Archaeology of the New Testament

IBDaMann said:
There is nothing historical about Christianity.

"Historical" is a requirement category, and everything about Christianity falls outside the "historical" category,; instead, everything falls within the "belief" category.


False. It might very well have happened that a Jesus of Nazareth ministered, died and resurrected, but that is your non-historical religious belief.
Click to expand...
IF Jesus of Nazareth ministered, died, and resurrected, then it is history. There is no other word for it in this case.
If not, then it is NOT history.

The fact that Christianity is a religion makes no difference.


Cyborg's mistake is that he applies a preconclusion to his descriptions of archaeology. This in and of itself forms a circular argument fallacy, since he is attempting to use such a conclusion as the predicate, and using that conclusion as an attempted proof.

An unusual form of fundamentalism, but fundamentalism it is, all the same.

As you know, I happen to be Christian. I don't need archaeology to prove anything to me (it's not even a proof!). I carry my own supporting evidence within me. It is based on faith, not proof.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
You are disingenuously trying to substitute the word 'speculation' for the words theory and hypothesis. Sneaky.

Speculations are guesses.
Theories are based on the interpretation of empirical evidence and data by experts.
Theories are a legitimate form of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Go learn English.

Speculations are guesses. The word also appears in stock markets, weather forecasts, and casinos.

A theory does not require an 'expert'. A theory is not an 'interpretation'. A theory does not even require empirical evidence. A conclusion is not evidence. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Theories are not knowledge. They are a theory, nothing more. Nonscientific theories remain just that. ALL religions are based on nonscientific theory.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable.

I theory does not come from a hypothesis. A hypothesis stems from a theory.

Do not blame your redefinitions on anybody else. Inversion fallacy. Redefinition fallacies.
 
Cypress said:
Speculation < Hypothesis < Theory
Click to expand...
Speculation has nothing to do with any theory. It does not stem from a hypothesis.
A hypothesis stems from a theory. A theory does not stem from a hypothesis.

A theory is a speculation, presented as an argument. It is not possible to prove any theory True. It is not possible to prove any nonscientific theory False. It IS possible to prove a scientific theory False. Such a falsification utterly destroys that theory.
 
Into the Night said:
IF Jesus of Nazareth ministered, died, and resurrected, then it is history.
Click to expand...
Nope. You are misusing the word "history" to mean "it actually happened" instead of correctly using it to mean that there are first-hand documented accounts, i.e. meeting requirements for historicity.

You are a Christian. You believe that the events in question happened. That is all that matters. Yours is a matter of faith, independent of any standards to which the evidence may, or may not, measure.

Into the Night said:
There is no other word for it in this case.
Click to expand...
The correct wording on your part is "The events happened." The correct wording on my part is "I'll take your word for it."

Into the Night said:
If not, then it is NOT history.
Click to expand...
History is a rigorous set of requirements, not the veracity of something having happened or the probability that something actually happened.

If you were to tell a dispassionate historian that Jesus is an historical figure, he would ask you for the first-hand accounts written by the eye-witnesses (the rules work similarly to an American court of law, i.e. no hearsay is permitted). When you cannot provide any, the historian will tell you that Jesus is therefore not an historical figure, but that He nonetheless might have very well existed in all the scenarios depicted in the Bible. In fact, the historian might confess to you that he is Christian and believes as you do, but that nonetheless Jesus is a belief, not a matter of history.

You are free to join Cypress in insisting that Jesus is an historical figure, that is your right; just know that you can't meet the burden required to establish Jesus as an historical figure. He who makes the affirmative claim bears the full burden to support his claim. You cannot support a claim of historicity, but you don't need to support your claim of faith.

Into the Night said:
The fact that Christianity is a religion makes no difference.
Click to expand...
You have that backwards. Since Jesus is not a historical figure, He is a religious figure. If Jesus were an historical figure, he wouldn't be a religious figure.

Into the Night said:
As you know, I happen to be Christian. I don't need archaeology to prove anything to me
Click to expand...
This is the long and the short of it. Cypress is making the Climate Change fallacy, i.e. that the faith is not merely a matter of faith, but one of thettled thienth. Cypress is not content in his faith as you are, and he needs for Jesus, God and Christianity to be thettled thienth or his fragile faith will shatter.

I recommend you not join Cypress in his folly.

Into the Night said:
I carry my own supporting evidence within me. It is based on faith, not proof.
Click to expand...
So you and I end up on the same page after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top