Archaeology of the New Testament

[Cypress]

Nope!!!

Speculation < Hypothesis < Theory

 

[Into the Night]

There is nothing historical about Christianity.

"Historical" is a requirement category, and everything about Christianity falls outside the "historical" category,; instead, everything falls within the "belief" category.


False. It might very well have happened that a Jesus of Nazareth ministered, died and resurrected, but that is your non-historical religious belief.

IF Jesus of Nazareth ministered, died, and resurrected, then it is history. There is no other word for it in this case.
If not, then it is NOT history.

The fact that Christianity is a religion makes no difference.


Cyborg's mistake is that he applies a preconclusion to his descriptions of archaeology. This in and of itself forms a circular argument fallacy, since he is attempting to use such a conclusion as the predicate, and using that conclusion as an attempted proof.

An unusual form of fundamentalism, but fundamentalism it is, all the same.

As you know, I happen to be Christian. I don't need archaeology to prove anything to me (it's not even a proof!). I carry my own supporting evidence within me. It is based on faith, not proof.

 

[Into the Night]

Tomb of Saint Peter

I provisionally rank the reliability of this archeological evidence as 'more probable than not '.

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.

 

[Into the Night]

Denial of Logic should be your handle.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problems on anybody else, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

All scholars of antiquity and all educated people consider archeology a valid form of knowledge and research.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

You are disingenuously trying to substitute the word 'speculation' for the words theory and hypothesis. Sneaky.

Speculations are guesses.
Theories are based on the interpretation of empirical evidence and data by experts.
Theories are a legitimate form of knowledge.

Go learn English.

Speculations are guesses. The word also appears in stock markets, weather forecasts, and casinos.

A theory does not require an 'expert'. A theory is not an 'interpretation'. A theory does not even require empirical evidence. A conclusion is not evidence. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Theories are not knowledge. They are a theory, nothing more. Nonscientific theories remain just that. ALL religions are based on nonscientific theory.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable.

I theory does not come from a hypothesis. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

Do not blame your redefinitions on anybody else. Inversion fallacy. Redefinition fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

Speculation < Hypothesis < Theory

Speculation has nothing to do with any theory. It does not stem from a hypothesis.
A hypothesis stems from a theory. A theory does not stem from a hypothesis.

A theory is a speculation, presented as an argument. It is not possible to prove any theory True. It is not possible to prove any nonscientific theory False. It IS possible to prove a scientific theory False. Such a falsification utterly destroys that theory.

 

[Melchizedek=Tecumseh]

Ok. The Bible says a lot of things, many of which don't make sense or, in this case, go against what is known to be true.

Jesus wasn't anything special when he was killed. He wasn't the son of god.

The Holy Spirit ,doesn't share your opinion!

 

[ZenMode]

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problems on anybody else, Void.

You can't blame your problems on anybody else.

 

[IBDaMann]

IF Jesus of Nazareth ministered, died, and resurrected, then it is history.

Nope. You are misusing the word "history" to mean "it actually happened" instead of correctly using it to mean that there are first-hand documented accounts, i.e. meeting requirements for historicity.

You are a Christian. You believe that the events in question happened. That is all that matters. Yours is a matter of faith, independent of any standards to which the evidence may, or may not, measure.

There is no other word for it in this case.

The correct wording on your part is "The events happened." The correct wording on my part is "I'll take your word for it."

If not, then it is NOT history.

History is a rigorous set of requirements, not the veracity of something having happened or the probability that something actually happened.

If you were to tell a dispassionate historian that Jesus is an historical figure, he would ask you for the first-hand accounts written by the eye-witnesses (the rules work similarly to an American court of law, i.e. no hearsay is permitted). When you cannot provide any, the historian will tell you that Jesus is therefore not an historical figure, but that He nonetheless might have very well existed in all the scenarios depicted in the Bible. In fact, the historian might confess to you that he is Christian and believes as you do, but that nonetheless Jesus is a belief, not a matter of history.

You are free to join Cypress in insisting that Jesus is an historical figure, that is your right; just know that you can't meet the burden required to establish Jesus as an historical figure. He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full burden to support his claim. You cannot support a claim of historicity, but you don't need to support your claim of faith.

The fact that Christianity is a religion makes no difference.

You have that backwards. Since Jesus is not a historical figure, He is a religious figure. If Jesus were an historical figure, he wouldn't be a religious figure.

As you know, I happen to be Christian. I don't need archaeology to prove anything to me

This is the long and the short of it. Cypress is making the Climate Change fallacy, i.e. that the faith is not merely a matter of faith, but one of thettled thienth. Cypress is not content in his faith as you are, and he needs for Jesus, God and Christianity to be thettled thienth or his fragile faith will shatter.

I recommend you not join Cypress in his folly.

I carry my own supporting evidence within me. It is based on faith, not proof.

So you and I end up on the same page after all.

 

[IBDaMann]

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problems on anybody else, Void.

You can't blame your problems on anybody else.

@ZenMode, why do you try to blame others?

 

[Into the Night]

You can't blame your problems on anybody else.

Childish mimicry. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. You are misusing the word "history" to mean "it actually happened" instead of correctly using it to mean that there are first-hand documented accounts, i.e. meeting requirements for historicity.

Nope. I am using 'history' correctly.
IF the story of Christianity is true, then it's history. The whole narrative is history. The first-hand documented accounts would in fact be just that.
If not, then it is NOT history.

You are a Christian.

Correct.

You believe that the events in question happened. That is all that matters. Yours is a matter of faith, independent of any standards to which the evidence may, or may not, measure.

Correct. Because of this, I consider the first-hand accounts of Jesus Christ as provided in the Bible to be history.

The correct wording on your part is "The events happened." The correct wording on my part is "I'll take your word for it."

No. You are misusing the term 'history'. And you don't take my word for it.

History is a rigorous set of requirements, not the veracity of something having happened or the probability that something actually happened.

I am not talking about probability math. It does not apply here. History is a narrative of past events. It does not prove whether those events actually occurred or not. It simply assumes it has.

If you were to tell a dispassionate historian that Jesus is an historical figure, he would ask you for the first-hand accounts written by the eye-witnesses (the rules work similarly to an American court of law, i.e. no hearsay is permitted).

No 'rules'. No 'American court of law' required. ALL history is by 'hearsay'.

When you cannot provide any, the historian will tell you that Jesus is therefore not an historical figure, but that He nonetheless might have very well existed in all the scenarios depicted in the Bible. In fact, the historian might confess to you that he is Christian and believes as you do, but that nonetheless Jesus is a belief, not a matter of history.

It is a matter of history.

You are free to join Cypress in insisting that Jesus is an historical figure, that is your right; just know that you can't meet the burden required to establish Jesus as an historical figure. He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full burden to support his claim. You cannot support a claim of historicity, but you don't need to support your claim of faith.

I can meet the burden. The eyewitnesses wrote their testimony in the Bible.

You have that backwards. Since Jesus is not a historical figure, He is a religious figure. If Jesus were an historical figure, he wouldn't be a religious figure.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). I claim to be an atheist, but now you make the same argument as the Church of No God.

This is the long and the short of it.

Cliche.

Cypress is making the Climate Change fallacy, i.e. that the faith is not merely a matter of faith, but one of thettled thienth.

I am not claiming the Bible is science. History does not demand anything to be science. I am not attempting to justify Cyborg's arguments either.

Cypress is not content in his faith as you are, and he needs for Jesus, God and Christianity to be thettled thienth or his fragile faith will shatter.

History is not science. Religion is not science.

I recommend you not join Cypress in his folly.

I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth.

So you and I end up on the same page after all.

No. You are arguing for the Church of No God, a fundamentalist style religion, yet you claim to be an atheist. Which is it?

 

[IBDaMann]

Nope. I am using 'history' correctly.

You are not. I explained why.

IF the story of Christianity is true, then it's history.

Incorrect. You are misusing the word "history." If the events happened, then they happened. You still don't have any first-hand accounts. The truth of the events having happened is unknown, but the narrative doesn't meet the criteria of being historical.

When you can meet the criteria, you can shift the narrative into the category of "history." As it stands, both the New Testament and the legend of Bigfoot have believers, and neither have any first-hand accounts. Even if Bigfoot is real, it's still legend.

Correct. Because of this, I consider the first-hand accounts of Jesus Christ as provided in the Bible to be history.

... and your religious belief that they are actually first-hand accounts is all that should matter to you. To a dispassionate historian who is adhering to the rigors of the discipline, however, there are no first-hand accounts. All existing documentation on the matter is hearsay, written after the fact by people who were not even present for the events recounted.

History is a narrative of past events.

Nope. Stories, both fiction and non-fiction, accurate and inaccurate, detailed and vague, ... are narratives of past events. History, on the other hand, is a set of standards.

It does not prove whether those events actually occurred or not. It simply assumes it has.

Incorrect. History meets a high level of rigor. Beowulf is not history.

ALL history is by 'hearsay'.

Incorrect. Don't try your hand at being an historian.

I can meet the burden. The eyewitnesses wrote their testimony in the Bible.

For Christians who believe, I'm sure that is good enough. Rock on.

You'll notice that Jesus isn't in any history book. There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus.

 

[Into the Night]

You are not. I explained why.



Incorrect. You are misusing the word "history." If the events happened, then they happened. You still don't have any first-hand accounts. The truth of the events having happened is unknown, but the narrative doesn't meet the criteria of being historical.

When you can meet the criteria, you can shift the narrative into the category of "history." As it stands, both the New Testament and the legend of Bigfoot have believers, and neither have any first-hand accounts. Even if Bigfoot is real, it's still legend.

You are mindlessly chanting now. Redefinition fallacy (history<->past event, first-hand accounts<->void). No magick 'criteria', dude. If Bigfoot is real, those legends are history.

... and your religious belief that they are actually first-hand accounts is all that should matter to you. To a dispassionate historian who is adhering to the rigors of the discipline, however, there are no first-hand accounts. All existing documentation on the matter is hearsay, written after the fact by people who were not even present for the events recounted.

Denying the existence of the Bible won't work, dude.

Nope. Stories, both fiction and non-fiction, accurate and inaccurate, detailed and vague, ... are narratives of past events. History, on the other hand, is a set of standards.

History is not a standard. Redefinition fallacy.

Incorrect. History meets a high level of rigor. Beowulf is not history.

History is not a rigor. Redefinition fallacy.

Incorrect. Don't try your hand at being an historian.

History is not historians. Redefinition fallacy.

For Christians who believe, I'm sure that is good enough. Rock on.

You'll notice that Jesus isn't in any history book. There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus.

He is. There are first-hand accounts of Jesus.

It is becoming obvious that you can no longer claim atheism.

 

[Cypress]

You'll notice that Jesus isn't in any history book!!

The first century Roman historian Tacitus mentions the execution of Jesus by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate in his Annals - History of the Roman Empire.

There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus!

The late first century/early second century bishops Iraneus and Pappias reported that the apostles John and Matthew authored gospels about Jesus.

There are no 'first-hand accounts' of Alexander the Great either. The surviving reports we have of him were written four centuries after Alexander died.

 

[Cypress]

theory does not come from a hypothesis. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

A hypothesis is just an informed guess that has the potential to be experimentally tested.

Once a hypothesis is sufficiently tested and fails to be falsified, it is elevated to the status of theory.

Hypothesis < Theory

 

[Cypress]

Theories are not knowledge!!!

Yes they are.
The theory of general relativity is a type of knowledge.
The theory of plate tectonics is a type of knowledge.

Knowledge doesn't have to be true. It just has to be justified by evidence or logic. Knowledge for the most part is always provisional.

 

[Cypress]

If you were to tell a dispassionate historian that Jesus is an historical figure, he would ask you for the first-hand accounts written by the eye-witnesses!!!

There are no surviving eyewitness accounts of Alexander the Great, the Persian Emperor Xerxes, or Chandragupta founder of the Mauryan Empire.

The reports we have of them were written long after these dudes were dead.