thedistillers

When it was pointed out to you that they actually do provide evidence for these assertions (for example, Meier uses Josephus), then suddently, when you say "no evidence", you actually mean something else than "no evidence".

"No evidence" means "no evidence". If by "no evidence" you mean something else than "no evidence", then say so.

The issue is more that you don't like the evidence. Or you expect better, or more evidence. But you never really say what kind of evidence we should expect of Jesus, or what kind of evidence you want. You vaguely referred to "evidence that could withstand scientific scrutiny and peer review", but I have no clue what you mean by that and you did not answer when I asked for clarification.

It's really simple: positing an HJ explains the data we have. There is no need for historians to provide the evidence some mythicists are asking for.

Jeffrey Gibson

You did, did you? Care to tell us the name the one(s) by Meyer you read?

And which fallacy would that be?

Jeffrey

aa5874

Jesus of the NT cannot be made to exist because AS or anyone else cannot prove he did not exist.

Jesus of the NT cannot be made to exist by default or by refutation.

The information of the NT Jesus cannot eliminate the theory or conclusion that he did not exist.

mountainman

Is there a postulate anywhere that says academics actually know something?

What datum?


Yes that is singular since I know of no datum. Cite please. C14 impresses people. DO you have a URL? Maybe an inscription or something earlier than the ...... basilicas. This is a newgroup. What datum? Is it non-Eusebian?

Thank you in advance.
Best wishes



Pete

gstafleu

As I understand Toto, scholars make a distinction between two questions:

1. Was there an HJ?
2. Who was this HJ, IOW what historical data do we have about him?

Said scholars then conclude that there is enough evidence to answer (1) with Yes, there was an HJ. But they also say that there is not enough evidence to say much, if anything, about (2).

I suppose this is a logical possibility (in the philosophical, not the colloquial sense). But as a practical issue it seems problematic. Wouldn't in general evidence for the existence of a historical person be tightly bound to evidence about "who he/she was," i.e. historical data about that person? As a result I would think that saying there is not much evidence regarding (2) above would be equivalent to saying there is not much evidence that would lead us to answer (1) with Yes. But perhaps I'm missing something.

BTW, I've noticed that this debate can easily stray into the fallacy of B/W thinking, where there either is (completely convincing) evidence or there is none at all. It is not the case that "there is no evidence" for an HJ. There is some, but it isn't very convincing. Now I assume that when people say "there is no evidence for an HJ" they actually mean that there is no convincing evidence. It might be prudent to formulate it that way and thus pre-burn any straw-men.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

Well, said scholars are exhibiting FAITH that there was an HJ.

If a person has unconvincing evidence of an HJ, then their conclusion that there was an HJ MUST also be unconvincing or very weak.

Said scholars should conclude that MAYBE there was an HJ, but they just don't know.

And, further they should admit that the consideration that there was NEVER a Jesus of the NT is fueled and maintained by said scholars unconvincing and problematic evidence and flawed presentation.

gstafleu

Possibly, yes. But it is hard to argue that, hence a discussion focusing on their evidence and reasoning is more productive. For example, if Josephus was known to be a very reliable historian, and moreover it had been somehow established that the TF was in fact original to him (never mind how that was established, for the sake of argument we assume it was), then we would indeed have evidence for the existence of an HJ, while at the same time not having historical details about him. Something like that is possible, it just doesn't seem very likely (to me).

Gerard Stafleu

dog-on

Spot-on...gstafleu

aa5874

But the TF, as it is presented, is just as good as Josephus writing about "people seeing chariots in the skies", remember the Jesus in the TF ROSE from the dead and it was NOT certain if it was LAWFUL to call the TF Jesus a man.

The TF is folklore as presented and is unconvincing evidence.

You cannot just assume that a passage with the words Jesus Christ means or confirms Jesus of the NT, just like it is a fallacy to claim that George the president must means George Washinton.

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you've considered what we find in grave yards of abandoned churches. Does the fact that we find very little there of the historical details about those who lie beneath the headstones and grave markers mean that we should rule out their having existed?

What people born/living in the USA before 1790 (when the Federal Census was introduced) who were never mentioned in any news paper, local history, etc. and who we hear/know about only because their name appears on extant tax lists? Should we then conclude that it is unlikely that they didn't exist?

Jeffrey