Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sweetpea7 · 06-27-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...In contrast, when those who claim to be experts in the question of the historical Jesus are challenged, they primarily engage in insults, or arguments that are based on unreliable ancient documents.

There are differences between establishing evidence in the field of history and the physical sciences. Antiquity does not frequently provide physical evidence and so the historical-critical method is applied. I am not referring to people who merely "claim to be experts", but to those who are recognized scholars and would be considered so in a court of law. Establishing any likely fact of history, if it is about any ancient person, is going to be different than establishing the likely fact of gravity or evolution. Gravity and evolution are around us everyday, Socrates and Jesus are not. It is unreasonable to expect the same standards of evidence.

Quote:

In fact, the historical Jesus so called experts have more in common with creationists than with scientists who study evolution.

Why do you refer to scholars as "so called experts"?

Toto · 06-27-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...In contrast, when those who claim to be experts in the question of the historical Jesus are challenged, they primarily engage in insults, or arguments that are based on unreliable ancient documents.

There are differences between establishing evidence in the field of history and the physical sciences. Antiquity does not frequently provide physical evidence and so the historical-critical method is applied. I am not referring to people who merely "claim to be experts", but to those who are recognized scholars and would be considered so in a court of law. Establishing any likely fact of history, if it is about any ancient person, is going to be different than establishing the likely fact of gravity or evolution. Gravity and evolution are around us everyday, Socrates and Jesus are not. It is unreasonable to expect the same standards of evidence.

It is unreasonable to expect the same standards of evidence, but it is not reasonable to cling dogmatically to the idea that there was a historical Jesus merely because there is no way to disprove his existence.

Quote:

In fact, the historical Jesus so called experts have more in common with creationists than with scientists who study evolution.

Why do you refer to scholars as "so called experts"?

Most of the scholars who pontificate on the historical Jesus are not experts at history. They are experts at ancient languages, or theology, or documents. Many of them are ministers, or are employed by Christian institutions, or have other constraints. They tend to assume that the existence of a historical Jesus is established, and cannot be questioned.

There is one person with actual training in history, Richard Carrier, who has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia, who is writing a book supporting the mythicist thesis. It should be out within a year, and it should answer your questions.

If you really care about this issue, you can read a lot in the archives here, or on Vridar.

Toto · 06-27-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....

Your second question is one of which I would be a little more familiar and confident with the answer. Mythicists reject the authority of the mainstream scholars because they much prefer their own position, and they really do believe that the mainstream scholars are biased in favor of Christianity, which is actually true, but of course the problem remains that even the strongly non-religious or anti-religious qualified academic scholars are equally opposed and dismissive of mythicism. Mythicists very much tend to be anti-religious and/or atheist, and they see their own position as following from the general reality that religion is a fountain of falsehood. And, since there really is no firsthand extant written attestations to the historical human Jesus, and all of the earliest accounts really are Christian, then this provides the primary rhetorical impetus in favor of the conclusion that Christians invented Jesus.

Abe has been pushing this idea of mythicist bias for a while, but he still has no evidence for it. Mythicists are not necessarily anti-religious. Not all are atheist.

It is just a question of how you choose to try to reconstruct ancient history, where the evidence is unreliable at best.

sweetpea7 · 06-27-2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

it is not reasonable to cling dogmatically to the idea that there was a historical Jesus merely because there is no way to disprove his existence.

I have not heard this line of argument from Non-Christian HJ scholars.

Quote:

Most of the scholars who pontificate on the historical Jesus are not experts at history. They are experts at ancient languages, or theology, or documents. Many of them are ministers, or are employed by Christian institutions, or have other constraints. They tend to assume that the existence of a historical Jesus is established, and cannot be questioned.

Fair enough re: those "experts". I am focusing on only Non-Christian scholars, such as Bart Ehrman and Dale Martin.

Quote:

If you really care about this issue, you can read a lot in the archives here, or on Vridar.

Thank you. I will check it out.

aa5874 · 06-27-2011, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

HJ Scholars simply do not accept that the evidence in the NT Canon which suggests that Jesus was just a myth fable that was believed in antiquity.

Why do non-Christian HJ scholars not accept this evidence you speak of?

Please state the Non-Christian HJ Scholars that you are talking about. Your statement is ambiguous. You seem not to understand that not all Scholars assume that there was an historical Jesus.

Quote:

Even mainstream Scholars admit that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

...I know this. I am not defending the historical reliability of the NT. Evidence of a Historical Jesus is not evidence that the NT is reliable.

Well, you must first understand that the quest for the historical Jesus started over 200 years ago because of the very NT Canon.

You must understand that if the NT is NOT credible then Scholars have NO other source for details about the historical Jesus.

The only external passages which mentioned Jesus called Christ have been found to be forgeries.

dogsgod · 06-27-2011, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Your second question is one of which I would be a little more familiar and confident with the answer. Mythicists reject the authority of the mainstream scholars because they much prefer their own position, and they really do believe that the mainstream scholars are biased in favor of Christianity, which is actually true, but of course the problem remains that even the strongly non-religious or anti-religious qualified academic scholars are equally opposed and dismissive of mythicism. Mythicists very much tend to be anti-religious and/or atheist, and they see their own position as following from the general reality that religion is a fountain of falsehood. And, since there really is no firsthand extant written attestations to the historical human Jesus, and all of the earliest accounts really are Christian, then this provides the primary rhetorical impetus in favor of the conclusion that Christians invented Jesus.

I see the problem. <edited>. No one is out to get Christianity, there is not a conspiracy. If anything, this fear driven anti-Christian rhetoric exposes the insecurities of those that cling dearly to the certainty of an historical Jesus. There are reasonable grounds to reject the certainty of an historical Jesus. Why the fear of rejection ApostateAbe? Maybe you should look at yourself and your own fears of an anti-Christian conspiracy that you imagine is taking place somewhere out there.

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Your second question is one of which I would be a little more familiar and confident with the answer. Mythicists reject the authority of the mainstream scholars because they much prefer their own position, and they really do believe that the mainstream scholars are biased in favor of Christianity, which is actually true, but of course the problem remains that even the strongly non-religious or anti-religious qualified academic scholars are equally opposed and dismissive of mythicism. Mythicists very much tend to be anti-religious and/or atheist, and they see their own position as following from the general reality that religion is a fountain of falsehood. And, since there really is no firsthand extant written attestations to the historical human Jesus, and all of the earliest accounts really are Christian, then this provides the primary rhetorical impetus in favor of the conclusion that Christians invented Jesus.

I see the problem. <edited>. No one is out to get Christianity, there is not a conspiracy. If anything, this fear driven anti-Christian rhetoric exposes the insecurities of those that cling dearly to the certainty of an historical Jesus. There are reasonable grounds to reject the certainty of an historical Jesus. Why the fear of rejection ApostateAbe? Maybe you should look at yourself and your own fears of an anti-Christian conspiracy that you imagine is taking place somewhere out there.

I am curious--what do you think reinforces <edited>? Why would I have a fear of an anti-Christian conspiracy? Do you think maybe I feel snubbed because I was never made a part of that conspiracy? I welcome you to speculate on my psychology as far as you like. God knows I don't stay away from such speculations.

dogsgod · 06-27-2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

I see the problem. <edited>. No one is out to get Christianity, there is not a conspiracy. If anything, this fear driven anti-Christian rhetoric exposes the insecurities of those that cling dearly to the certainty of an historical Jesus. There are reasonable grounds to reject the certainty of an historical Jesus. Why the fear of rejection ApostateAbe? Maybe you should look at yourself and your own fears of an anti-Christian conspiracy that you imagine is taking place somewhere out there.

I am curious--what do you think reinforces <edited>? Why would I have a fear of an anti-Christian conspiracy? Do you think maybe I feel snubbed because I was never made a part of that conspiracy? I welcome you to speculate on my psychology as far as you like. God knows I don't stay away from such speculations.

The fact that you believe that those that have their doubts are in some way anti-Christian speaks volumes of what you think is going on here. To suggest that "they see their own position as following from the general reality that religion is a fountain of falsehood" says far more about you and what you fear about those that don't believe what you believe than anything about history. This is an incredible distraction from actual historical questions at hand, it's merely an ad hominem, and as everyone is aware, ad hominems are a means of attacking the person, or in this case the persons with a blanket use of anti-Christian rhetoric towards all those that hold an opposing view because you have no valid argument to support your own position. Nice try at deflecting but it doesn't work.

ApostateAbe · 06-27-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I am curious--what do you think reinforces <edited>? Why would I have a fear of an anti-Christian conspiracy? Do you think maybe I feel snubbed because I was never made a part of that conspiracy? I welcome you to speculate on my psychology as far as you like. God knows I don't stay away from such speculations.

The fact that you believe that those that have their doubts are in some way anti-Christian speaks volumes of what you think is going on here. To suggest that "they see their own position as following from the general reality that religion is a fountain of falsehood" says far more about you and what you fear about those that don't believe what you believe than anything about history. This is an incredible distraction from actual historical questions at hand, it's merely an ad hominem, and as everyone is aware, ad hominems are a means of attacking the person, or in this case the persons with a blanket use of anti-Christian rhetoric towards all those that hold an opposing view because you have no valid argument to support your own position. Nice try at deflecting but it doesn't work.

You said that <edited> and I have some sort of fear of an anti-Christian conspiracy. Can you please explain what causes <edited>? I ask because I always thought, if anything, that my primary bias would be very much against the Christian religion. Thanks.

Toto · 06-27-2011, 09:40 PM

I am not sure of the propriety of psychoanalyzing another poster, or why Abe is inviting this.

It is clear that Abe has some fixed ideas that he will not modify in the face of contrary evidence, but I don't know that this rises to the level of <edited>.

Perhaps dogsgod does not realize that Abe is an atheist, but he worships Bart Ehrman as if he were a god.

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

06-27-2011, 09:40 PM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I am not sure of the propriety of psychoanalyzing another poster, or why Abe is inviting this. It is clear that Abe has some fixed ideas that he will not modify in the face of contrary evidence, but I don't know that this rises to the level of <edited>. Perhaps dogsgod does not realize that Abe is an atheist, but he worships Bart Ehrman as if he were a god.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.