Archaeology of the New Testament

[Into the Night]

Yes they are.

Nope. Theories are not knowledge. They are explanatory arguments.

The theory of general relativity is a type of knowledge.

Nope. It is an explanatory argument.

The theory of plate tectonics is a type of knowledge.

Nope. It is an explanatory argument.

Knowledge doesn't have to be true.

Knowledge has not True or False. It simply is.

It just has to be justified by evidence or logic. Knowledge for the most part is always provisional.

Knowledge is not provisional. It simply is. It does not have to be justified by anything.

Evidence is not a proof. It is only evidence. ALL observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
Logic is not evidence. Logic is a closed functional system like mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

But there are eyewitnesses.

 

[IBDaMann]

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.

Correction: The 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus wrote of the legend of the execution of Jesus, more than a century after the supposed event.

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

Correction: Iraneus and Papias wrote how they "knew a guy who knew a guy" ... who knew the apostles or of their work. The inescapable problem is that these are the closest anyone can get to documentation of the life of Jesus, and all of it is an admission to being second-hand accounts of second-hand accounts, as well as being made a century too late.

There are no 'first-hand accounts' of Alexander the Great either.

You are chanting. There are first-hand accounts, and I listed several of them for you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Redefinition fallacy. A hypothesis is not a guess. They stem from a theory, not the other way around. Theory is not a 'status'.

Well put. An hypothesis is derived from a theory, and the null hypothesis is effectively the theory or model itself.

 

[IBDaMann]

But there are eyewitnesses.

You have to include the "if the events actually happened as I believe ...". Of course, if the events happened then every signle witness was a witness.
Now, for those events to be history, they have to be documented by the eye witnesses, otherwise they remain folklore, verbal tradition, rumor, legend, [the list of potential candidate terms is extensive].

Allow me to point out that "history" does not mean "events that happened in the past". History means documented events, scrutinized by rigor. All events that occurred prior to the first documentation are "prehistory" and are "prehistoric".

 

[IBDaMann]

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

I wish you would just embrace your scientific illiteracy and be happy with who you are instead of being desperate to be someone you're not.

An hypothesis is a conclusion that must be true if the theory from which it is derived is true. The scientific method tests hypotheses in an attempt to falsify the models from which they are derived. If the hypothesis can be shown to be false, then the theory is false.

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

Nope. First, the theory is developed. Then the theory is tested by 1) deriving hypotheses and 2) attempting to falsify the hypotheses.

Every theory is itself its own null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is usually the first hypothesis tested of any theory.

Hypothesis < Theory

If you are trying to express "not the same as" (≠), it is correctly written "<>".

 

[Cypress]

Correction: The 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus wrote of the legend of the execution of Jesus, more than a century after the supposed event!!

116 AD is not "more than a century" after the crucifixion of Jesus. That's only 85 years after Jesus was executed, and the Roman historian Tacitus would have had access to more sources and information about Jesus and Pontuis Pilate than we have today.

Our only extant written sources for Alexander the Great were written four centuries after he died.

But, thanks for tacitly admitting you were completely wrong that Jesus was never mentioned in any book of history.

In fact, it is extremely noteworthy that hostile sources, alternative sources, and enemies of Jesus from the first, second, and third centuries all accepted the historicity of Jesus. That includes Roman, Jewish, Greek, Gnostic, and Syrian sources. There are no ancient sources that claim the historical person Jesus of Nazareth was a fabrication or myth. That in itself is noteworthy.

 

[Cypress]

Correction: Iraneus and Papias wrote how they "knew a guy who knew a guy"!!

It's remarkable how much frantic Google research I compel you to do.

Bishop Iraneus was told by Polycarp that the apostle John authored a gospel.

Polycarp was a disciple of John.

So Iraneus is getting information from somebody who knew the eyewitnesses and knew John.

By the standards of ancient history, that is excellent source material. It's always possible Iraneus was mistaken about what Polycarp told him.

You accept the manuscript evidence of Alexander the Great, which was written four centuries after Alexander and all his eyewitnesses were dead.

 

[Cypress]

Nope. First, the theory is developed!!!

Encyclopedia Britannica:​

"A hypothesis is a starting point in the scientific method, where it is tested through observation and experimentation...a hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation."

Theory vs. Hypothesis: What’s the Difference? | Examples, Science, Definition, Fact, & Prediction | Britannica

A scientific theory and a hypothesis differ in that a theory is a well-established framework built upon extensive evidence, whereas a hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation that is formulated as part of research or experimentation.

www.britannica.com

 

[IBDaMann]

Encyclopedia Britannica:​

"A hypothesis is a starting point in the scientific method, where it is tested through observation and experimentation...a hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation."

@Cypress, the hypothesis is the starting point in the scientific method ... except that checking the theory's internal and external consistency comes before checking any of its derived hypotheses. The hypothesis is derived from the theory, which obviously must come first or you don't have any hypotheses that are derived from the theory.

 

[IBDaMann]

That's only 85 years after Jesus was executed,

I think it was written later, but even if we go by your 85-year figure, that's still too far afterwards to be dealing with any first-hand accounting. In fact, everything from Tacitus was less credible than hearsay.

Our only extant written sources for Alexander the Great were written four centuries after he died.

Keep chanting. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what I already posted for you.

But, thanks for tacitly admitting you were completely wrong that Jesus was never mentioned in any book of history.

Jesus is not mentioned in any history book.

Dispassionately, if Jesus is mentioned, it is a storybook. It does not meet the required rigor to be history.
For believers, if Jesus is mentioned, it's a history book. It happened. Every word.

I'm not telling you to not believe. I'm informing you that you falsify your own beliefs each and every time you try to establish your religious faith as absolute truth.

In fact, it is extremely noteworthy that hostile sources, alternative sources, and enemies of Jesus from the first, second, and third centuries all accepted the historicity of Jesus.

Now you are asking people to believe that you speak for dead people. You do not.

Nobody can "accept" something that is not true. Nobody has ever "accepted" first-hand accounts of Jesus that simply do not exist.

You can find references to the Nigerian banker, but that doesn't mean there ever was any Nigerian banker seeking aid to get his fortune out of the country, nor does it mean that there were never any Nigerian bankers.


Keep believing. Try not to falsify your own beliefs. Your faith should be sufficient.

 

[ZenMode]

But there are eyewitnesses.

There are eyewitness for all of Sathya Sai Baba's BS "miracles". Do you believe he's actually performing miracles?

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/WaZvjECM7Qw?si=z6u3tosjijNav4fe

View: https://youtu.be/N4BxfddIhGE?si=5eyPtORWZIGGpbT7

[View: https://youtu.be/OEcgVkRCjSc?si=ZCNpdB2eHnK-tJVX

How about all the eye witnesses to Benny Hinn's Miracles?

View: https://youtu.be/z-lpwcSAUyI?si=unaj2dqU_fCn0qrV

 

[Cypress]

There are eyewitness for all of Sathya Sai Baba's BS "miracles". Do you believe he's actually performing miracles?

That's the wrong standard to use.

No intelligent person just blindly believes witnesses. Even prosecutors in the criminal justice system test the reliability of witnesses.

The question is how reliable are the witnesses accounts?

Now, your Indian guru seems to have had a seedy reputation, and may have been involved in fraud, money laundering, sexual abuse. That makes be dubious not only of him, but of his colleagues and peers.

People like the Dalai Lama and Jesus of Nazareth seem to have had unimpeachable moral reputations, and seem to have had powerful moral authority and impeccable ethical conduct.

Additionally, the 12 apostles seem to have been willing to die for what they claimed to have witnessed.

That's a higher standard of reliability than people who associate with a leader suspected of petty crimes crimes and felonies.

 

[ZenMode]

That's the wrong standard to use.

No intelligent person just blindly believes witnesses. Even prosecutors in the criminal justice system test the reliability of witnesses.

We're talking about a completely different period in time. It was a time when men regularly believed in nonsensical things.

The question is how reliable are the witnesses accounts?

The question is whether or not the witness accounts were accurate. Given that none of the Books of the New Testament were actually written by eyewitnesses, there's no reason to put a lot of importance on the stories.... because they are just stories.

Now, your Indian guru seems to have had a seedy reputation, and may have been involved in fraud, money laundering, sexual abuse. That makes be dubious not only of him, but of his colleagues and peers.

A seedy reputation to some, sure. A million of his followers showed up to his birthday party several years ago.

Also, all of the other "sons of God" and those who claimed some kind of divine connection, before, during and after Jesus, were viewed by some to be dishonest, seedy, charlatans, etc.

People like the Dalai Lama and Jesus of Nazareth seem to have had unimpeachable moral reputations, and seem to have had powerful moral authority and impeccable ethical conduct.

Which is fine, but also has nothing to do with the stories/claims about him.

Additionally, the 12 apostles seem to have been willing to die for what they claimed to have witnessed.

Based on the anyonymous stories, written by people who never met Jesus.. sure?

That's a higher standard of reliability than people who associate with a leader suspected of petty crimes crimes and felonies.

ok.