How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[PRmerger]

I had cataract surgery, so using a computer was out.

Ah. Hoping for a good result postop.

As I said, even for verifiable events, historians take a significantly critical view. Since the Gospels by and large appear to be based on as yet undiscovered documents, and by and large, as I recall, three of the gospels appear to be based of an as yet undiscovered source document, leaving the Gospel of John as the odd man out.

Interesting, but a nonsequitur.

But frankly, I would take any document, even claiming accounts only a few decades old, that talked about miraculous healings and resurrections with a grain of salt.

So here’s that circular reasoning again.

“I don’t believe in the Gospels because they contain stories of miraculous events” and “There are stories of miraculous events in the Gospels, therefore they can’t be true.”

#circular.

The proper position for any research into any historical event, near in time or distant, is to measure the claims critically, and not just accept claims simply because someone said them. After all, I don’t actually think Kim Jong-Un has cured AIDS, have doubts that Nicolas Chauvin existed, or that Constantine saw a cross in the sky.

I am still waiting for you to fulfill your claim that you can attest to the Peloponnesian Wars because of multiple accounts.

You need to give the sources for these accounts–authors, plus independent verification that these are actually their words, plus any evidence that we have manuscripts from their own hand.

It may be the Church’s claim that some late 1st century writers were recording previous eye-witness accounts, but the Documentary Hypothesis throws into question even the origins of those accounts. Other matters of antiquity are treated with similar caution unless multiple independent sources can be found. We can talk with some certainty about events like the Peloponnesian War, Alexander the Great, or Augustus Caesar because there were multiple accounts that do not appear to have been constructed from the same writer.

 

[aclausen]

Ah. Hoping for a good result postop.

Interesting, but a nonsequitur.

So here’s that circular reasoning again.

“I don’t believe in the Gospels because they contain stories of miraculous events” and “There are stories of miraculous events in the Gospels, therefore they can’t be true.”

#circular.

Except that’s not what I said.

I am still waiting for you to fulfill your claim that you can attest to the Peloponnesian Wars because of multiple accounts.

You need to give the sources for these accounts–authors, plus independent verification that these are actually their words, plus any evidence that we have manuscripts from their own hand.

Do you have a problem with Thucydides and Xenophon?

 

[grannymh]

I had cataract surgery, so using a computer was out.

As I said, even for verifiable events, historians take a significantly critical view. Since the Gospels by and large appear to be based on as yet undiscovered documents, and by and large, as I recall, three of the gospels appear to be based of an as yet undiscovered source document, leaving the Gospel of John as the odd man out.

But frankly, I would take any document, even claiming accounts only a few decades old, that talked about miraculous healings and resurrections with a grain of salt. Is there any reason to believe that Faith Healers can heal, psychics can foretell the future, past life regressors can actually see past lives? Even for historical figures far more recent than Jesus all sorts of claims have been made that are obviously not true.

That Jesus Christ existed I have no doubt. That the Peloponessian Wars happened I have no doubt. But even Thucydides references Homer on occasion, which obviously puts some parts of his narrative into question.

The proper position for any research into any historical event, near in time or distant, is to measure the claims critically, and not just accept claims simply because someone said them. After all, I don’t actually think Kim Jong-Un has cured AIDS, have doubts that Nicolas Chauvin existed, or that Constantine saw a cross in the sky.

I assume your cataract surgery went well. Medical science is a blessing for all. Thank God. That is my world view and, by the way, I respect your world view even though I do not agree with it.

Please accept my apology for not reading all the previous posts. Discussions about archaic documents which may or may not have the critic’s seal of approval are way over my gray head. Then along comes this interesting statement in post 314. “That Jesus Christ existed I have no doubt.” Please. What is that statement based on? Evidence? gut instinct? or what?

 

[PRmerger]

Do you have a problem with Thucydides and Xenophon?

Firstly, you need to offer the texts where they attest to the Peloponnnesian Wars.
Otherwise, what you are doing is akin to my telling someone who’s never heard of Jesus: we have Matthew and Mark.

Better to say: here’s what we have from 2 authors who attest to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ:

And here’s the website to view what they wrote:
garycottrell.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/
with the earliest dating to 150 AD.

Secondly, you’ll need 2 more, to meet the minimal standard of Jesus of Nazareth. (And here I am being generous to you and limiting the data to the Gospel writers. We have, of course other writers in the NT besides the 4 Gospel writers, but I won’t even mention them for now).

And then we’ll need evidence for texts in their hand.

AFAIK, there is no extant scripts from even their century.

So let’s see what you have, and why you believe the Peloponnesian Wars actually occurred.

 

[PRmerger]

But frankly, I would take any document, even claiming accounts only a few decades old, that talked about miraculous healings and resurrections with a grain of salt.

That reminds me of a text from a fictional conversation between Aldous Huxley and CS Lewis:

books.google.com/books?id=k6WIBGjoCs4C&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

“So you believe the Gospels are myth only because they contain miracle stories”.

A synopsis of this argument is:

“The Bible is myth because it contains miracle stories” and “Jesus’ resurrection is a myth because it is found in the Bible, which is a book of myths”

#circular.

That Jesus Christ existed I have no doubt.

Excellent.

Now I know I am dealing with a reasonable man, and not a fanatic. I put the Jesus Mythers in the same category as the anti-vaxxers, the 6000 year old earthers and the Holocaust deniers.

But now you have to tell us what data you use to assert that Jesus existed without a doubt.