Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 09-20-2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

In order to make this claim your going to have to provide primary as well as contemporary sources....and just because christians are mentioned in an historians writing does not validate a jesus. Lets make this easy:

There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive.

No, I don't actually. Because this is not unusual. You need to apply the criteria consistently.

BTW, there is plenty of documentary evidence. More than for many figures from ancient history. Even the more independent ones are not at all late by the standards of the discipline.

Stringbean · 09-20-2011, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

In order to make this claim your going to have to provide primary as well as contemporary sources....and just because christians are mentioned in an historians writing does not validate a jesus. Lets make this easy:

There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive.

No, I don't actually. Because this is not unusual. You need to apply the criteria consistently.

BTW, there is plenty of documentary evidence. More than for many figures from ancient history. Even the more independent ones are not at all late by the standards of the subject.

Really? Are those sources first hand accounts of witnesses who actually saw this jesus on earth? The Bible is not and I repeat is not a first hand account of jesus any investigation into the NT Canon will provide you with enough to realize that even the NT writers knew little if anything about the very man they called jesus. Matter fact the Encyclopedia Biblica puts it rather well:

Quote:

That the order of events in the life of Christ as given to us by the Evangelists are contradictory and untrustworthy and that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless. In other words Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote not what they knew but only what they imagined.

Fact is Evangelists did not know anything of the life of Jesus before his ministry and they completely refrained from inventing a childhood or youth or even an early manhood for him. Why? Because it was not necessary for their purpose.

archibald · 09-20-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Really? Are those sources first hand accounts of witnesses who actually saw this jesus on earth? The Bible is not and I repeat is not a first hand account of jesus any investigation into the NT Canon will provide you with enough to realize that even the NT writers knew little if anything about the very man they called jesus.

Yes, really. Lack of first hand accounts is not uncommon in ancient history.

Toto · 09-20-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What I meant to write was that in the absence of evidence, historians leave the question of historicity as undecided. They don't construct scenarios where the existence is "probable" based on their subjective evaluation of the situation.

Quite honestly Toto, and no offense meant, but I don't think I can continue to debate this with you. It's as if we're speaking different languages.

I'm going to be straight with you and say that there are times when you seem like one of the most thoroughly rational, intelligent, evidenced-based, impartial people in this forum and others where your stance is so steeped in looking at things a certain skewed way that there seems little point in even talking to you. And the latter times are winning. I think I could find something in each of your replies to me in this thread which just plain doesn't make any sense, and the above paragraph is a perfect example. It's no more accurate or relevant than the first version. It is in fact, nonsense. Can you, for example, give me one example of a supposed person for whom there is an absence of evidence? No. Perhaps you meant an absence of a certain type of evidence? Well, in that case, what is your actual point?

I will be happy not to continue this. I have been debating this issue for over a decade now. I think I've run across every argument for every position too many times.

There are a host of people for whom there is no surviving physical evidence. There are people mentioned in ancient documents who might have existed, but for whom we don't have any surviving physical evidence. If you read standard histories, you will find that real historians are content to say that they might have existed, or they might be mythical or legendary. This includes Socrates. There is more reason to think that Socrates existed than to think that Jesus existed, since there are independent literary sources that mention him, but he could just be a literary figure. No one feels the need to insist that he existed.

Quote:

Historians generally do accept that Jesus was more likely to have existed than not. Why they do this might be a point of discussion. But the point is they most surely DO construct their views on the basis of probability, and despite what you say, they appear to do so by applying the same objective criteria as for any other person from ancient history. I am no authority on the academic study of ancient history, but this is my clear impression from having discussed the topic many times. Whether historians generally are right to come to this conclusion or not is another matter. They may be wrong.

This is a little unfair to you. In the course of the past decade, one professional historian named Richard Carrier has taken on the project of writing a book on the historicity of Jesus, and in particular the use of Baysian probability in judging whether Jesus probably existed or not. He will have one peer reviewed book coming out next year on methods, and another later on. You are not an authority; he is. He disagrees with you. The people who call themselves historians and who pontificate on the historical Jesus do not use the same methods as historians in general. They have invented their own methodology, which does not stand up under examination.

Quote:

I could also disagree with almost everything else you say. Not least because what you see as the shortcomings in Jesus' case are not shortcomings at all, by the standards of ancient historical evidence. Have you any idea how many figures we would have to consider likely not to have existed if we restricted ourselves to those who appeared to have left writings?

You are repeating the same tired arguments that I have heard for the last ten years. There are many figures in ancient history who either left writings or other artifacts, or who were described in neutral or official documents written around the time they lived. And if they didn't, we really don't have any reason to claim that they existed.

Quote:

And your 'clear evidence from the gospels' has immediately turned to......pure speculation. It's incredible. I'm not saying you're wrong, not by any means, but if you have gone so far that you see 'pure speculation' as 'clear evidence'......

No comment other than your personal incredulity?

Quote:

I think you and I should just agree to disagree. Quite possibly you find me as impossible to relate to as I do you. I wouldn't be surprised. It must be just a communication failure between us. I see only loggerheads.

I see you just rambling on and on about subjects you don't seem to have considered in any depth. Which is okay, except that as a moderator I have to read it all.

Sheshbazzar · 09-20-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your position explains NOTHING.

Billions of people BELIEVE Jesus was God Incarnate and the Word that was GOD based on the BIBLE.

Billions of people BELIEVE the NT Canon that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

What is YOUR position BASED on?

What CREDIBLE source of antiquity EXPLAINS your position?

And please, do not even attempt to play the numbers game, here.

Atheists have very LITTLE regards for QUANTITY.

Atheism was DERIVED by QUALITY of evidence.

What QUALITY sources do you have for your EXPLANATIONS about Jesus?

As in:

Christianity exists
Islam exists

Mohamed is an explanation for the existence of Islam
Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity

And Moroni is an explanation for the existence of Mormonisim.
Mormonisim exists therefore it follows that Moroni must have existed.
There wouldn't be a Mormon religion without there being an an actual Moroni to begin it.
This is the quality of your explanation.
Do you also believe Mormonisims Moroni was a living breathing historical person?

archibald · 09-20-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In the course of the past decade, one professional historian named Richard Carrier has taken on the project of writing a book on the historicity of Jesus, and in particular the use of Baysian probability in judging whether Jesus probably existed or not. He will have one peer reviewed book coming out next year on methods, and another later on. You are not an authority; he is. He disagrees with you. The people who call themselves historians and who pontificate on the historical Jesus do not use the same methods as historians in general. They have invented their own methodology, which does not stand up under examination.

Wow. One historian. I think you'll find that that was why I said 'generally'. Is Carrier tenured, by the way? Even he accepts that the MJ case has not survived peer review.

And I referred to historians, not scholars. It's hardly my fault if they don't seem to support the MJ hypothesis. Find me a reputable history book which says he was mythical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No comment other than your personal incredulity?

This doesn't make any rational sense as a response. I think you'll find that my point was factually correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I see you just rambling on and on .......

Ah yes. The attempted personal put down. Always impressive.

Stringbean · 09-20-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Really? Are those sources first hand accounts of witnesses who actually saw this jesus on earth? The Bible is not and I repeat is not a first hand account of jesus any investigation into the NT Canon will provide you with enough to realize that even the NT writers knew little if anything about the very man they called jesus.

Yes, really. Lack of first hand accounts is not uncommon in ancient history.

Your making excuses and not providing the sources to your claim Arch...you said there were documentary sources for jesus unless I read your posts wrong.

archibald · 09-20-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Yes, really. Lack of first hand accounts is not uncommon in ancient history.

Your making excuses and not providing the sources to your claim Arch...you said there were documentary sources for jesus unless I read your posts wrong.

Right. Documentary sources. First hand accounts. Not the same thing. You are chasing a strawman. This is pretty basic stuff.

Stringbean · 09-20-2011, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Your making excuses and not providing the sources to your claim Arch...you said there were documentary sources for jesus unless I read your posts wrong.

Right. Documentary sources. First hand accounts. Not the same thing. You are chasing a strawman.

I did not ask for first hand accounts. You said there was documentary evidence to prove jesus thats what I ask you to produce was it not? You interjected the first hand account business as a way to set up a straw man. Go back and read what I posted.

archibald · 09-20-2011, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

I did not ask for first hand accounts.

Yes you did. I didn't bring them up. You did. :huh:

Oh and I also did not mentionn proof.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.