Verification is the process by which a proposition is shown to be true. Falsification is the process by which a proposition is shown to be false. Depending on the nature of the proposition, this process is by reason or sensory experience. Some propositions cannot be falsified, and some propositions cannot be verified.
Analytic propositions can be known by reason (a priori), while synthetic propositions require sensory experience (a posteriori) to be known. Knowledge rationalists hold that there is a class of synthetic propositions that can be known a priori. Analytic propositions are true or false by virtue of definitions, whereas synthetic propositions are true or false by virtue of how the world is.
Propositions like “All swans are white” can be falsified: only one counterexample is necessary to falsify this claim (e.g. a black swan). They cannot be verified because there is always the possibility of finding a counterexample, even if one has not yet been found (one cannot be certain of having found all the individuals in a given set).
Propositions like “There is at least one green car in the world” can, in principle, be verified (here by finding a green car), even if they cannot always be verified in practice. Not finding a green car yet does not make the statement false, since there is the possibility of finding a green car later.
Religions, such as Christianity, include propositions (statements that claim definitional relationships or states of affairs). “Christ walked on water” is a synthetic proposition: it is true or false by virtue of history, of a state of affairs, not by virtue of definitions. If someone witnessed this event, e.g. the Disciple Peter, that would constitute a posteriori verification of the proposition.
The Bible presents us with purported verifications of this kind. The question that arises from these accounts is whether they are reliable.Reliability is assessed according to a variety of factors such as the chain of transmission, available knowledge at the time, motivations for giving particular versions of events or fabricating evidence, past history of truthfulness or lying, details that conform with what we know of the period, hostile testimony, embarrassing testimony, and a propensity towards hallucinations and other forms of mental disorder.
The Bible also describes what the philosopher John Hick called “eschatological verification”. “Eschatology” is the part of theology dealing with “last things”, such as the end of the age, the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the new heavens and the new earth. The Bible claims, that everyone will be face with God at some point, such that it will be impossible to deny His existence or that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as opposed to, say, the god Amun. For most, this verification happens after death, when their souls enter the Underworld and when their souls receive bodies again just prior to the Last Judgment. Others have this verification before death, when Christ returns visibly on the clouds and pours out the wrath of God on the unrepentent. Those being punished in this scenario cannot plausibly deny the existence of God, though they may continue to hate Him.
Various books have been written exploring the reliability of the accounts found in the Bible. The accounts must be read with an open mind. Miracles, if they exist, are by definition rare, so the rarity of miracles, in and of itself, is not a valid reason for dismissing an account. Nor are miracles impossible a priori, since they are not self-contradictory.
The Biblical accounts must be examined for credibility, the reader considering the broader meaning attached the events and words found in them. Do the accounts form a coherent whole? If there is a God, does the life of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Gospels accord with what God ought to be like?
If Jesus were presented as doing something immoral, that would not necessarily undermine the historicity of Jesus, but it would refute the claim that He is Yahweh, if such an account were true. Those accounts that present Jesus in a less than perfect light must be subjected to the same tests of credibility and reliability as the Gospels, if the inquirer is to remain unbiased and intellectually honest.
Most scholars who deal with these, and related, matters, believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who lived in the land of Israel, in the first century AD. They base their view on a variety of testimonies (hostile, neutral, and favourable), from near the lifetime of Jesus, that treat him as a real historical figure, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. (I myself, when in Israel, saw an authenticated inscription from the time of Pilate that confirmed he was Prefect of Judea in the time of the emperor Tibereus.) These sources differ from the Gospels and Epistles in their interpretation of the greater significance of certain events: non-biblical sources may simply see Jesus as another wandering rabbi, who was executed out of fear of his causing a rebellion against Roman rule.
These sources (which are controversial) include:
- Josephus
- Tacitus
- Suetonius
- The Talmud
- Thallus
- etc
Those who hold that Jesus was a myth are a small minority, and considered “fringe” by mainstream academia. Being “fringe” is not, in and of itself, a refutation of one’s work. Correct and false are independent of minority and majority opinion. However, the fringe status of mythicists ought to provoke the honest inquirer to consider why the mainstream academic community rejects Jesus mythicism. A middle position is one of agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a historical Jesus, but holding that one is not in a position to know with certainty one way or another (perhaps owing to a paucity of reliable evidence).
A few main issues are at the heart of this debate:
- When exactly were the Gospels and Epistles written (how close are they in time to the life of Jesus, if Jesus existed)?
- Are the texts that have come down to us faithful copies of the original autographs?
- Is the Jesus of the Gospels an authentic development of the orthodox Judaism of the Old Testament?
Further reading
Craig L. Blomberg and Robert B. Stewart, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament (Broadman & Holman Publishers 2016)
John Hick, Faith and Knowledge (Wipf and Stock 2009)
John Lennox, Can science explain everything? (The Good Book Company 2019)
Frank Morison, Who moved the stone? (Authentic Media 2006)
Robert B. Stewart, The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue (Fortress Press 2011)
Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan 2016)
Peter J. Williams, Can We trust the Gospels? (Crossway Books 2018)
…
Triablogue also has excellent entries discussing the historicity of Jesus and other related matters, with many posts that review and discuss books by scholars and lay people.
Here is a post from Triablogue:
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/02/jesus-and-romulus.html
All Along the Watchtower 
Again, none of this counts as evidence, merely claims.
Example.
This , of course is absolute garbage as you have nothing but a claim in a text that s known to be riddled with errors (including interpolation- forgery – ) across almost every known major discipline.
There is no evidence of the character Jesus as depicted in the bible and
no evidence of anyone called Peter.
So, once again, all you are making are unsubstantiated claims that have no more merit than trying to justify that someone called Harry Potter was a genuine historical character.
Evidence …. and you have not provided any.
LikeLike
Of course Harry Potter did not change the course of how we measure time but Jesus did. That is why we have BC and AD and not BHP (before Harry Potter) and AHP (the year of our Harry Potter or anno Harry Potter). All of this changed a mere 200 years after Christ’s death. Maybe it is too soon to see whether BHP and AHP will do the same . . . though it never happened before or after for any person alive or dead. It was acceptance by all the civilized world. Not proof . . . but it is quite remarkable, no? You use a false equivalency here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Claims by witnesses are evidence – forensic evidence. In the case of events, which were not recorded for us to view in ancient times, since technology had not reached that stage, testimony might be the only evidence for an event. There is in fact much ancient history that we would have to reject on Ark’s position because there are no archaeological traces. How do we know that Julius Caesar was murdered? No one can trace the daggers or bloody toga and tunic now. Coins commemorating the event could be extreme propaganda. If it is reasonable to get past this and accept the death of Caesar, it is reasonable to at least be openminded about the Gospels as eyewitness evidence for the acts and words of Jesus of Nazareth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And to use one of my parables that would be mocked: Before DNA how did people know who their mother and father were with certainty? Was there a notation made in their Bible of the birth event? A record at some hospital or church? Not direct evidence as they can be forged or denied . . . it could even be a conspiracy.
And what of the babies who were birthed by a now deceased midwife in a rural town that kept no records? And what if your mother and father were deceased? Do you accept the testimony of those people in the town old enough to have remembered the birth or do you solidly hold out for ‘evidence’ while disregarding the memory of the older villagers whom you don’t trust, are too old and feeble minded to rely upon?
LikeLiked by 2 people
And that is the reality of big parts of the Gospel accounts: they are events that would have left little in the way of physical trace. What traces there were are probably long since gone anyway.
Consider the feeding of the five thousand: is it realistic to expect the bread and fish to have survived to this day? For all we know, the leftovers, gathered in the baskets, were eaten over the following day or two.
The Crucifixion: has the cross survived? Have the nails? Maybe, either buried or relics. But even if not, if the wood was reused in some other project or burned later, if the nails were melted down, that would not disprove the crucifixion. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It could happen even to this day. A beloved son of a small town (born of midwife without a birth certificate) goes off to fight in the Gulf War and is then MIA (missing in action). The town grieves but eventually gives up hope. A generation later the town puts up a memorial and institutes a day to celebrate this tragic event though there is no trace of the man.
Did the man ever exist? Only a complete skeptic would deny the living memory of the town. And this is the person we are confronted with.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed: there is a complete unwillingness here to step out on the limb, which is not tenable. We do this all the time in life. So sceptics of this kind argue that the distinction between everyday belief and religious belief permits them to behave this way without being accused of hypocrisy. Often quoted: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. One can of course direct the person to pray to God for evidence and faith to accept it, if true. But in my experience, sceptics of this kind are unwilling to talk to God, so one cannot even pursue this avenue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even the point of belief (and meaning of the word) is acceptance of that which is not verifiable by the senses. There is no merit in simply accepting the tangible. But there is great merit in belief as it is connection of heart to Heart or soul to Soul. It is our way of bridging the immense chasm between God and humanity; the super natural realm and the natural realm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Completely agre. I discuss this in my upcoming book, which draws on previous posts I have written.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let us know when it is available, Nick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is the overall topic and have you a title for the book yet?
LikeLike
It is going to be a collection of musings on assorted topics from a Christian perspective: it is not intended to be a textbook or anything particularly rigorous or methodical, just an attempt to raise some topics and prompt reflection. If I write another book, I would like that one to be more systematic, but one thing at a time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It will effectively be like an anthology of posts (though each chapter is longer than normal posts).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you self-publishing or traditional? I’m in the sending out manuscripts to get additions advice at this point with my book. After, added and edited it will be sent to print. I’m in contact with traditional publishers but have been thinking of self-publishing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m going to self-publish. I’m not expecting to make much money, and as this is my first book, I am not expecting it to be a masterpiece, but I hope that it will be a trigger for serious reflection and discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of the small publishers, the head of it who is a priest, actually gave me that advice with this particular manuscript. I’ve looked into Amazon, which has of course extreme reach, but requires the book to only be sold there. I’ve been looking into Barnes and Noble which says it doesn’t have an exclusivity clause, so I think they’re potentially in the running.
Any particular platforms you’ve looked into?
LikeLike
Amazon. That is one of the quickest and easiest to use, although it has the drawback you mentioned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Corpus Christi procession in London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti3BKMJteTU
LikeLike
And the essence of our connectedness is Love. And even the skeptic usually has experienced and believes in love. But the nature of love is not material and cannot be proved until one experiences it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Neurology and chemistry are empirical sciences, and thus face the problems the two of us have discussed before at this blog. Claiming that love is “just” chemicals, etc is not tenable philosophically: it might be, but one cannot have certainty on the matter. The best material that I have seen on the philosophy of the mind favours inference to the existence of the “soul” (or whatever else you want to call it, but I prefer the term soul in this context).
LikeLiked by 1 person
And it will not explain why love at times is willing to sacrifice and suffer for another . . . or forgive the unforgivable acts of another against you or your loved ones.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed: evolutionary arguments about encoding these traits seem partial at best, and are not entailed by the data, only possible explanations among others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Precisely, plus likely spiritual oppression with mind control as discerned in nomenclature of which I’m familiar, and explains the reaction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Extreme scepticism of this kind is verging on, if not actually solipsism. Solipsism is the logical consequence of (honest) empiricism: and there is no way out of solipsism, except by faith (which everyone exercises owing to the problem of induction).
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html
Except it isn’t and there are no claims by witnesses to support your claims.
Try again.
LikeLike
Jesus didn’t change anything.
The Roman church and whoever Paul was did all that.
Again you are deflecting and hand waving.
Evidence is what you need and evidence is what you refuse to produce.
I wonder why?
LikeLike
Did Harry Potter start a Church and is it going to sweep around the world with billions of advocates?
LikeLike
say, good sister ark, want some evidence, i got some evidense./…….I met him. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You met him? Really? Was this before or after your nurse administered your meds?
LikeLike
I fear Ark is practicing petitio principi.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good brother nicholas, if i knew what petitio principi meant i would know if i should laugh or be sad.
LikeLike
https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html
Asking for evidence and then refusing to acknowledge that something could be evidence and then concluding that there is no evidence is a form of circular reasoning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps a good definition of bigotry Nicholas?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I should say so. Having explored various religions before I became a Christian myself, I would like to think I made an informed decision.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Good sister ark, youre a real riot. You take it all as a big joke. Im not one to make stuff up. And it was befor i got my meds.
LikeLike
Haaahahahaha. good sister ark is one big loop. Her and others dont want a all knowing creator. You can tell she isnt as sharp as one would desire. Shes scared. Just like a little bird is scared of a big human. Birds will walk around other animals. I see it all the time. Horses and cows are next door to us. Birds land on them and walk rite under them, but wont get near any humans. Good sister ark is scared of god. Hes big and strong and that scares the frilly panties off good sister ark.
Say good sister., youre starting to sound like someone i know. Someone from my Damian Thomson days. ……hmmmmm. You know what, you sound just like Broomhilda. Gosh. Ill bet five dollars to a fat man that you are Broomhilda. Same kind of bland deadpan excuse for humor. You are Broomhilda, arent you?
LikeLike
You all know i habit in so cal. No one asked me how i enjoy two days of 6.4 and then last nite 7.1 quakes and 50 aftershocks.
LikeLike
I was unaware of the recent earthquakes. I am more familiar with California’s public health and homelessness problems. I hope that things take a turn for the better in California – physically, economically, politically, legally, and spiritually.
LikeLike
People sleeping outside because they are tired of running outside every ten minutes. I slept inside because i hate bugs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They were coming as you no doubt know only too well Bosco, as warned by the recent many swarms of tremors only to be expected and foreseen over here as a sign of the extensive spiritual and social shaking underway
LikeLiked by 1 person
So good brother Richard, you blame morality on a earthquake? So cal would be a good candidate for gods wrath. I cant say it aint so. Im holding on. USGS experts say we have many more in store.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May God protect you and your family.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you good brother Nicholas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Think you mean other way round in 1st sentence Bosco? Scripturally, imho and in brief, it’s a manifestation of the Heb 12 great shaking as part of the coming judgements against increasing sins, (“As in the days of Noah and Lot”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah yes good brother. Birth pains. There will be a great shaking of the earth.
“I will shake the heavens, the earth, the sea, and the dry land.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please to see references to Morrison and Strobel, both of whose books read years ago in order to check factual foundations for my encounter with and rescue by Jesus from satan’s domain. Liked Strobel as investigations are based upon his grounding in Law and work as a crime journalist and becoming award-winning legal editor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I think the cumulative force of the evidence they both assemble is persuasive.
LikeLike
Immensely for those who do not have a closed mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the >Case for Christ Strobel presents no evidence, only unsubstantiated claims and he does not even bother with anyone who would naturally refute his half baked claims.
LikeLike