Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ

[Route_70]

Originally Posted by Stephen

there was no point. you refused to deal with the secular sources and instead invoked the genetic fallacy. it wasn't very impressive at all.

The point is, that for people like you and Fraudo, without secular sources you have nothing. The Bible certainly isn't reliable as a source of viable information.

__________________

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Route_70

The point is, that for people like you and Fraudo, without secular sources you have nothing. The Bible certainly isn't reliable as a source of viable information.

__________________

were you drunk when you wrote this? it makes no sense.

[Route_70]

Originally Posted by Stephen

were you drunk when you wrote this? it makes no sense.

I doubt that any sensible position would appear as such to you.

__________________

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Route_70

I doubt that any sensible position would appear as such to you.

__________________

try me.

[Route_70]

Originally Posted by Stephen

try me.

You have been tried and found wanting.

__________________

[Duncan Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Stephen

there was no point. you refused to deal with the secular sources and instead invoked the genetic fallacy. it wasn't very impressive at all.

Again you miss the point, so I'm going to have to spell it out.

1. This thread is entitled Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ.
2. Something like half of the citations are not from secular sources.
3. Therefore the thread title is a misnomer.

Nothing to do with the genetic fallacy. Both you and Otmer have made unwarranted assumptions about what I wrote. In fact the assumption was first made by Frodo (or actually, Dr Nelson Price) in the OP, by stressing the nature of the source. So keen was Dr Price to claim secular sources for his data, he mistakenly or deliberately included non-secular sources to bolster his argument.

The editor of Evil Bible used to write of a tactic often used against atheists, called the "100 crappy arguments" argument. How this works is that a large list of issues is presented, giving the impression that the opposition is overwhelmed by the sheer amount of data against it. I have sometimes seen it used against atheists in this forum, and this is another example. It would be better for Frodo if he would simply list his one best argument for the historicity of Jesus. Sadly, he seems incapable of doing so, and resorts to copying-and-pasting someone else's work that he just happened to encounter.

All of the examples from the OP have been addressed elsewhere.

• Some are no problem to anybody (those that talk of the existence of Christians and what they believe, for example);
• There is not one single contemporaneous account of Jesus, and some date to hundreds of years after the claimed events;
• Quite a lot of the information comes from second-hand accounts of other information.

And yes, quite a lot of it comes from sources that have an interest - over and above the status of their own reputation - in the source being believed.

It is not an example of the genetic fallacy to take these things into account.

Originally Posted by Nizkor

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing.

At face value, then, a rejection of non-secular evidence would seem to be an example of the genetic fallacy. but then so would Stephen's entire reasoning that if the resurrection is true then so is the Genesis account of creation and the Great Flood. His reasoning, taken to extremes, would have us believe that Lavrentiy Beria is as credible a Soviet historian as Leonard Shapiro. This might be correct, but there's a reason that most people wouldn't trust Beria here.

Originally Posted by fallacyfiles

It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value.

Just as the life of Beria reflects the current belief on the accuracy of his history, so do the majority of the non-secular sources of the historicity of Jesus. It's true enough to say that had Eusebius not written what he did, a lot of Christian belief wouldn't be the same today. It's also totally relevant, and not fallacious, to take into account just who Eusebius was in order to interpret what he said.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...c-fallacy.html

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html


We see the true genetic fallacy all around us. Here's one from today:

Originally Posted by tatermonkey

Muhammad was a pervert anyhow. What do you expect from a guy that had sex with a 9 year old.

[Otmer]

Help me please ...

1. What are the rules for defining "secular writings"?

2. Is the writer , who later became a Christian, automatically disqualified in being classified as a "secular" writer?

3. Why would anyone waste his (or her) time in reading the writings of a person who did not believe what they were writing in the first place?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I told you that I have always had more questions than I have had answers but then, don't we all (except the person who is fooled into thinking he knows all).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another question:

What percentage of all knowledge (that there is to know) do you know? I could answer that about myself but I am so embarrased. There is so much that lies outside the realm of my knowledge, I just have to take someone's word for it - but who can I trust?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This "Grasshopper" wants to know more - Thanks for your help.

Bro. Ott

[Duncan Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Otmer

Help me please ...

1. What are the rules for defining "secular writings"?

Dictionary.com defines secular, among other things, as "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests." Therefore secular writing is writing of a secular nature or purpose. The Bible is held to be a sacred book, and therefore can't be called secular, even if some of the writings are historically reflective. As secular writing serves secular interests, so religious writing serves religious interests.

I would argue strongly that early church history, in the main constructed by Eusebius, falls into the same category. Much of it seems little more than pure invention to support a particular worldview, in particular the fate of most of the disciples. It is often argued by theists that the disciples would not have met such grisly fates had they not actually believed what they were to die for. However, there is nothing to support that this actually happened, save the Eusebius-penned church "tradition".

Some information on Eusebius. Not sympathetic to Christianity, it's up to you whether you take it seriously or not. Personally, I would want to know more.

It is also arguable that Christian apologetics texts are not secular, though they could hardly be called sacred or spiritual. Nevertheless, their primary basis is to defend Christianity by making favourable interpretations of historical, scientific and philosophical evidence, thus serving religious interests.

This is not to say that secular writing is by definition more reliable - Dr Nelson and Frodo are arguing the merits of secular sources, not me. I gave the example of Lavrentiy Beria to illustrate a secular writer who is most certainly not reliable. The truth is that lots of things are written by lots of people, and where they conflict at least one of them must be wrong, whatever the subject - in the case of political conflict, probably both. Everything should be treated according to its own merits. So there is no essential difference between secular and non-secular sources, and in both cases

I've never disputed the idea of a historical Jesus, although I don't think the jesusneverexisted arguments are completely without merit. Nevertheless it would seem to rationally point to his historical character being, shall we say, somewhat embellished, both with characteristics and history of other supposed deities, and certain claims of the story being extraordinary. (An extraordinary claim is defined by Doug Krueger as "a claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world". http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...krueger1.shtml). The fact that the birth and resurrection of Jesus are extraordinary claims means that they require extraordinary evidence (despite William Lane Craig's view that the more extraordinary, the more likely). Evidence from those with an interest in them being true should be suspect, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Otmer

2. Is the writer , who later became a Christian, automatically disqualified in being classified as a "secular" writer?

I have no idea what you mean by this or who you're referring to. No-one is "disqualified", but once again everything relevant to the history of the claim should be taken into account.

Originally Posted by Otmer

3. Why would anyone waste his (or her) time in reading the writings of a person who did not believe what they were writing in the first place?

While I could point to examples from all sides where it appears that the writer is lying, there is nothing to suggest that this is invariably the case. William Lane Craig really thinks that his Earthly life is for nothing if he doesn't have an immortal soul; Ken Ham really thinks that all knowledge is subservient to scripture; Ray Comfort really thinks that God designed the banana; Mohammed Atta really thought he gained a direct pass to Heaven.

There are people in this forum who really think that the words of a book can tell them what's in my consciousness. There are people in this forum who really think that there's a connection between their belief and their morality.The problem is that to really think such things often involves giving up thinking. Upstairs Penhobby is concerned she might lose an argument with an atheist and she's appealing for help to bolster her own position. In other words, she wants to know what there is out there that will support what she already thinks. I'd advise her to stay away from arguments and find out for herself, using her own mind, which she many times shown that she possesses.

Originally Posted by Otmer

Another question:

What percentage of all knowledge (that there is to know) do you know? I could answer that about myself but I am so embarrassed. There is so much that lies outside the realm of my knowledge, I just have to take someone's word for it - but who can I trust?

There is nothing embarrassing about not knowing something. The best response is to find out about it.

I would say that there are is an unstated premise in that quote. The first is that for us to know something then we have to know everything - until we know every fact then we can't possibly know anything for sure. I've heard this many times here - if I don't know everything then my beliefs are worthless. But if this is true then it's true for all of us.

In fact we don't need to know much at all to give us the potential to know whatever it is we want to know. All we need is the right epistemological standard and away we go. Of course there are things that can't be known, but the right standard will cover that too. Christianity makes the assumption that things that can't be known only can't be known because of their nature, but they still exist. They really think that revelation is a worthy standard.


If you pick the right way of knowing you don't need to take anyone's word for anything - the one you trust is yourself.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Duncan Ferguson

There is not one single contemporaneous account of Jesus, and some date to hundreds of years after the claimed events;

This is just wrong. The New Testament authors, for the most part, were all contemporaries of Jesus.

It's true that there was no account of Jesus (that we know about) that was written while he was alive, but that doesn't prove anything. All the fireworks started after he rose from the dead.

Originally Posted by Duncan Ferguson

Quite a lot of the information comes from second-hand accounts of other information.

gospel accounts were either written by eyewitnesses or based on testimony of eyewitnesses.

Originally Posted by Duncan Ferguson

And yes, quite a lot of it comes from sources that have an interest - over and above the status of their own reputation - in the source being believed.

This is special pleading. All authors have an interest in being believed.

[Duncan Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Stephen

This is just wrong. The New Testament authors, for the most part, were all contemporaries of Jesus.

It's true that there was no account of Jesus (that we know about) that was written while he was alive, but that doesn't prove anything. All the fireworks started after he rose from the dead.

gospel accounts were either written by eyewitnesses or based on testimony of eyewitnesses.

Stephen you've already said many times that most Biblical scholars believe in the resurrection of Jesus - unsurprising, perhaps, in that most Biblical scholars are Christians. But most historical scholars of the time adhere to the consensus that the gospels weren't written by the people mentioned in them - obviously you wouldn't have a problem with Luke in that respect.

Originally Posted by Stephen

This is special pleading. All authors have an interest in being believed.

Of course. If you read up you'll realise I'm not special pleading. Special pleading I'll leave to those who think that one particular corpse got up and walked away.

The question really is "why would an author have an interest in being believed?". If it's a matter of his reputation as an honest author then yes, this would probably apply to everyone, though I'm not even sure about that.

What do you think of Bart Ehrman? Is there any reason why he shouldn't be believed? AnswersInGenesis plainly state that their mind is made up. Is there any reason why we should cast doubt on what they say?