Is faith a reliable path to reality?

[Angry Ukulele Girl]

Hi there!

This is my first post
This is according to Hebrews 11:1
How exactly can "confidence in what we hope for"
and an "assurance about what we do not see"
be a reliable path to reality?
For example,
Would it be advisable to approach my bank account balance in such a way?

Thanks!

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #198]

Subterfuge is not easy to pull off, and the more people who are involved, the more difficult it becomes.

Unless one's audience was already primed to receive the fiction as true. Both Roman and Jewish mythology supply that and simply build upon the stories already accepted by said audience.

Everyone at the time was primed to believe the nonsense, and that's my point: it didn't require inventing a complete fiction to spread it.

Do you define useful fiction as nonsense? I ask because you appear here to be identifying a nonsense exists. Perhaps you can clarify what you think the nonsense is?

That's why I think the earliest Christians were more than likely sincere, but they uncritically accepted what they heard.

The evidence re the story has it that the (possibly fictional) event re Jesus "fulfilled" or completed the stories of old which people had invested belief in. (Uncritically accepted what they heard.)

That is exactly an irrational conspiracy theory.

I would say that an example of an "irrational conspiracy theory" would be along the lines that a supernatural evil entity called "Satan" controls the world.
Would you agree?

No. Cultures invariably have myths that spread and evolve from generation to generation, and the peoples invariably accept them uncritically. It doesn't imply a conspiracy. When Christians make some claim about Jesus or Satan, they aren't lying - they're telling you something they believe, so I see no reason to think their ancestors who were spreading THEIR myths were any different.

I have made no judgment. I have simply shown that observing the evidence hasn't shown me that the Story of Jesus isn't a useful fiction created by those who the most enabled (the governing) from those who chose to believe the stories are truth, rather than knowing that the stories are truth (the governed).

Perhaps there is projection in your answer above. Perhaps the truth is that it is not I who is being bias (for I have no belief either way on said possibility) but it is you who is being swayed by bias (re your acceptance and belief in something being true which could possible be simply a useful fiction).

If you think that, then show me where I've been inconsistent.

I made the observation that the belief that that a supernatural evil entity called "Satan" controls the world is an example of an "irrational conspiracy theory" and asked if you agree with the observation. You said "no".
Since you brought the idea in as an attempt to call my observations re useful fiction "irrational conspiracy theory", do you still want to argue that, or will you consider my observations rational theory which have nothing to do with conspiracy?

Would you agree that to spread something around (rumor) as the truth that one believes but does not know is the truth, isn't being truthful in relation to knowledge?

"Truthful in relation to knowledge"?! I don't know what that means, but what I'm saying is that they aren't lying - they are saying things they believe to be true. That's why I say they were probably sincere.

"They" are the characters within the story which could be a useful fiction and so would be written to appear sincere that others could sincerely believe in what they read as being truthful.

"Truthful in relation to knowledge" = The readers do not know what they read is truth. That they sincerely believe it is truth doesn't change the fact that they do not

know

it is truth.

Thus, it is not truthful in relation to knowledge. Rather, it is (sincerely) regarded as truthful in relation to belief. That has something to do with the "useful" part of "Useful Fiction".

I have made no judgment. I have simply shown that observing the evidence hasn't shown me that the Story of Jesus isn't a useful fiction created by those who the most enabled (the governing) from those who chose to believe the stories are truth, rather than knowing that the stories are truth (the governed).

If you aren't judging it, then why are you even bringing it up?

Because I am investigating a possible explanation for why the stories exist in the context of Useful Fiction. In that I am nowhere near "judging" such as "good or evil" and have dropped the "skullduggery" comment because I saw that as being counter-productive (and somewhat judgy).

It's possible Jesus was an alien - and you can't show that he wasn't. Does that make it worth entertaining? I don't think so.

Whereas I do think so, because I think investigating all ideas brought to my table - including the possibility that the story of Jesus may be a fact of some type of alien intervention - that is possible and - I think - worth entertaining.

What is also - I think - worth entertaining is that stories of aliens are also possibly Useful Fiction.

Since you don't think so, we don't need to branch off from the focus I have been coming from, but am I hearing from you here that you do not think the idea of the story of Jesus being a Useful Fiction is something worth entertaining?
If so, can you tell me why I shouldn't simply understand that this is because of your belief-bias rather than because it is something legitimately not worth investigating?

I became agnostic in high school (graduating in 1972). In the mid 1980s, I began reading the claims of "Jesus Mythicists". They seemed perfectly plausible when I read them, so if you asked me at the time if I believed a man named Jesus had even existed - I would have said either "probably not" or "no way to know". Then in the 1990s, I was browsing a book store, and saw a book by Bart Ehrman - which I bought and read. It gave me a peek into the way historians evaluate historical data to make their best guesses at what happened in the past. Over time, I read more of his books, and books by other critical scholars, books on general historical methodologies, and books on epistemology and critical thinking. At the same time, I also began reading books about Christian Apologetics (particularly William Lane Craig), which often exposed some poor reasoning by some atheists. I know everyone is biased, but I've at least made an effort to try to set aside my biases and instead focus on what the evidence demonstrates.

Then might I ask you, why exactly is the idea that the biblical stories are Useful Fiction (created by the influencers as a means of conducting the affairs of the influenced) something you resist entertaining?

What have these lists of scholars you have named as your influences had to say which convinces you that there is no requirement to investigate every possibility and resist the idea that biblical stories are the product of Useful Fiction?

Why the resistance to examine all things in order to hold fast to that which is shown to be "good" both because such are fact and because some fiction is useful re "what is already known to be "good"?

You have a valid viewpoint, but it's not a fruitful approach to debating with Christians. Maybe you don't care, and that's your privilege. Personally, I like to debate them.

I am under the impression you are a Christian and we are debating.

My initial question had to do with interest in whether or not scholars have included the possibility of the stories being inventions of useful fiction by those who wrote them down, and if so, to present their findings.

Scholars have absolutely shown than many of the narratives in the Bible are legendary, and/or mythologized history. But it's impossible to nail down who invented them and what led to the invention. Hebrew mythology was derived from Babylonian, and we don't know much about that - so the absolute origins are lost to history. Sure, there are "useful fictions", but there' more to the dynamic than that - it doesn't explain everything.

I find your observation interesting. I cannot respond to your claim "it doesn't explain everything" because you have left that blank.

As to your belief that absolute origins are lost to history - I do not think that is the case.

Something mindful has indeed being interacting with human beings and governing them throughout human history. That is where inspiration for creating Useful Fiction derives.
The question is, is that Mindful Governing Agency Satan or Jesus?
Which is the more useful Useful Fiction?

[fredonly]

Do you define useful fiction as nonsense? I ask because you appear here to be identifying a nonsense exists. Perhaps you can clarify what you think the nonsense is?

I referred to it as nonsense because I believe it to be false, and because IMO it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If something is "useful fiction" it isn't necessarily nonsense.

The evidence re the story has it that the (possibly fictional) event re Jesus "fulfilled" or completed the stories of old which people had invested belief in. (Uncritically accepted what they heard.)

The theory I consider more probable is that the early Christians were coping with their cognitive dissonance, and turned to the OT to make sense of it. "Suffering servant" fit the bill, so they assumed he fit the narrative. Same with other forced parallels.

I made the observation that the belief that that a supernatural evil entity called "Satan" controls the world is an example of an "irrational conspiracy theory"

and asked if you agree with the observation. You said "no".
Since you brought the idea in as an attempt to call my observations re useful fiction "irrational conspiracy theory", do you still want to argue that, or will you consider my observations rational theory which have nothing to do with conspiracy?

Ah, I misunderstood. Yes, that's an irrational conspiracy theory.

"They" are the characters within the story which could be a useful fiction and so would be written to appear sincere that others could sincerely believe in what they read as being truthful.

"Truthful in relation to knowledge" = The readers do not know what they read is truth. That they sincerely believe it is truth doesn't change the fact that they do not

know

it is truth.

Thus, it is not truthful in relation to knowledge. Rather, it is (sincerely) regarded as truthful in relation to belief. That has something to do with the "useful" part of "Useful Fiction".

Well, we agree that knowledge is a subset of beliefs, so I don't understand your distinction. Also, a truth can be conveyed through a fiction- like Aesop's fables. That's "useful fiction" as well.

I am investigating a possible explanation for why the stories exist in the context of Useful Fiction. In that I am nowhere near "judging" such as "good or evil" and have dropped the "skullduggery" comment because I saw that as being counter-productive (and somewhat judgy).

OK.

It's possible Jesus was an alien - and you can't show that he wasn't. Does that make it worth entertaining? I don't think so.

Whereas I do think so, because I think investigating all ideas brought to my table - including the possibility that the story of Jesus may be a fact of some type of alien intervention - that is possible and - I think - worth entertaining.

I predict you will waste your time if you try to make a case for Jesus being an alien. A bare possibility is not worth pursuing when there are plausible theories supported by evidence.

Since you don't think so, we don't need to branch off from the focus I have been coming from, but am I hearing from you here that you do not think the idea of the story of Jesus being a Useful Fiction is something worth entertaining?

It depends on how you fully frame it, whether or not your hypothesis is consistent with all the evidence, and how you deal with the existing secular theories out there- showing why yours is a better fit for all the evidence.

Then might I ask you, why exactly is the idea that the biblical stories are Useful Fiction (created by the influencers as a means of conducting the affairs of the influenced) something you resist entertaining?

Give me a fuller picture, and I'll consider it.

What have these lists of scholars you have named as your influences had to say which convinces you that there is no requirement to investigate every possibility

A historians perspective seems most apt. The past is lost to us. Historians write histories-i.e. narratives about the past, that represent their best guesses of what occurred in the past. They do so based on the available evidence. So the evidence constrains the possibilities they pursue.

The process is analogous to science: hypotheses are formulated to explain evidence. Contrast with alchemy - where alchemists followed a hunch that substances could be converted to gold. As far as they knew, it was possible.

You have a valid viewpoint, but it's not a fruitful approach to debating with Christians. Maybe you don't care, and that's your privilege. Personally, I like to debate them.

I am under the impression you are a Christian and we are debating.

Nope. I'm an atheist- but I'm interested in the early history of Christianity.

My initial question had to do with interest in whether or not scholars have included the possibility of the stories being inventions of useful fiction by those who wrote them down, and if so, to present their findings.

Historians generally avoid making theological judgements- at least regarding religions still in existence. Regarding Christianity, they examine the birth and development of Christianity in terms of what can be objectively discerned through a critical analysis of the data. They won't treat Jesus' resurrection as a fact, but they'll refer to the existence of Resurrection narratives and to the fact that people believed it had occurred. They consider what evidence is credible and what isn't, and base their histories on those judgements.

I find your observation interesting. I cannot respond to your claim "it doesn't explain everything" because you have left that blank.

"Everything" includes what we can discern about authors - where were they physically located? What was their cultural background? Did they make it up or did they receive it from others? What actual historical fact can be discerned from the source materials? What was the historical context of the culture? ...

Something mindful has indeed being interacting with human beings and governing them throughout human history.

Again, that sounds like an assumption that is not the product of evidence. Without evidence, it's just one of infinitely many possibilities - and IMO, not worth wasting my time on, when there are credible alternative explanations based on evidence.

I keep referring to conspiracy theories precisely because they start with an assumption, and cherry pick facts that fit that assumption. Present your theory, if you like, but I'll ask what evidence it's based on.

[William]

[Replying to fredonly in post #202]

I'm an atheist- but I'm interested in the early history of Christianity.

I recently listened to a video and concluded that the professor is also an atheist.

I also published a journal entry to do with that, which provides evidence worth noting as part of the overall studies into such things as being discussed here.

DIANA WALSH PASULKA
Top Aerospace Scientists Suspect UFOs are Biblical Time Machines


Re that, I had this to say about Diana's take on the subject of Synchronicity.

"Like me, Diana has been studying these phenomena for many years yet unlike me, she has not (yet) come to the conclusion that there is mindfulness behind this reality experience we are all engaged with (with differing perspectives) and has a rather atheistic approach to the subject of Synchronicity - acknowledging that she experiences coincidences very frequently but choosing to thinking it is just randomness, preferring and thus proffering Nietzsche's belief/philosophy by not ascribing meaning to Synchronicity.

This particular position works against the opportunity to connect with said mind in any meaningful manner re subjective/objective experience" (SOURCE)

It depends on how you fully frame it, whether or not your hypothesis is consistent with all the evidence, and how you deal with the existing secular theories out there- showing why yours is a better fit for all the evidence.

Give me a fuller picture, and I'll consider it.

I reached out to Diana in an effort to supply evidence in support of synchronicity. One can read about that evidence (HERE)

Also as part of the evidence I am able to provide, is my journal entry today. (USEFUL FICTION)

Something mindful has indeed being interacting with human beings and governing them throughout human history.

Again, that sounds like an assumption that is not the product of evidence. Without evidence, it's just one of infinitely many possibilities - and IMO, not worth wasting my time on, when there are credible alternative explanations based on evidence.

I keep referring to conspiracy theories precisely because they start with an assumption, and cherry pick facts that fit that assumption. Present your theory, if you like, but I'll ask what evidence it's based on.

Well, let's see if you put your money where your mouth is (as the saying goes) and examine that evidence I have linked you to.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to William in post #0]

This still does not show anyone that the stories were not fiction.

I am not attempting to demonstrate the reports were not fiction. I am simply giving the reasons why I believe the reports to be what the early followers of Jesus believed to be historical events. Again, while I cannot assume the reports to be true, and accurate, I cannot assume them to be false, and or fiction. What I would need is some sort of evidence the authors intended to write fiction, and the evidence certainly seems to be against such an idea.

For example we know that fictions can and are written in a factual style because this adds to the overall reader experience.

Okay? So, what would be the evidence the authors contained in the NT intended to write fiction?

A more modern example of this idea that a handful of people claiming to be witnesses to so-called factual events which eventually gained millions of followers, is the LDS (Mormon) religion.

Correct! The problem is the fact that the main character of Mormonism claimed to be in possession of some sort of golden tablets which only he could interpret, and it was on these tablets that God communicated what he wanted the world to know. In contrast, the main character of Christianity leaves us nothing in writing. Rather, this main character becomes one of the most, if not the most influential influences in history, based upon the reports of those who followed him who were claiming to have witnessed him alive after death. It is in these reports, that we have scholars who tell us we can know that these early followers were convinced in what they report. These followers were not attempting to tell us what God would want us to know, but were rather reporting upon what they claimed to have witnessed as historical events.

So what else do scholars use to show that the biblical stories are reported factual events rather than useful fiction?

My friend, I am not referring to scholars who are concerned with demonstrating the biblical stories are reported factual events rather than useful fiction. I am referring to scholars who are not Christian, who tell us we can know from reading the NT that the early followers were convinced in what they saw. If these scholars are correct, then we would have to say that the authors did not intend to write fiction, nor falsehood, but were rather reporting what they were convinced to be true. I am not insisting the scholars are correct, but what I would need is some sort of evidence the authors intended to write useful fiction.

How do they show support for the belief that the stories are true events other than pointing out that there were claims made by a handful of - possibly fictional characters who are described as being convinced in what they saw? What allows the scholars to deduce that these things are not the product of Roman and Jewish fiction/story-tellers?

What I can tell you here is, even Bart Ehrman in a debate with one who wanted to argue that the Apostle Paul never existed, could not hardly continue the debate because of his laughter. Add to this the fact that we have scholars who are convinced the early followers of Jesus were convinced in what they were claiming to have witnessed, and I think we can pretty much establish the fact that Jesus, Paul, James, Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, Timothy, etc., were real historical figures, and if we cannot agree to this then we are on completely different planets and there is no need in continuing the conversation and I am convinced most scholars would agree that the conversation would be over when there are those who want to seem to insist there is nothing we can know. I am just telling you that we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was a real historical figure, we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was crucified, we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that his early followers claimed to have witnessed this same Jesus alive after death, and we can know that there are scholars who are not Christian who are convinced by the material contained in the NT that the early followers of Jesus were at the very least convinced in what they report. My friend, these are things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt, and if we cannot agree upon these things we can know, then you are simply avoiding dealing with the facts and evidence we have, and I really do not have time to deal with such things. It is sort of like those who want to deny the holocaust ever happened. In other words, when I confront those who want to insist the holocaust never occurred then I simply move on, because there is no need in attempting to carry on a conversation with such a person, because they are demonstrating one who is not in touch with reality.

[William]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #204]

My friend, these are things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt, and if we cannot agree upon these things we can know, then you are simply avoiding dealing with the facts and evidence we have, and I really do not have time to deal with such things. It is sort of like those who want to deny the holocaust ever happened.

You are well off the mark in your assessment here, it is no wonder you seem unable to understand what I am arguing.

The holocaust has an exceeding amount of supporting evidence which tells us that it did actually happen as a matter of fact, and (unlike the biblical stories) cannot be suspected of being fiction (useful or otherwise).

While I cannot assume the reports to be true, and accurate, I cannot assume them to be false, and or fiction.

Since you cannot do either, what then is your position re the biblical stories? Are you another atheist who happens to have an interest in the stories but remains lacking belief that we exist within a created thing?

Okay? So, what would be the evidence the authors contained in the NT intended to write fiction?

In the same way, what is the evidence that they intended to write fact?

The main character of Christianity leaves us nothing in writing. Rather, this main character becomes one of the most, if not the most influential influences in history, based upon the reports of those who followed him who were claiming to have witnessed him alive after death.

So we have a case for a possible fictional character because we have nothing to compare. That still does not tell us that the main character wasn't a Useful Fiction. Being that the" main character becomes one of the most, if not the most influential influences" simply gives evidence that the fiction (if it is) has been/is useful (if indeed the influence is proving to be beneficial to humanity).

These followers were not attempting to tell us what God would want us to know, but were rather reporting upon what they claimed to have witnessed as historical events.

I would argue that if the main character is fictional, then yes - there is evidence supporting the idea that the creators of the fiction used the character to make claims about the characters relationship to God specific to "what God would want us to know" (at least as far as the fiction writers were concerned). The "followers" would be those who have chosen to believe the stories (primarily their interpretations of) are truth, rather than simply Useful Fiction.

I am referring to scholars who are not Christian, who tell us we can know from reading the NT that the early followers were convinced in what they saw.

Why do you think the opinions from atheist scholars on matters of theism should weigh in the favor of theists who believe the biblical stories to be true, when such opinions do not actually sway said atheists to believe what the Christian believers believe ?

If these scholars are correct, then we would have to say that the authors did not intend to write fiction, nor falsehood, but were rather reporting what they were convinced to be true.

What if these atheist scholars are agreeable simply because in being so they have the edge because they dictate the terms and conditions to the point where they themselves will not consider the biblical stories to be Useful Fiction and do not want others thinking that about the stories, because atheist see no use in said stories, fictional or otherwise?

I am not insisting the scholars are correct, but what I would need is some sort of evidence the authors intended to write useful fiction.

There is the evidence that those who are in controlling positions have maintained those positions through the effect the stories have had on countless Christians over the centuries and how such has led to present times.
Point being, there is no reason to think it is not possible that the stories are fictional, IF the results are useful in terms of where we now are as a species. Useful Fiction does not mean corruption and lies - unless of course we exist within a world built on corruption and lies.

Is Christianity a good thing for the world or not? If so, and if it is fiction, it is Useful Fiction in that regard, and if not, then "Huston, we have a problem".

[TRANSPONDER]

It matters little that one side of a discussion or indeed the audience couldn't help laughing. That proves nothing. Get a speaker who believes something and a crowd of supporters and they can all laugh at anyone presenting an idea they don't like. It is the evidence that matters, and I know only too well, about the brick wall and slammed shutters that meet an idea that is new and not generally Preached.

Nor is semantic evasion and fiddling valid or helpful. 'Fiction' does not mean the evangelists sat down to invent stories. Not entirely. They had a basis. Itself a Christian fiction overlaid on Jesus, just as the Christian view of Paul is rather fictional. From what I read, he did not believe in Jesus as God or a god. He did believe in a resurrection as did the disciples, and I have to believe that 'the twelve' were real people, too.

Aside from the question of whether the resurrection they all believed in was that described in the gospels, or something else, as Paul was the last to see Jesus, so cannot be referring to the walking corpse of the gospels, but he makes no distinction between his Jesus in the head and the other visions of Jesus, Paul's resurrections do not fit the gospels, though Luke tries to wangle it. Fiction is not so much the right word...a bit misleading perhaps but Mark shows all they originally had; an empty tomb. And John shows that there wasn't even an angel explaining anything. All the rest was invented afterwards, which is why they contradict.

Thus I cast Acts as a piece of fiction. And Luke, I think, was more consciously fictional than most. Though really his attempts to make guesses at filling in the blanks may be more honest than John's preachy sermons which are entirely his own work, you can bet on it. And Matthew's descending angel is his own fantasy designed to explain why the tomb was open at all, and I'm surprised he even thought of that.

[Difflugia]

The fact remains we have the material contained in the NT which we call the gospels, and they all report upon the same Jesus Christ as being resurrected, and it is from this same material that we have enough facts and evidence to convince scholars that the early followers were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death.

This is true as you've said it, but each time we discuss this, you later try to smuggle other things in. That they were "truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after death" doesn't necessarily mean in a body or even that Jesus was still on Earth.

Bart Ehrman puts it this way in How Jesus Became God:

It is striking, and frequently overlooked by casual observers of the early Christian tradition, that even though it was a universal belief among the first Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead, there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, "raised from the dead" meant.

If you believe that the "facts and evidence" support something more than this, then you and I aren't having the same conversation.

This is a reasonable conjecture, but not a fact per se.

Oh, but it is a fact.

No. Here's the statement to which I was referring:

It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to audiences at the time, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that anyone else would read what they wrote other than the intended audience at the time.

You can know to whom the text was addressed within the text itself. That's a fact. The rest is conjecture because you can't know who the intended audience really was or who the authors thought would be reading the texts.

Have you even read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? It's written as a series of fictional letters to a fictional recipient. They're addressed to one audience, but intended for another.

It is a fact that the authors could not have possibly known about the Bible, since the Bible was not compiled until hundreds of years later.

Then you should have said "the Bible" instead of "any sort of Bible." It's like you can't help but try to expand on any fact, no matter how mundane, to pull in as much speculation as possible. One might almost think that the facts aren't enough on their own.

Finally, it is comical that you seem to be insisting the "pastoral epistles" were authored in the second century which means that Paul could not have authored these letters. This has not been demonstrated in the least, and as far as I know the only evidence given that this would be the case is because it is believed that the structure of the Church would not have been developed as such when Paul was writing.

Pages 192-217 of Bart Ehrman's Forgery and Counterforgery offer a detailed examination of the evidence for non-Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.

Before we continue, I want to stress the fact that I am not insisting that the author who addresses Theophilus is reporting the truth.

Then you can't insist that any of its contents are fact in a historical sense.

So then, either we have evidence of a resurrection, or we do not and there is no reason to come up with alternative explanations.

This seems to be your attempt at playing a trump card. The detailed explanation of why your logic fails is, to you, confirmation that your conclusion is correct.

This isn't a fact. The evidence is extremely poor

Oh really? Well, let us see. We have already discussed the fact that the author begins by explaining that the events were "accomplished among us" and goes on to communicate that he had "investigated everything from the beginning" as if he were alive to do so.

You've also said that you are "not insisting that the author who addresses Theophilus is reporting the truth." Which is it? Pick a lane.

Next, we know for a fact that Paul had traveling companions.

We don't even know for a fact that Paul travelled anywhere. We conclude that from what he wrote and it's a reasonable conclusion, but you're still confused about what a fact is.

The author of the second account addressed to Theophilus, just so happens to begin to use the words "we" and "us' when describing the events, as if he is there to witness the events he records. My friend, I do not have to use my imagination in order to understand that this would be evidence of the author's presence. What I would have to do is to use my imagination in order to believe this would not be the case.

Or to claim that it's very good evidence.

I can claim that I grew up on Mars. That's evidence that I actually did. It's not very good evidence, but it's evidence.

Then, we have Paul who acknowledges those who are present with him on his journeys, and he just so happens to mention Luke as being a companion on more than one occasion.

Yes. That's why early Christians guessed that Luke was the author of Luke and Acts in the first place.

In fact, in one of the pastoral epistles, Paul tells Timothy

The Pastorals weren't written by Paul.

We then must acknowledge the fact that those much closer in time attribute the accounts to Theophilus to Luke. Again, this does not demonstrate this to be the case, but since we cannot assume these folks to be reporting factually, we also cannot assume they are in error.

OK. So we draw no conclusions from this.

My friend, this evidence of the author's presence with Paul is very strong,

Which is it? Are you assuming that he's "reporting factually" or drawing no conclusions?

and the counterevidence strong enough that the "author who addressed Theophilus" didn't know Paul or any first-generation Christians.

Yeah? Well then, go ahead and give us this evidence.

Once again, Bart Ehrman discusses this in Forgery and Counterforgery:

On pp. 264-265, he writes:

But it is also to be recalled that there are other instances of what I earlier termed non-pseudepigraphic forgeries, in which an author claims to be someone other than who he is, without actually naming himself. ... So too, I will be arguing, is the book of Acts, whose author wanted his readers to understand that he was for a time a traveling companion of Paul, even though he was not. This author used clear embedding devices in order to make his claim good. The claim functions to authorize his account, as an eyewitness to some of the events he narrates and as a bona fide authority even for those events that he did not personally observe. It was a remarkable strategy, and it proved to be extraordinarily effective, as readers to this day continue to attribute the book to Pauls traveling companion, Luke.

Then, on p. 267, he discusses the idea that the author was actually a companion of Paul:

It was the dominant view before the modern critical study of the New Testament began. It is riddled with problems, however, and is rarely supported among scholars outside the ranks of the theologically conservative proponents of the complete historical accuracy of the narrative. For in fact, whatever one might say about "Luke," he does not appear to have been exceptionally knowledgeable about Paul, his life, and his message. There are simply too many basic, fundamental, and detailed discrepancies between what Paul says about himself in the letters that he almost certainly wrote and the accounts of Acts. There is no need here to provide a detailed delineation. The discrepancies involve (1) his itinerary, with issues both large and small: after his conversion did Paul immediately go to speak with the apostles in Jerusalem, as Acts claims, or not, as Paul claims, emphatically, with an oath, in Gal. 1:1820? When he traveled to Athens, was Timothy with him as in 1 Thessalonians 3, or not as in Acts 17? Was the Jerusalem conference Pauls third visit to Jerusalem or not? And on and on. (2) His missionary message. How could a companion of Paul think that Paul proclaimed idolatry as simply an honest mistake for which God was forgiving (as in Acts 17; contrast Romans 1)? Or how could an eyewitness and associate of Paul neglect to mention his theology of the cross? How could Paul preach to a crowd of gentiles and not even mention that it is Jesus death that puts a person into a right standing before God (14:1517; 17:2231; cf. 24:1021: and elsewhere, even to Jews)? (3) His life. The general portrayal of Paul as The Good Jew who never did anything in violation of the Jewish Law, rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, is hard indeed to reconcile with the Paul of the letters, who had no qualms at all with being a gentile to the gentiles, and who fell out with Peter on just these grounds.

You haven't demonstrated that the reports were intended to be historical.

I do not have to demonstrate this to be the case, because I am not insisting this to be the case.

Then you can't refer to any of the historical claims as facts.

No one is arguing that the resurrection is the more likely explanation. We agree that it is the least likely, but the odds do not lead to the truth. We are not concerned as to whether there are other explanations which would be more likely, but rather an explanation which would explain the facts and evidence we have.

You seem not to know what the word "likely" means.

Your whole argument seems to be based upon the likelihoods,

It absolutely is.

and no one is making the argument that the resurrection is the more likely.

That's exactly the argument you're making. If you don't realize that, you're not using English the same way I am.

Christians now believe without direct evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. A pretty easy answer is that Christians of antiquity weren't any less credulous than Christians are now.

GOOD GRIEF! We have enough evidence to convince scholars that the early followers were convinced in what they report.

We have enough evidence that modern followers are convinced in what they report. Christianity may have evolved a bit over the millenia, but I see no reason to think that the fundamental nature of faith has changed.

Again, I am not arguing over what type of experience it may have been.

Oh, good!

What you need to do is to demonstrate something I have said we can know, which we cannot know.

I wrote a whole comment dedicated to this.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #86]

Sure, Christianity looks good because it is based (I think) on a real person and even story, just as Paul and his letters are real. But there are very good reasons why the fiddling of Paul and the gospel writers to turn Jewish messianism into Gentile Christianity can be discovered

For clarity, what would those "good reasons" be?

[William]

The argument that the biblical stories had some basis in reality and were later doctored to suit particular beliefs which had evolved into dominating positions might be valid.
My focus is on whether the fiction superimposed on the basis can be regarded as useful re where we are as a species today.

Supposing Jesus was a real person, what from the gospels can be regarded as something truly spoken by that person?

If Jesus did claim that his words were trustworthy (true) why did he not make sure to write those words down himself?

Why leave that up to others to do, especially if one knows how ordinary it is for humans to add their own interpretations into the mix, which ultimately risks the message being distorted?

What serious study has been done by biblical scholars (theist of atheist) to show that Pauls message was aligned with what was written by others re Jesus' message?

What about the biblical stories (including OT) can be ascertained as being anything other than Useful Fiction?

Why grant that the fiction is based upon fact? Do we think of the story of Lord of The Rings had characteristics which are based in fact or simply accept that the characters are as fictional as the world they are placed within?

[fredonly]

What about the biblical stories (including OT) can be ascertained as being anything other than Useful Fiction?

Why grant that the fiction is based upon fact? Do we think of the story of Lord of The Rings had characteristics which are based in fact or simply accept that the characters are as fictional as the world they are placed within?

Off the top of my head:

The Gospels reference people known to exist (e.g.Pilate, Herod, James - Jesus' brother). The references to Roman law are consistent with other sources. The destruction of the 2nd Temple is alluded to. Many specific towns are referenced, that are known to have existed. The fact that Romans occupied Judea is an integral part of the context.

The OT describes the Maccabean Revolt, which is known to have occurred.