Intelligitimate

No one gives a crap about convincing you of anything, Meta. Your little page critiques, badly, 12 introductory paragraphs. You haven't even read his book, and how much of his site you've read is anyone's guess. You have absolutely nothing of interest to say about Doherty, unlike Nomad. And not knowing that christos means annoited makes me question whether you even have working knowledge of the basics of NT scholarship.

You lost before you even started.

Metacrock

You have allowed Spin and the others to 'spin' the way that you understand my argument. I did not say the fact that people believed it is the proof. I was talking about what kinds of assumptions we should make. Now I think the problem is that non historians dont' undersand history. They think history is empirical proof. The empiricist fallacy rules modern thinking, only believe what can be demonstrated. But in history, since we can't go back in time, we have to constructe probablities. That requires making assumptions, because the assumptions we make will guide the way we construe the probabilities. So we should assume Jesus existed because there is no evidence against it and it is the assumption of all historians. It has a basis in some textual evidence both NT and exrta-Biblical and secular. It's not cracker jack evidence, but it's better than the evidence against it, which is none at all.

That's what I was saying, the status quo assumption has presumption until its overturend and it can't be overturned until there's there is some evidence against it. There is not.

Now do you see how that differs from saying "It's true because people believed it?"



There's no evidence for the theory. the theory turns upon argument from silence. My argument form silence is not the center peice of a theory, it's a challenge to the theory to prove something. Do you not see the difference there? If you can't understand this, there is truely no basis for discussion here. This is as clear as day from night. My argument doesn't rest upon an argument form silence like Doherty's does, it is by default an argument from silence because it's really a challenge to get some evidence! see?


What sources should have mentioned him? Do you not realize that apart from the NT and Philo we have almost no sources from the frist century? Do you realize that most Romans and Greeks didn't write about what happened in Palestine? So there's really no sources we have that would mention him. The Mishna does mention him,and that's the material that goes back to the frist century. It mentions him as a historical figure and tries to give info on his mother. So What are you saying? That's a spurious calim.

I've also documented posative witnesses who calim to have known people who saw him preach (Papias and Clement, Paul).


Because you are letting them set the "Spin" (ok ok it's a pun) :wave: :huh:

Sven

Add me to the list.

Metacrock: Did you read my suggestion above? What do you think?

Metacrock

Back at you, ditto.





Well of course. Just being a Christian means I've lost, it means you refuse to think about what I say, it means you automatically doubt all my evidence as a matter of course, it means you automatically distort my arguments (that's also going to happpen becasue you can't understand them) and it means wont ever consider anything I say in a fair light. But what else is new man? that's been the Sec Web since I discovered it.

You guys are tame. You are almost pussy cats really. In the old days it was a lot more violent and greusome to post here. You took your life in your hands, people would fly off the handle to insult Christians at the drop of a hat.

In fact I was just going to send a complimentary post through about how much more civilized the place is now days.


You can play that "you haven't read the book" crap all you want. That's a game and you know it. He doesn't say anything in the book he doesn't say on the web site.

Sven

Let me ask a short question: Do you think one can estimate how much of this "assumption of all historians" is based on tradition and how much on evidence? I just thought about Gilgamesh (sp?), King Arthur and other legendary figures which also have some "textual evidence" - but these two are not assumed to have existed by historians. The most obvious difference between them and Jesus is religious tradition - so how do you propose to rule out this possibility as the only cause for the "assumption of all historians"?

From my point of view, exactly the kind of evidence which you demanded was provided (some early critics), but you dismissed it with some blather. But I'm not that educated on the topic, so you could perhaps try to explain your reasoning better.

Is there evidence against Gilgamesh's existence?

From your latest post:
Sounds like a very poor marketing strategy for selling his book. But according to you, Doherty is really stupid - so this should not surprise me.

Metacrock

Sure, since Doherty refuses to debate (and I really can't blame him--he has nothing to gain by beating me, and therefore, a lot to lose by losing) I would be willing to debate someone else.

I'm avoiding Ted because his posts are so huge and he doesn't make clear what he's responding to. But I'll debate him or anyone else really.


I would be willing to defend the proposition "It is more reasonable to assume the historicity of Jesus than to doubt it."

Or if you want it to be about Doherty, I guess we could formulate a proposition.

Jack the Bodiless

Metacrock:
Evidence matters: so does the testimony of historians writing at the time: so does the professional opinion of modern scholars who have studied the available evidence in more detail than I have.

But, unless relevant sources were entirely lost in the Middle Ages, there is no reason why the opinion of a medieval historian carries any additional weight: he wasn't in a position to know more than a modern one.
Well, there is some evidence against it. It would be easier to dismiss the "argument from silence" if there actually WAS just silence from this period: the existence of crucifixion records for other people throws doubt on at least this part of the Jesus story.

Edited to add: drat, forgot those gnostics again. If I was a future historian who was aware of a substantial early 21st century cult preaching that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a non-human divine being: I'd have to consider that as evidence that he was maybe mythical.

spin

When I suffered from repetitive stress reading the same point over and over again, I'd say, "no". Oh, and I should have added that you think because no-one challenged the status quo position it must be true. Doh. You tart this up by assuming anyone who does challenge the position must necessarily hold the opposite position, giving you the mistaken hope of passing your responsibility of proof off onto them.

It seems when it comes down to it, you have no other trick up your rhetorical sleave.

And I didn't claim that an argument from silence is a fallacy. I merely pointed out that's what you were doing. What I did point out is that you have been arguing based on unsupported assertion.

No, Metacrock, I didn't butcher your position. You have simply ignored mine to force your agenda. READ MY LIPS: I do not support the mythical Jesus position, neither do I support the historical Jesus position. (Is that clear? If so, please indicate by responding "yes".) You have consistently ignored this point, preferring to say things like:

What view is that? The one that you want to argue against by attempting to draw a substantive position from me. You have failed to understand what you are arguing about. You go off once again half-cocked.

I have put the onus on you several times, as you want to argue that Jesus existed, to provide contemporary evidence. In such a situation you start repeating the everyone accepted it stuff. I complain about your lack of logic in your insistence about it and you go ballistic.

Amongst other things I said:
And Metacrock responded:
It might be nice if you showed that you read what people wrote before flying off the handle. I've already suggested that you slow down and deal calmly with matters, rather than rushing into error.

(And, sadly, the burning of Porphyry's materials is historical fact.)

I'm rather tired of your attempts at onus shifting. If you want to argue that Jesus existed, you have to provide your proof, not hide behind schoolyard subterfuge such as "no, you prove the contrary."

As I don't think you can get past this, you needn't respond (with your usual diatribe).


spin

Sven

Hi Metacrock, you didn't answer my question about splitting the thread into several smaller ones, debating lesser points.

Concerning the huge posts, you could agree on a word limit before the debate. And ask him to clarify his points.

Then why don't you start a thread in Formal Debate Proposals?

Peter Kirby

What records do you have in mind?

best,
Peter Kirby