Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Camio · 01-22-2009, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

There are, I have read, about 10,000 scholars who can be accepted as competent in this area, so anyone, believer or sceptic, can always find someone to support their view. The fair thing to do is to quote the consensus of experts.

Usually appeals to authority aren't highly praised in skeptical areas like this forum. Direct evidence and sound logical reasoning are favored.

NB: I'm no JM-er.

dog-on · 01-22-2009, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Indeed; please let us know when you have some historical facts about Jesus.

Here are a few. I have more if you need them.

Prof M Borg, Oregon State University: "some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated." and "We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world."

Prof J Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary and Dead Sea Scrolls expert: "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E."

Jeffery Jay Lowder, possibly known to some of you here: "I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

Prof E P Sanders, Duke University: "Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died." and "the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."

Michael Grant, author of more than 50 books on the Roman Empire: "the picture they [the gospels] present is largely authentic .... information about Jesus can be derived from the gospels."

Prof G Stanton, Cambridge University: "Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered."; E P Sanders: "I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus' fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism."

M Grant: "Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins.". "Jesus lived his last days, and died, in the belief that his death was destined to save the human race." Please note that Michael Grant was not a believer.

C Tucket, Oxford University: "The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers .... seems part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-christian evidence [Tacitus, etc] can provide us with certainty on that score."

With the exception of J J Lowder, these are not fringe scholars pushing some way-out ideas, but are among the most respected names in the business.

This is a joke, right?

ercatli · 01-22-2009, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

Usually appeals to authority aren't highly praised in skeptical areas like this forum. Direct evidence and sound logical reasoning are favored.

I'm not actually looking for high praise. : ) But in all areas of scholarship I know about (science, ecology, history, law, etc) no-one can know all the facts, and reference to experts and definitive studies is the accepted practice. Most disciplines could not proceed without it.

It was Toto who made reference to a group of experts , so presumably you are critical of his statement, for which I thank you. All I did was point out that if one was to appeal to authority as he did, they should be established mainstream experts, not a small minority view.

ercatli · 01-22-2009, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

This is a joke, right?

Are you laughing .... or presenting an argument?

dog-on · 01-22-2009, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

This is a joke, right?

Are you laughing .... or presenting an argument?

Well, I did laugh at what you posted and thought you must have been joking.

Weren't you?

Yellum Notnef · 01-22-2009, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Are you laughing .... or presenting an argument?

Well, I did laugh at what you posted and thought you must have been joking.

Weren't you?

I can't quite fathom that he wasn't either.

ercatli · 01-22-2009, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Well, I did laugh at what you posted and thought you must have been joking.Weren't you?

Why did you think that?

ercatli · 01-22-2009, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

I can't quite fathom that he wasn't either.

I'd be keen to hear your explanation.

Solo · 01-22-2009, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Wouldn't Jesus be a higher authority on the significance of his death, than Psalm 40, or some other OT text?

We have an oral tradition in my family about Jesus appearances to my ancestors and providing clues about the Bible. He said to my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother : 'For my sake, Anastasia, don't take any of that literally !' :wave:

Jiri

Camio · 01-22-2009, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

But in all areas of scholarship I know about (science, ecology, history, law, etc) no-one can know all the facts, and reference to experts and definitive studies is the accepted practice. Most disciplines could not proceed without it.

I agree. Though I'm not sure what I should understand by "definitive studies". In science, knowledge is always temporary, otherwise we would be dealing with dogmas.

Yet I doubt the situation in "hard sciences" (not sure the expression is used in English) like physics, with its reproducible experiences and mathematical laws, can be compared to History, especially ancient history, where evidence is scarce and the interpretation of one particular scholar plays a huge role. I am not saying that every NT scholar is biased, as was argued in a recent thread, far from it, but that verifying an interpretation of ancient text is much more difficult than verifying a biological experiment carried out in a lab.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

All I did was point out that if one was to appeal to authority as he did, they should be established mainstream experts, not a small minority view.

OK. But where did you get that Toto appealed to an authority? He simply said he wasn't convinced by the arguments provided by some historians on the historicity of Jesus.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.