Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 12-14-2011, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Please, please, please. It doesn't make any difference to this thread what you are interested in or what you are not interested in. The only serious problem with this thread is mountainman's inability to respond to requests for greater clarity, although if you continue to insist on injecting irrelevancies that may also become a serious problem...

I REJECT your POSTULATE about mountainman and accept your CONFESSION you do NOT have a perfect record of success in achieving clarity of expression since it is true.

Your acceptance was neither requested nor required and has no value.

I note that you do not deny that both mountainman and yourself have an imperfect record of success in achieving clarity of expression.

mountainman · 12-14-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

I have two questions ....

Question 1

With reference to Jesus, to what extent are one or other of these hypotheses ("Jesus existed" or "Jesus did not exist") used explicitly in various theories of christian origins, to what extent are one or other used implicitly in the all remaining other theories?

These hypotheses are not used. Historicists believe that the evidence is sufficient to show that Jesus existed. Mythicists believe that the evidence shows that Jesus did not exist. In both of these cases, the existence of a historical Jesus is a conclusion based on evidence, not something that is "used."

Why do I have to keep repeating this?

Carrier appears to be saying the opposite.

From the WIKI page on Carrier

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI about Richard Carrier

Carrier has also questioned the historicity of Jesus in some capacity. Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it

"very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person",[16]

yet he also said

"though I foresee a rising challenge among qualified experts against the assumption of historicity [of Jesus]...that remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review."

Carrier appears to see historicity (of Jesus) as an "assumption of historicity [of Jesus]...that remains only a hypothesis " - and not a conclusion. He appears to have considered both the hypothesis "Jesus existed" and "Jesus didn't exist" and arrived at the conclusion that it is "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person".

J-D · 12-14-2011, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There was an actual author of the letters of Paul, because those letters exist.

More precisely, those letters had one or more actual authors; there might have been just one actual author or there might have been more than one actual author.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But "Paul" might be a nickname or a pseudonym,

Or might have been, either in some cases or in all, a false attribution: that is, some or all of the letters might have been written by somebody who wanted to pass them off as the work of somebody known as 'Paul' who was not in fact, however, the author.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

and might or might not bear some resemblance to the Saul/Paul character in Acts.

mountainman · 12-14-2011, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Question 2

With reference to Paul, to what extent are one or other of these hypotheses ("Paul existed" or "Paul did not exist") used explicitly in various theories of christian origins, to what extent are one or other used implicitly in all the remaining other theories?

This question really makes no sense.

It is related to the first question about the historicity of jesus which I responded to above. This one's about paul.

Quote:

There was an actual author of the letters of Paul, because those letters exist. But "Paul" might be a nickname or a pseudonym, and might or might not bear some resemblance to the Saul/Paul character in Acts.

"If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?"

Detering does not use inverted commas. He lists three hypotheses. "Paul was a legend" or "Paul existed" or "Paul did not exist". I think these can be reduced to variants of two: "Paul existed" or "Paul did not exist". Which brings the discussion back to the original question.

Toto · 12-15-2011, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

These hypotheses are not used. Historicists believe that the evidence is sufficient to show that Jesus existed. Mythicists believe that the evidence shows that Jesus did not exist. In both of these cases, the existence of a historical Jesus is a conclusion based on evidence, not something that is "used."

Why do I have to keep repeating this?

Carrier appears to be saying the opposite.

From the WIKI page on Carrier

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI about Richard Carrier

Carrier has also questioned the historicity of Jesus in some capacity. Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it

"very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person",[16]

yet he also said

"though I foresee a rising challenge among qualified experts against the assumption of historicity [of Jesus]...that remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review."

Carrier appears to see historicity (of Jesus) as an "assumption of historicity [of Jesus]...that remains only a hypothesis " - and not a conclusion. He appears to have considered both the hypothesis "Jesus existed" and "Jesus didn't exist" and arrived at the conclusion that it is "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person".

Carrier is saying that many scholars assume the historicity of Jesus. This is a criticism of their scholarship.

He regards mythicism as a hypothesis that can be tested and evaluated on the basis of the evidence.

But scholars in this area do not "use" these hypotheses. They test them. Perhaps this is the basis for your confusion?

Toto · 12-15-2011, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
Detering does not use inverted commas. He lists three hypotheses. "Paul was a legend" or "Paul existed" or "Paul did not exist".....

Please give a citation for this. It doesn't sound right.

J-D · 12-15-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

I have two questions ....

Question 1

With reference to Jesus, to what extent are one or other of these hypotheses ("Jesus existed" or "Jesus did not exist") used explicitly in various theories of christian origins, to what extent are one or other used implicitly in the all remaining other theories?

These hypotheses are not used. Historicists believe that the evidence is sufficient to show that Jesus existed. Mythicists believe that the evidence shows that Jesus did not exist. In both of these cases, the existence of a historical Jesus is a conclusion based on evidence, not something that is "used."

Why do I have to keep repeating this?

Carrier appears to be saying the opposite.

From the WIKI page on Carrier

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI about Richard Carrier

Carrier has also questioned the historicity of Jesus in some capacity. Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it

"very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person",[16]

yet he also said

"though I foresee a rising challenge among qualified experts against the assumption of historicity [of Jesus]...that remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review."

Carrier appears to see historicity (of Jesus) as an "assumption of historicity [of Jesus]...that remains only a hypothesis " - and not a conclusion. He appears to have considered both the hypothesis "Jesus existed" and "Jesus didn't exist" and arrived at the conclusion that it is "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person".

Then Carrier could and should have expressed himself more clearly.

J-D · 12-15-2011, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

Question 2

With reference to Paul, to what extent are one or other of these hypotheses ("Paul existed" or "Paul did not exist") used explicitly in various theories of christian origins, to what extent are one or other used implicitly in all the remaining other theories?

This question really makes no sense.

It is related to the first question about the historicity of jesus which I responded to above. This one's about paul.

Quote:

There was an actual author of the letters of Paul, because those letters exist. But "Paul" might be a nickname or a pseudonym, and might or might not bear some resemblance to the Saul/Paul character in Acts.

"If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?"

Detering does not use inverted commas. He lists three hypotheses. "Paul was a legend" or "Paul existed" or "Paul did not exist". I think these can be reduced to variants of two: "Paul existed" or "Paul did not exist". Which brings the discussion back to the original question.

If Detering did in fact say that, then he could and should have expressed himself more clearly.

Chili · 12-15-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If Detering did in fact say that, then he could and should have expressed himself more clearly.

That will depend on our definition of existence.

Were they historical? YES! (both Jesus and Paul)

As presented in the bible? YES!

And 'yes' with 'hyletic vision' (as believer) and 'noetic vision' (as gnostic) but not with lyric vision in between (as skeptic) and that is where the problem is at = 'faith seeking understanding' wherein the word 'real' is transformed in the mind of the believer of John 6:55 as opposed to John 6:66

J-D · 12-15-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If Detering did in fact say that, then he could and should have expressed himself more clearly.

That will depend on our definition of existence.

No, it won't. But anybody looking for advice about clarity of expression would make a big mistake looking to you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.