Vinnie

I tell that to the next historian who writes a guide to historical method proper.

Canon of historicity number one: Any knowledge of the life of Jesus must be corroborated by another credible source external of the NT and the Church.

I am glad you see the NT as a credible source though ("another credible source").

Vinnie

Steven Carr

So a *real* historian would write a life of the Reverend Moon based on Moonie biographies?

And if these biographies include stories of Moon talking to Satan, a real historian would still use them?

Especially if the biographies never gave any sources for their stories, but had a page in the back saying 'We know that the person who wrote this was telling the truth.'

Toto

Only if he could claim that these represented refracted memories of the Great Man.

Steven Carr

I forgot how accurate Moonie 'social memory' was.

Why do mainstream Biblical scholars never use as a criterion for authenticity the documented fact that religions have been empirically shown to be very, very often based on frauds, lies and charlatans?

If they have come to the conclusion that Christianity was not based on frauds, lies and charlatans, shouldn't they show their working?

Even Paul talks about people peddling the word of God for money...

I bet you got a lot more attention from fellow Christians if you talked about the miracles that Jesus had done , rather than about his big nose or habit of repeating himself when distracted.

And the bigger the miracle that Jesus had done, the more Christians would want to hear your stories.

Roger Pearse

It is always depressing to watch people who have never researched anything in their lives laying down "criteria" of historicity designed primarily around convenience to reach a pre-designed conclusion. Please don't. It brings atheism into disrepute.

youngalexander

You do realise that 'refracted' means 'bent'?

From a physical perspective, I ask - are we seeing a progression?

Reflective HJ --> Refractive HJ --> Diffractive HJ

Diffraction:

the process by which a beam of light or other system of waves is spread out as a result of passing through a narrow aperture

Or is this what Earl and others have already proposed?

Steven Carr

I guess we have all been told.

Excuse us while we ignore these ad hominem poisoning the well statements, without a shred of documentation to back up the smug self-satisfaction of somebody who knows he can dismiss anything he doesn't like while projecting his own attitude on to others.

I suppose it is a bit like engineers criticising amateurs who can't build bridges when they criticise engineers for not building bridges properly.

That would be impressive , if these engineers could show us the bridges they have built.


Instead, what we get are books documenting the failure of the First Quest to build a bridge, the failure of the Second Quest to build a bridge etc, and engineers deciding by a vote what would be a successfully built bridge , while other engineers claim these votes about bridge building use all the wrong criteria for deciding what is a good bridge.

Mainstream Biblical Scholarship is in disrepute. They can't show us any bridges they have built, while preening that they are the only people in the world qualified to build bridges.

spin

I was a little shocked to see that aa 5874 was responsible for the following statement.

Vinnie's knee-jerk reaction was:

It's worth noting Steven Carr's comment on Vinnie's deep comment:

One could add all sorts of similar examples, such as LRH based on $ci-n-tology biogs, or Ted Bundy based on prison girlfriends' biogs or Dan Quayle based on his party fundraisers' reminiscences (though there is some doubt as to whether Dan Quayle actually existed).

Vinnie often seems simply to miss out on the problem of just assuming that Jesus is historical. He will not face what is necessary to demonstrate his historicity. That is to bring him into the historical matrix [the collected body of historical knowledge] based on data already in the historical matrix. You can't get someone to be historical if s/he cannot be connected to what is known to be history.

Vinnie, can you try to understand this? The gospels haven't shown themselves to reflect what is in the historical matrix and surely you should be able to see this.

There should be no need to say that this situation doesn't mean that there are real events behind the gospels, but that any real events haven't been established, ie they remain outside the historical matrix. The sad thing is that we live in an age where people refuse to do the work to show that the story of Jesus in some form belongs in the historical matrix.


spin

spin

Roger, you shouldn't try to sound intelligent about things you know nothing about. Your motivation and methodology here is transparent.

What brings non-religious positions into disrepute are usually religiously motivated misrepresentations, such as the one you have espoused.


spin

aa5874

But, I never did write that the NT was a credible source. You constantly make mis-leading and erroneous statements about what I posted in full view of all those who can see what I have posted.

Please read my posts carefully and please I beg of you, do not omit certain parts so as to make mis-leading statements.

This is the first part of the post.