spin

Rubbish. Agnosticism is a position which would save a lot of stupidity being paraded as history.



What happens when there is insufficient evidence? Tell me, did Robin Hood exist? Did Arthur? How about (St) Nicholas? We have later traditions of each of them, which may go back to real people, but unfortunately with the (lack of) evidence we have, there is no meaningful decision to be made on their historicity. Most people don't really care enough to decide. Why are you so overburdened with the necessity to make a decision based on such inadequate evidence?

OK....

...but this is shooting in the dark.

Are these assertions helpful? We see such chest beating on both sides of the divide and is vacuous either way.

It's worse than we "don't know for sure" that it's true/false. It's that the evidence is so inadequate you have to be irresponsible (just don't care or religion is correct/bad) to make a stab at a high school best explanation. All it will show is what you are prepared to believe. There is no doubt that traditions can have real events incorporated in them. Once you eliminate the preposterous from a tradition, you are left with fragments that may have happened and there is frequently no ostensible way to discern from them what is and what is not veracious. It's all been ground into the one pap and you have no tools to distinguish useful from useless material.

Being agnostic regarding issues of insufficient evidence allows history to reflect what can be known rather than what should be known.

tanya

Legend: unconfirmed, potentially historical, probably exaggerated, genuine event or person or place.

Myth: supernatural attribution

Robin Hood: 100% LEGEND, no mythical character;

King Arthur: story embraces Merlin, magic swords, confounding with "holy grail", i.e MYTH

St. Nicholas: If the legend involves flying about with reindeer in the sky, then MYTH, else, LEGEND.

Alexander of Macedonia: LEGEND, not myth. His empire, like that of many others, was based on superior military accomplishments, not divine attribution.

Why should it make any difference, whether or not one is evaluating "evidence" of a legend versus a myth?

People DIED, because of Judaism's practices and beliefs. People were tortured, maimed, and raped, as well as killed, by sectarian violence arising from confusion based on the MYTHS associated with Judaism and its successors: Christianity and Islam.

There is no utility associated with professing uncertainty about the divinity of Jesus. His "human" qualities are not the subject of debate. His "human" qualities did not lead to wars, murders, burning at the stake, etc.....

No one is asking you to acknowledge the mythical character of the "human" Jesus. The "human" Jesus is irrelevant. The Jesus of the gospels is NOT HUMAN. If you cannot see that, then, yes, my response is very "thin".

profound rejoinder....

:huh:

Grog

The first two, clearly myth. I have no opinion on St. Nick. I notice you didn't include William Tell, though.

We don't lack evidence, there is quite a lot of evidence.

No, there is evidence.

That's a cop out. It's playing to the middle.

Assertion. How do you determine "sufficient evidence" from "insufficient evidence?"

You are playing to the middle, riding the fence. That way, you can't be wrong.

spin

That just tells me you don't know anything about their earliest sources.

Well, that's one response out of three based on reason.

Why should I include him? The objective was to try to wean you from your smug lack of knowledge. I picked figures whose reality is shrouded in unknowing. William Tell doesn't fit the bill.

Another assertion.

About now you should be starting to hear the faint sounds of a well-known expression: fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Your serious opponent concedes the possibility. (The goats who nay-say don't count.)

I hope this sort of rhetoric makes up for the emptiness of your evidence locker.

I'm happy to take sides when there is reasonable evidence. For example, most christian interpretations of Daniel are simply biased and on top of that wrong. And even some of the translations deliberately obfuscate the text for tendentious reasons. I take sides as to the lack of veracity of the christian additions to Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. And the list goes on. (Just check some of my blog entries.) When the evidence doesn't allow you to know what is real and what's not, there is no best explanation. You should not make decisions in the dark. It's better to admit ignorance and deal with more fruitful issues. That's what I try to do.

You have no way to distinguish between real and bad sources in the christian tradition once material with obvious problems have been removed. Neither does the historicist. Both parties are screwed through lack of useful evidence and just continue to play a game of mumbling cliches to a captive audience and beating chests.

This is the fact you all are impaled upon: an ontology not supported by an epistemology makes no sense. Modern historiography is constructed on functional epistemologies.

tanya

"lack of knowledge"??

What are you writing about, here?

Are you agnostic regarding alBuraq?

Do you possess some extra knowledge about this mythical beast, of which the rest of us remain ignorant?

No. Of course not. yes, spin, you are correct, William Tell does not "fit the bill". Heracles, DOES fit the bill, however. I wonder why you refuse to address your agnostic impressions of another famous Greek mythical character, another born as a result of a union between a divine ruler, Zeus, and an earthly, human female. Each time, I pose the question you ignore, or insult. Why?

So for the third time, even if not charming, do you remain agnostic about the divinity of Heracles? If so, why, if not, why? Then, apply the same criteria to JC.

@Grog: nope, my comments are not directed to spin. My comments are directed to the forum, using spin's absurd logic, to focus the forum's attention on the disparity, incongruity, and hypocritical thinking by several forum members, regarding "historicity" of the Greek mythical character, Jesus.

:huh:

mountainman

If agnosticism is consistent in its application it might save some stupidity, but Spin is certainly not an agnostic about all evidence. For example ask him about the certainty that the Dura-Europos-Yale "house church" is an exemplar (the only one of its kind it would seem) of "Early Christian archaeology".


Pot kettle black.




.

Grog

Ah well. You missed the point. Good thing William Tell didn't miss. My point was that the reason scholars today dismiss the historicity of William Tell (who might also be based on a myth historicized), is due to the lack of evidence. That consensus was not easy to come to by, though. I believe there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus existed. Further, there is evidence of evolution of ideas lying behind Jesus-belief.

As far as Arthur and Robin Hood go, I don't want to change the subject, but Arthur scholarship, I believe (this isn't really an area I've looked into much), leans toward ahistoricity.

You also seem to not understand the notion of "probability." when I argue for a mythicist case, I am saying it is probably more true than not that Jesus didn't exist. I am not saying I know conclusively that Jesus did not exist. I think that's the state of affairs in King Arthur studies as well. I have no knowledge at all about Robin Hood, so I retract my clearly myth statement. I really don't know.


I think you are overconfident in your self-assessment.

I have always stated that I am talking about possibility, not certainty.

So...
here are the possibilities:

1. Jesus did exist.
2. Jesus probably did exist.
3. Can't make a judgment one way or another (insufficient evidence)
4. Jesus probably did not exist.
5. Jesus did not exist.

You make a case for 3 based on an assertion that there is insufficient evidence. I asked you for your grounds on which you make that assertion. What is "sufficient evidence" for staking a claim on 2 or 4?

You are playing the middle and feeling very good about yourself in riding the FACT that there is uncertainty in the endeavor to uncover the origins of Christianity.


I think the evidence is fairly rich.


What is "reasonable" evidence?

The evidence at hand does not allow a conclusive statement. That doesn't mean that it is unwarranted to make what we can out of the evidence at hand.

tanya

Really? The gospel evidence does not allow you to conclusively attest to the mythical character of Jesus? Gosh. ....

Well, then, to repeat my broken record, which thus far remains unanswered:

Does the evidence at hand allow a conclusive statement regarding the supposed historicity of Heracles?

I remind the forum, that unlike Jesus, Heracles was so famous, that even Philo of Alexandria commented on his accomplishments, and an entire city was named in his honor. Can the same be said of Jesus?

In my view, the evidence at hand is overwhelming, that Jesus, like Heracles, is a myth figure. I am eager for someone on the forum to explain my error in thinking here....I am particularly keen to learn why the evidence of Jesus' mythical character is not overwhelming to every literate person....

aa5874

Well, you have now admitted that you may be wrong so I am vindicated.

You admit that you may be wrong in crudely appealing to authority. My position is that you are wrong to do so. ALL the evidence that I have seen suggest that the Pauline letters are NOT really forgeries but FRAUDULENT, that is, there was never any person called Paul who wrote letters to churches.

Amazingly, even the Apologetic source called Acts of the Apostles did NOT state Paul wrote letters to churches and the Seneca/Paul letters attempting to place Paul in the 1st century have been deemed to be forgeries.

You are wrong to crudely appeal to authority.

I will ALWAYS make good points because I deal with the evidence from antiquity and do NOT "crudely appeal to authority". It is the ACTUAL written statements from antiquity that matters NOT opinion.

Did you not read what I wrote?? I am no longer accepting PRESUMPTIONS about Paul, Jesus and the disciples. They were NOT real 1st century characters based on the evidence that I have seen.

1. Jesus was the Son of God in Myth Fables called Gospels and the Pauline letters..

2. The disciples of Jesus were fictitious characters who Witnessed and participated in NON-events.

3. Paul met the apostle Peter a fictitious character and stayed with him for 15 days.

4. Paul met the apostle James, a fictitious character in the Jesus stories.

I am sorry. I cannot accept Paul, Jesus and the disciples as figures of history and cannot accept that the Pauline writings are credible.

I do not deal with FAITH.

I don't know what will be found.

I DEAL with the DATED evidence that was FOUND.

I am dealing with evidence from antiquity, Evidence from antiquity can NEVER be irrelevant.

I really don't care about what people read. People read whatever they want to read.

But, I ONLY care about the evidence from antiquity.

At one time the Roman Church did NOT want to read what Galileo wrote and put him under house arrest.

Based on history there will ALWAYS people who don't want to hear the evidence from antiquity and Crudely Appeal to authority while admitting they may be wrong to do so.

spin

Grog, it seems that nothing in my post reached you.
This is example one of your incomprehension. I told you why I chose the three I did and here you are, having not taken it in and attempting the same error of injecting William Tell into the conversation, despite the fact that he is not an example of a figure whose reality has not been ascertained. William Tell is legendary. We cannot say the same thing about Arthur, Robin Hood or St Nicholas. They each are encrusted with apocryphal traditions, but their reality has not been excluded, contrary to William Tell. Sadly, you missed the point.

The subject is inability to draw historical conclusions and these two are examples where such inability exists, despite your lack of knowledge in the subject.

Your notion of probability here is inseparable from your desire. This is usually the case when people talk about it regarding such issues. It's as though they are at a racetrack and are sure they can pick a winner.

Until you can deal with the problem of epistemology, attempts at probability will be vain.

It's not a reflection of me (unless you work at it to be): it's the unjustifiability of making decisions as you have done with evidence that cannot help you. This is the import of the post you are trying to respond to. The evidence is inscrutable. You rush to decide when you don't have the material to base a meaningful decision on.

OK, for this facile thinking I need to be clearer. When I said "Your serious opponent concedes the possibility" I don't mean that they are in any way convinced by your argument, but that they admit the possibility of the evidence. Now you have not been talking about possibility per se, but some misguided notion of probability. And to that point:

You do completely misunderstand the problem. We have a shitload of evidence whose utility cannot be established. We remove the crap legendary stuff about being taken to the top of a high mountain to see all the world or curing the blind and the deaf with spit or feeding thousands with a few baskets of food. We are left with a guy who walked around, doing and saying things until he was executed. We have nothing other than the christian material to give us insight. The information may or may not be veracious. You, and I will specifically indicate you, have no means at all of deciding. This is true of those duffers who are trying to shape the same information into evidence that he did in fact exist. This is where you drop the bundle and bleat rubbish about probability once again, still not knowing that without any functional epistemology, your ontology is worthless. What you think you know needs employable methods in order for you to know it. If you cannot say how you can decide from the residual tradition that Jesus did not exist, then it is meaningless for you to claim that he didn't.

Umm, this is you standing in the dark and imagining you see the light.

Thinking it is not showing it.

Perhaps you didn't get it the first time round: that which your serious opponent concedes is possible.

It's worse than that. You didn't understand the last paragraph of mine that you cited, which has "an ontology not supported by an epistemology makes no sense." You have no meaningful way of knowing how the evidence reflects your ontological commitments.

One last attempt at trying to clarify your problem. Imagine you are standing in a church that has a poor box. The only other people there, two of them, are standing huddled in front of it with their backs to you--call them Mythicist Writer and Realist Writer. You hear two coins thud as they fall into the box one at a time and they walk off. You go over and peer in (it has perspex sides). How do you decide which coin was dropped by Mythicist Writer and which by Realist Writer or worse if only one of them dropped both coins? This is the basic problem facing you with the evidence concerning Jesus. There is no way available to anyone of distinguishing real factoids from bogus ones once they have entered the tradition.