|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Obviously you got ahead of yourself again, since I dealt with the possibility that Luke copied from Matthew. And the copying - both from Mark and that proposed to be from 'Q' - is exact enough to indicate copying from a written document (at least that is the argument), so "Mark didn't write it down" doesn't help - because somebody did.
quote: The argument is not just that Luke misses parts of Matthew out. The argument is that Luke actively disagrees with Matthew - even in the placement of the alleged Q material.
quote: In fact I have pointed to the evidence that it exists, and I have NOT attempted to claim that it says "whatever need it to state" as you slanderously suggested. In fact I cannot, since I cannot claim it says anything that is not in both Luke and Matthew and not in Mark !That's because I am constrained by the evidence. quote: And yet another fabrication For someone who claims to be constrained by the evidence, you are awfully free with your imaginings.
quote: Then it must mention both Tacitus and Josephus.
quote: If you bother to read the quote it starts with the word "If". And let us note that since you jumped into the conversation to defend that very statement along those lines it is hardly unreasonable of me to suggest that you might agree with it.
quote: In fact it was ScientificBob who said it. You just jumped in to defend it. Apparently you feel that it is wrong of me to suggest that you might agree with it on that basis.
quote: But you can't point to anything beyond your assumption that Tacitus could not have believed it. Where does Tacitus qualify his statement ?
quote: Complete with actors names for the characters...
quote: Agreed. So the evidence that it IS referring to fiction must come from outside the text. Now we know that Star Wars is fiction and that the writers of that report knew that. But we don't KNOW that Jesus was fictional, or that Tacitus knew it. So you implicitly admit that I am right in saying that your conclusion does not come from the text and your claim of a parallel relies on assuming your conclusion.
quote: In other words you ASSUME that Tacitus made no effort to determine the truth. Others claim that he would have. In fact you don't know and neither do they. So we still have a possible reference.
quote: We know that copyists made marginal notes, and we know copyists make mistakes of that sort. This is enough to show the possibility, which is all that I claim.
quote: The fact that it is - in my opinion - the best explanation of the Gospel stories that I can find. It certainly does a lot to explain the Gospel stories.
quote: They couldn't JOIN Christianity at all, since it didn't exist as a religion before they started it ! And obviously they would know what THEY did !
quote: Of course there is one significant flaw in that comparison. You claim that there ISN'T an equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard for early Christianity. Not so similar after all, then.
quote: That's just handwaving, the same as you tried to use "bad storytelling" to try to explain away story elements contrary to the Gospel authors' agendas. Without looking at the examples, you can't tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Because actually linking to the proof doesn't make it true...
quote: Obviously not, since they would still have been as prominent to the outside community as the historical Jesus, and thus as likely to be mentioned.
quote: Unless there is an actual organised Jedi movement, this is not a parallel.
quote: But it is a fact, not a lie. Your only claim to parsimony is based on vagueness. You don't even attempt to offer a comparably detailed explanation for the evidence that could fairly be compared. And because you explain less, parsimony doesn't enter into it. And with all your slanders and misrepresentations you are in no position to complain about the forum rules.
quote: It's convinced YOU. It's only convinced me that you don't understand the proper application of parsimony. As I have pointed out in my rebuttals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: You're moving the goalposts. You said "no other sources" without restricting it to contemporary sources.
quote: They are desirable, certainly. However it is not rational to assume that a single source is false just because we have no others addressing the topic.
quote: If you can't come up with at least a plausible reason that is a weakness in your explanation. And we are looking for the best explanation.
quote: But you are clearly strongly prejudiced against the idea that there was a historical Jesus. The very fact that you refuse to admit that the evidence exists is proof of that.
quote: If you can't see the difference between the Gospels and the Greek myths, you aren't looking very hard. And even the Greek myths contain some truth, Troy proves that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
I'd correct you on Daoism, the historicity of Laozi is questionable.
And I think that Gerald Gardner can be called the founder of modern Wicca.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: I think that you will find that historian's disagree. For instance Arrian's work on Alexander is considered a very important source, despite being written centuries after the event.
quote: You can't get down to zero sources just by arguing dependence. And I haven't cited a single source dated to after 130 AD. Quite frankly, you obviously don't know what younger talking about.
quote:Well I wasn't asking for THE reason, just a good reason that they might have had. And you seem to be awfully shy about citing even one. quote: Your are only making your prejudice more obvious. Apparently your commitment to denying a historical Jesus is stronger than any attachment to an accurate and historically honest depiction of history. Dismissing evidence out of hand is NOT "letting the data speak"
quote: I have no idea what you are talking about. I said nothing about Zeus.
quote: So, Troy is a place located by paying attention to the accurate descriptions given in the Illiad, a source far more remote from the actual events and far more mythologized than the Bible. If the Illiad can contain such information, how can you be sure that the Gospels, written mere decades after the event do not contain true information about the historical Jesus ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Oh, I give in. There's more chance of a rational and honest discussion with Buzsaw. Not that there's a lot of difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
:et me start by making clear that I refer only to the Jesus Myther's on this forum. There are some people who make rather more respectable answers (I have hopes for Richard Carrier's so far unpublished argument, but it seems a long time coming)
1) The Jesus Mythers have little knowledge or understanding of the evidence and arguments. Even of the arguments FOR the Jesus Myth position. THere has been no mention of, for instance, Earl Doherty. Pana has only a superficial knowledge of the arguments of Freke and Gandy (and never mentioned their names). And there is no hint of the less well-known names at all. If anything, they seem to be less well-informed than even the typical creationist. 2) The Jesus Myther's place high value on their own opinions without any attempt to research them. Crashfrog is still claiming that his assertion that most founders of religion are fictional is a fact despite not offering a shred of evidence for it. In fact he refuses to admit the evidence against it on the grounds that his (completely unsupported, remember) assertion is true ! 3) The Jesus Myther's make irrational arguments. For an especially clear example we can consider Crashfrog's insistence on his "Jesus wasn't called Jesus" argument - supposedly an important difference between the Biblical Jesus and the historical Jesus. In fact it isn't. The transformation of the name is simply a consequence of the differing languages used. In fact the name of the Biblical Jesus and the name proposed for the historical Jesus are the same. 4) Being ignorant of the arguments and therefore being unable to answer expert opinion in a rational way, they resort to unsupported accusations of dishonesty. A tactic which is also applied to opponents. In my experience all these behaviours are typical of creationists. If I hadn't already had proof of Crashfrog's nature from recent threads I would be deeply disappointed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: And here is a clear example of what I mean. I mention Earl Doherty as a person who is well-known for arguing AGAINST the existence of Jesus. Someone whose arguments I would expect to be cited by Crashfrog or Panda or ScientificBob. And this is the response I get. Crashfrog is too desperate to gainsay my points to even read them. Mindless aggression used as a substitute for reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: False. I mentioned him in the context of Mythical Jesus proponents not knowing the arguments for a Mythical Jesus.
quote: More typical Creationist behaviour. Having been caught in an error, you refuse to admit it and try to blame your opponent instead.
quote: And of course this is just more typical behaviour. Asking a supposed "killer" question without even understanding the point at issue. But OK. At the time I wrote the Summary post, the answer was NO. Go ahead punk, make my day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: A fact, not nonsense. And it is easy to be unaware of arguments for your position, simply don't bother with doing the research. The same way that the average ID proponent fails to understand Dembski's CSI argument.
quote: You mean what is the relevance of giving an example to support the point I was making ?That should be obvious to anybody with a working brain. I told you it was a stupid question. So all you are doing is proving that you are completely irrational. Making the initial mistake was bad enough, but to try to keep on going as if you were right for two further posts is just silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: The point I was making is that you, and Panda and the rest had little knowledge of the arguments that had been put forward for a mythical Jesus, and Earl Doherty is one - just one - of the writers you might have cited. I chose him as an example since he seems to be rather more popular than many of the others. But again, he is only an example. If and been citing any of the more respectable writers, like Price, or Ellegard I would have not made the claim in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: The fact that that assertion is the best that you can come up with does not mean that there are no better arguments.
quote: The projection is amazing. Your case - as you admit - is simply a dogmatically held opinion. You haven't bothered to research the matter even to the point of looking at the arguments on your own side. Any criticism of you is taken as a "personal attack" while you feel free to throw all the accusations you want with no regard to their truth. And you say that you AREN'T like a creationist ?
quote: I haven't changed. You have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: However, we do have evidence. The historian's way to approach the question is to look at the documents we do have - and other evidence when available - and look for the best explanation. If we only have one document describing an event historians do not assume that it is complete fiction any more than they assume that it is infallibly accurate.
quote: When your only argument is pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, what else can you have but a dogmatically held opinion ? And you admit that is all that you have got. Now, if somebody could come up with a better explanation of the evidence we do have - a better explanation why the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles exist without postulating a historical Jesus - then I will happily change my mind. That's open-mindedness. Not insisting that you are right - without even looking at the real questions - and calling everyone who disagrees a liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
All you are showing is an inability to evaluate sources, and making a number of questionable judgements. The lack of rational argument simply illustrates my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Well let's go over your errors,
The Bible is not a single document. It is a collection of works by multiple authors, all of which must be evaluated on their own merits. A document does not have to be written during the events it describes to be accepted as evidence. (Your meaning of "contemporary" - don't forget that Paul, at least was living in the time when the Gospels are set) You are setting up a false dichotomy between claims and evidence. You reference to Frodo and Heracles is another false dichotomy. We do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach (which doesn't work even with works of fiction). Really all I see is somebody trying to hold forth on a subject he knows even less about than I do ? How can you hope to convince anyone if you can't be bothered to even do basic research ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025