THE HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS AND THE EVIDENCE FOR GOD

>tfw we could have had wolfsheim christfag threads in /his/ but we're stuck with constantine threads
poor trade

>for the benefit of christfags who use bump limits as an excuse to abandon arguments

>>673474
>Neither of them employs scientific method.
Referencing the lack of reproducibility here? Courts deal in the purview of science overtly. I don't know what Euclid means as such.

>The universe would not begin at a specific time, because the condition for it to begin would be infinitely occurring.
There can be an arbitrary number of possibilities where a universe would begin at a specific (or non-specific) time, only once. I didn't see you rule all of them out. The causes underlying the universe need not be probabilistic, deterministic, physical, non-physical, hyper or hypodimensional, or anything else until you give evidence for one of the possibilities.

>Yes, but judging by radiation, if we've gone through cycles, they weren't infinite. A hundred or so cycles is the greatest estimate for that possibility. Unless of course you're referencing the black hole idea.
How could you possibly use radiation to measure how many big rips, heat deaths or expansion and contraction cycles there could have been?

>>673474
>The universe would not begin at a specific time, because the condition for it to begin would be infinitely occurring.
And just to point this out again before I go to sleep, I'm only going along with this for the sake of the argument. You first have to prove that there's such a thing as time outside of spacetime, and that "before the universe" is a coherent concept. Far as we can tell, spacetime wasn't a thing before the big bang.

Watch Constantine create a new thread in a few days and link to the old one saying "In this thread we proved jesus existed".

Fucking hell these internet missionaries are insufferable. The christian equivalent of socjus bloggers.

>>673525
>Courts deal in the purview of science overtly.
They don't test their hypotheses.

>I don't know what Euclid means as such.
It means Euclid's Elements.

> The causes underlying the universe need not be probabilistic, deterministic, physical, non-physical, hyper or hypodimensional, or anything else until you give evidence for one of the possibilities.
We're talking about nothing as an underlying cause. If *something* is an underlying cause, then it would have to be wholly abstract.

>How could you possibly use radiation to measure how many big rips, heat deaths or expansion and contraction cycles there could have been?
Background microwave radiation, which energy is converted to when "expended" in a big bang. But even if you posit the idea that a portion of this radiation might be converted to a different form of energy in the even of a collapse (why?), then you're still left with the issue that in cyclical universe theory, the universe is bigger and bigger with each cycle, and going backward it is smaller and smaller. Meaning you still be left with a definitive beginning no matter how you run it.

See: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1982ApJ...252....1D

>You first have to prove that there's such a thing as time outside of spacetime,
We have no reason to assume there is, which means the universe having a beginning a finite time ago doesn't make sense, the universe would have no beginning if the conditions for its existence were timeless. Unless these conditions have agency.

>>673533
What if Christ is the truth, tho?

>>673571
Constantine, weren't you saying only the other day that Genesis means "in a beginning"

The only legitimate reason for believing in Christianity, its God, or the historicity of its scriptures is an emotional desire for it all to be true.

Fear, either of death or of a universe purely indifferent to one's personal fate, is sufficient for those to see as much evidence and historicity of a Supreme Egoistic God as is necessary to alleviate that fear.

Minus the emotional compulsion to believe, there's no reason any rational person would accept the convoluted and bizarre theology surrounding Christian salvation; only through the equally idiotic notion of original sin does Christ's crucifixion hold any value at all.

>>673648
There's a significance between "a" beginning and "one of an infinite number" of beginnings.

>>673653
>The only legitimate reason for believing in Christianity, its God, or the historicity of its scriptures is an emotional desire for it all to be true.
Didn't Hume point out that sentiment is the only reason for believing anything.

>>673643
He'd still be annoying.

>Historicity of the gospels

Does anyone seriously doubt this?

>>673664
>Didn't Hume point out that sentiment is the only reason for believing anything.

I don't know, but there's a difference between the sentiment before the fact (faith, i.e. my salvation is dependent on believing this) and sentiment after the fact (conclusion, i.e. I have seen the evidence and now feel confident that this thing is true or not true).

>>673746
Didn't Hume point out that all evidence is just a sort of propaganda? That that "truth" is a feeling?

>>673709
New testament scholars for one.

>>673664
Yeah well Hume also pointed out that believing in miracles is absurd so pick your thinkers carefully.

>>673752

I don't know.

Didn't Kierkegaard say that trying to 'prove' God and the bible was just a sign of weak faith.

Didn't Nietzche say that a religion is destroyed once it starts becoming about the historicity, it means things can no longer be accepted because they are useful but only because they are 'true'.

Didn't Dostevsky say that he'd still be a Christian even if the whole thing as was made up.

Constantine's reading just seems to consist of selective quote mining rather than absorbing the real message. At this point it seems like he is desperate not to prove God exists to us but to himself.

>>673709

How about literally anyone who reads Josephus and finds him reliable. Because there are an enormous number of contradictions between the sort of Iudea the Gospels portray and the sort of Iudea Josephus portrays.

>>673762

>Constantine's reading just seems to consist of selective quote mining rather than absorbing the real message

This is pretty normal to Christians, given their endemic quote mining of the OT to justify the religion as a whole.

>>673762
>Didn't Kierkegaard say that trying to 'prove' God and the bible was just a sign of weak faith.
Kierkegaard isn't a Church Father last I checked.

>it means things can no longer be accepted because they are useful but only because they are 'true'.
That's a very cynical idea of Christianity.

>Didn't Dostevsky say that he'd still be a Christian even if the whole thing as was made up.
Yes. That doesn't really mean there can be no evidence of Christ or that such evidence should not be propagated.

>>673762
Isn't this sort of argument like the theist saying, "I think you don't believe in God because you hate him"? It's not really an argument.

can someone summarise the arguments so far so that i dont have to go back and read multiple threads of word salad

what exactly is the argument here

I don't doubt there was a Jesus, and that many considered him the Christ. But evidence that that person once existed is not evidence that that person was in fact the son of God and savior of all mankind.

Outside of the NT, where is the evidence for the divinity of Christ?

>>673838
zero

other than muh miracles, if you buy into that kind of thing

alternatively you could follow the CS Lewis line of argument

>either Jesus was the son of God, or a liar, or mad
>he doesnt seem like the kind of guy who would lie, and he doesnt seem mad
>therefore he is probably the son of God :DDDD t.

>>673820
For God's existence, or for the historicity of the Gospels?

>>673838
How many people do you think there were writing about Christ's divinity who weren't Christians? Probably zero, for obvious reasons.

>>673849
except he leaves out the far more likely explanation that Jesus's followers invented his Godhood after his death

>>673853
gods existence

>>673853
>How many people do you think there were writing about Christ's divinity who weren't Christians? Probably zero, for obvious reasons.

Just as I thought, no evidence whatsoever for the divinity of Christ outside of the claims of the NT.

>>673849
CS Lewis argument is such fucking shit-tier apologetics.

I can't believe people still regularly cite it.

>>673858
exactly

>>673858
How do respond to the argument already posted against that?

>>673863
>>638266
>>647632
>>637821
>>637821

>>673871
Consider for a moment. If anyone saw Christ was divine, they'd become a Christian. So what you're saying is begging the question in a very sly way, "What record is there by someone who did not think Christ is divine, that Christ is divine?"

>>673858
>>673881

Yep.


If you read the Gospel of Mark (very probably the first one written) without any preconceptions, it's blindingly obvious that this is neither a man who believes himself to be God, nor a man believed by his followers to be God.

>>673888
Not necessarily. Ancient people believed in all kinds of magic and crazy shit. Seeing one guy perform a miracle of some sort wouldn't lead any Mediterranean polytheist to conclude "oh well clearly this guy is the son of the one and only God in the entire cosmos".

They'd probably just call him the son of A god or something.

>>673895
The Gospel of Mark, like every Gospel except John, was written to be read in the presence of everyone, including the unitiated. The secret that Christ is God was something that wasn't revealed until after you were a fully initiated Christian. You might as well read the entire argument linked, since it addresses all these objections in depth.

>>673901
How many Mediterranean polytheists were living in Jerusalem?

>>673921

Quite a few, what with the Roman and Greeks who traveled and settled. Not to mention everywhere else that Christainity spread to.

Not the guy you're responding to, btw.

>>673932
>Quite a few,
Major historians? Because we do not have the writings of 99% of Romans or Greeks, especially if they were just in letters and such.

>>673940

>Major historians?

No, mediterranean polytheists living in Jerusalem.

For starters, you've got pretty much the entire Roman governmental apparatus that was there to lean on the locals, plus however many Roman soldiers were in the province. And that's before you get anyone who decided to buy land and settle in the area.

>>673888

What writings do we have made during the life of Christ that attest to his divinity? What evidence is there besides writing? On what grounds can we assume that writings attesting to Christ's divinity are true but those attesting to the spiritual experiences of Mohammed and the Buddha and Joseph Smith and so on are not true?

What evidence, besides piles of words, is there for the divinity of Christ?

>>673915
Apologists can come up with whatever retroactive justifications they like, but the most straightforward reading implies an evolving legend, not some progressive revelation.

>>673508
Yeah, naw. There is more evidence for dragons than for the gospels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MUUP4l6l4

>>673915
Except the later gospels make it clear that Christ is God, and it was no secret to historians like Tacitus

>>673883
IN none of those quotes does he address what I just said about the trilemma

>>673953
It's pretty clear the Roman government there wasn't really keeping tabs or that aware of anything Jesus was doing. I think only one Roman solider indicated he had any knowledge. Pontius Pilate seemed to be rather confused as to Christ's crimes, if he knew Christ were performing miracles, I'm pretty sure he'd already be familiar with him.

>>673956
Did you read the argument linked in the OP?

>>673986

>It's pretty clear the Roman government there wasn't really keeping tabs or that aware of anything Jesus was doing. I think only one Roman solider indicated he had any knowledge. Pontius Pilate seemed to be rather confused as to Christ's crimes, if he knew Christ were performing miracles, I'm pretty sure he'd already be familiar with him.

I don't disagree with you, but there is evidence for at least a small but visible minority of non-Jews, even in Jerusalem. Not to mention that a lot of the people the early Christians were preaching to were not Hebrews and thus were almost certainly not monotheists.

A Roman guy sitting in the crowd while Jesus preaches is a long way off from the government actually keeping tabs on him.

The notion that the Gospels were targeted at a Judean audience is an assumption, and one I don't think is entirely borne out with the text of pretty much all of them except Matthew.

>>673957
It's not a matter of progressive revelation, it's a matter of the explictness of Christ's divinity being intentionally left out of things the catechumens can hear. Even today, right before the confession of the Nicene Creed (which replaced the early confession of Christ's Divinity), the priest says, "The doors!" This is when catechumens have to depart (which they still had to in the Orthodox Church up until a few decades ago, and still have to do in some Churches), and someone would keep a look out for Pharisees while the faithful would confess Christ is God. The synoptic Gospels were written to be read and heard by everyone interested in Christianity, so they aren't going to be as explicit about Christ being God (though they will give hints of it). The Gospel of John starts with the secret revealed to initiates. In fact, John 1-5 was probably the early Christian confession for initiates, long before the Nicene Creed was formulated.

>>673976
Tacitus's supposed mention of christ is taken seriously? Why? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tacitus

>>673976
>Except the later gospels make it clear that Christ is God, and it was no secret to historians like Tacitus
Right, I'm talking about when the Church was mostly confined to Jews. The idea that Christ is God isn't really a secret that would need to be kept from pagans like it would Pharisees, because aren't going to put you to death just for saying that. The cat probably got let out of the bag by Apostates, and once it got to be widespread, there was no point in hiding it.

>>674018
More seriously than rationalwiki.

>>674006
>I don't disagree with you, but there is evidence for at least a small but visible minority of non-Jews, even in Jerusalem
Right, but there is no reason why, out of those who were even literate, their letters would be preserved.

>Not to mention that a lot of the people the early Christians were preaching to were not Hebrews and thus were almost certainly not monotheists.
Christians preached mostly to Jews until a couple of decades after Christ's death.

>>674048

>Right, but there is no reason why, out of those who were even literate, their letters would be preserved.

Pardon me for being slow, but I'm still not sure how the "Major historians" or the preservation of writings is even relevant. I jumped into the conversation after these posts, >>673901
>>673921

with the angle of how people would have perceived the notion of Jesus's supposed miracles in the framework of already existing belief systems. If there are polytheists hanging around, they're obviously going to view things differently than monotheists.

>Christians preached mostly to Jews until a couple of decades after Christ's death.

Hardly that long. Paul's conversion, at least according to Wiki, is usually considered to be between 31-36, and he spends most of his time afterwards preaching in places like Damascus, not in Iudea proper. That means several years, not decades after the crucifixion, you're talking about interacting with people who have 0 connection to Jews.

>>674096
>If there are polytheists hanging around, they're obviously going to view things differently than monotheists.
Right, but what percentage of the writings by Romans living in Judea are preserved?

>That means several years, not decades after the crucifixion, you're talking about interacting with people who have 0 connection to Jews.
Correct, but Jerusalem was still the HQ of Christianity all the way up until the Destruction of the Temple, and the Christian presence was most strongly in Jerusalem until the Jewish diaspora.

Regardless, I'm unsure of what you're asking for now: pagan records of Paul's ministry?

>>674032
Well that is a bunch of nonsense and here is why, The gospel of mark was a greek document, not a Hebrew or Aramaic one. Two it remained a mystery religion long after to moved to the Greek world

>>674126
Many early Christians were Greek-speaking, Septuagint-reading Jews.

>>674124
>Right, but what percentage of the writings by Romans living in Judea are preserved?

As far as I know, none of them. (But I've not looked into the matter) But how is that relevant? If there's a polytheist element hanging around, it'll affect what any preacher is going to say, as well as what he expects the crowd to react to.

>Regardless, I'm unsure of what you're asking for now: pagan records of Paul's ministry?

I haven't asked anything. I've just been trying to answer the question of

>How many Mediterranean polytheists were living in Jerusalem?

In light of the assertion previously that the perception of miracles wouldn't necessarily lead someone to conclude "This man is clearly the son of the one and only god"

But I too am very, very confused, I'm not even sure what you're asking or why you keep returning to the notion of Greek or Roman writings that might or might not have lasted the two millenia since.

>>674165
>But how is that relevant?
Pretty relevant if you're asking for Christ to be substantiated with writings by Romans from that region.

>If there's a polytheist element hanging around, it'll affect what any preacher is going to say, as well as what he expects the crowd to react to.
Correct. Have you read Acts?

>>674178
>Pretty relevant if you're asking for Christ to be substantiated with writings by Romans from that region.

But I haven't said that. I've never even knowingly implied that. All I've been saying, from the get-go, is that there is a pretty good possibility that there were polytheists around in Judea at the time.

So when said polytheists hear about Jesus and his supposed miracles, they're likely to frame it differently than monotheists. This doesn't even require Jesus to have historically existed, just that there were people talking about Jesus, which is so uncontraversial that I don't think anyone challenges it outside of that lunatic Fomenko.

>Correct. Have you read Acts?

Skimmed it, although I again fail to see how this is relevant.

>>674222
Acts has preaching to pagans, and they take it very differently than Jews do. They think, for instance (after witnessing a miracle), that the Apostles are Greek gods.

>>673709

Well they do have a zombie invasion no other records show in them, which you would have thought someone else would notice and write about, among other minor issues.

even if one could provide strong evidence for a being to call "God", we would still be unable to accurately ascribe attributes to or anthropomorphize it.

>>673571
>They don't test their hypotheses.
That depends on what you're calling a test. Alibis can be tested, and so can physical evidence. Again, courts deal with the purview of science overtly. That's scientific enough for me. We don't have the luxury of being able to test everything.

>It means Euclid's Elements.
Which is non-scientific why?

>We're talking about nothing as an underlying cause. If *something* is an underlying cause, then it would have to be wholly abstract.
No, we were talking about both. And considering I was responding to the statement of
>The universe would not begin at a specific time, because the condition for it to begin would be infinitely occurring.
which specifically refers to conditions, you're being disingenuous here by shifting topics. When I asked you to define what "no conditions" "not existing" mean, you avoided the question entirely and moved back to conditions, which is what I responded to and now you're back to asserting shit about "no conditions".

>Background microwave radiation, which energy is converted to when "expended" in a big bang...
I love how garbled and word-salad'y your references to science is, but no, the fact that it seems to us there's a net loss of energy in the redshifting of microwave background radiation is not a claim of absolute truth, is subject to change, and is no grounds to claim that therefore the universe HAS to be finite. There's an arbitrary number of ways the energy could be restored and you haven't disproven them to make this case.

>But even if you posit the idea that a portion of this radiation might be converted to a different form of energy in the even of a collapse (why?), then you're still left with the issue that in cyclical universe theory, the universe is bigger and bigger with each cycle, and going backward it is smaller and smaller.
Or the energy converted back and forth is in same exact amounts. How did you determine this can't happen?

>>673571

>We have no reason to assume there is,
We don't have a reason to assume there is either time outside the universe, or no time outside the universe.

You seem to be really confused about the whole burden of proof thing, here. You're positing a god, you're trying to base your god on conditions which necessitate knowledge you don't seem to have. Unless you provide such knowledge, you're simply feebly attempting to define god into existence.

We "had no reason to assume" that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Until we did. That didn't make it the absolute truth for religious morons like you to posit that Earth is the center of the universe is super special and everything was made for us.

>which means the universe having a beginning a finite time ago doesn't make sense, the universe would have no beginning if the conditions for its existence were timeless.
Back to square one. As I said in the previous post, which you conveniently decided to ignore completely because you were suddenly talking about "no conditions", there's an arbitrary amount of conditions that could be possible, you have to provide proof for any single one of them.

I just told you that timeless conditions - which you haven't even begun to prove - don't necessitate infinite universes, or a non-existent universe, or anything else. I can arbitrarily come up with infinite conditions that make this work and you haven't even built a case for your assertion. And again, you're talking about timeless things as if this gets around the possible lack of time outside or before the universe. Define what you mean by timeless.

I'll give you a hint, because you seem to be having a problem here. Maybe the beginning of the universe is conditioned on strictly probabilistic processes, and happens when a normal number gets "generated". Normal numbers are defined on the entire real axis, go ahead and disprove this.

>Unless these conditions have agency.
I'm not even going to touch this ludicrous leap.