Transplant from "Judaism" section

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi - transplanting this over due to vector of conversation...

Jason wrote:
I think Karen is asking why this peasant rabbi named Yeshua would be executed by the Romans at all - the implication being that he must have been seen as a serious threat to power or else a depraved criminal. The only records we have about Jesus tell us he had no intention of becoming an earthy king and that he was a kind man to the poor, certainly not a notorious criminal. These are the facts as we have them and without any mention of miracles. Even secular documents confirm at least this much.

========================

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(a) Could you please reference these secular documents?

========================

Jason wrote:
Regarding the secular documents, I was referring to the fact that Jesus existed and was regarded as a kind man and not a criminal or someone worthy of death. Josephus ben Mattathias who (in the undisputed portion of his text) wrote that Jesus was a doer of good works. Tacitus, Pliney and a few others seem to confirm his existence. I am aware of the various arguments put forth to discredit these and other documents which shed light on Jesus and the early Christians but I'm not so impressed with them at this time.

I also consider the writings of the early Christians (which are extra biblical) such as Papias and Clement of Rome to be very informative, though such writings can't be considered secular. When we lump together the early secular and religious writings about Jesus we gain a pretty full picture of the man whom Pilate killed. And yet, to be honest, I wish we had more. John said it would be impossible to catalog everything Jesus said and did - but I wish someone had!

========================

kaufmannphillips wrote:
When pressed, you have provided only three secular citations: Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny.

(a) The Pliny text may be found here. It makes no comment whatsoever about Jesus himself.

(b) The Tacitus text may be found here. It has nothing good to say about Jesus.

(c) The Josephus text, as you are aware, is complicated by apparent Christian redaction. But it will suffice for me to point out that it says nothing about Jesus "ha[ving] no intention of becoming an earthy king" or about him "[being] a kind man to the poor" - and to point out that one source does not justify your assertion that even secular documents confirm your characterization of Jesus.

Beyond this, you may refer to Papias and Clement if you like, but as you have acknowledged these are not secular. Unless you introduce further examples, your "pretty full picture of the man whom Pilate killed" consists of sectarian literature by followers of that man, and about a half-dozen sentences - themselves probably overwritten by sectarians - from one man who almost certainly never met Jesus himself (having been born ca. 37 CE).

It is not my aim to embark upon a critical discussion of the person of Jesus in this thread. But I'm not going to let you get away with an overblown claim like the one you have made - and really, Jason, neither should you let yourself get away with it. If you are going to advocate for your Jesus, you should be careful to do so in a reliable manner.

========================

Jason wrote:
I clearly should have used the term "extra-biblical" rather than "secular" because they are not the same thing and I had sources in mind other than those which are strictly secular. So I'll definitely concede that. However, I would dispute the Josephus passage because the portion I quoted is not part of the disputed text, at least that I'm aware. The fact that Roman sources like Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius mention the Christian sect is primarly important because they are 1) early documents and therefore generally considered reliable, and 2) demonstrate that Jesus had a following of devotees that had spread rapidly.

But we do have a massive collection of Jewish writings that prove my claims about Jesus. You don't accept those because they are considered religious texts but I see no reason to doubt what Luke wrote over what Herodidus or any other ancient historian wrote. I read Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" last year and he is certainly opinionated and biased, yet is considered a good historian. The same with Josephus. So my argument, as you've pointed out, about the character of Jesus primarily rests in the abundant collection of canonical and extra-biblical texts from early sources. The secular sources (there are six of which I'm aware) tell us more about his followers, something which might provide details about the leader himself, if only by inference. But you're right - I should by no means rest my case on secular sources. Likewise, I hope you wouldn't rest your case on the opinions of only liberal scholars about the ancient texts as if they have no bias themselves. I only make that point to preempt the popular argument that the writings of early Christians are untrustworthy simply because Bart Ehrman, or whomever, is an eloquent writer.

I don't distrust the Koran because the scholars say it's whack. I distrust it, along with the Vedas or Tripitaka, because they make no claims which can be studied or varified. Only Christians offer up this kind of scrutiny of its texts and claims, something Anthony Flew wrote about in his latest book. There are other reasons I distrust those writings, obviously, but I'm making a singular point about examination.

[kaufmannphillips]

Jason wrote:
I clearly should have used the term "extra-biblical" rather than "secular" because they are not the same thing and I had sources in mind other than those which are strictly secular. So I'll definitely concede that. However, I would dispute the Josephus passage because the portion I quoted is not part of the disputed text, at least that I'm aware.

The portion to be disputed is in the eye of the disputant. But even being generous, it is "one source," and at that "from one man who almost certainly never met Jesus himself (having been born ca. 37 CE)." From whom/whence, then, did Josephus derive his (putative) opinion? If it were derived to some extent from Christian sources, then we might reconsider the "secular" character of his remarks accordingly.

Then again, we may also toss consideration of Josephus' own religious thought into the mix, as we should with other sources like Pliny and Tacitus. The religious predispositions of any of these parties would have potential to affect their outlooks. So perhaps it would be preferable to refer to "non-Christian" sources, rather than "secular" ones.

Jason wrote:
But we do have a massive collection of Jewish writings that prove my claims about Jesus. You don't accept those because they are considered religious texts but I see no reason to doubt what Luke wrote over what Herodidus or any other ancient historian wrote. I read Suetonius' "The Twelve Caesars" last year and he is certainly opinionated and biased, yet is considered a good historian. The same with Josephus.

(a) Please articulate how your collection of writings "prove"s that Jesus "had no intention of becoming an earthy king and that he was a kind man to the poor, certainly not a notorious criminal." I would like to hear you explain your methodology of proof.

(b) I certainly accept religious texts as historical sources. Like all historical sources, though - ancient or modern - I do not simply take them at face value. Herodotus, Suetonius, Josephus, Eusebius, Einhard, de Tocqueville, Zinn - each historian is a prism, through whom data are refracted (and of course, these data are likely to have been refracted previously before encountering the historian). It would be naive to mistake the refracted image for the subject itself.

(c) Would you assert that Luke is not "opinionated" or "biased"? And having encountered Suetonius, would you compensate for bias when reading Luke, in a way comparable to how you would compensate for bias when reading the Latin historian?

Jason wrote:
The secular sources (there are six of which I'm aware) tell us more about his followers, something which might provide details about the leader himself, if only by inference.

In this vein, we may consider how outsiders' discussions of present-day Mormons might and/or might not reveal the character of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Jason wrote:
Likewise, I hope you wouldn't rest your case on the opinions of only liberal scholars about the ancient texts as if they have no bias themselves. I only make that point to preempt the popular argument that the writings of early Christians are untrustworthy simply because Bart Ehrman, or whomever, is an eloquent writer.

Um - if you will refer to the Handbook of Liberal Scholarship, ninety-third edition, page 172, you will find that "[e]loquence rightly supersedes argumentation and analysis of data." You will also find, on page 497, that "Bart Ehrman is always right, so Ben Witherington III can just shut up already" - and in the footnote, "Really, Ben, you're a total lunkhead, so just shut up shut up shut up. Tha's right, B-Dub3 - yu ben skooled. Booyeah!!!!"

I consider this to be proof that I am right. But I am willing to trifle with discussion of "evidence," as an indulgence to you.

Jason wrote:
I don't distrust the Koran because the scholars say it's whack. I distrust it, along with the Vedas or Tripitaka, because they make no claims which can be studied or varified. Only Christians offer up this kind of scrutiny of its texts and claims, something Anthony Flew wrote about in his latest book. There are other reasons I distrust those writings, obviously, but I'm making a singular point about examination.

I'll let the first part pass, not being well-versed in those bodies of literature. Let's start with three claims that can be verified, yielding trust in in the Bible as a religious authority.

[Jason]

The portion to be disputed is in the eye of the disputant. But even being generous, it is "one source," and at that "from one man who almost certainly never met Jesus himself (having been born ca. 37 CE)." From whom/whence, then, did Josephus derive his (putative) opinion? If it were derived to some extent from Christian sources, then we might reconsider the "secular" character of his remarks accordingly.

I'd be willing to bet there was be a decent amount of information (both pro and anti) about Jesus circulating throughout the Near East and Europe about the time Josephus had reached maturity in his studies. He could've had contact with Christians but I wouldn't think it necessary. As Paul told the court in Acts 26, these things didn't happen in a corner. I think it's safe for us to assume knowledge about Jesus, whether accurate or not, had reached Jerusalem by the time Josephus was an adult man. And as to your generously giving me this one source as a concession, I think you might want to consider just how rare it is to have such a source for a person of ancient history. Who is the great source of information on Harod the Great? I'll give you a hint - his name starts with a "J" and ryhmes with Bosephus.

Then again, we may also toss consideration of Josephus' own religious thought into the mix, as we should with other sources like Pliny and Tacitus. The religious predispositions of any of these parties would have potential to affect their outlooks. So perhaps it would be preferable to refer to "non-Christian" sources, rather than "secular" ones.

No one is truly secular because everyone has a religious opinion of some sort. So we'll agree that there are early non-Christian sources which speak of Jesus and his followers. The one that speaks well of him, you consider a late addition.

(a) Please articulate how your collection of writings "prove"s that Jesus "had no intention of becoming an earthy king and that he was a kind man to the poor, certainly not a notorious criminal." I would like to hear you explain your methodology of proof.

In this I was speaking of the writings I accept and you reject. John, a witness to the life of Jesus, wrote that his followers wanted to forcibly make him king - to which he refused. John also quoted Jesus as saying "My kingdom is not of this world." That's first century, eyewitness testimony. Of course, I could quote the rest of te Biblical writers on this matter but it wouldn't further the argument in your mind.

(b) I certainly accept religious texts as historical sources. Like all historical sources, though - ancient or modern - I do not simply take them at face value. Herodotus, Suetonius, Josephus, Eusebius, Einhard, de Tocqueville, Zinn - each historian is a prism, through whom data are refracted (and of course, these data are likely to have been refracted previously before encountering the historian). It would be naive to mistake the refracted image for the subject itself.

There's a practical difference between historical sources and the journals of men who lived with the one of whom they were reporting for a number of years. The gospel writers, and even Paul, embarrass themselves on occasion for the sake of telling the truth. You don't often find such things in other histories of that era. They also had less motivation to lie when compared to other sources of ancient history, who often for the sake of pride or nationalism, would embellish their stories. The other witnesses of Joseph Smith's encounter with the angel later recanted under persecution.

(c) Would you assert that Luke is not "opinionated" or "biased"? And having encountered Suetonius, would you compensate for bias when reading Luke, in a way comparable to how you would compensate for bias when reading the Latin historian?

Everyone is biased so it doesn't matter. Suetonius was commissioned to write a history of the early Caesars. Luke was writing to some Theophilis and probably had no idea it would be treated as a holy relic. Sure, Luke was biased but he had ample reason to either believe or disbelieve some of these claims. He was with Paul on Malta when miracle after miracle took place. If Paul had not lived up to his claims, I'm sure Luke would've abandoned him long before this. Luke suffered a great deal for the testimony. Most historians can't wear that badge of sincerity.

Um - if you will refer to the Handbook of Liberal Scholarship, ninety-third edition, page 172, you will find that "[e]loquence rightly supersedes argumentation and analysis of data." You will also find, on page 497, that "Bart Ehrman is always right, so Ben Witherington III can just shut up already" - and in the footnote, "Really, Ben, you're a total lunkhead, so just shut up shut up shut up. Tha's right, B-Dub3 - yu ben skooled. Booyeah!!!!"

Thank you.

I'll let the first part pass, not being well-versed in those bodies of literature. Let's start with three claims that can be verified, yielding trust in in the Bible as a religious authority.

Verified by what method?

God bless you, Emmet

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Jason,

Thank you for your kind perseverance in this discussion.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
But even being generous, it is "one source," and at that "from one man who almost certainly never met Jesus himself (having been born ca. 37 CE)." From whom/whence, then, did Josephus derive his (putative) opinion? If it were derived to some extent from Christian sources, then we might reconsider the "secular" character of his remarks accordingly.

Jason wrote:
I'd be willing to bet there was be a decent amount of information (both pro and anti) about Jesus circulating throughout the Near East and Europe about the time Josephus had reached maturity in his studies. He could've had contact with Christians but I wouldn't think it necessary. As Paul told the court in Acts 26, these things didn't happen in a corner. I think it's safe for us to assume knowledge about Jesus, whether accurate or not, had reached Jerusalem by the time Josephus was an adult man.

The question is, what were the contributing sources behind the various pieces of information (and disinformation, most likely) that were in circulation at that time? Surely a significant portion of the info/disinfo stemmed from Christian sources; in particular, Christian sources would plausibly have made a sizable contribution to the pool of positive things being said about Jesus. It is not necessary for Josephus to have had direct contact with Christians for his views to have derived to some extent from Christian sources.

Jason wrote:
And as to your generously giving me this one source as a concession, I think you might want to consider just how rare it is to have such a source for a person of ancient history. Who is the great source of information on Harod the Great? I'll give you a hint - his name starts with a "J" and ryhmes with Bosephus.

The general rarity of evidence in this arena is irrelevant. Lack of other evidence does not justify treating a lone source as if it were more than it is. If we had only one painting of Africa, to what extent should we imagine that Africa is like that painting?

Jason wrote:
So we'll agree that there are early non-Christian sources which speak of Jesus and his followers. The one that speaks well of him, you consider a late addition.

The one that speaks well of him - whether overwritten in whole, in part, or not at all - is but one source; and when it comes to Jesus, it is not a first-hand source.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Please articulate how your collection of writings "prove"s that Jesus "had no intention of becoming an earthy king and that he was a kind man to the poor, certainly not a notorious criminal." I would like to hear you explain your methodology of proof.

Jason wrote:
In this I was speaking of the writings I accept and you reject. John, a witness to the life of Jesus, wrote that his followers wanted to forcibly make him king - to which he refused. John also quoted Jesus as saying "My kingdom is not of this world." That's first century, eyewitness testimony. Of course, I could quote the rest of te Biblical writers on this matter but it wouldn't further the argument in your mind.

I would prefer that you make an argument I can respond to, rather than not make an argument because you expect it won't convince me.

You have given me one case of "first century, eyewitness testimony." So I will work with that for now:

(a) On what basis do you regard John to be "first century, eyewitness testimony"?

(b) Do you normally consider one example of "first century, eyewitness testimony" to constitute proof? Or - in present-day circumstances - twenty-first century, eyewitness testimony? Of course, you have alluded to other sources; but you have only provided one.

(c) If history had unfolded differently, and Jesus had been embraced by his contemporaries (both Jew and Gentile, ruler and commoner), would he or would he not have become an earthly king?

(d) Would Jesus' refusal of forcible enthronement on a certain occasion necessarily equate to lack of intention to become "an earthy king"? Or might it be a case of wrong place, wrong time, and/or wrong method?

(e) John 18:36 does not say that Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world"; rather, it says that it is "not from this world." (An example here of how trust in an English translation can result in false understanding. Which is not to say that I never fall prey to the same sort of error!)

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I certainly accept religious texts as historical sources. Like all historical sources, though - ancient or modern - I do not simply take them at face value. Herodotus, Suetonius, Josephus, Eusebius, Einhard, de Tocqueville, Zinn - each historian is a prism, through whom data are refracted (and of course, these data are likely to have been refracted previously before encountering the historian). It would be naive to mistake the refracted image for the subject itself.

Jason wrote:
There's a practical difference between historical sources and the journals of men who lived with the one of whom they were reporting for a number of years. The gospel writers, and even Paul, embarrass themselves on occasion for the sake of telling the truth. You don't often find such things in other histories of that era. They also had less motivation to lie when compared to other sources of ancient history, who often for the sake of pride or nationalism, would embellish their stories. The other witnesses of Joseph Smith's encounter with the angel later recanted under persecution.

(a) Eusebius, Einhard, and de Tocqueville all had significant first-person experience of their subjects (if not all of their subjects). But first-person experience does not remove the prism of the first-person themselves.

"Whilst part of what we perceive comes through our senses from the object before us, another part (and it may be the larger part) always comes out of our own mind." - William James, The Principles of Psychology

(b) On which occasion(s) do the gospel writers "embarrass themselves ... for the sake of telling the truth"?

(c) On which occasion(s) does Paul "embarrass [himself] ... for the sake of telling the truth"? Let me remove at the outset the matter of his having once persecuted the church; he hardly could have gotten away with trying to pass over this faux pas in silence.

(d) We can provide a number of reasons that early Christian sources would lie. Living in an honor/shame culture, and having tied themselves to a controversial figure, they might have felt motivated to redeem themselves by clinging to their investment and sprucing it up. Then again, some of them may have obtained their livelihoods from their ecclesial roles (q.v., 1 Corinthians 9). And some massaging of truth might have taken place for "higher purposes," as a matter of rhetoric or apologetic.

(e) But it is not necessary, of course, to accuse the early sources of knowingly lying. Human religious thought and imagination are amply sufficient to yield the kind of untruth that even its own originator imagines to be true.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Would you assert that Luke is not "opinionated" or "biased"? And having encountered Suetonius, would you compensate for bias when reading Luke, in a way comparable to how you would compensate for bias when reading the Latin historian?

Jason wrote:
Everyone is biased so it doesn't matter. Suetonius was commissioned to write a history of the early Caesars. Luke was writing to some Theophilis and probably had no idea it would be treated as a holy relic. Sure, Luke was biased but he had ample reason to either believe or disbelieve some of these claims. He was with Paul on Malta when miracle after miracle took place. If Paul had not lived up to his claims, I'm sure Luke would've abandoned him long before this. Luke suffered a great deal for the testimony. Most historians can't wear that badge of sincerity.

(a) Would I be incorrect, then, to assert that you do not compensate for bias when reading Luke, in a way comparable to how you would do so when reading Suetonius?

(b) If "[e]veryone is biased," that doesn't mean that "it doesn't matter"; it means that we must take care to compensate for bias with everyone.

(c) If "[e]veryone is biased," isn't this a strong tally in the column of subjectivity?

(d) The author of Luke may have found "ample reason to either believe or disbelieve some of these claims," but we have not been given much in the way of access to his reason, to evaluate it for ourselves.

(e) Plenty of religious figures have had faithful companions. The loyalty of the author of Luke does not confirm the accuracy of their judgment.

(f) Likewise, the author's suffering and/or sincerity do not confirm the accuracy of their judgment. There is no shortage of martyrs to various beliefs, and many people are sincerely wrong.

(g) Plenty of persons have witnessed "miracle after miracle" at the hands of various religious figures, but their experience does not confirm the accuracy of either their perception or their understanding.

Jason wrote:
I don't distrust the Koran because the scholars say it's whack. I distrust it, along with the Vedas or Tripitaka, because they make no claims which can be studied or varified. Only Christians offer up this kind of scrutiny of its texts and claims, something Anthony Flew wrote about in his latest book. There are other reasons I distrust those writings, obviously, but I'm making a singular point about examination.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I'll let the first part pass, not being well-versed in those bodies of literature. Let's start with three claims that can be verified, yielding trust in in the Bible as a religious authority.

Jason wrote:
Verified by what method?

Let's start with whatever method you were thinking of with regard to the Qur'an, the Vedas, or the Tripitaka.

[Jason]

Hi, Emmet. It seems we are hitting on so many different topics that to even address one of your questions fully would take up a whole section of this forum. So if I must answer this many questions (some of which are tediously nuanced) then you'll have to settle for somewhat abbriviated answers. But I'll do my best!

The general rarity of evidence in this arena is irrelevant. Lack of other evidence does not justify treating a lone source as if it were more than it is. If we had only one painting of Africa, to what extent should we imagine that Africa is like that painting?

I understand your point but I don't consider Josephus my source about Jesus, he's just the one non-Christian source who seems to only speak well of Jesus. But when it comes to sources about Jesus I have Peter, Matthew, Jude, Luke, Paul, James, John, Papias, Clement etc. If we have religious sources and even one non-religious source, then it becomes more of a compound argument. Otherwise, you are correct.

I would prefer that you make an argument I can respond to, rather than not make an argument because you expect it won't convince me.

I gave you John. In our past thread I gave you Luke. Surely you don't need me to list the authors of the NT for you. I consider them all to be good historical sources.

(a) On what basis do you regard John to be "first century, eyewitness testimony"?

John wrote five letters that were all accepted and preserved by the early church. We also have the other gospel writers comfirming him as an apostle. His apostleship was mentioned by both Papias and Clement. Aside from these positive writings, we don't have any who contested John as the apostle who knew Jesus.

(b) Do you normally consider one example of "first century, eyewitness testimony" to constitute proof? Or - in present-day circumstances - twenty-first century, eyewitness testimony? Of course, you have alluded to other sources; but you have only provided one.

I've provided others on this thread. John, Peter, James, Jude, Luke (who interviewed eyewitnesses) and Matthew. Do you only consider something authentic if it's not written by a Christian? If someone is anti-Christian, does that make their view more accurate?

(c) If history had unfolded differently, and Jesus had been embraced by his contemporaries (both Jew and Gentile, ruler and commoner), would he or would he not have become an earthly king?

No. His message was entirely antithetical to that. This is what surprised the Jews most - even his own disciples who wanted liberation from Rome. Jesus didn't seem the least bit interested in earthly politics. For a fuller perspective on this I would suggest reading "Jesus for President" by Shane Claiborne and "Myth of a Christian Nation" by Gregory Boyd. These books delve into the specifics of Jesus on politics. Boyd's book is very scholarly but Shane's is almost like a pop-up book, very clever and artistic. Both do a great job examining all of Jesus' statements on the subject.

(e) John 18:36 does not say that Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world"; rather, it says that it is "not from this world." (An example here of how trust in an English translation can result in false understanding. Which is not to say that I never fall prey to the same sort of error!)

Ok - hold up! You think Jesus was saying that his kingdom, coming from heaven, was actually going to be a political nation? I hope I misunderstood you here because that is truly selective reading!

(a) Eusebius, Einhard, and de Tocqueville all had significant first-person experience of their subjects (if not all of their subjects). But first-person experience does not remove the prism of the first-person themselves.

So do you choose not to know anything about history?

(b) On which occasion(s) do the gospel writers "embarrass themselves ... for the sake of telling the truth"?

Peter's denial of Christ, the scandelous fact that women first saw the resurrected Christ while the men were all hiding in fear, Paul's "woe is me" outburst in 2 Corinthians (where he even said he was embarrassed) and his argument with Barnabas in Acts, Jesus' brother not beliving in him, the numerous occasions when Peter or the others blurted out something stupid or misunderstood what Jesus was saying, etc. I could go on and on, sir.

(c) On which occasion(s) does Paul "embarrass [himself] ... for the sake of telling the truth"? Let me remove at the outset the matter of his having once persecuted the church; he hardly could have gotten away with trying to pass over this faux pas in silence.

How about when he insulted the High Priest and had to apologize. It's recorded by Luke but he got his info from Paul himself.

(d) We can provide a number of reasons that early Christian sources would lie. Living in an honor/shame culture, and having tied themselves to a controversial figure, they might have felt motivated to redeem themselves by clinging to their investment and sprucing it up. Then again, some of them may have obtained their livelihoods from their ecclesial roles (q.v., 1 Corinthians 9). And some massaging of truth might have taken place for "higher purposes," as a matter of rhetoric or apologetic.

We can find numerous reasons why someone might lie but I consider it highly unlikely in this case. I don't have the room here but William Craig, a NT scholar, wrote a very convincing paper on this subject. I can send it to you if you'd like. It's around 35 pages of text.

(e) But it is not necessary, of course, to accuse the early sources of knowingly lying. Human religious thought and imagination are amply sufficient to yield the kind of untruth that even its own originator imagines to be true.

There are only three options here: 1) they knowingly lied, 2) they unknowingly lied, or 3) they told the truth. Part (e) of your argument only says what everyone already knows. It doesn't advance your argument.

(a) Would I be incorrect, then, to assert that you do not compensate for bias when reading Luke, in a way comparable to how you would do so when reading Suetonius?

I read them both the same way - as history. Of course, Luke is writing about things of more interest to me than Suetonius so who knows how that might skew my perspective.

b) If "[e]veryone is biased," that doesn't mean that "it doesn't matter"; it means that we must take care to compensate for bias with everyone.

How does one "take care to compensate for bias?" I'm curious how that looks, practically speaking.

(c) If "[e]veryone is biased," isn't this a strong tally in the column of subjectivity?

I simply mean that everyone has an opinion. If I'm a textual critic that doesn't believe miracles happen and I find a document that says a miracle happened, I'm going to have an automatic bias against it. That's just an example, of course.

(d) The author of Luke may have found "ample reason to either believe or disbelieve some of these claims," but we have not been given much in the way of access to his reason, to evaluate it for ourselves.

What would "access to his reason" look like? If you don't have something tangible in mind then your statement means nothing. It's senseless.

(e) Plenty of religious figures have had faithful companions. The loyalty of the author of Luke does not confirm the accuracy of their judgment.

Not in isolation but Luke was a careful historian, as some have attested. We argued this point in our discussion about a year ago. A careful historian who risks his neck for someone he knows to be lying? An uneducated person needing a father figure, perhaps. But we know Luke was educated and seemed to be very interested in facts (Luke ch 1).

(f) Likewise, the author's suffering and/or sincerity do not confirm the accuracy of their judgment. There is no shortage of martyrs to various beliefs, and many people are sincerely wrong.

My point is that faithful martyrdom increases the likelyhood that one is telling the truth, not that it proves it. Look at the high-rollers on TBN with their private jets and $10k suits - I see every reason in the world why people like that would lie about the gospel. Paul and the others had less motive to lie than most people do.

(g) Plenty of persons have witnessed "miracle after miracle" at the hands of various religious figures, but their experience does not confirm the accuracy of either their perception or their understanding.

Who do you have in mind here?

Let's start with whatever method you were thinking of with regard to the Qur'an, the Vedas, or the Tripitaka.

This is one of those questions that could be it's own thread. I assess religious claims by many different criteria. Some are historical and some are philisophical. If I'm being honest, subjectivity comes into play also, but to a lesser degree than the other two. This is a very important thing to me and it is, without exaggeration, the most important thing in the world... in my opinion. That's why I look into these things.

Before we start, I'd like to know what evidence you, Emmet, have for your religious views. Can you present the kind of arguments for your view that I've been arguing for mine? Can you show me historical data that is convincing? If not, are you willing to admit that your views can't stand up to scrutiny? I hope you are not expecting more from Christians than from those within your own camp. It would be more noble to apply the same standard, right?

Bless you, sir.