Peter Kirby

If this is the case, then there should be conclusive historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What is that evidence? Feel free to start a new thread.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

It is the case and there is conclusive evidence but I don't have the time nor the desire to argue the overly obvious on the internet right now. I am in the works preparing a "large case against mythicism" on my site.

Vinnie

Clara Listensprechen

Gee whizzikkers, Peter, you don't seem to realize that "agnostic" refers to something being unknowable, and insofar as concrete archaeology's revelations regarding the person of Jesus in question here remain unknowable, there are no facts to know and therefore the subject matter is necessarily unknowable until such time as archaeology actually digs up actual facts.

Archaeology is an attempt to get at the unvarnished facts, and is therefore a required part of any/all discussion of whether or not there was an historical Jesus. Without hard evidence such as archaeology turns up, all else is based on the ephemeral faith of any given individual, and varies depending on the individual.

It's clear in this quarter that what you call facts are "proven" by nothing more concrete than your belief in them, as concrete facts remain unavailable and will remain so as long as they're so purposefully kept beyond the reach of those who would find the real facts. Believers tend to have this characteristic that belief = proof when it does not, and as a result they tend to exhibit a common trait, that of a fixation on recursive reasoning to prove the belief, rather than draw a belief from any proof.

My term for it is "The Vicious Cycle of Religious Insanity".

Peter Kirby

Of course I understand what agnosticism is.

Clara, do you maintain that a shift in archaeology in the mid twentieth century resulted in changes in scholarly writing on Jesus? It was that perceived statement to which I responded.

If you are saying that archaeology tells us nothing directly about Jesus, never has in the past and may never in the future, then I would agree. That is indeed one of the points that I made in my last post.

If you say that archaeology (of artifacts or material culture) is the only way to come to knowledge about the ancient world, as opposed to the examination of writings (you know, such as Herodotus), then I would not agree but am not overly eager to get into a debate about it.

If you are saying none of the above, then what we have here is a failure to communicate.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Well, at least it will be a short thread.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

That flies in the face of all empirical evidence concerning previous Jesus Myth threads.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clara Listensprechen

Strange, strange message, this...

I've been saying that archaeology to date has turned up next to nothing on Jesus' person, historically, and we were talking about the aspect of an historical Jesus, a concept necessitating historical proof outside of The Bible (Western Christian). No historical proof, no historical Jesus as such. It's as plain as the nose on anyone's face, actually. This ain't rocket science.

Peter Kirby

You have ignored the first and third questions (requests for clarification) in the previous post. And you imply that I am not able to follow simple logic. The matter of the first question was the subject of my initial posts in this thread and deserved comment. Despite getting no response to the third question, it seems that you do have the belief that the only means of knowledge about ancient history is archaeological discovery, to the exclusion of ancient written sources. And despite not asking the question of me, it seems that you assume that I am concerned to prove a historical Jesus. There is no doubt about it, we do have communication failure, and I shall have to try harder to avoid this kind of problem.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clara Listensprechen

Peter, since you insist there's a miscommunication, there obvioiusly is one now that one's been manufactured.

Your original question (one) in this thread, is as follows, copied and pasted directly from your first posted message in this thread:
I've answered what it means to speak of the historicity of a person, that it requires hisorically authentic proof of that person's existance and how it necessarily requires archaeological remains of what that person directly affected, otherwise the person remains mythical whose historicity is based on faith (belief in this person's existance without proof).

That 'un wasn't rocket science either.

As to responses to the next-to-latest response of yours, I'm still waiting your clarification on what you said, cuz it simply did not compute. Seems to me that what I'd said about archaeology addressed both second and third item together, as those are on the same issue. I would be repeating myself when I say that archaeology has produced next to nothing, to date, on any historical Jesus, and such archaeology was free-er to be conducted while the region was under post-WWI British rule.

I'm not the kind of person who enjoys repeating myself.

OK, I'll hold my breath for you no longer.

Peter Kirby

Is Flavius Josephus mythical? To my knowledge, we have no "archaeological remains of what that person directly affected." What we have are a written corpus, preserved in late copies, and a reference to him in Suetonius.

Of course, many other people lived of whom we have no archaeological evidence extant.

What I said is that the creation of the state of Israel has had no effect on Jesus studies, as archaeology did not play a direct role in the debate over Jesus either before or after.

best,
Peter Kirby