[rainoflove]

Hi Pullmychicken,

The above example you've given is one of the reasons why it seems highly improbable that the events in the Gospel didn't happen. This is why we're arguing with Jerry and others who contest this, because they need to provide some sort of evidence to prove that the Gospel accounts were a fraud, and that the gospel writers were con-men. If you check through the history of this post, i provided many early manuscripts which dated the Gospel account INCREDIBLY close to the actual events, close enough so that people who witnessed it would still be alive at the time. Thanks for reiterating the point, as the thread seems to be arguing over 'dictionary' definitions at the moment instead of the historical evidence.

It does not matter weather they had concern for others. I don't know weather they had concern for others. I don't care weather they had concern for others. Is this a clear/concise enough response?

Fine, but my understanding is because they had 'self-serving' interests, it makes the gospel account questionable. But testing it against this sort of standard doesn't make any sense, since according to you it matters not if they had selfish interest or not.

IF the whole thing was a fraud, then you need to establish WHAT interests they possibly had.

Rain

[JerryLove]

This is why we're arguing with Jerry and others who contest this

Not until you gain the ability to read English sentances, your not.

because they need to provide some sort of evidence to prove that the Gospel accounts were a fraud

As soon as the bruden of proof reverses.

Fine, but my understanding is because they had 'self-serving' interests, it makes the gospel account questionable. But testing it against this sort of standard doesn't make any sense, since according to you it matters not if they had selfish interest or not.

One battle at a time. Let's all agree that the gospels are a self-serving work, then we can cover the obviousness of why that's a problem.

IF the whole thing was a fraud, then you need to establish WHAT interests they possibly had.

They had an interstest in providing a text which would offer legetimacy to their claims.

[Joel]

Of course it can. For exmaple, I can run a NPO which feeds hungry children; and I can encourage donations to that NPO. These donations cares and concerns for others (hungry children) but is also self-serving (as that's how my paychecks get made). Agian, you fail basic English which is, again why attempting any "real" discussion with you is nigh-on pointless.

Then according to you, anything that benefits an individual is self serving. If that is the definition you wish to use instead of the dictionary definition, then for the sake of this argument yes, the writings of the New Testament as well asyours and mione on this thread are all self serving.

But as for the normal definition--I checked with a school administrator and English major, they both agreed, self serving is by definition extreme selfishness without any philanthropy involved. It is acts designed to exclude benefitting thers instead of any aid. If there was any benefit for others, it is inly because that benefit would greatly enhance the benefit of the individual.

So you keep asserting in wanton violation of the English language.

Not according to English majors and online synonyms for self serving I found sorry! Self serving is extreme selfishness with intentional disregard for others.

No, that is not true by defintion at all; hence why the "especially" is required.

The especially is part of the definition OH brainy one. It was put their to show that self serving involves a high degree of disregard for the concerns of others. Why do you wish to keep beating this dead hoirse anyway????

So you believe that, to someone you are trying to bring into the fold, your beliefs about Jesus would appear valid if there were no story of Jesus?

But their is a historical Jesus, there is a real live Jesus, who does communicate with His own, whether one accepts the offer of salvation neither enhances or detracts fromnn the validity of my faith in Him. My desire to share the gospel with others ios for them to meet the living and glorified Jesus, allow Him to validate His word in their hearts and see thewm saved from an eternity of torment on the lake of fire. If they choose not to, that is their perogsative but iot does not harm my faith in Him in the least. It would be like someone trying to tell me my brother doesn't exist. They may present real sound logic, but I know it is ludicrousl I have met and knkow Jesus just as I know my brother.

They had an interstest in providing a text which would offer legetimacy to their claims.

Jerry we are convinced you beleive the authors of the gospel made up their works to self servin gends. Now establish the evidence that the written accounts were all an intentional deception.

[JerryLove]

Then according to you, anything that benefits an individual is self serving.

I answered this long before you asked it:
There is a "reasonability" aspect to the definition... break it down too far, and you could call every action "self-serving". - JerryLove 10-14-2003, 07:51 AM

But as for the normal definition--I checked with a school administrator and English major, they both agreed, self serving is by definition extreme selfishness without any philanthropy involved.

Cool. Gimme his .edu address and I'll hack this out with him.

Not according to English majors and online synonyms for self serving I found sorry! Self serving is extreme selfishness with intentional disregard for others.

And so the word "especially" in the definition is completely useless? Because if you took it out, the defition would fit yours.

The especially is part of the definition OH brainy one. It was put their to show that self serving involves a high degree of disregard for the concerns of others.

Ohh. M-W has a new definition (or I nigected the hyphen)... it supports me too.

serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others - www.m-w.com

But we are back to the apple problems. We'll define "good food" as "apples, especially red ones".

You are arguing that to be good food, the apple must be red. It's an absurd argument that flies in the face of the English language; and I don't care what people you concoct to appeal to.

But their is a historical Jesus

This is entirely off the sub-topic of weather the writings are self-serving. Weather the writings are true or not is irrellevent.

Jerry we are convinced you beleive the authors of the gospel made up their works to self servin gends.

The account, without validation, is unreliable because it is self-serving. I'm not claiming the account is false, I'm claiming it is unreliable. The proof for this claim is that it is both self-serving and unverified.

You calim that the texts are true. Please prove you claim now.

[Joel]

[QUOTE][You are arguing that to be good food, the apple must be red. It's an absurd argument that flies in the face of the English language; and I don't care what people you concoct to appeal to.
/QUOTE]

No I would be arguing that if apples are good food, especially red ones, that red apples are a greater "good" food than other apples because of the use of the modifier "especially."

But we do need to move on to the majopr issue. I will gladly concede that people "may" have others interst inview when they are self serving so we can move on.

Cool. Gimme his .edu address and I'll hack this out with him.

www.fbc-elongmeadow.org When you get to the website, click on the school (Baptist Village Academy) I beleive that the administrator has a place for emails. though I know him personally I do not spend time emailing him.

The account, without validation, is unreliable because it is self-serving. I'm not claiming the account is false, I'm claiming it is unreliable. The proof for this claim is that it is both self-serving and unverified.

You calim that the texts are true. Please prove you claim now.

Well Jerry, you have rejected all support proofs offered to date.
You reject the l;arge number of converts as irrelevant.
You reject that tens of thousands of Jews became Chrisitans who would have known if Jesus was a hoax, or just a rabbi but not God the Son, or a nut case.

We have no info of any eyewitness accounts of all the miracles who were not converted and wrote reports (but then again in 25-35 AD few people did much writing.)

You reject all the Chrisitan eyewitnesses as self serving.

You reject the Jewish writings that called Jesus a false prophet and demon possessed.

You reject anything written past 25-30 years from the events.

We have offered proof that scolars throughout the world have accepted as valid. they have agreed Jesus was a historical person, just disagree with the faith.


So now you have offerred that the writers of the New Testament were self serving ion their ends. You have offered no valid evidence of the possible hoax nature their writings may be.

You offer no evidence that these events were concocted for the purpose of garnishing a following.

You offer no evidence of how these folks could mass deceive people who would have known if these events were truew or not.

Once agasin the ball is in your court to rebut the proofs we have offered. You need to show the intent to deceive, defraud and delude people into beleiving something opposite of their cultural beleifs.

[JerryLove]

www.fbc-elongmeadow.org When you get to the website, click on the school (Baptist Village Academy) I beleive that the administrator has a place for emails. though I know him personally I do not spend time emailing him.

And who are you? I'm happy to have the discussion with him, but I do need the "I've been speaking with an aquantance of yours..." complete with name.

But we do need to move on to the majopr issue. I will gladly concede that people "may" have others interst inview when they are self serving so we can move on.

Ok. Well, the point is that the testimony of the Gospels is, by itself, insufficient because it is self-serving testemony.

Well Jerry, you have rejected all support proofs offered to date.

Because no satisfactory ones have been offered. They fall into three groups, suspect source (the Gospeals), hearsay (Josephius), and pure supposition.

We have no info of any eyewitness accounts of all the miracles who were not converted and wrote reports (but then again in 25-35 AD few people did much writing.)

All? Try any. You don't have a single "Jesus came through town today" outside the Gospels.

You reject all the Chrisitan eyewitnesses as self serving.

You mean the church-founding apostles? Yes, I find the 2-3 accounts unreliable because they are self-serving and uncorroborated.

You reject the Jewish writings that called Jesus a false prophet and demon possessed.

You mean the one that talks about Yeshua bin Perdiah? Son of Mary Magdelene and a Roman who was stoned to death then hung from a tree?

You reject anything written past 25-30 years from the events.

Other than the gospels, to what are you referring?

We have offered proof that scolars throughout the world have accepted as valid. they have agreed Jesus was a historical person, just disagree with the faith.

Scholars throughout the world also doubt the existance of Jesus, so what? Either is an appeal to popularity/authority.

So now you have offerred that the writers of the New Testament were self serving ion their ends. You have offered no valid evidence of the possible hoax nature their writings may be.

Possable? Are you asserting that lying is impossable?

You offer no evidence that these events were concocted for the purpose of garnishing a following.

I make no postive claim that they were concocted, nor why; though I've offered speculation. I claim they are unreliable as they are self-serving and uncorroborated.

Once agasin the ball is in your court to rebut the proofs we have offered. You need to show the intent to deceive, defraud and delude people into beleiving something opposite of their cultural beleifs.

I would indeed have that burden had I claimed that they did. I have not. I have claimed that the story cannot be relied upon because it is self-serving and uncorroberated.

[Joel]

And who are you? I'm happy to have the discussion with him, but I do need the "I've been speaking with an aquantance of yours..." complete with name.

Tell him you have been debating with Ron, He will know, him and I have discussed the debates we have conducted several times and he is familiar with your positions

Scholars throughout the world also doubt the existance of Jesus, so what? Either is an appeal to popularity/authority.

But yet though they claim as you that the gosdpels and epistles are self serving they offer no valid evidence that they are incorrect!

Jerry we have to remember that this is America and we are talking about events that happened in 1st Century Jewish society. Both cultures held the position that aperson was ionnocent until proven guilty! We are not in China where it is the other way around.

You counter claim that the gospels are dubious because they are self serving, OK what evidence do you offer to condemn them as guilty of concocting fiction?

What evidence do yo offer that their message is inherently false? I wwill concede that they had interst in seeing others won to Christ. But not for self advantage. From the evidence we have they fought against personal popularity from their ministries, they lost wealth not gained it, lost their heritage, families, reputations and ultimately their lives as a result of their declared encounter with Jesus of Nazareth. This does not fit the normal and usuasal understandingf of self serving interest. Their success was not realized until after thy were gone from this life.

You see jerry the whole point here is the validity of jesus. You cannot disprove HIm and we will never offer enough proof to you to prove HIm.

You have yet to offer evidence their writings were based on fraud, deceit and dishionesty.

You have yet to show how they could seduce Jews to worship one who they would have had 1st hand knowledge of. The fact othat they made converts amongst their contemporaries has been established in these threads.

You have to show that there was fraud involved Jerry. The burden of proof lies with you if you wish to prove the evidence false. Eyewitness accounts are accpeted in any Americasn court. Self witnessing accounts are accepted as evidence in any americasn court, And second hand reports are accepted as corroborating evidence in any American court. Well Jerry, we have offered the first hand, eye witness and corroborating tesitimony--If you wish to prove your claims of insufficiency or dubiousness then you must produce your witnesses and evidence to negate theoir testimonty.

[JerryLove]

But yet though they claim as you that the gosdpels and epistles are self serving they offer no valid evidence that they are incorrect!

I have not said that they are incorrect, I have said that they are unreliable because they are self-serving.

Jerry we have to remember that this is America and we are talking about events that happened in 1st Century Jewish society. Both cultures held the position that aperson was ionnocent until proven guilty!

Exactly! The positive claim ("this happened") carries the burden of proof. The Negative claim ("I might not have done it") does not.

The two claimes here are "What the Gospels say is what happened" and "We don't know weather the Gospels are true or not". Your mis-imagining your position in your own metaphor... *You* are in the position of having the positive claim to events.

You counter claim that the gospels are dubious because they are self serving, OK what evidence do you offer to condemn them as guilty of concocting fiction?

Your first sentance correctly says "dubious", and your second sentance says "condem". I'm not condemning anyone of anything. I'm pointing out that the Gospels are insufficient evidence because they are self-serving testemony.

What evidence do yo offer that their message is inherently false?

I'm offering none (I do think I can make a case for it, but that's beyond the scope of my intent). I'm not claiming it's false; I'm claiming it's unreliable (IOW, that it *may* be false).

You see jerry the whole point here is the validity of jesus. You cannot disprove HIm and we will never offer enough proof to you to prove HIm.

You are half right. The whole point is weather an historic Yeshua bin Yoseph exists. Your position "definiately yes", mine "maybe, maybe not". Your claim is positive, mine is not.

You have to show that there was fraud involved Jerry. The burden of proof lies with you if you wish to prove the evidence false. Eyewitness accounts are accpeted in any Americasn court.

Except for uncorroborated testimony which self-serving. My friend and I are accused of stealing a car, and my friend comes up and says "no, we didn't steal it. I saw Jerry and he didn't steal it"... guess how much weight that carries?

Besides, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you, this is not a court of law.

Self witnessing accounts are accepted as evidence in any americasn court, And second hand reports are accepted as corroborating evidence in any American court.

Umm.. not really. Any first-hand account can be presented unless it is known false; though weather it is believed is a matter of fact for the jury to decide. Hearsay is not accepted in any court of law.

Of course, we are not in a court of law deciding guilt or innocence. We are determining historical likelyhood.

Well Jerry, we have offered the first hand, eye witness and corroborating tesitimony

I actually doubt that any of the gospels are first-hand (I doubt there was a Jesus to write a first hand account of), but the accounts you have offered are all self-serving, and therefore dubious in light of their complete lack of corroborating information.

[nolidad]

actually doubt that any of the gospels are first-hand (I doubt there was a Jesus to write a first hand account of), but the accounts you have offered are all self-serving, and therefore dubious in light of their complete lack of corroborating information.

And your evidence to show that the gospels are not first hand accounts is?

I look at the content of the letters and gospels and say that the writings go against them being self serving writings. The opposite is true--the writers fought against self exaltation or reward and pointed others to Jesus. though they claimed a sense of authority as apostles they wrote in a manner and style that would show they did not use their authority in a self serving way but in a very philanthropic way.

Now you must show why these people are incapapble of making first hand accounts. In you rexample of trying to rebut the validity of first and second hand testimony as rreliable, once again once this testimony is entered, it must be revbutted by evidence, not opinion. The prosecutor must bring witness or evidence to show why their testimony should not be considered reliable. Given that and given the evidence of the writing speaking against a self serving interest--what evidence do you present to show that the gospels and epistles should be considered "dubious" and "unreliable".

[JerryLove]

And your evidence to show that the gospels are not first hand accounts is?

When I claim they are not, I'll worry about supporting my claim they are not. Until then, this is another straw-man on your part.

I wrote your "friend" the day you gave me the address. I have yet to receive any reply supporting that anyone ascribes to your view that "often" is synonymous with "always".

[nolidad]

wrote your "friend" the day you gave me the address. I have yet to receive any reply supporting that anyone ascribes to your view that "often" is synonymous with "always".

Well seeing how I never equated often and always I wonder where you pulled thsat twist from.

When I claim they are not, I'll worry about supporting my claim they are not. Until then, this is another straw-man on your part.

Here is what you said on 10/21

NOW HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID ON 10/16 @10:36 am

I actually doubt that any of the gospels are first-hand (I doubt there was a Jesus to write a first hand account of), but the accounts you have offered are all self-serving, and therefore dubious in light of their complete lack of corroborating information.

Oh I forgot you didn't make an absolute positive claim--you just have your doubts. Well supply evidence as to why you doubt the gospels are not first hand accounts. Support with evidence why you doubt Jesus even existed.

And Josephus' testimony would not be considered hearsay, but testimony from an expert witness.

And while you at it, given the nature of the writing of the gospels and how they go to the near opposite definition of self serving in their writings, please expalin how they were self serving.


And please comment on "IF" Jesus never existed-how could the early disciples convince and convert tens of thousands of their fellow Jews to worship, serve and follow at the cost of their fame, fortune, reputations and even lives , someone they would have easily known was a "myth".

Also given the fact that you count as dubious and unreliable please provide some evidence that would rebut the facts that the possible myth "jesus" supposedly went before Pilate, did much preaching in the temple and in presence of the Sanhedrin and priests and yet we have no documents rebutting his existence. We do have documents from Jewish sources later on denying Jesus as Messiah, but never rebutting the gospels. As far as the miracles-they either give naturalistic explanations or say Jesus practiced sorcery. Why is there no documents from the first 2-3 centuries thsat say Jesus never existed and he was just made up in a conspiracy by the early apostles?????????????

[JerryLove]

Well seeing how I never equated often and always I wonder where you pulled thsat twist from.

The English definition of the word "self-serving" from http://www.m-w.com (emphasis mine):

Main Entry: self-serv·ing
Pronunciation: -'s&r-vi[ng]
Function: adjective
Date: 1827
: serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth or the interests of others
- self-serv·ing·ly adverb

Since you have said self-serving things always disregard truth or the interests of others, you are claiming that the two words are synonymous.

Oh I forgot you didn't make an absolute positive claim--you just have your doubts. Well supply evidence as to why you doubt the gospels are not first hand accounts. Support with evidence why you doubt Jesus even existed.

The problem for you is that doubt is not a positive claim. The positive claim is that *I* doubt it; but if you doubt that I doubt it, you are even more dense than I give you credit for (and that is truely a scary thought).

You are trying to provoke a subject change. You are acting as though I said "There definately was not a Jesus", so that you can exploit the nigh-imposability of supporting such an assertion. But that is not my claim, and your attempts to interact as though it was are entirely transparent.

You have the positive claim that something (Jesus, Martians, Bigfoot, whatever) exists. Prove it.

And Josephus' testimony would not be considered hearsay, but testimony from an expert witness.

An expert witness exists to provide professional interpretation of established data. They offer no information, only interpretation of information. So where is the prerequsite datum?

And while you at it, given the nature of the writing of the gospels and how they go to the near opposite definition of self serving in their writings, please expalin how they were self serving.

They served the self-interest of the authors to spread their beliefs.

And please comment on "IF" Jesus never existed-how could the early disciples convince and convert tens of thousands of their fellow Jews to worship, serve and follow at the cost of their fame, fortune, reputations and even lives , someone they would have easily known was a "myth".

This is, again, a false burden of proof. Porve how it is impossable, and I would need to find a flaw in your proof... but the default position is that all things are possible and all claims are false until evidence establishes otherwise. Please try to keep up with logic 101.

Also given the fact that you count as dubious and unreliable please provide some evidence that would rebut the facts that the possible myth "jesus" supposedly went before Pilate, did much preaching in the temple and in presence of the Sanhedrin and priests and yet we have no documents rebutting his existence.

Right after you disprove that a giant platapyus did the same thing despite a lack of rebutting evidence. Given the fact that the account of it happening is dubious, there is nothing to disprove; and no number of months of you simply asserting a reversed burden of proof will change that simple fact.

[Joel]

Since you have said self-serving things always disregard truth or the interests of others, you are claiming that the two words are synonymous.

No I used the dictionary definition from real dictionary--especially without concern for the needs or interst of others. And no I do not equate especially with alwys either.

The problem for you is that doubt is not a positive claim. The positive claim is that *I* doubt it; but if you doubt that I doubt it, you are even more dense than I give you credit for (and that is truely a scary thought).

It is a claim nonetheless. I have just been repeatedly asking on what evidential basis you form your claim of doubt on.

An expert witness exists to provide professional interpretation of established data. They offer no information, only interpretation of information. So where is the prerequsite datum?

His datum was what He answered to in his writings. I can with a high degree of confidence say that Josephus and Pliny, and Trajan and other historical writers about Jesus bar Joseph did not footnote there writings (as it was not the practice of the day anyway) because people 2 millenia afterwards wwould not asccept the fact that they were writing on things they had garnered info on.

They served the self-interest of the authors to spread their beliefs.

Yes it did serve to spread their faith in someone. Bu thtat does not of neccesity make it "dubious". What evidence do you have to support they may not be accurate in their reporting.

This is, again, a false burden of proof. Porve how it is impossable, and I would need to find a flaw in your proof... but the default position is that all things are possible and all claims are false until evidence establishes otherwise. Please try to keep up with logic 101

But you have been given evidence. You have rejected it with the generalized accusation of self serving and dubious cause it purports to be first hand eye witness re[ports(which you said you doubt they are first hand reports). So what SPECIFIC evidence can you bring against these documents in particualr to say they are in accurate though first hand and self serving reports. Remember even self serving eyewitness accoiunts can be truthful.

Do you reject all historical documents this way--all things are guilty until proven innocent? Is this the standard? Once again you are free to consider anything you wish "dubious" and "untrustworthy", I am just asking why you hold this. What evidence do you have that would say that these writings should not be considered truthful.

[Joel]

Since you have said self-serving things always disregard truth or the interests of others, you are claiming that the two words are synonymous.

BTW the last and this post are nolidad--PC problems still exist. Had to post this because I also never said self serving things disregard truth. I said they are self centered and self seeking. even their "philanthropy" is only there based on it serves the goal of gaining them advantage. I di dnot say self servers disregard truth.

Also I hate to nag--but even if we consider the gospels self serving, please supply us with empirical evidence why they are not truthful when saying their was Jesus who they claim is called the Messiah or Christ.

[Joel]

Right after you disprove that a giant platapyus did the same thing despite a lack of rebutting evidence. Given the fact that the account of it happening is dubious, there is nothing to disprove; and no number of months of you simply asserting a reversed burden of proof will change that simple fact.

Well I would gladly start if their was a book written about a giant platypus, their were over 500 eyewitnesses to that giant platypus, if some of these witnesses wrote about the platypus as being divine and then founded a religion on it. You see I can choose to reject anything historical I want to, but if I do not come up with evidence to support my rejections or "doubts" then it is just subjective opinion. However if I say I doubt the veracity of these documents and the trustworthiness of the authors because of this specific evidence in lightr of the materials written, then I am butressing my opinion with solid evidence.

You fail to support your suppositions of dubiousness. If we are to accept your critique of the biblke as how we should critique all writing, then every one who writes to prove a point should be automatically rejejcted until the veracity of their statements are proven All newscasts, scientific journals and religious and philosophical statements should be rejejcted until we get first hand neutral or unbiased verification of their writings or reportings.