Assumption 3 is a conclusion, extrapolated in a different manner from the first two.
You are welcome to whatever analysis of that you like. I find it an unnecessary statement.
Assumption 1, being "I exist," (which I love the Descartes method usage, bravo on that), this is a conclusion based on observable reality.
Descartes makes it that, but I don't share his confidence.
Assumption 2, likewise, a conclusion based on observable reality.
It would be circular logic to use observation to conclude that observation is reliable. It has to be a blind assumption that what you see really is what you get.
Assumption 3 should be, "something caused the universe." Jumping to a God created universe skips the first logical conclusion that can be reached from observable realities, which is the necessity of cause.
The problem with that is we are discussing a universe in which time did not exist until the Big Bang, and there is no such thing as the 'time before the Big Bang', so you cannot have an effect following a cause in the usual way. It literally means nothing to say that something caused the universe to come into existence.
Science is a noun. I understand how you can use science as an action, but then you are "using science," thus making "using" the verb. Sure, one can use slang and say "Science it up," but that is slang, implying improper use of vocabulary.
I realise all that; but you take my point, right?
Okay, I think you cleared it up a little for me with this statement. So, rather that using your original point, comparing physical necessities with the "necessity of a savior," you rather claim that there is no history of a man being the divine savior? Am I correct in this analysis?
No, I stand by what I wrote originally, whatever it was.
Stuu: And there is not one eyewitness account of Jesus in existence. No one who ever saw Jesus wrote about it, as far as we can tell.
And, false. First, the Gospel according to John was composed by an Apostle of Christ.
The writer of the Gospel of John is anonymous. There is no claim within it that the writer is the person who observed Jesus.
Matthew, also, an Apostle, boasts the single closest biographical account in all of history, being written 20 years after the events described in his work (worthy of note; his Gospel account contains portions written in early Aramaic, the language of the time). Both of these men literally walked with Christ.
The writer of the Gospel of Matthew is not named, and nowhere does the author claim to be an eyewitness of Jesus. It was written in Greek, not translated from Hebrew or Aramaic. And, it was more likely written about 50 years after the alleged events it describes.
There are letters from early Romans, for example, Tacitus, writing in the early 100's AD, specifically mentioning Christ, Christ's Crucifixion by Pilate, early Christians in Jerusalem and Rome, etc.
Indeed. But they are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
Let us examine this claim of the Bible being historical fiction. Compare other historically accepted texts, all considered as factual. Herodotus' Histories, believed not to have been composed by Herodotus. Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War. Xenophon of Athens work, Hellenica. All of these ancient texts, and more, are considered to be factual historical accounts. Despite lacking peer review and outside sources. All of these detail events that are decades past.
The writings of the New Testament were composed in less than 50 years of each other. Matthew's Gospel, the author having lived with Christ, was composed between 50-55 AD.
How do you know the author of Matthew lived with Jesus? We don't even know who he or she was. It was most likely written between 80-90 CE, but 70 CE at the earliest.
Mark's Gospel, composed in 60 AD,
The writer refers to war in Judea, almost certainly the First Jewish-Roman war of 66-73CE, so it can't have been written in 60CE.
was written in Rome. Luke, a noted historian, composed his Gospel account and Acts of the Apostles in 62 (some scholars suggest 67) and 63 AD, respectively.
The authorship of the Gospel of Luke is also anonymous. It was most likely written after 80CE.
Luke's writing occurred in Rome. John's Gospel was composed latest, near the end of his life, in 98 AD, written in Ephesus. The writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have the same events occurring, with claims being identical (the differences being the order of events, or the exact vocabulary used).
Early authors cite the Gospels as early as the last years of the first century. St Clement of Rome mentions the four books between 92 and 101 AD. St Ignatius of Antioch, who died around 107 AD, spoke of the four books. Papias, a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, first refers to the attributed authors of their Gospels, around 130 AD.
So now you are getting closer to reality. No corroborating mentions of the writing in 60CE, then.
When scholars speak of the "historicity" of the Gospels, they mean that the accounts are true accounts of what Christ said and did, as witnessed by various individuals. They are reporting things which were not a systematic history, but a genuine accounting of events. Using various historical sciences, scholars check the Gospel accounts using historico-critical methods by verifying them with various sources, such as pagan/secular sources, confirming the events as factual events, then crosschecking them with their religious counterparts. Thus, ensuring the historical facts being accurately represented in the Gospel accounts.
Which, whether it is right or not (and it clearly isn't), is entirely irrelevant to the point that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in existence.
These methods, utilized by various scholars of varying religious or atheist backgrounds, thus proves the Bible as a historical source.
You really believe this, don't you. But you haven't refuted my point about historical fiction.
It was composed within the lifetime of the authors, and details events that they witnessed or witnessed by vast numbers of people.
Possibly. But no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.
My point with the various Herod's as rulers in the Jewish regions is that there are more than one Herod. Your claim was that Herod never required a census or tried to slaughter kids under the age of two. Which is true for one Herod, but not true for the Herod that history identifies as ruling in the first years BC.
Come on. That's just lazy. Would you like me to do the work for you??
As for the various Roman sources, there is Lucian, Josephus, and Tacitus, etc. These I believe are noted in the link from the Google search.
Sure. But none of them were eyewitnesses of Jesus though.
Who is performing this archaeology of the exodus that has produced no evidence?
Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University.
Because, there are villages found along the supposed path of the Hebrews, bearing Jewish artifacts. There are glyphs in Egypt which depict the exodus of the Hebrews. There are several sites which bear extensive evidence of Hebrews passing through during the estimated decade of the exodus. Most historians and scholars agree that there is no evidence against the exodus. The arguments come from under which Pharaoh was ruling during this event.
How is 'no evidence against' something that never happened a credible argument?
Wald says how he believes in Spontaneous Generation, because he refuses to accept the alternate explanation of intelligent design. (a completely different topic, but I just wanted to expound upon the hypocritical nature of Wald dismissing and ignoring evidence that alludes to theories he doesn't like)
The quite satisfying thing about the failure of the Intelligent Design movement is that one of their really prized examples, that of the supposed irreducible complexity of the flagellar motor, has actually been shown to be a quite elegant example of Darwinian adaptation. The current legal status of Intelligent Design in the US, as far as I know, is that of a religion.
Historical records support the events described in the Bible. Just as historical records support the events described in Homer's Iliad. You can dismiss the supernatural influences, as that is the skeptical approach. But to deny the historical accuracy is akin to Wald, rejecting evidence that is detrimental to his preferred beliefs. When one prefers to accept falsehoods and myth, they are rejecting logic. Thus, to continue to insist that the Bible is not historically accurate, that no one witnessed Christ, or that there is no evidence to support it, then you are being illogical and preferring falsehoods and your own myths.
There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in existence. There are no eyewitness accounts of Homer, either. It is very likely that Homer was not a real historical person. A pretty good case has been made that Jesus wasn't an historical person either, although it looks to me that Jesus is more likely to have lived than Homer.
It doesn't matter that much to me whether these people were real or fictional characters. It must matter to you, though.
Stuart
lain: Either stuff your fingers in harder or pull them out.
