Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 02-15-2010, 08:24 AM

The problem is that, apart from some very questionable written sources, there is simply zero evidence for Christianity in 1st century Palestine.

Likewise, apart from these same questionable sources, there is zero evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus.

To make matters even worse, HJ is a theoretical construct with no contemporary support, not even textual.

maryhelena · 02-15-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, I have a case alright - I have had for many a year - and have posted some relevant views on this forum. Anything else - well, at my leisure...

As to your statement re lets 'have no nonsense that mythicists have some case that needs to be answered'. GDon, you are still not hearing what I am saying. The 'case' that needs to be answered re a mythicist view is that Jesus is not historical - that is the one and only case that has to be answered by historicists. And that case has no need for my own views whatsoever - they are, as I keep repeating, secondary.

GDon, don't keep side-tracking this issue. The historicists case is that Jesus is historical - the mythicist case is no, Jesus is not historical. The mythicist is rejecting the historicist position. That a mythicist might come up with some additional views, secondary points of interest - and often easy targets for the historicists - this is like taking a big hammer to knock down a very small nail. Might look impressive for the historicists position - but that is only a very surface 'victory'. The real 'battle' is not being undertaken by the historicists at all. The only way the historicists can knock down the mythicists is to provide historical evidence for their position - and you know very well that they cannot do that.

The historicists cannot win this 'battle'. Hence, instead of the usual ridicule and slurs that get branded about - somewhere along the line an accommodation needs to be sought. The mythicsts are not going away - some of them might well have outlandish ideas - but so has Christian theology through the years.

So, perhaps a suggestion - stop looking at the outlandish ideas some mythicists might have - and zero in, utterly and completely, at the core of the mythicist position: The Jesus in the New Testament is not a historical figure.

maryhelena, whenever I am asked to provide evidence for my position, I do it, even though I repeat it many time ad nauseum. It helps others and myself review who has a better case. I have said in another thread that there should be no default position on Jesus theories. We should believe whatever fits the evidence with the most probability. There are a handful of people in this forum who do not wish to argue their case for a mythical Jesus (some of them think they have a case and some don't), but they criticize the idea of a historical Jesus because they believe the evidence is not there. Upon further investigation, I find that they view probability as too subjective, and they accept the postmodernist way of thinking (though they don't call it that). For such people, moderately good evidence is not enough, no different from a complete lack of evidence. The evidence has to be a slam dunk, or they simply will not accept the idea. This way of thinking is foreign to our everyday lives--we accept and act on various degrees of uncertainty--but it is very common among people who do not wish to accept a conclusion seemingly backed by the evidence. Of course, the evidence for a historical Jesus will never be a slam dunk.

I know that you at one point have said that finding probability is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Have you become one of those people?

Which people? Sorry, don't have a clue what you are trying to ask me here...:huh:

ApostateAbe · 02-15-2010, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

maryhelena, whenever I am asked to provide evidence for my position, I do it, even though I repeat it many time ad nauseum. It helps others and myself review who has a better case. I have said in another thread that there should be no default position on Jesus theories. We should believe whatever fits the evidence with the most probability. There are a handful of people in this forum who do not wish to argue their case for a mythical Jesus (some of them think they have a case and some don't), but they criticize the idea of a historical Jesus because they believe the evidence is not there. Upon further investigation, I find that they view probability as too subjective, and they accept the postmodernist way of thinking (though they don't call it that). For such people, moderately good evidence is not enough, no different from a complete lack of evidence. The evidence has to be a slam dunk, or they simply will not accept the idea. This way of thinking is foreign to our everyday lives--we accept and act on various degrees of uncertainty--but it is very common among people who do not wish to accept a conclusion seemingly backed by the evidence. Of course, the evidence for a historical Jesus will never be a slam dunk.

I know that you at one point have said that finding probability is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Have you become one of those people?

Which people? Sorry, don't have a clue what you are trying to ask me here...:huh:

The people I am referring to are those who argue with postmodernism underlying their way of thinking, who reject all probability estimates.

dog-on · 02-15-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Which people? Sorry, don't have a clue what you are trying to ask me here...:huh:

The people I am referring to are those who argue with postmodernism underlying their way of thinking, who reject all probability estimates.

You mean those that reject wishful thinking?

Toto · 02-15-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Which people? Sorry, don't have a clue what you are trying to ask me here...:huh:

The people I am referring to are those who argue with postmodernism underlying their way of thinking, who reject all probability estimates.

But you've never produced any probability estimates, or any way of estimating probabilty. I have never seen you interact with Richard Carrier's essay on Baysian Statistics.

Nor have you explained what postmodernism has to do with this.

aa5874 · 02-15-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Oh, I have a case alright - I have had for many a year - and have posted some relevant views on this forum. Anything else - well, at my leisure...

As to your statement re lets 'have no nonsense that mythicists have some case that needs to be answered'. GDon, you are still not hearing what I am saying. The 'case' that needs to be answered re a mythicist view is that Jesus is not historical - that is the one and only case that has to be answered by historicists. And that case has no need for my own views whatsoever - they are, as I keep repeating, secondary.

GDon, don't keep side-tracking this issue. The historicists case is that Jesus is historical - the mythicist case is no, Jesus is not historical. The mythicist is rejecting the historicist position. That a mythicist might come up with some additional views, secondary points of interest - and often easy targets for the historicists - this is like taking a big hammer to knock down a very small nail. Might look impressive for the historicists position - but that is only a very surface 'victory'. The real 'battle' is not being undertaken by the historicists at all. The only way the historicists can knock down the mythicists is to provide historical evidence for their position - and you know very well that they cannot do that.

The historicists cannot win this 'battle'. Hence, instead of the usual ridicule and slurs that get branded about - somewhere along the line an accommodation needs to be sought. The mythicsts are not going away - some of them might well have outlandish ideas - but so has Christian theology through the years.

So, perhaps a suggestion - stop looking at the outlandish ideas some mythicists might have - and zero in, utterly and completely, at the core of the mythicist position: The Jesus in the New Testament is not a historical figure.

maryhelena, whenever I am asked to provide evidence for my position, I do it, even though I repeat it many time ad nauseum. It helps others and myself review who has a better case. I have said in another thread that there should be no default position on Jesus theories. We should believe whatever fits the evidence with the most probability. There are a handful of people in this forum who do not wish to argue their case for a mythical Jesus (some of them think they have a case and some don't), but they criticize the idea of a historical Jesus because they believe the evidence is not there. Upon further investigation, I find that they view probability as too subjective, and they accept the postmodernist way of thinking (though they don't call it that). For such people, moderately good evidence is not enough, no different from a complete lack of evidence. The evidence has to be a slam dunk, or they simply will not accept the idea. This way of thinking is foreign to our everyday lives--we accept and act on various degrees of uncertainty--but it is very common among people who do not wish to accept a conclusion seemingly backed by the evidence. Of course, the evidence for a historical Jesus will never be a slam dunk.

I know that you at one point have said that finding probability is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Have you become one of those people?

You simply cannot use the Canon for Jesus the GOD/MAN to demonstrate that Jesus was simply a MAN.

You just cannot use the Canon to show that Jesus believers worshiped a MAN when the Church writers have provided information that Jesus was worshiped as a God and was a God before he took on the flesh of a man.

The Canon and Church writings are about a GOD/MAN, if you want to claim and demonstrate that Jesus was just a MAN then you NEED TO FIND some other source to start your case.

Historicists can perhaps start with the "Shroud of Turin". There must be a lot of DNA in the "blood" on the shroud.

The Shroud of Turin must be a slam dunk for historicist.

The fabric should be from the 1st century and it should be filled with perhaps a bucket of dried blood.

Historicists need to begin to provide their historical sources instead of just guessing and relying on a Canon that claim Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

GakuseiDon · 02-15-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

True enough. Nope, I can't prove that the passages above have been tampered with.

That was an unfair question, on my part, as I knew the answer.

Tell me this. Even if Paul believed that Jesus was a real guy that was recently crucified, could Paul have been mistaken?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

How would we know?

We wouldn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

In other words. What corroborates Paul?

It would depend on the element being discussed. A crucified Jesus Christ is depicted in the Gospels and other early sources. I suppose though if you think the sources all depended on Paul, then: nothing.

GakuseiDon · 02-15-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Maryhelena, if you have a case that you would like to argue, then lets argue it. If you are still gathering your data, then fair enough. Just let me know when you have finished gathering your data. I can wait. But then lets have no nonsense that mythicists have some case that needs to be answered.

So which is it? Do you have a case that needs to be answered or not?

Oh, I have a case alright - I have had for many a year - and have posted some relevant views on this forum. Anything else - well, at my leisure...

As to your statement re lets 'have no nonsense that mythicists have some case that needs to be answered'. GDon, you are still not hearing what I am saying. The 'case' that needs to be answered re a mythicist view is that Jesus is not historical - that is the one and only case that has to be answered by historicists. And that case has no need for my own views whatsoever - they are, as I keep repeating, secondary.

GDon, don't keep side-tracking this issue. The historicists case is that Jesus is historical - the mythicist case is no, Jesus is not historical.

I actually looked up the definition of the word 'case', to make sure I was using it correctly. The definition is as follows:

Case: A set of reasons or supporting facts; an argument

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The mythicist is rejecting the historicist position. That a mythicist might come up with some additional views, secondary points of interest - and often easy targets for the historicists - this is like taking a big hammer to knock down a very small nail. Might look impressive for the historicists position - but that is only a very surface 'victory'. The real 'battle' is not being undertaken by the historicists at all. The only way the historicists can knock down the mythicists is to provide historical evidence for their position - and you know very well that they cannot do that.

I think the cases are independent. Both should be examined. But if I show that Doherty is wrong, it doesn't mean that Jesus was historical. It might be that both the mythicist case and historicist case don't have enough information to prove conclusively one way or the other.

As for evidence for the historicist position: I think there is enough there to show that there probably was a historical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The historicists cannot win this 'battle'. Hence, instead of the usual ridicule and slurs that get branded about - somewhere along the line an accommodation needs to be sought. The mythicsts are not going away - some of them might well have outlandish ideas - but so has Christian theology through the years.

So, perhaps a suggestion - stop looking at the outlandish ideas some mythicists might have - and zero in, utterly and completely, at the core of the mythicist position: The Jesus in the New Testament is not a historical figure.

As I said: why can't we do both?

ApostateAbe · 02-15-2010, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The people I am referring to are those who argue with postmodernism underlying their way of thinking, who reject all probability estimates.

But you've never produced any probability estimates, or any way of estimating probabilty. I have never seen you interact with Richard Carrier's essay on Baysian Statistics.

Nor have you explained what postmodernism has to do with this.

A lot of decisions in this study involve having to choose between one explanation and another, so absolute probability estimates are not required. Relative probability estimates are the relevant stuff, as in you may find one explanation better suits the evidence than a competing explanation, so you favor the one explanation as more probable.

Postmodernism is the philosophy that we cannot have knowledge we can trust, regardless of the seeming evidence. None of us are fully postmodernists, but the postmodernist tendency underlies the arguments of many people who are critical and skeptical of an established position, perhaps for the sake of making room for a competing explanation, or perhaps just for striking down certainty in the established position. They may imply that probability estimates are generally useless, that the intellectual authorities are biased and untrustworthy, that an explanation proving possibility is sufficient to seriously consider it as a competitor and as sufficient to nullify evidence for the established position, that the evidence in favor of anything is not useful if it isn't absolutely for certain, and that all explanations of the same evidence are equal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You mean those that reject wishful thinking?

No, I mean those who reject probability estimates. If you don't trust probability estimates, then it is much easier to believe unlikely theories, including the ones that fit wishful thinking.

aa5874 · 02-15-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That was an unfair question, on my part, as I knew the answer.

Tell me this. Even if Paul believed that Jesus was a real guy that was recently crucified, could Paul have been mistaken?

Yes.

We wouldn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

In other words. What corroborates Paul?

It would depend on the element being discussed. A crucified Jesus Christ is depicted in the Gospels and other early sources. I suppose though if you think the sources all depended on Paul, then: nothing.

But, it is not only a crucified Jesus that is depicted in the Gospels. And again you simply cannot assume a source is early and then believe that it must be early because of your previous faulty assumption.

This is the depiction of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

1. Conceived of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.
2. Tempted by the Devil on the pinnacle of the Temple.
3. The instant healing of incurable diseases.
4. The walking on water.
5. The transfiguration.
6. The resurrection.
7. The ascension through the clouds.

This depiction of Jesus Christ is all mythological.

It is already known that the information supplied by the Church writers for the authorship, dating and chronology of the NT Canon is bogus or full of errors.

It must logically follow that claims of authenticity of the Pauline writings are either bogus or at least dubious.

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

02-15-2010, 08:24 AM	#31
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	The problem is that, apart from some very questionable written sources, there is simply zero evidence for Christianity in 1st century Palestine. Likewise, apart from these same questionable sources, there is zero evidence to support the historical existence of Jesus. To make matters even worse, HJ is a theoretical construct with no contemporary support, not even textual.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.