Archaeology of the New Testament

Cypress said:
Yes they are.
Click to expand...
Nope. Theories are not knowledge. They are explanatory arguments.
Cypress said:
The theory of general relativity is a type of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Nope. It is an explanatory argument.
Cypress said:
The theory of plate tectonics is a type of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Nope. It is an explanatory argument.
Cypress said:
Knowledge doesn't have to be true.
Click to expand...
Knowledge has not True or False. It simply is.
Cypress said:
It just has to be justified by evidence or logic. Knowledge for the most part is always provisional.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
Correction: The 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus wrote of the legend of the execution of Jesus, more than a century after the supposed event.

Cypress said:
The late first century/early second century bishops Iraneus and Pappias reported that the apostles John and Matthew authored gospels about Jesus.
Click to expand...
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.

Cypress said:
There are no 'first-hand accounts' of Alexander the Great either.
Click to expand...
You are chanting. There are first-hand accounts, and I listed several of them for you.
 
Into the Night said:
But there are eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Cypress said:
A hypothesis is just an informed guess that has the potential to be experimentally tested.
Click to expand...
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.


Cypress said:
Once a hypothesis is sufficiently tested and fails to be falsified, it is elevated to the status of theory.
Click to expand...
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.


Cypress said:
Hypothesis < Theory
Click to expand...
If you are trying to express "not the same as" (≠), it is correctly written "<>".
 
IBDaMann said:
Correction: The 2nd century Roman historian Tacitus wrote of the legend of the execution of Jesus, more than a century after the supposed event!!
Click to expand...
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.
 
IBDaMann said:
Correction: Iraneus and Papias wrote how they "knew a guy who knew a guy"!!
Click to expand...
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.
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. First, the theory is developed!!!
Click to expand...

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."


www.britannica.com

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 www.britannica.com
 
Cypress said:

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."
Click to expand...
@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.
 
Cypress said:
That's only 85 years after Jesus was executed,
Click to expand...
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.

Cypress said:
Our only extant written sources for Alexander the Great were written four centuries after he died.
Click to expand...
Keep chanting. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what I already posted for you.

Cypress said:
But, thanks for tacitly admitting you were completely wrong that Jesus was never mentioned in any book of history.
Click to expand...
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.

Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top