Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 437 of 560 (620780)
06-20-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by crashfrog
06-20-2011 3:32 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
quote:
That doesn't mean anything. Luke could simply be based on Matthew, or the reverse. Mark may simply have not wanted to write those things down.
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:
Incomplete plagarization doesn't prove that no plagarism took place
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:
No, your Q source is the fabrication. You've given me no reason to believe that it even exists, or that it ever contained anything that would lend support to your position. It's hardly a fabrication to point out that you're putting forth an argument that relies on an inaccessible source for support.
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:
To put forth an argument based on evidence you can't present?
And yet another fabrication For someone who claims to be constrained by the evidence, you are awfully free with your imaginings.
quote:
No, it addresses inconvenient evidence
Then it must mention both Tacitus and Josephus.
quote:
But you did claim that I did
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:
But I never claimed that there were no extra-Biblical references to Jesus, and the material you quote to substantiate your accusation was said by Panda, not by me.
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:
There's an abundance in the text to suggest that.
But you can't point to anything beyond your assumption that Tacitus could not have believed it. Where does Tacitus qualify his statement ?
quote:
It's as clear as day. By way of comparison here's the Netflix summary for Star Wars IV
Complete with actors names for the characters...
quote:
Now, taken at face value, you'd have to conclude that somebody at Netflix was a space traveler with knowledge of other galaxies! There's nothing in this text that literally indicates that Star Wars is a work of fiction, and that there was no such person ever as Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker, or that the Death Star isn't a real thing
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:
Similarly, because we know that Tacitus didn't make or indicate any effort to determine the "truth" of the religious beliefs he describes, we know that he's not referring to anything but what's true within the religious context of Christianity.
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:
And what's your evidence for this view?
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:
And what's your evidence for this view?
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:
Not at all. Why would they join a religion they knew was fake?
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:
It's the same way that L. Ron Hubbard started Scientology but wasn't a convert to it. He knew it was fake! And what would be his interest in somehow preserving the "original" origin of Scientology given that the "original" origin would convince people not to join the religion?
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:
Even Superman has his weaknesses. It's as easily explained by good storytelling as real history.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by crashfrog, posted 06-20-2011 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 2:25 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 438 of 560 (620782)
06-20-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by crashfrog
06-20-2011 3:54 PM


Re: If not Jesus, then who ?
quote:
This is also a false claim.
Because actually linking to the proof doesn't make it true...
quote:
Well, gosh, maybe it has something to do with the fact that they started a religion that venerated the fictional character Jesus Christ instead of one that venerated themselves. If they had set themselves up as the sole and unique prophet of the religion - as L. Ron Hubbard did - the surely we would know exactly who they are.
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:
But the person who actually started the Jedi religious movement - the movement of people who literally claim "Jediism" as their religion, venerate a "Force", and subscribe to a set of ethics based on the goodness of acting with reflection, forethought, and out of peace vs. the badness of acting rashly out of anger or fear - is unknown to history, even though it only happened ten years ago.
Unless there is an actual organised Jedi movement, this is not a parallel.
quote:
I'm sorry, Paul, but I've done this over and over. Your continued contention that I've somehow failed to do so is your greatest lie in this thread, and violates the forum guidelines:
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:
Enough, Paul. There's no reason to persist in your dishonesty. You know my position, and I know you know my position, and my argument that it's the more parsimonious one has been sufficiently convincing. The proof of it is that you've presented no rebuttal but to pretend I've never made the argument. Frankly, I'm disgusted.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by crashfrog, posted 06-20-2011 3:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 446 of 560 (620821)
06-21-2011 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by ScientificBob
06-21-2011 6:16 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
quote:
None of the things you mentioned are contemporary.
You're moving the goalposts. You said "no other sources" without restricting it to contemporary sources.
quote:
And not rational? How is that not rational? Independent contemporary sources are practically a standard in the historical sciences.
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:
What makes you think you can find out the actual reason why it was made up?
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:
I don't feel like I'm doing that.
Sure, I can accept that there was some guy, who was perhaps called jesus, around which a whole bunch of bullocks was made up. The thing is that I see no reason to. The fact of the matter is that this character only shows up in his own mythology.
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:
However, I see an equal amount of evidence for both: nothing.
I cannot consider the bible evidence for the historical jesus anymore then I can see greek mythology as evidence for a historical Hercules.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by ScientificBob, posted 06-21-2011 6:16 AM ScientificBob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by ScientificBob, posted 06-21-2011 10:27 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 449 of 560 (620828)
06-21-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 448 by caffeine
06-21-2011 9:24 AM


Re: The founders of the world's religions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by caffeine, posted 06-21-2011 9:24 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by caffeine, posted 06-21-2011 10:35 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 465 of 560 (620890)
06-21-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by ScientificBob
06-21-2011 10:27 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
quote:
I'm not moving anything. I consider it a given that sources used as evidence for historical things are to be contemporary and independent.
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:
But that's exactly the issue at hand. You do NOT have a "single" source. You have NO sources (that are contemporary and independent). You only have baseless claims and anecdotal stuff that is written down at best decades after the facts and for the most part, more then a century after the fact - and written by people that are clearly biased towards the topic as well...
They weren't writing down what they knew... they were writing down what they believed.
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:
That's not what I said, now is it?
I was talking about a SPECIFIC reason. I can give you hundreds of plausible reasons.
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:
No, I'm not. In fact, I couldn't care less. But when you want an accurate and intellectually honest depiction of history, you need to let the data speak.
And there is no data whatsoever on a historical jezus. There is only data on a supernatural one: biblical mythology.
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 said Hercules, not Zeus. Maybe you should look harder into greek mythology.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I said nothing about Zeus.
quote:
And Troy? Troy is a place. The bible mentions Jeruzalem. Marvel comics mention New York. So bloody what?
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by ScientificBob, posted 06-21-2011 10:27 AM ScientificBob has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 467 of 560 (620893)
06-21-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 2:25 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
Oh, I give in. There's more chance of a rational and honest discussion with Buzsaw. Not that there's a lot of difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 2:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 3:23 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 481 of 560 (620923)
06-21-2011 5:24 PM


Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
: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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 5:36 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 485 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 5:46 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 492 of 560 (620934)
06-21-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 5:46 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
quote:
Is Earl Doherty in this discussion?
Have his arguments been put forward for consideration?
PaulK, where does Earl Doherty present evidence for the existence of Jesus? Please be specific.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 5:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 6:49 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 508 of 560 (620963)
06-22-2011 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 6:49 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
quote:
I don't recall you mentioning Earl Doherty except as someone related to the debate, and you mentioned him in the context of Mythical Jesus proponents not knowing anything about the arguments in favor of the Historical Jesus.
False. I mentioned him in the context of Mythical Jesus proponents not knowing the arguments for a Mythical Jesus.
quote:
If you now admit that you were using that context to mislead people as to which position it is that Earl Doherty - whoever that is - actually argues in support of, that's just another example of the great dishonesty with which you've prosecuted this debate.
More typical Creationist behaviour. Having been caught in an error, you refuse to admit it and try to blame your opponent instead.
quote:
And note - you didn't answer any of my questions. Is Earl Doherty in this discussion? Have his arguments been put forward for consideration?
Yes or no?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 6:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 4:44 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 529 of 560 (621264)
06-24-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by crashfrog
06-24-2011 4:44 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
quote:
Nonsense, and a stupid claim, to boot. How would Mythical Jesus proponents not know the arguments for a mythical Jesus? How would they simultaneously make arguments and not know the arguments they were making?
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:
Then what on Earth is the relevance of a minor figure who appears only once by name on the Wikipedia entry for "Jesus myth theory"?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 4:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 5:13 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 534 of 560 (621277)
06-24-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by crashfrog
06-24-2011 5:13 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
quote:
How is it in any way an example of the point you were making, and not an example of the point I was making about poisoning the well?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 5:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2011 1:24 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 541 of 560 (621581)
06-27-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by crashfrog
06-27-2011 1:24 AM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
quote:
Cited for what? The case for the mythical Jesus is nothing more than the fact that there's no rational case for a historical Jesus.
The fact that that assertion is the best that you can come up with does not mean that there are no better arguments.
quote:
It hardly requires name-dropping Earl Doherty, or anybody else, to make that case. Again it's just well-poisoning. You're not able to produce even a single example of evidence in support of the historical position, so it's necessary to attack us personally by equating us with "Creationists", even though personal attacks in lieu of evidence is the number one tactic of creationists.
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:
It's hard for me to imagine, now, a time when I had any respect for you.
I haven't changed. You have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2011 1:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2011 8:56 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 546 of 560 (622690)
07-06-2011 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 543 by crashfrog
07-05-2011 8:56 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
quote:
By definition there are no better arguments. The only possible argument for the nonexistence of something that could possibly exist is that there is no evidence that it exists. There could have been a historical Jesus. It's just that there's no evidence there was, which best supports the conclusion that he did not exist.
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:
You're a liar, because I've not "admitted" any such thing. Your case is clearly the dogmatic opinion; if it weren't you'd have been able to answer the call for evidence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2011 8:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by ScientificBob, posted 07-06-2011 4:54 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 548 of 560 (622727)
07-06-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 547 by ScientificBob
07-06-2011 4:54 AM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by ScientificBob, posted 07-06-2011 4:54 AM ScientificBob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by ScientificBob, posted 07-06-2011 8:09 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 550 of 560 (622733)
07-06-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by ScientificBob
07-06-2011 8:09 AM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by ScientificBob, posted 07-06-2011 8:09 AM ScientificBob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Theodoric, posted 07-06-2011 9:15 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 552 by ScientificBob, posted 07-06-2011 9:24 AM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024