The Dagda

Lol indeed Roger.

aa5874

Is there anything beyond belief? Have you considered there was no person named Robin Hood even though there were Robin Hood like figures.

Now, Jesus Christ was a the President of the USA who sent soldiers to Iraq. This is not beyond belief just that the myth got conflated?

Once you say you believe someone existed I need to see the source that helped you to make such a decision.

What really is beyond belief? Some even believe the impossible is possible.

Sheshonq

Utterly incorrect. If you start from the assumption that literary texts are like modern day texts and have to be judged on their accuracy accordingly, then you most certainly *can* evaluate their trustworthiness.

No, but it is a way that forces christians into a corner and makes them defend their texts on a equal footing, without special consideration.

That is not the only practical approach - but you'd dearly love to convince everyone that no other approach exists. The truth, however, is otherwise. A much more logical and consistent approach would be to judge every ancient text based upon the other historical, scientific and historical information that we have, to see where that text falls on the scale of accuracy and reliabilty.

So?

Your approach seems to be that since a particular claim in antiquity is unique and uncorroborated, we must still judge it. Even though unique and uncorroborated, we have some kind of obligation to put the statement into one of two buckets -- either (1) true or (2) false. There is a third option: (3) of unknown accuracy.

I'ts noteworthy that you continually skip that option. Perhaps if you weren't wedded to a binary view of the world, your imagination could stretch to the idea that there are claims from antiquity where we simply don't know if the claim is true or false. If you weren't uncomfortable with the idea of academic uncertainty, perhaps you wouldn't feel compelled to bucketize all claims from antiquity into either (1) true or (2) false.

The fact that a particular claim is unique and uncorroborated should also be a warning to you not to place too much emphasis on it.

Nonsense. If an ancient text contradicts what we already know from science, archaeology, history, or other lines of evidence then it's quite appropriate to say that the text is most likely wrong, or flat-out wrong. We would treat any modern text that way; why do you set up a different standard for ancient texts?

Oh. I think we all know why, don't we Roger?

Simply incorrect. Evaluating a text according to other lines of evidence is not subjectivity; it is, in fact, the only scientific and reliable method for judging the trustworthiness of a text.

Yes, and you've yet to explain why ancient texts must be treated in isolation, ignoring a multidisicplinary approach to evaluating their accuracy. But as I said before: I think we all know why you prefer that, don't we?

Roger Pearse

Thanks for your opinion. But your comments make it clear that you didn't really read what I wrote. Try again.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sheshonq

Not only did I read what you wrote and understand it, but I'm also familiar with your previous posts on the topic where you tried to defend your binary approach to textual evaluation.

Since my rebuttal above is the same one you objected to previously, clearly I *did* understand what you wrote. The problem, my dear Roger, is that you simply have no new answers for the holes in your argument.

No traction for you, I'm afraid.

Doug Shaver

My beliefs need more justification than that. "It could be true" does not imply "It's probably true."

The Dagda

The thing about proving a particular historical figure exists is a bit difficult, Alexander the Great for example existed I have no doubt, but there is no trace of his body. Jesus is the same, the only remains are textual, and these are hardly good resources, nor in fact to be taken as accurate. I think that Jesus may not even have been called Jesus, he may have been a 1st century rebel leader of The Peoples Front of Judea, or a Charismatic Cult leader that challenged the Pharisees, or a rebellious and outspoken religious Essene who was crucified for his blasphemy, or he may be all three. The same as Robin Hood probably came from a bunch of local bandits, that existed at the time of King Richard's Reign and ransoming at the hands of the Germans.

Johnny Skeptic

Where did the Gospel writers get their information from? They wrote decades after the supposed facts, they rarely claimed to be eyewitnesses, and they rarely revealed who their sources were. Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke claim to be eyewitnesses to any miracles that Jesus performed?

aa5874

I did not introduce religion in the discussion. Your claim is blatantly erroneous.

Now tell me what is prima facie true about Jesus of the NT?

The prophecies, the conception, the birth, the baptism, the temptation, the miracles, the transfiguration, the trial, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascension of Jesus?

This question has nothing to do with religion--yours or mine--just historical methodology.

Do you have anything useful to say?

We have hundreds of texts about Jesus of the NT.

spamandham

He may also have been a constructed character based on no actual historical figure.