Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[SteveII]

@SteveII
1"P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context."

Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to many gods, spiritualism, the devil, the secret, Voldemort, and Harry Potter. This argument of yours amounts to it was written in the bible therefor it is true. This is not evidence of anything except your own gullibility.  First question, why accept this claim to miracle's and discount all the millions of other claims, most of which are far older.

Stop with "the Bible" like it is one thing. It is not. The NT alone is 27 documents. There are no other religions claims that have multiple period writings from people with names, that knew each other and attest to believing the same thing with evidence that people acted on those beliefs. Luke investigated the events and wrote about them as a reporter--while people were still around.

"P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
    In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
    a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
    b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
    c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
    d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
    e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
    f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
    g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
    h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
    i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
    j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
    k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
    l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels"

In history we require more than just one account. The bible claims it was witnessed by 500 people yet this is not referenced anywhere but in the bible (and even then only within one place in the bible). We know that the gospels are all re writes of the first one. Forensic techniques, and writing analysis shows us these things. So we have 1 claim, and numerous rewrites which have been altered drastically. We know this because of all the quote mining from the original, the time frames in which the documents appear to have been written, and other evidence. Personally I like Richard Carriers work, even though I think the man is a cunt. Keep in mind no one discounts any of his claims except the last one, while he thinks Jesus was entirely a myth other experts think there was probably a real person which got dieafied. Much like the story of Hercules was based off a real person and he was turned into a god like mythical character. He specifically demonstrates in his work how all of this claim above is nonsense. And this is not disputed by any expert in the field (keeping in mind I'm limiting experts to actual historians and not people with religious education, however even many of them accept Carriers findings). You don't have to believe Carrier, however his claims and evidence are clear and compelling at least with regards to how the bible came together, the weak points in his argument deal with the mythisist position he attempts to make, not with the fact that the bible isn't a reliable historical document.

That's why it good we have 27 documents and numerous more from the first century that did not make it into the NT but describe the actions and beliefs of an entire generation into the next. The events surrounding Jesus are the most attested to series of ancient events in the history of the world.

The gospels were not rewrites. There was obviously earlier documents circulating that they all knew about. Bart Erhman has said over and over that we pretty much have what the originals said (I just listened to another podcast this week with him extensively explaining NT textual criticism). Here's the biggest problem with your reply: You are limiting your sources to those who have a bias that the NT is not what it seems and claims to be. What do you think they are going to fine when they go looking? If you pick an article I can read online, I will comments on it--otherwise there is no way to comment on such a general topic.

Keep in mind that I also posted a completely independent rebuttal to this when I mentioned the exodus bit. That the bible contains errors doesn't mean that the Jesus account must be false, but it does raise valid concerns. Now you completely ignored this fact. That says a lot.

Don't see any reference to the OT in my list. Again with the thinking that the 66 books written over a 1000 years is one thing.

Basically without multiple lines of evidence (which you have not provided, you have specifically provided one), from independent sources we have absolutely no reason to accept the claim as compelling. Even if we were to accept the various authors of the bible as being independent sources (as opposed to re writes) this would still be incredibly weak historical evidence which has no independent corroboration. You do realize this yes? Meaning there would at that point be some justification but it would be so weak as to hardly be considered even reasonably compelling. Especially when we know that supernatural claims are a dime a dozen and have always been bullshit, so far as we can tell. It's not ok to go special pleading to say but this time it was real!

Compelling is a subjective term. I don't care if you don't find the reasons compelling. I do.

Again, the events surrounding Jesus are the most attested to in all of ancient history. Don't think so? What other ancient event has period writing from multiple sources and then a whole second generation discussing the events, and then again...all the way until today?

"P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person"

Word salad. What? and how would this be different than the millions of other supernatural claims made in ancient times anyway?

Salvation has been having an affect on people since day 1. Christians both report the effect and the effect is seen by others. There is no comparable claim.

"P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects"

And every one we've investigated has been bullshit. That doesn't mean such events have never occurred only that we have  no evidence for them. This doesn't phase you at all though does it? You simply make the logical fallacy that if lots of people say it, it must be true.

That's not taking into account we know how cognitive errors in the brain produce such results. Including mass hallucination of which there has been extensive documentation.

People reporting a change in their lives can't possibly be investigated as bullshit. There is no possible rebuttal for people'e reported experience. You can offer alternate explanations--but becomes a really sad objection when you look at the sheer number of people you have to call liars/confused/hallucinations.

"P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc." 

Copy pasta, you've repeated this fallacious argument several times above as if it is somehow relevant or a different argument. These repletes reek of dishonesty. It's as if you think if you pad out your response enough with repeates that I wont' take it line by line and call out the bullshit in it.

Try to keep up. NT miracles are one thing. The kind of miracles regularly witnessed today are very different.

"P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming)."

First why does it need an explanation? Second it does have several possible naturalistic explanations. Third your god doesn't fix this problem, it simply adds an entire host of new problems along this question. For example "So where did your god come from" Well he was always here.... :    So why couldn't the universe or the earth always have been here? Because it needs a god (circular reasoning, and special pleading) this is an example I'm not saying you're making this argument, however you're coming damn fucking close right now.

Second why does it need an explanation? I don't know is a perfectly reasonable response. In fact our species is likely to go extinct without us ever knowing. That's just a fact.

No, there are no possible naturalistic explanations. You need to read up on the metaphysical concepts of necessary and contingent and you objection about God goes away. Spoiler alert: the universe does not exist necessarily.

"P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming."

So what. Metaphysics is bullshit, however I get what you're talking about. The thing about these kinds of mind games is they can tell you much about yourself and nothing about the world around you. So while I don't think they are completely worthless, I do think you'd be well advised not to take metaphysical arguments more seriously than they deserve. Even if there was a good metaphysical argument for a natural or god beginning that would tell you nothing about if it is true. At best it would only tell you that you're really good at rationalizing it.

Noted: Metaphysics is bullshit. That's why your arguments will be never more than dueling appeals to authority.

P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.

You're looking at this problem with the wrong perspective. Here maybe this will help.
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” -Douglas Adams

"P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural)."

They only seem non physical because you're ignorant of cognitive science. We know a lot about cognitive development and our minds and are learning more every day though we do not know everything yet. However the more you learn the less you can accept this claim. Also the second part of your argument here.... The fuck? Bullshit. Evidence or clarification required.

"P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process."

Incorrect, we know how morality evolves, there are mountains of evidence for this. Go ask an evolutionary psychologist, or evolutionary biologist. This claim you are completely false.  Also you're right, objective morality is asinine. Even if you add a god you still can not get objective morality. You didn't realize this? This one alone would take pages to hash out.


"P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)"

Then provide the evidence. Until you do I'm going to call bullshit.


"P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)"

So fucking what? Many of those reports refer to alien abduction. So should we then believe in alien abduction. All you're demonstrating is that people can convince themselves of any asinine thing they can imagine. This is actually simply a logical fallacy not an argument. Even if what you're saying is true (and frankly I think it is) it means nothing. So why did you make that a point?

"P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)"

That's nice. So basically, I don't think you know enough about how the universe was created so I'm going to stuff god in the hole and call it done. Great job there. Classic twist on a god of the gaps.

You've also provided no evidence to support the second claim as everything in p1-10 so far has been bullshit and not evidence at all. That there is insufficient understanding of how the world works to justify to you acceptance of the naturalistic proposition, does not thus therefor justify any other position. This argument can at best lead you to agnosticism which seeing as I'm an agnostic atheist, I would agree with you at that point. We don't know everything. Amazing eh? The difference is I'm ok saying "I don't know" you aren't so you must stuff magic into the hole.

"THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural."

THEREFORE: I have provided a case against your 13 points. Even though I said this was too much to address in one big chunk. Also I noticed a nice little game you played there by saying evidence/reasoning as if the two are somehow interchangeable or of equal weight when determining validity. There was no evidence provided above, but there was reasoning which was largely fallacious.

You already admitted the metaphysics is bullshit. I'm not going to waste my time discussing why your responses are confused to metaphysical questions. The answer is obvious.