Metacrock

That's a ridiculous way to think about it. Historical beings do not have to compete for existence. There can easily be more evidence for Cesar than for Jesus and that doesn't make Jesus non historical. The point was in the way you guys think about history and about evidence.

1) any gap must always be filled with what the sketpic wants, and any gap is meaningless and unimporant when filled with the believer's wish list.

2) questions always equal proof for sketpics and must always ben answered in favor of the skeptic's theory, so question asking is the same as documenting arguments when the sketpic asks the question.

3) damaging questions the believer asks are always unimportant.

4) any lack of evidence counts against proof for believer. So if Jesus din't have a library card, there was no Jesus, that's actually a negative proof for JC. But if Cesar didn' thave one he just didn't happen to have one.

5) Shaksepire was Bacon because I can surmize that he was!


6) believer surmizing is unimportant.

and so on.



I've already proven that Jesus existed on the other thread.

btw the sam kind of cumulative effect is found for JC as for Cesar. We have the secuar historians like Jo, we have the chruch fathers. 19 lost Gosopels, Diatesseron readings which push the written story back to AD 50, canonical Gosples, and so on. But now no that doesn't count for a believer argument. the cumulative effect is only good for secular figures.
6)

Metacrock

two thumbs up!

Goliath

Metacrock,

You can assert this as many times as you'd like. That doesn't make it any more true.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Metacrock

well I should say not! There's no evidence for Ceasar having library card, draft card, dirver's license, or memebership in any major organization or coutnry club in the United states. I cant think of anything that proves the case for his existence better than no evidence at all. After all, argument from silence is te best proof one can have. O I forgot, that only works for sketpics.

ah I just thoguht, what would be better still would a pointed question. If I could ask a pointed question like, why don't any critics ever claim Ceasar didn't exist? Now that would prove it for sure! That proves he didn't you see, it's that less is more principle.


(see Bedes post, he got the drift)

Peter Kirby

Do you think that all arguments from silence are equally invalid?

If this is parody, quote what you are parodizing.

best,
Peter Kirby

Llyricist

Metacrock,
Who said anything about competing? My only point was that J Caesar had many more independent vectors than J Christ. Remember, I'm agnostic regarding a historical Jesus, I have no horse in that race. I just think the Mythicists may be slightly ahead of the Historicists in their presentation of the facts and their "take" on them.
ummmm By definitiion a skeptic just wants the truth. What does a believer's wishlist consist of?
Unanswered questions count as negative evidence, so???
What damaging questions are those?
Well if you could show where either Pliny or Josephus, or anyone else not a gospel writer chronicled the crucifiction under Pilate your case would be sooo much better. Frankly that is alot more important than whether either of them had a library card.
Huh???
All surmizing is unimportant. Some carries more than others is all.
No you haven't.
No the same kind of cumulative effect is NOT found for Jesus. all you can attest to is numbers of religious polemics supporting Jesus, while J Caesar has vectors from innumerable directions... friends, enemies... coins etc.... Stop fooling yourself.

Metacrock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Llyricist
Metacrock,

Who said anything about competing? My only point was that J Caesar had many more independent vectors than J Christ. Remember, I'm agnostic regarding a historical Jesus, I have no horse in that race. I just think the Mythicists may be slightly ahead of the Historicists in their presentation of the facts and their "take" on them.[/qoute]


Meta =>??? ahead in the sense that they don't know how to do history I guess. So their opinions are more important to them than the facts. I guess that's "ahead" around here.

ummmm By definitiion a skeptic just wants the truth. What does a believer's wishlist consist of?




Meta =>Pull the other one! By defition a businessman just wasn't what's good for the community too, right?



Unanswered questions count as negative evidence, so???



Meta =>NO I meant they see asking a question as positive proof. Like they go "why didn't Paul mention the empty tomb?" and to them saying that is the same thing as proving something.


I meant negative proof in the sense that it takes away form the reality of Jesus to ask questions about him, in their minds. Sorry.






What damaging questions are those?




Meta =>why did none of the advaseries of the Jesus movment argue that he was made up or that they havd never heard of him? To those guys that's just unimportant, but asking why Paul didn't mention the tomb is proof of something. to me those are on an equal par, both qustions that don't prove anything just asking them.







Meta =>Jo does mention crucifiction under Pilate. how could he "choronical it?" He wasn't there.



Huh???

All surmizing is unimportant. Some carries more than others is all.

No you haven't.



Meta =>Yea it is. WEll not as strong as for Cesar. But same principle and it's pretty good. those lost gosples and diatesseron readings shove the story back to 20 years after the events. I think that in itself is proof. NOt time for myth to evolve and just the basic notion that he existed, made up after just 20 years!??? come on!


and 19 lost gospels all demonstating Jesus as flesh and blood, most of them in the first century, come on man that's pretty damn good evidence.

Metacrock

Meta =>No but very few of them will really carry the kind of weight that I see being put on them by Doherty. In fact I would accuse him of being lurid. He's so dramatic. "the conspiracy of silence." He's pandering to the crack pot who wants to believe that the chruch is an evil organzatioin of powerful people working in smoke filled rooms to do some moving and shaking or something.

All these guys like Iasion when he's in a corner and has no argument he just starts repeating that kind of questin over and over like a cross before a vampire he thinks it will ward off the things he can't answer.



Ok my own argument from silence, why is there only one version of the story? I answer that with a plausable answer and so I think that makes it a bit of a good argument, but i still don't imagine that even my own argument (that one) proves anything.


I will grant them that there are a couple of stratigeic questions that help their case, which are arguments from silence. The one about Paul not mentioning the tomb is a good question. but it doesn't prove anything.


and I think I answered it well. But before that could sink in yall got the thread off on that stupid CHS stuff. Is the tomb of Chrsit under the CHS? I didn't want that thread to be about that! I had an imporant point to make, the question about why didn't Paul mention the tomb might have a good answer. Read that original post again on the "thruth about the tomb" thread.


I see tremendous weight being put upon the asking of such questions, and I see now evidence that they even think about the questions I ask.




If this is parody, quote what you are parodizing.

Meta =>I am not making fun of you. Your arguments are fine, better than mine in fact. But someone today inspired the thing about no proof being the best evidence. I wish I could recall who that was. I'm just making fun of the general tone of the myther arguments that I see being used.

well like in this thread, in this argument. One of the things the lists is that JC had no kids, had no picture. He couldn't exist cause we don't have a picture of him. Have to have kids to exist!

I know he doesnt' think that, but it's the leaky bucketts fallacy. The cumulative effect of asking questions. but I don't think that proves anything. They can be ineresting questions, but they don't prove there was no Jesus. You can ask those all day and it doesn't prove anything.

Metacrock

sure it does! Asserting things makes them true. I learned that form you.

Llyricist

No, ahead in the sense that their arguments actually seem more plausible when viewed from a non sectarian perspective.
A skeptic wants the truth, a businessman wants to maximize profits..... BIG difference...try again.
How do you know they did not? Remember that in the 2nd and 3rd century, the Christian leadership definitely DID censor and limit what would be known about what was going on... don't even try to suggest they didn't openly advocate lying for the church.