that reason.
To practice their transcription skills - In which case people would copy existing texts David, for example Old Testament texts, yet our preserved copies of OT manuscripts pales when compared to NT so no evidence such a mindset ever played a role in life at that time.
Nothing better to do - Please.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Asking for evidence that something didn't happen is plain moronic.

I agree, so on what grounds can you ever affirm "X did not happen"?

 

[devildavid]

I agree, so on what grounds can you ever affirm "X did not happen"?

You are the one who needs to provide the evidence. How can you affirm that it did happen. Could of means absolutely nothing. Present evidence to show it did. Without that, your speculation is meaningless. The only evidence that there is points toward it not being written down until many years later. We can only go by available evidence. Until you provide evidence, the facts available say it was not written until many years after the events took place. The burden is on you to present evidence to the contrary, not to merely speculate about what could have happened.

 

[distraff]

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.

So then when some claim "there's no evidence" that Jesus did such things, this is an illogical position because it is clear the only evidence we could expect is some preserved written record.

What if I saw a UFO and didn't have my phone with me? I would literally have no way of proving this happened. My only evidence would be to write it down. But simply because its my only evidence doesn't mean you should just believe what I wrote. Unfortunately my UFO experience will never be believed by reasonable people even though it convinces me. If Jesus did turn water into wine then there is no way of historically verifying that. Jesus is supposedly still around, and he is free to come down and do it again, and this time we can properly verify it.

Furthermore because the events were so shocking, a great effort would need to be devoted to ensuring this information is preserved, tremendous value would be attached to the preservation of such incredible information.

Now it is pretty obvious to me that because such huge significance would be attached to this information and written copies were the only way to preserve this for future generations, a practice of making meticulous copies would be strongly emphasized from the outset knowing that many copies would be inevitably lost due to their fragility.

In addition, due to the very obvious risk of the information being lost forever, as many copies as could be created would be created.

The above is a very reasonable expectation if and only if such incredible events were observed, that the events were true and did occur.

People don't write a bunch of records only because something is true. They also do so if they honestly believe its true, and are mistaken. Just look at the massive amount of content online for every major religion. They also might write down a bunch of records as part of a propaganda campaign to spread an ideology. Its not surprising that ancient superstitious people went crazy for a new religion. Religions tend to excite people.

Your arguments boil down to:
Its in a book, therefore its true.
Its really popular, therefore its true.

 

[devildavid]

Luke 1:


Even at that time, it says "many" had been involved in creating written accounts of these events, this is not something that has any parallel in ancient history David, all of these many many details are consistent with a truly extraordinary event.

No, they are not consistent with an extraordinary event. They are consistent with story telling and myth making.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You are the one asking for the evidence. How can you affirm that it did happen. Could of means absolutely nothing. Present evidence to show it did. Without that, your speculation is meaningless. The only evidence that there is points toward it not being written down until many years later. We can only go by available evidence. Until you provide evidence, the facts available say it was not written until many years after the events took place. The burden is on you to present evidence to the contrary, not to merely speculate about what could have happened.

You should answer my question David, you wrote earlier:

100 years is too long to allow for the possibility of an eyewitness writing anything down or relating it to a scribe.

Of course you have no idea if something was written down the very next day, then that copied a few years later, then that copy copied a decade later until some copy is made in 110 AD and two thousand years later that copy from 110 AD is all that remains.

Your statement implies that the first copy created was created 100 years after the event, that no copies were made earlier than that - this is what your statement amounts to.

This is why I responded:

This is quite astonishing David, you begin with "you can only go by the evidence you have" then go on to say "100 years is too long to allow for the possibility of an eyewitness writing anything down or relating it to a scribe".

David what evidence do you have that nothing was written down the very next day?

But you continue your erroneous posts and come up with this response:

I don't need evidence that something didn't happen.

Tell me what is the "something that didn't happen" you are referring to? obviously it is the creation of copies immediately after the events, you believe this never happened otherwise why on earth would you have written:

100 years is too long to allow for the possibility of an eyewitness writing anything down or relating it to a scribe.

Go on David, clear this all up for us, reconcile these statements THAT YOU MADE.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, they are not consistent with an extraordinary event. They are consistent with story telling and myth making.

Yes they are consistent with that too, I guess it could all be made up but then we should reject all ancient texts yes?

But tell me what choice would the writers have had but to write a record of an extraordinary event if they witnessed an extraordinary event?

You've gone full circle, demanding evidence, being told that the the only evidence we could expect is written records of the events, then rejecting these written records as not being evidence and once again demanding evidence.

You think that by asking for the impossible (evidence other than the only possible evidence) you somehow prove the NT is a fabrication?

 

[devildavid]

You should answer my question David, you wrote earlier:



Of course you have no idea if something was written down the very next day, then that copied a few years later, then that copy copied a decade later until some copy is made in 110 AD and two thousand years later that copy from 110 AD is all that remains.

Your statement implies that the first copy created was created 100 years after the event, that no copies were made earlier than that - this is what your statement amounts to.

This is why I responded:



But you continue your erroneous posts and come up with this response:



Tell me what is the "something that didn't happen" you are referring to? obviously it is the creation of copies immediately after the events, you believe this never happened otherwise why on earth would you have written:



Go on David, clear this all up for us, reconcile these statements THAT YOU MADE.

The available evidence and analysis of said evidence points toward at least 100 years. There is zero evidence that it occurred immediately. Can only go by the available evidence. Anything else is meaningless speculation.

Is there any evidence in the written words that it is a first hand account written shortly after the events? Does the way it was written suggest that in any way?

 

[devildavid]

Yes they are consistent with that too, I guess it could all be made up but then we should reject all ancient texts yes?

No, that does not follow at all. It is not binary. We should examine and analyze ancient texts based on everything we know about who wrote them and other historical information gleaned from historical writings and artifacts. Then we can try to determine the nature of the texts and try to separate fact from fiction. Humanity has told stories from the beginning. Not all stories are simple renderings of eyewitness accounts. We need to know who wrote them to attempt to figure out what to make of the content. Why do you avoid this very important factor?

 

[distraff]

Yes they are consistent with that too, I guess it could all be made up but then we should reject all ancient texts yes?

But tell me what choice would the writers have had but to write a record of an extraordinary event if they witnessed an extraordinary event?

You've gone full circle, demanding evidence, being told that the the only evidence we could expect is written records of the events, then rejecting these written records as not being evidence and once again demanding evidence.

You think that by asking for the impossible (evidence other than the only possible evidence) you somehow prove the NT is a fabrication?

Simply because the only evidence someone can give is a written claim doesn't mean we should just accept it and believe them.

 

[watsup]

I agree, so on what grounds can you ever affirm "X did not happen"?

It's a ridiculous question on the surface. It's from the "anything is possible" part of "debate" and has no merit whatsoever.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The available evidence and analysis of said evidence points toward at least 100 years. There is zero evidence that it occurred immediately. Can only go by the available evidence. Anything else is meaningless speculation.

Please clarify "evidence points toward at least 100 years" for what? 100 years what? what exactly are you saying?

1. If you're saying the oldest NT fragment we have found to date is dated to around 150 years after Christ then that is of course true.

2. If you're saying the first written record was written around 150 years after Christ then that is of course unsupported by any evidence.

Which of these represent your position?

Is there any evidence in the written words that it is a first hand account written shortly after the events? Does the way it was written suggest that in any way?

It is regarded as true that Paul personally wrote several of the epistles, I think we can say that Paul was active at that time and after, so yes.

As for the gospels, it is pretty much accepted that these were at no point written by any eye witness.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, that does not follow at all. It is not binary. We should examine and analyze ancient texts based on everything we know about who wrote them and other historical information gleaned from historical writings and artifacts. Then we can try to determine the nature of the texts and try to separate fact from fiction. Humanity has told stories from the beginning. Not all stories are simple renderings of eyewitness accounts. We need to know who wrote them to attempt to figure out what to make of the content. Why do you avoid this very important factor?

There is far less written historical information about Spartacus than Christ, why do you believe Spartacus was real?

 

[watsup]

Yes they are consistent with that too, I guess it could all be made up but then we should reject all ancient texts yes?

But tell me what choice would the writers have had but to write a record of an extraordinary event if they witnessed an extraordinary event?

You've gone full circle, demanding evidence, being told that the the only evidence we could expect is written records of the events, then rejecting these written records as not being evidence and once again demanding evidence.

You think that by asking for the impossible (evidence other than the only possible evidence) you somehow prove the NT is a fabrication?

You have gone full circle. You start with an "if" it happened and then move fairly immediately to claiming the eventual results DID happen. The fact is that there is no HISTORICAL record of the "miracles" of Jesus. The writings of so-called "disciples" prove nothing at all.

 

[watsup]

There is far less written historical information about Spartacus than Christ, why do you believe Spartacus was real?

The information about Spartacus was written by a HISTORIAN whose goal was to forward to future generations a story about a slave. That is quite different from "disciples" whose clear mission was to pursue a GOAL of making their Jesus quite extraordinary. We do not have any actual HISTORICAL record of Jesus.

 

[distraff]

There is far less written historical information about Spartacus than Christ, why do you believe Spartacus was real?

There is far less evidence for me eating oatmeal this morning than there is for UFOs and Bigfoot. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We wouldn't believe any claims of the Gods helping out Spartacus as easily as the normal historical claims.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There is far less evidence for me eating oatmeal this morning than there is for UFOs and Bigfoot.

Is that so.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why is the text of the Gospels and the various Epistles not regarded as extraordinary by you?

Is I've said the NT is the most extant of documents from antiquity and has the shortest duration between event date and manuscripts date with few exceptions, these two facts alone make the material extraordinary.

We wouldn't believe any claims of the Gods helping out Spartacus as easily as the normal historical claims.

I asked why believe he is real?

 

[Yasureoktoo]

What's there to witness in the Vedas?

For one, Technology that supposedly did not exist in the times it was written.

 

[watsup]

"
The Greek essayist Plutarch describes Spartacus as "a Thracian of Nomadic stock",[3] in a possible reference to the Maedi tribe.[4] Appian says he was "a Thracian by birth, who had once served as a soldier with the Romans, but had since been a prisoner and sold for a gladiator".[5]

Florus described him as one "who, from a Thracian mercenary, had become a Roman soldier, that had deserted and became enslaved, and afterward, from consideration of his strength, a gladiator".[6] The authors refer to the Thracian tribe of the Maedi,[7][8][9] which occupied the area on the southwestern fringes of Thrace, along its border with the Roman province of Macedonia – present day south-western Bulgaria.[10] Plutarch also writes that Spartacus' wife, a prophetess of the Maedi tribe, was enslaved with him."

Spartacus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So here we have at least three historians who have written about Spartacus, and there are others who have mentioned him also. Their goal was to tell the story of a slave/gladiator turned rebel against Rome. Historians have concluded that the records and story are basically correct. Quite different from the claims of those whose goal was to undergird a myth.

 

[watsup]

Is that so.



Why is the text of the Gospels and the various Epistles not regarded as extraordinary by you?

Is I've said the NT is the most extant of documents from antiquity and has the shortest duration between event date and manuscripts date with few exceptions, these two facts alone make the material extraordinary.



I asked why believe he is real?

No matter how often you state them, the "facts" that you present do not lend credibility in and of themselves. The HUGE hole in the story is that no actual HISTORIAN, per se, recorded such extraordinary events. The writers are immediately suspect because their intent is clearly to make a person into some sort of extraordinary hero. MMLJ are, as you know, not recorded as the actual persons who wrote the story, so we cannot actually reference a known and identified person.
Much different with those who wrote of Spartacus. Their writings go way beyond just one story to include other aspects of the history of the time, plus they are know quantities in and of themselves as having actually lived. So many many holes in your inputs.

 

[distraff]

Is that so.

Absolutely 100% yes. There is no evidence I ate oatmeal other than my word (yes I did eat oatmeal, with milk actually). There are hundreds of photos and thousands of eyewitnesses to seeing UFOs and alien abductions. Its not even a contest which has more evidence. But that doesn't mean UFOs are far more believable than I ate oatmeal. And virgin births aren't as believable as a slave revolt happening. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why is the text of the Gospels and the various Epistles not regarded as extraordinary by you?

It is extraordinary, that is my whole point. The more extraordinary a claim is, the more evidence required to believe it. This is why we believe the historical account of the siege of Troy more than the supernatural elements of the story.

Is I've said the NT is the most extant of documents from antiquity and has the shortest duration between event date and manuscripts date with few exceptions, these two facts alone make the material extraordinary.

No, making written claims about an event several decades before isn't extraordinary evidence for supernatural claims, because this could have been easily done if the supernatural claim was wrong or fraudulent. Today, written claims are even being made about events supposedly occurring on the very same day, and are happening as we speak.

I asked why believe he is real?

Because it was claimed. The vast majority of historical records about figures and events are true on the very basic facts, although many can be heavily biased. Therefore, the probability that Spartacus exists is very high. Now, this is a really good argument for backing up the gospels. Unfortunately, the vast majority of supernatural claims are false, therefore they can't be accepted in the same way. But I will accept that Jesus was a real person from the gospels.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Absolutely 100% yes. There is no evidence I ate oatmeal other than my word (yes I did eat oatmeal, with milk actually). There are hundreds of photos and thousands of eyewitnesses to seeing UFOs and alien abductions. Its not even a contest which has more evidence. But that doesn't mean UFOs are far more believable than I ate oatmeal. And virgin births aren't as believable as a slave revolt happening. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The NT is extraordinary evidence.

It is extraordinary, that is my whole point. The more extraordinary a claim is, the more evidence required to believe it. This is why we believe the historical account of the siege of Troy more than the supernatural elements of the story.

The NT is extraordinary evidence.

No, making written claims about an event several decades before isn't extraordinary evidence for supernatural claims, because this could have been easily done if the supernatural claim was wrong or fraudulent. Today, written claims are even being made about events supposedly occurring on the very same day, and are happening as we speak.

But there's no evidence the NT is fraudulent, and the NT really is extraordinary, unique compared to all other preserved documents from antiquity in the the sheer number of copies preserved, the high consistency of text across hundreds of years, I see no reason this could have happened if the events were not true.

Because it was claimed. The vast majority of historical records about figures and events are true on the very basic facts, although many can be heavily biased.

But the claims about Spartacus were written over 200 years after the claimed events and this is a factor which concerned you about the NT which was composed closer to the events, so on that count the NT is ahead.

Therefore, the probability that Spartacus exists is very high. Now, this is a really good argument for backing up the gospels. Unfortunately, the vast majority of supernatural claims are false, therefore they can't be accepted in the same way. But I will accept that Jesus was a real person from the gospels.

What is the probability? can you share the calculation with me?

There are only two significant sources for Spartacus, Plutarch and Appian, and these as I said are dated some 200+ years after the events they claim to record.

Christ has at least five sources and some of fragments we have are dated almost a hundred years closer to the event than those for Spartacus.

So right there, the number of sources and the proximity of material to event and the sheer number of copies on each of these counts the NT is better positioned, yet both events occurred within 100 years of each other.

Many claims about the supernatural and the natural are false, just watch a republican rally, lies and fabrications are not confined to "supernatural" subjects.

The fact is the only evidence we could expect if Christ lived and performed miraculous events is written records, the only way these could be extraordinary is to be copied faithfully and reliably year after year after year unlike anything before in human history, and this is exactly what we find.

The claims are indeed extraordinary and the NT and the way it has been preserved and propagated and translated since antiquity unlike any material before it is the extraordinary evidence you ask for - it is there, do with it what you will.

 

[watsup]

The NT is extraordinary evidence.



The NT is extraordinary evidence.



But there's no evidence the NT is fraudulent, and the NT really is extraordinary, unique compared to all other preserved documents from antiquity in the the sheer number of copies preserved, the high consistency of text across hundreds of years, I see no reason this could have happened if the events were not true.



But the claims about Spartacus were written over 200 years after the claimed events and this is a factor which concerned you about the NT which was composed closer to the events, so on that count the NT is ahead.



What is the probability? can you share the calculation with me?

There are only two significant sources for Spartacus, Plutarch and Appian, and these as I said are dated some 200+ years after the events they claim to record.

Christ has at least five sources and some of fragments we have are dated almost a hundred years closer to the event than those for Spartacus.

So right there, the number of sources and the proximity of material to event and the sheer number of copies on each of these counts the NT is better positioned, yet both events occurred within 100 years of each other.

Many claims about the supernatural and the natural are false, just watch a republican rally, lies and fabrications are not confined to "supernatural" subjects.

The fact is the only evidence we could expect if Christ lived and performed miraculous events is written records, the only way these could be extraordinary is to be copied faithfully and reliably year after year after year unlike anything before in human history, and this is exactly what we find.

The claims are indeed extraordinary and the NT and the way it has been preserved and propagated and translated since antiquity unlike any material before it is the extraordinary evidence you ask for - it is there, do with it what you will.

“Copied faithfully and reliably year after year”.
So myths were copied. Big deal
.

 

[distraff]

The NT is extraordinary evidence.

The NT is extraordinary evidence.

Simply writing something down in a book isn't extraordinary evidence for anything. Don't believe something just because a book says it.

But there's no evidence the NT is fraudulent, and the NT really is extraordinary, unique compared to all other preserved documents from antiquity in the the sheer number of copies preserved, the high consistency of text across hundreds of years, I see no reason this could have happened if the events were not true.

Simply because a book hasn't been changed since its original form doesn't make its original form correct. Just because we haven't proven a source fraudulent doesn't mean we just accept it. If I claimed I saw a UFO in my back yard, you might not be able to prove I was fraudulent. But that doesn't mean you should just believe me without physical evidence. The burden of proof is on me to prove my claim true, not on you to prove me fraudulent.

But the claims about Spartacus were written over 200 years after the claimed events and this is a factor which concerned you about the NT which was composed closer to the events, so on that count the NT is ahead.

Time between event and writing is only one factor you are considering. Another factor is how extraordinary the claim is and how biased is the source. If the Pharaoh claims that the Gods came down from the heavens and smote his enemies with thunder 5 years during a battle, and this record was written 50 years after the battle, that doesn't make it more reliable than Spartacus.

What is the probability? can you share the calculation with me?

Simply because I don't know the exact number doesn't mean I can say that it is very high. For example, I don't know the exact odds I will survive until the end of the day, but I know it is very high.

Many claims about the supernatural and the natural are false, just watch a republican rally, lies and fabrications are not confined to "supernatural" subjects.

Trump rallies may have a lot of incorrect information but they are basically right about the existence of Trump, Biden, the US, the coronavirus, and more. But like many historical sources, their true claims about the basic events of the time are woven in with personal opinion. Even the accounts of Spartacus may have had a pro-Roman bias.

On the other hand, well over 99% of supernatural claims are false. This is because we have thousands of contradicting religions and supernatural claims and they all can't be true. This is why historians tend to believe the basic historical claims in a record, but don't believe the supernatural claims in that very same record.

The claims are indeed extraordinary and the NT and the way it has been preserved and propagated and translated since antiquity unlike any material before it is the extraordinary evidence you ask for - it is there, do with it what you will.

The problem is that it would have been preserved and propagated just as eagerly if all the claims were false. Its a religion in a superstitious time, and people love religion whether its true or not. You can't get around the fact that we need physical evidence to verify supernatural claims.

 

[devildavid]

Luke 1:


Even at that time, it says "many" had been involved in creating written accounts of these events, this is not something that has any parallel in ancient history David, all of these many many details are consistent with a truly extraordinary event.

Your claim is a personal opinion, not a result of logic or facts, There is no such thing as something being consistent with anything. You have not demonstrated what extraordinary events are and what things consistently accompany them. You should have many more examples to demonstrate that something is consistent with another. Plus, it is begging the question. You already have concluded that extraordinary events occur. Then you fit certain actions into verifying something that you have already concluded have occurred. That is a logical fallacy.

The text itself is the only evidence, not that it was copied over and over. That is not evidence of anything. Copying a text tells us nothing about the text, it only tells us that people copied it. It is not evidence of the nature of the contents of the text.