FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-24-2011, 07:33 PM   #331
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
If the HJ theory is not a logical fallacy then someone should be able to provide unambiguous evidence
Everything in history is ambiguous, and subject to individual interpretation/subjectivity because it is not scientifically reproducable. No one can go back in time to verify what has happened. You will never get unambiguous evidence. It is unreasonable to require it.
I am happy to run with a multi-colum spreadsheet into which the evidence can be indexed - one column for unambiguous evidence, and a second column for ambiguous evidence. However the problem is that when the list is prepared and we have say 100 entries sitting in the ambiguous column, it still leaves unanswered the argument that the HJ theory has no historical evidence. Those who think that it is not unreasonable to require some unambiguity in the evidence may therefore be entitled to regard as a logical fallacy.

Faith is insufficient evidence.
Are you aware of any unambiguous evidence for any theory? You mentioned before two 'postulates' (rather than 'theories', if the distinction is significant in this context): can you cite any unambiguous evidence for either of them?
Can you?
Not if you can't adequately specify the meaning of the two 'postulates' you referred to. You said they were already specific enough by your standards, so you should be able to say whether you can cite any unambiguous evidence for either of them.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 07:35 PM   #332
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It is possible that there was a historical Jesus who didn't perform miracles but resembled in some or many respects the gospel Jesus.
Conversely it is also possible that there was no historical Hesus and that the books of the new testament (both canonical and non canonical) are simply exemplars of pious fiction from a later century. What does the evidence actually say to us without the church-organ-music?
What evidence?
J-D is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 07:36 PM   #333
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
The very first Historical Jesus Theory was authored by Eusebius
What leads you to say that?
Eusebius himself,
You have not cited the words of Eusebius you are referring to.
The words of Eusebius to which I and many others have referred to ad nauseum in this forum for years to are to be found in the opening chapter of the Early Christian Church History.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The words of BIG E AUTHORED between 312 and 324 with revisions
HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA
Book I.
Chapter I. The Plan of the Work.


1 It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

2 It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called1 have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

3 It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and of tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and kindly succor which our Saviour has afforded them all. Since I propose to write of all these things I shall commence my work with the beginning of the dispensation2 of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.3

4 But at the outset I must crave for my work the indulgence of the wise,4 for I confess that it is beyond my power to produce a perfect and complete history, and since I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path.

I pray that I may have God as my guide and the power of the Lord as my aid, since I am unable to find even the bare footsteps of those who have traveled the way before me, except in brief fragments, in which some in one way, others in another, have transmitted to us particular accounts of the times in which they lived. From afar they raise their voices like torches, and they cry out, as from some lofty and conspicuous watch-tower, admonishing us where to walk and how to direct the course of our work steadily and safely.

5 Having gathered therefore from the matters mentioned here and there by them whatever we consider important for the present work, and having plucked like flowers from a meadow the appropriate passages from ancient writers,6 we shall endeavor to embody the whole in an historical narrative, content if we preserve the memory of the successions of the apostles of our Saviour; if not indeed of all, yet of the most renowned of them in those churches which are the most noted, and which even to the present time are held in honor.

6 This work seems to me of especial importance because I know of no ecclesiastical writer who has devoted himself to this subject; and I hope that it will appear most useful to those who are fond of historical research.

7 I have already given an epitome of these things in the Chronological Canons7 which I have composed, but notwithstanding that, I have undertaken in the present work to write as full an account of them as I am able.

8 My work will begin, as I have said, with the dispensation8 of the Saviour Christ,-which is loftier and greater than human conception,

9 -and with a discussion of his divinity9 ; for it is necessary, inasmuch as we derive even our name from Christ, for one who proposes to write a history of the Church to begin with the very origin of Christ's dispensation, a dispensation more divine than many think.
What he says there, even if it is true, is that he is the first to attempt to write a history of the Church from its origins to his own time, not that he is the first to write a 'historical Jesus theory'.
What's the logical difference?
That depends on how you define 'historical Jesus theory'. So far none of the definitions offered by you or by anybody else have been equivalent to 'a history of the Church from its origins to the writer's own times'.
A table above lists a spectrum of positions that define the HJ and the non HJ theories, and cites authors who have writen books on their "Historical Jesus Theories". These many many books are generally treated to represent an exposition and definition at the detail level of every and all historical jesus theories that have been collected and written ever since Eusebius first wrote his many books, the opening chapter of one I have cited above.
None of the spectrum of positions on that table equated 'a historical Jesus theory' with 'a history of the Church from its origins to the writer's own times'.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 07:41 PM   #334
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
You said they were already specific enough by your standards, so you should be able to say whether you can cite any unambiguous evidence for either of them.
What are you talking about? A logician should already know that it is not the postulate(s) but the theory which requires evidence.
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 07:50 PM   #335
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
None of the spectrum of positions on that table equated 'a historical Jesus theory' with 'a history of the Church from its origins to the writer's own times'.
Every single one of the spectrum of positions on that table uses the theory submitted by Eusbeius c.325 CE as outlined in his 'a history of the Church from its origins to the writer's own times'. Please provide an exception. Shall I cite Lightfoot again?
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 07:52 PM   #336
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It is possible that there was a historical Jesus who didn't perform miracles but resembled in some or many respects the gospel Jesus.
Conversely it is also possible that there was no historical Hesus and that the books of the new testament (both canonical and non canonical) are simply exemplars of pious fiction from a later century. What does the evidence actually say to us without the church-organ-music?
What evidence?
Precisely.
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 08:46 PM   #337
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
You said they were already specific enough by your standards, so you should be able to say whether you can cite any unambiguous evidence for either of them.
What are you talking about? A logician should already know that it is not the postulate(s) but the theory which requires evidence.
Then I repeat my earlier question: are you aware of any unambiguous evidence for any theory?
J-D is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 08:48 PM   #338
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
None of the spectrum of positions on that table equated 'a historical Jesus theory' with 'a history of the Church from its origins to the writer's own times'.
Every single one of the spectrum of positions on that table uses the theory submitted by Eusbeius c.325 CE as outlined in his 'a history of the Church from its origins to the writer's own times'. Please provide an exception. Shall I cite Lightfoot again?
You said that 'the very first Historical Jesus Theory' was authored by Eusebius. None of the positions on that table makes that particular assertion.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 08:50 PM   #339
J-D
Moderator - General Religious Discussions
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 27,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It is possible that there was a historical Jesus who didn't perform miracles but resembled in some or many respects the gospel Jesus.
Conversely it is also possible that there was no historical Hesus and that the books of the new testament (both canonical and non canonical) are simply exemplars of pious fiction from a later century. What does the evidence actually say to us without the church-organ-music?
What evidence?
Precisely.
If you mean 'there is no evidence', you're plainly wrong. There's lots of evidence. Everything is evidence. The question is, what conclusions is it evidence for? So when you ask, what does the evidence say, the question is, which evidence were you talking about? If you don't know what you're talking about, nobody else can be expected to.
J-D is offline  
Old 07-24-2011, 09:29 PM   #340
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-D View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
It is possible that there was a historical Jesus who didn't perform miracles but resembled in some or many respects the gospel Jesus.
Conversely it is also possible that there was no historical Hesus and that the books of the new testament (both canonical and non canonical) are simply exemplars of pious fiction from a later century. What does the evidence actually say to us without the church-organ-music?
What evidence?
Precisely.
If you mean 'there is no evidence', you're plainly wrong.
There is no evidence for the historical jesus. If you really think I am plainly wrong then you will furnish some evidence for discussion.

Quote:
There's lots of evidence.

What's your favorite bit of evidence FOR the HJ?
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:22 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.