Chili

That is why it is called "outside-talk" in the art of persuasion used in public speaches from platfroms. And therefore its use is in defence of the speaker enequities only. i.e. he wants you to belive something and that is the best he has to offer.

outhouse

Sorry

That is not how it works.

By your account, the uneducated get to make the rules, fail.

mountainman

These people have been taught to believe in an historical jesus.

Don't you understand that this belief is part of their tenure.

You follow tenured historicists.



How can you be so uncritical?





Some Momigliano wouldn't go astray.

Jaybees

Phew! I'm glad that's been cleared up.

Now, how do we determine who the proper authorities are? I'm eager to find out the true nature of god. Who shall I look to for help? The Dalai Lama? Benedict? Billy Graham?

Help! Find me the proper authority.

Chili

That will depend on your audience and on many things. You can first study your audience to understand the witches brew of their desire and fleeting wishes, incidental pressures of the moment and also the sweet and sour moments of their past. I.e. why am I here to listen and what is in it for me.

Then first ask: Who this speaker in particular, and what is this all about?

Billy would start with a bunch of linguistic fallacies by which he and many in his audience have been deceived: That Jesus died for us and paid the price on our behalf so we do not have now. Then ask yourself: why am I here? and was it me who wants to hear or is it somebody else who wants me to hear?

Armed with that suspicion you can detect the following:

For him the ad populum is present as deceivers inside the audience who will be smiling when he presents the ad baculum if you do not believe what he is telling you. This would be hell for you, and relies on ad misericordiam to make the listerner feel justified, and a victim wherein he points gently at ad hominem to make you feel that you have been going to the wrong church all you life. Just look around, he says, at all the happy faces you see in the ad vericundiam when you say Yes and speak the sacred word Jesus, and take him as your friend.

So just ask Billy, he knows how it is done, in his elaborate stage events.

outhouse

The ancient mythology section of your favorite library.

outhouse

False

These are unbiased Historians.


"IF" you ever gain enough knowledge, your welcome to point out exactly "where" they show bias. until then your making noise.

Jaybees

You mean I have read Dianetics to criticize Scientology, the Book of Mormon to criticize the LDS, Science and Health and the Key to the Scriptures to pick on Christian Science? Or maybe I should rely on unbiased historians like Joe Smith, L. Ron, and Mary Baker.

Isn't that rally the nub of the problem. How does one find an unbiased historian when it comes to the truth or falsity of the supernatural?

outhouse

Most credible scholars do not deal with supernatural claims what so ever.

It is their job, to trace the origins of why that particular mythology would be used, and place it into context.

mountainman

They are referred to as "Biblical Historians".

Carrier and Momigliano are referred to as "Ancient Historians".

Do you understand the difference?


The former group are required to have been educated at a Theological College and/or Seminar and a fundamental part of their education is to accept as true the unexamined hypothesis that we are dealing with an historical Jesus. Any Biblical Historian who examines and investigates the truth value of this hypothesis, and decides against the hegemon, is cut out of the flock and excommunicated.

Simply put their bias may be perceived by examining the conceptual framework of the various churches, biblical and theological colleges which until only recently in history, effectively controlled and regulated and often sponsored the education system itself.

Your appeal to these "Biblical Historians" as authority figures therefore has its limitations. If you cannot see these limitations then your education may have to be expanded. Feel free to ask further questions.

BTW do you see the historian Edward Gibbon as biased ?