Seeing is believing?

[Fenris]

The Nazis weren't infallible though. Not even they could know if they had in fact killed every Jew. I think, realistically, we're looking at an 'end of the human race' scenario to defeat the claim. Short of that, we just don't know what we don't know.

Well, it's been tried. Unfortunately.

Christianity didn't pop into existence spontaneously. The faith communities of the first century would have certainly been undermined by the discovery of Jesus' physical, not resurrected, dead body.

We don't know what first century followers of Jesus who lived in Judea actually believed. The NT wasn't written in their lifetime, and it wasn't written in the language they spoke (Aramaic), and it wasn't written in their country.

[RabbiKnife]

The Nazis weren't infallible though. Not even they could know if they had in fact killed every Jew. I think, realistically, we're looking at an 'end of the human race' scenario to defeat the claim. Short of that, we just don't know what we don't know.

Well, it's been tried. Unfortunately.

Christianity didn't pop into existence spontaneously. The faith communities of the first century would have certainly been undermined by the discovery of Jesus' physical, not resurrected, dead body.

We don't know what first century followers of Jesus who lived in Judea actually believed. The NT wasn't written in their lifetime, and it wasn't written in the language they spoke (Aramaic), and it wasn't written in their country.

Perhaps true, perhaps not, assuming you believe the late dating of the NT... which neither I nor many evangelical scholars believe (not that I'm an evangelical scholar)

A similar charge/challenge could be made to the writings of Moses, right?

[Athanasius]

We don't know what first century followers of Jesus who lived in Judea actually believed. The NT wasn't written in their lifetime, and it wasn't written in the language they spoke (Aramaic), and it wasn't written in their country.

This is a conspiracy that goes both ways. If it's suggested that by the second half of the first century The Way became something else entirely, then why not also suggest that the priestly writers in Babylonian captivity did the same?

If on the other hand, we accept what Judaism reports about itself, then we ought to accept what Christianity reports about itself in the same way. I think we should. What we have by the latter half of the first century is a continuation of those early years following the crucifixion of Jesus. It's not terribly difficult to look back on Martyr, Clement of Rome, the epistle of Barnabas, the Didache (if you accept an early dating), etc., and from those get an idea of (a) the discussions that informed those works, and (b) the trajectory of the development of Christian theology. If we accept that the gospel narratives are biographical, then that puts us at ground zero. If we think they're pseudepigraphical then they're either still accounts of Jesus' ministry, the early church, etc., or they're writings to which no one has any serious, alternative narratives to compare against. The gnostic gospels, maybe? But then we're still stuck in a 3rd and 4th centuries and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest, excerpt perhaps some fringe lunatic, that these in fact represent the early Christian faith communities.

[Fenris]

Perhaps true, perhaps not, assuming you believe the late dating of the NT...

Even the "early" dating is decades later.

A similar charge/challenge could be made to the writings of Moses, right?

Perhaps.

[Fenris]

This is a conspiracy that goes both ways.

Conspiracy is not the right word. We simply don't know what contemporary Jews who followed Jesus believed about him because we don't have anything from them.

If it's suggested that by the second half of the first century The Way became something else entirely, then why not also suggest that the priestly writers in Babylonian captivity did the same?

But you don't believe that. Or maybe you do?

If on the other hand, we accept what Judaism reports about itself, then we ought to accept what Christianity reports about itself in the same way. I think we should.

It's not that simple. Because Christianity on the one hand is based partially on Jewish writings, yet at the same time seeks to supersede Jewish practice. Christians believe that the first Christians were actually Jews, yet we have no extant writing from those Jews. And we don't know who wrote the NT, but the fact that it was written in Greek and not Aramaic should be a major factor.

What we have by the latter half of the first century is a continuation of those early years following the crucifixion of Jesus. It's not terribly difficult to look back on Martyr, Clement of Rome, the epistle of Barnabas, the Didache (if you accept an early dating), etc., and from those get an idea of (a) the discussions that informed those works, and (b) the trajectory of the development of Christian theology.

None of which were eyewitness to the events in question. Listen, I believe that Jesus probably said most of the things attributed to him. Heck, most of the sermon on the mount can be found in the Talmud! But some of the things he said would mean something different to a Greek than to a Jew, and that's where the disconnect is.

If we accept that the gospel narratives are biographical

That's a big "if". Why should they be accepted as biographical? Again, the language.

If we think they're pseudepigraphical

LOL I hadda look this up!

then they're either still accounts of Jesus' ministry, the early church, etc.,

But that doesn't make them true. The bible isn't CNN. It's a book written by believers for believers or to make new believers. It has an agenda. 

or they're writings to which no one has any serious, alternative narratives to compare against.

Why would we need alternative narratives to compare?

The gnostic gospels, maybe? But then we're still stuck in a 3rd and 4th centuries and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest, excerpt perhaps some fringe lunatic, that these in fact represent the early Christian faith communities.

Yet major points of Christian doctrine aren't even decided until Nicaea. Thats 325CE.

[Fenris]

The Nazis weren't infallible though. Not even they could know if they had in fact killed every Jew. I think, realistically, we're looking at an 'end of the human race' scenario to defeat the claim. Short of that, we just don't know what we don't know.

Actually I wanna revisit this.

Lots of peoples have vanished. You'll never meet an Ammonite, or a Moabite, or an Edomite, or a Hittite, or a Babylonian. Those were all contemporary peoples to the ancient Israelites, and they're gone for good. Yet the Jews are still here. Which is curious. In any case, the elimination of the Jews as a people wouldn't require human extinction. It would just require enough Jews eliminated that they would cease to exist as a distinct people. Which has happened to many peoples throughout history. So yes, Judaism is falsifiable.

[Athanasius]

Conspiracy is not the right word. We simply don't know what contemporary Jews who followed Jesus believed about him because we don't have anything from them.

That's going to depend on what dates we accept for given writings (are they contemporaneous or not), and whether we trust what the writings report. If we accept early dating then we do know what Jesus' contemporaries believed. If we don't accept early dating then we have to decide if we trust what the later dated writings say. Do those later writings accurately convey the decades prior? We'd also have to proceed in such a way that doesn't undermine the text itself, or else there's no foundation to base any judgments on.

But you don't believe that. Or maybe you do?

I don't, but it seems to me to be the kind of epistemic black hole you might be suggesting.

It's not that simple. Because Christianity on the one hand is based partially on Jewish writings, yet at the same time seeks to supersede Jewish practice. Christians believe that the first Christians were actually Jews, yet we have no extant writing from those Jews. And we don't know who wrote the NT, but the fact that it was written in Greek and not Aramaic should be a major factor.

If we accept that for the sake of argument, why would linguistic continuity be the determining factor on whether we know or don't know what the earliest Christian believers believed? If the extent writings we have aren't continuous then what are you suggesting? Also, though it's somewhat but not entirely immaterial, the best New Testament scholars all operate in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. I'm not sure how hot the Aramaic-source-text theory of the development of the New Testament is as the moment.

None of which were eyewitness to the events in question. Listen, I believe that Jesus probably said most of the things attributed to him. Heck, most of the sermon on the mount can be found in the Talmud! But some of the things he said would mean something different to a Greek than to a Jew, and that's where the disconnect is.

If you accept a later date, then sure. But are you suggesting that the source material wasn't reliably copied and instead filtered through the Greek worldview? Paul was a little too Hellenistic? If we have no extant manuscripts though, how would we know any different?

Were all the authors of the Jewish bible eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about?

That's a big "if". Why should they be accepted as biographical? Again, the language.

Because they claim to be.

But that doesn't make them true. The bible isn't CNN. It's a book written by believers for believers or to make new believers. It has an agenda.

Going back to my cheekiness above -- and books written during a certain Babylonian exile don't have an agenda?

Why would we need alternative narratives to compare?

Because otherwise, we're just saying: they're dated later, they're pseudepigraphical, they have an agenda! But it's not clear where we go from there, or how these points don't prove too much and could be applied to Christianity or, say, Judaism.

Yet major points of Christian doctrine aren't even decided until Nicaea. Thats 325CE.

Doctrine, yes. But there's a world of difference between "Jesus saves" (let's pretend the early believers were Americans) and doctrinal developments purporting to reflect New Testament teaching on the personhood of Jesus, or the economy of the Godhead -- that there even is a Godhead and that it is Trinitarian, and so on.

How long did it take to decide the major points of Jewish doctrine?

[Athanasius]

Lots of peoples have vanished. You'll never meet an Ammonite, or a Moabite, or an Edomite, or a Hittite, or a Babylonian. Those were all contemporary peoples to the ancient Israelites, and they're gone for good. Yet the Jews are still here. Which is curious. In any case, the elimination of the Jews as a people wouldn't require human extinction. It would just require enough Jews eliminated that they would cease to exist as a distinct people. Which has happened to many peoples throughout history. So yes, Judaism is falsifiable.

I'm not arguing that Judaism isn't unfalsifiable, but that the falsification would be next to impossible to demonstrate. Jews as a distinct people disappearing from the world doesn't mean that there aren't Jews who don't still exist as a distinct people -- hidden away on a desert isle, maybe. I suppose there's also the genetic question that's been raised: how many generations distance is still Jewish, and not Jewish enough?

[Fenris]

That's going to depend on what dates we accept for given writings (are they contemporaneous or not), and whether we trust what the writings report. If we accept early dating then we do know what Jesus' contemporaries believed.

The earliest date for the Gospels is sometimes between the 60s and the 90s. Given that the average lifespan at the time was something like 30 years, it still doesn't tell us what his contemporaries believed. And then there's the language problem. Jesus's contemporary Jews did not speak Greek. Which means they did not pen the Gospels that we have.

If we accept that for the sake of argument, why would linguistic continuity be the determining factor on whether we know or don't know what the earliest Christian believers believed?

It calls into question the authorship. Jewish writings from the era are all in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

If the extent writings we have aren't continuous then what are you suggesting? Also, though it's somewhat but not entirely immaterial, the best New Testament scholars all operate in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

And they're not asking these questions? Because they're good questions.

I'm not sure how hot the Aramaic-source-text theory of the development of the New Testament is as the moment.

So far as I know there's none.

If you accept a later date, then sure. But are you suggesting that the source material wasn't reliably copied and instead filtered through the Greek worldview? Paul was a little too Hellenistic? If we have no extant manuscripts though, how would we know any different?

We don't really know much about Paul, aside from what he tells us. Which to a Jewish listener, then or now, strains credulity. Regardless, a simple statement like "God is my father" means something totally different to a Jewish listener than to a Greek one. A Jew would think of Exodus 4, "Israel is my son, my firstborn" meaning He is father to all the Jewish people (which is still used in Jewish prayer today!) or more generally in Malachi 2 "Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? " where God is the father of all mankind. A Greek listener might think of Achilles and Hercules, demigods literally fathered by a god.

Were all the authors of the Jewish bible eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about?

Allegedly. But then again, I don't believe that your salvation is dependent on you accepting my bible.

Because they claim to be.

They don't even have the author's name in the text itself.

Going back to my cheekiness above -- and books written during a certain Babylonian exile don't have an agenda?

Yes, but again, I don't believe that your salvation is dependent on you accepting my bible. Judaism is not a prostyletizing religion. The Jewish bible is written by and for Jews, not the world at large.

Because otherwise, we're just saying: they're dated later, they're pseudepigraphical, they have an agenda! But it's not clear where we go from there, or how these points don't prove too much and could be applied to Christianity or, say, Judaism.

Saying "I don't have an alternative narrative" is not an especially good reason to accept a holy book as true. The same could be applied to the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita.

Doctrine, yes. But there's a world of difference between "Jesus saves" (let's pretend the early believers were Americans)

Nice!

and doctrinal developments purporting to reflect New Testament teaching on the personhood of Jesus, or the economy of the Godhead -- that there even is a Godhead and that it is Trinitarian, and so on.

And yet I have been told that one has to believe the exact right thing about Jesus to "be saved". But what that exact right thing is wasn't settled for a long time.

How long did it take to decide the major points of Jewish doctrine?

Well, in Judaism faith is a nice thing to have but it's not a deciding factor for one's status with God nor is it sufficient by itself. Jewish law is incredibly complex and many matters are up for debate even today. The difference being that one chooses a Rabbi and follows their opinion. One can't expect more than that.

[Fenris]

I'm not arguing that Judaism isn't unfalsifiable, but that the falsification would be next to impossible to demonstrate. Jews as a distinct people disappearing from the world doesn't mean that there aren't Jews who don't still exist as a distinct people -- hidden away on a desert isle, maybe.

Chilling with some Moabites and Babylonians I guess?

I suppose there's also the genetic question that's been raised: how many generations distance is still Jewish, and not Jewish enough?

I'm not sure I understand, please explain?

[Athanasius]

Chilling with some Moabites and Babylonians I guess?

And some nubile young women for all we know.

I'm not sure I understand, please explain?

I guess that depends. How are you defining 'Jew'? I know it's not merely a practitioner of the Jewish religion, so I'm supposing that it's a kind of birthright, if you will. If your parents are Jewish, you're Jewish. If your mom is Jewish, you're Jewish, and so forth. Yay or nay?

[ProDeo]

Perhaps true, perhaps not, assuming you believe the late dating of the NT...

Even the "early" dating is decades later.

The earliest letter of Paul is First Corinthians (c. 53–54) and about a church in full swing.

[ProDeo]

The Nazis weren't infallible though. Not even they could know if they had in fact killed every Jew. I think, realistically, we're looking at an 'end of the human race' scenario to defeat the claim. Short of that, we just don't know what we don't know.

Actually I wanna revisit this.

Lots of peoples have vanished. You'll never meet an Ammonite, or a Moabite, or an Edomite, or a Hittite, or a Babylonian. Those were all contemporary peoples to the ancient Israelites, and they're gone for good. Yet the Jews are still here. Which is curious. In any case, the elimination of the Jews as a people wouldn't require human extinction. It would just require enough Jews eliminated that they would cease to exist as a distinct people. Which has happened to many peoples throughout history. So yes, Judaism is falsifiable.

Jesus said to Peter : Matt 16:18 - And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

Happened as predicted and Christianity is still present after 2000 years because of Jesus prediction and promise Christianity will be forever. Following your logic Christianity is falsifiable.

[CadyandZoe]

By "rational" you mean "people who think like me". And yet you don't know how other people think.

What I mean is this. Those who deny what is self-evident chose to do so for reasons other than a love of the truth.

What is "self evident" to you isn't self evident to other people.

What you're saying here is that anyone who disagrees with you is motivated by bad intentions.

I will admit that what I see is not often seen by others. That is true. However, as it pertains to things that are "self-evident", by definition such things stand without proof. Such things are fundamental and foundational and taken for granted. If such things are not evident to other people, the cause is subjective. Some people are motivated, in certain cases, to deny what rationality delivers.

In the NT, (and the Hebrew scriptures) belief is the conviction of the truth of a proposition. But contrary to modern notions of "faith" belief in a proposition is not conviction without proof. Our culture has redefined "faith" or "belief" in terms of some extra-rational process, akin to imagination with a bit of wishful thinking added. But "faith" as the Bible understands it, is accepting as true what our rationality delivers to us.

A man might say, "I don't need proof, I accept the Bible on faith" as if "faith" was another way of knowing. I contend that the NT, and the Hebrew scriptures would not recognize such nonsense. Another man might argue, "Your belief in Jesus Christ is based on your faith (the result of extra-rationality.) And for this reason, it can't be disproven." But this conclusion is based on a faulty premise, i.e. that "faith" is an extrarational function of the brain working with an irrational desire for something to be true. In other words, faith is the result of subjectivity, without any basis outside the mind.

I maintain that the concept above is foreign to the Bible and to the faith we believe. Our faith is based on objective truth. And it can be proven using abductive reasoning.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I maintain that the concept above is foreign to the Bible and to the faith we believe. Our faith is based on objective truth. And it can be proven using abductive reasoning.

Really? i'd be interested in seeing that!