Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-22-2011, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is this not what the debate is actually about?

If we all agreed that the gospels were good evidence, we would agree on a historical Jesus. But we don't.

I don't know if you read all of the post that you quoted and trimmed just now, but it contains some important argumentation essential to what I am saying. If we all agreed that the gospels were good evidence, then the best-fitting explanation may be that Jesus was merely a myth. Having "evidence" does not mean putting any degree of trust within the claims contained within the evidence. The evidence standing alone is perfectly neutral. The best belief is only about finding the most probable explanations for the evidence.

You seem to have taken the phrase "argument to the best explanation" a little too literally.

If the best explanation is still not very good, it doesn't win any prizes.

If the underlying evidence is not very good, an explanation of it is not worth very much.

Besides, you have subjectively decided that your explanations are the best, and you have cooked up some reasons for why they are. I disagree, but there is no standard for judging the best explanation in this case.

So I don't think we are getting anywhere.

I think you are at a stage in your development where you see things as black or white, right or wrong. You picked up on one particular mythicist theory and found that you couldn't defend it in internet debates, so you turned against all mythicist theories. You picked up some back logic from Christian apologists, but you won't reconsider it because you are sure you are right. We're at an impass.

ApostateAbe · 05-22-2011, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I don't know if you read all of the post that you quoted and trimmed just now, but it contains some important argumentation essential to what I am saying. If we all agreed that the gospels were good evidence, then the best-fitting explanation may be that Jesus was merely a myth. Having "evidence" does not mean putting any degree of trust within the claims contained within the evidence. The evidence standing alone is perfectly neutral. The best belief is only about finding the most probable explanations for the evidence.

You seem to have taken the phrase "argument to the best explanation" a little too literally.

If the best explanation is still not very good, it doesn't win any prizes.

If the underlying evidence is not very good, an explanation of it is not worth very much.

Besides, you have subjectively decided that your explanations are the best, and you have cooked up some reasons for why they are. I disagree, but there is no standard for judging the best explanation in this case.

So I don't think we are getting anywhere.

I think you are at a stage in your development where you see things as black or white, right or wrong. You picked up on one particular mythicist theory and found that you couldn't defend it in internet debates, so you turned against all mythicist theories. You picked up some back logic from Christian apologists, but you won't reconsider it because you are sure you are right. We're at an impass.

Yeah, I think we have been at an impasse for years, actually. But I still learn from you, from time to time. I am curious--specifically what back logic do you think I picked up from Christian apologists?

Toto · 05-23-2011, 12:27 AM

That was a typo - bad logic, not back logic. Like the bad logic of the criterion of embarrassment.

You think that Jesus mythicism is like creationism. This is an idea that was planted by Christian apologists, who have continually tried to elevate the consensus of theologians into something that deserves respect.

There are other examples, but I'm too tired right now.

aa5874 · 05-23-2011, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is NOT practicably possible for any member to focus on ALL the evidence.

A case or an argument can be maintained once there is ENOUGH evidence.

I do not know of any case or matter that has been settled using ALL the evidence.

In addition, the nature of the evidence available means that it is interpreted differently across the membership. It is not like a measurement that can be replicated by anyone with the correct instrument.

The actual written evidence from antiquity about Jesus Christ requires NO special interpretation. The evidence is QUITE clear and PRECISE.

Examine the Gospels:

1. Matthew 1.18-20

Quote:

..Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise...... his mother Mary...... was found with child of the Holy Ghost..............But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying...... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

2. Mt 14:25 -

Quote:

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

Mr 9:2 -

Quote:

And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and.... he was transfigured before them.

Mark 16.6

Quote:

...... Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified, he is risen, he is not here behold the place where they laid him

Lu 24:51 -

Quote:

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

The evidence from the Gospels needs no special interpretation and Jesus was CLEARLY described as the Child of a Holy Ghost that eventually was taken up into heaven.

The Jesus stories are rather EASY to understand like any other FICTION or MYTH story of antiquity such as Marcion's PHANTOM.

jakejonesiv · 05-23-2011, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is NOT practicably possible for any member to focus on ALL the evidence.

A case or an argument can be maintained once there is ENOUGH evidence.

I do not know of any case or matter that has been settled using ALL the evidence.

In addition, the nature of the evidence available means that it is interpreted differently across the membership. It is not like a measurement that can be replicated by anyone with the correct instrument.

The actual written evidence from antiquity about Jesus Christ requires NO special interpretation. The evidence is QUITE clear and PRECISE.

Examine the Gospels:

1. Matthew 1.18-20..Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise...... his mother Mary...... was found with child of the Holy Ghost..............But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying...... that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
2. Mt 14:25 - And in the fourth watch of the night [color=pink]Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
Mr 9:2 - And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and.... he was transfigured before them.
Mark 16.6 Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified, he is risen, he is not here behold the place where they laid him
Lu 24:51 - And it came to pass, while he blessed them, [color=red]he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

The evidence from the Gospels needs no special interpretation and Jesus was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost that eventually was taken up into heaven.

The Jesus stories are rather EASY to understand like any other FICTION or MYTH story of antiquity such as Marcion's PHANTOM.

Dear AA5874,
How would a ghost impregnate a Virgin? It doesn't make sense even as fiction. Yet you say it is clearly described and easy to understand. Please explain.
Jake

Atheos · 05-23-2011, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...

The Jesus stories are rather EASY to understand like any other FICTION or MYTH story of antiquity such as Marcion's PHANTOM.

Dear AA5874,
How would a ghost impregnate a Virgin? It doesn't make sense even as fiction. Yet you say it is clearly described and easy to understand. Please explain.
Jake

Seriously? How would "the force" cause a virgin Smee Skywalker to become pregnant with Anakin? That doesn't make sense even as fiction either.

jakejonesiv · 05-23-2011, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Seriously? How would "the force" cause a virgin Smee Skywalker to become pregnant with Anakin? That doesn't make sense even as fiction either.

Hi Atheos,

Not all early Christians believed in the Virgin birth. But for those that did, how did they imagine the deed was done? How did the Holy Ghost impregnate Mary?

The closest thing to a description is "The Holy Spirit will come (ἐπελεύσεται) on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow (ἐπισκιάσει) you." Luke 1:35.

Are there any parralels that might illuminate this text?

Jake

JoeWallack · 05-23-2011, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
While I am trying to figure out how it is possible for AA to have a Methodology which consists of an excerpt from

Historical method which consists only of evaluating your evidence but has exorcised how you determine evidence, I offer the following analogy to AA's claim that the baptism is likely historical:

...

A familiar pattern. The original story ("Mark") has an embarrassing item. The spirit drives Jesus. "Matthew" was apparently embarrassed by it so he edits "led" for "driven". "Luke" softens further and "John" eliminates the problem at the source (again). Using the only two criteria which AA claims to be using but claims he is not using, The Criterion of Embarrassment and The Criterion of Multiple Attestation, wouldn't AA get the same result here as he gets for the baptism, that Jesus being driven by the spirit was likely historical? If not, why not?

I previously asked the same question regarding all the apparently embarrassing events in the Passion (like everything there that happened to Jesus). At the risk of possibly putting AA on the path to going Christian, if AA applies these two criteria the same way, shouldn't he believe that the entire Passion was likely historical?

I think your arguments are sound,

JW:
AA's selection of Methodology, application of Methodology and conclusions of Methodology (what else is there?) are so flawed here that normally I would not take the time to respond except here his Methodology (M) is close to Christian Bible Scholarship's (C-BS), proof-texting positive criteria for historicity. AA adds to it an excerpt from

Historical method, Argument to the best explanation.

Specific criticism of AA Methodology:

1) Argument to the best explanation is intended to be the conclusion part of the Historical method (HM) after the evidence has been developed. C-BS traditionally avoids/cherry picks these preceding criteria because they tend to expose the weakness/problems with the evidence for historicity. C-BS' related mantra is "That's all we have."

Related question for AA:

What criteria does AA use from

Historical method other than
Argument to the Best Explanation (ABE)?

2) Per ABE:

Quote:

7. It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects.

McCullagh sums up, "if the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."

ABE says there has to be significant difference between competing conclusions for historicity. AA says the conclusion only has to be the best one for historicity. So which is it AA?

Note in my examples of "Mark's" Jesus being driven by the spirit and all things Passion, that the Criteria of Embarrassment and Multiple Attestation apply just as well there as they do to the Baptism. Yet we would all agree that the spirit driving was Fiction and at least some of the Passion is too due to Impossible/Improbable. So we can be certain that some parts of "Mark" have the same credentials as the baptism yet are known/likely to be Fiction. To what extent does the author do this? This is what the criteria before ABE help measure. Is Abe going to try and weigh it or exorcise it like C-BS does?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

dog-on · 05-23-2011, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Seriously? How would "the force" cause a virgin Smee Skywalker to become pregnant with Anakin? That doesn't make sense even as fiction either.

Hi Atheos,

Not all early Christians believed in the Virgin birth. But for those that did, how did they imagine the deed was done? How did the Holy Ghost impregnate Mary?

The closest thing to a description is "The Holy Spirit will come (ἐπελεύσεται) on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow (ἐπισκιάσει) you." Luke 1:35.

Are there any parralels that might illuminate this text?

Jake

The Holy Spirit came on her. It seems fairly clear to me.

Doug Shaver · 05-23-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

A case or an argument can be maintained once there is ENOUGH evidence.

Well, sure. If you decide beforehand what conclusion you want to reach, then all you need is whatever evidence supports that conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I do not know of any case or matter that has been settled using ALL the evidence.

The extent of what you do not know is pretty obvious to just about everybody on this board.

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

05-23-2011, 12:27 AM	#443
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	That was a typo - bad logic, not back logic. Like the bad logic of the criterion of embarrassment. You think that Jesus mythicism is like creationism. This is an idea that was planted by Christian apologists, who have continually tried to elevate the consensus of theologians into something that deserves respect. There are other examples, but I'm too tired right now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.