Kapyong

Gday all,

So there we have it -

I pointed out that ercatl keep ignoring the points people make :

"But you just ignore the errors and problems that people bring up, and just keep on preaching your beliefs."


So what was ercatl's response to my charge that he ignores people's points?

He ignored my point entirely !

I didn't say anything about whether he refereneced the experts (i.e. HIS chosen 'experts'), I pointed out he IGNORED the points of others.

A point he IGNORED.
Proving my point correct.
He is simply here to preach, and simply ignores any problems with his argument.

ercatli is a troll.


K.

ercatli

Neil, in writing what you have, you have either not read, or chosen to ignore, both my original comments and the conclusions of the scholars I quoted about John. Both they and I have distinguished narrative/historical and/or early source(s) from later/theological and/or ahistorical sources. To ignore those distinctions and then to mock based on those distinctions does not incline me to respond further to this post. But thanks for your interest.

aa5874

I need sources from ANTIQUITY not a list of a whole biunch of scholars.

Now, again, Tacitus is not a source for Jesus, the name Jesus is not in Tacitus' Annals and no Church writer used Annals 15.44 to make reference to Jesus up to the 5th century. Parts of Annals 15.44 may be a forgery.

The mention of Jesus called Christ appears to be forged in Josephus, but in any event, the Jesus in Josephus is described as a MYTH OR SUPERNATURAL , he rose from the dead.

You seem not to understand the debate itself. HJers are proposing that Jesus was entirely human but cannot show any evidence from ANTIQUITY that Jesus was only human.

The information in the NT and the Church writing presented Jesus as God who became man.

The NT claimed Jesus walked on water, if Jesus did not walk on water what did he do?

The NT claimed Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God. If he was not, was he born at all?

The NT claimed Jesus died. Did Jesus live?

What is the true history about Jesus and the disciples? Where is the evidence of the true history?

HJers cannot answer the questions?

aa5874

How did you distinguish the narrative/historical from the later ahistorical?

Jesus walked on water in gMark, some consider that gMark is early. The same applies to the resurrection, in the supposed early writing of gMark, it was claimed Jesus had risen from the dead.

Are you now claiming that the NT authors distinctly used fictitious accounts of Jesus for theological reasons?

If that is the case, please point out all the non-fiction events with respect to Jesus in the NT that you have been able to distinguish.

And, I think you have made a mockery of the NT when you claimed that you and the experts have distinguished later ahistorical sources.

You may soon be surprised to learn that the information provided by the Church writers about the date and chronology of writing of books in the NT were erroneous.

How are you going to show that Jesus did exist as human when you and the experts are dealing with distinguished ahistoricity ?

GakuseiDon

Jhn 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

GakuseiDon

It gives a timeline between the end of "mythicism" and the start of "historicism".
1. Paul (the mythicist) is writing to various churches in Corinth, Rome, "Galatia" and elsewhere in the 50s/60s. Presumably those churches are also mythicist.
2. Tacitus writes about a Christ who was killed under Pilate in the 110s. Tacitus appears to identify those Christians with those killed in the 60s by Nero.

Whether this is an issue or not depends on what version of mythicism you are subscribing to, I suppose: when you believe the Gospels and Paul's epistles (including the forged ones) were written, and how many of those are dated after Tacitus.

GakuseiDon

For goodness sake. How is he trolling? By saying that he believes that the Gospels are inerrant? No, he says in his OP that he doesn't believe it. It appears his crime is to say that he finds the Gospel accounts generally reliable and supported by archaelogical evidence, which has implications for the existence of a historical Jesus.

Now, you can either argue that the Gospels' reliability have no impact on a historical Jesus at all (so there is no point discussing the reliability of the Gospels in this context); or you can argue that the less reliable the Gospels are, the less likely a historical Jesus is. And if you argue the latter, surely the converse is true? And if the converse is true, then don't archaeological finds validating the Gospels' reliability have relevance to the historical Jesus? Not proof, of course, but relevance.

spin

No, it doesn't. Stop being naughty. The passage you refer to supposedly from the hands of Tacitus comes from a manuscript from late medieval times (that has plainly been worked on by the christian scribes who maintained it, changing the spelling of the word "christian"). You are assuming the validity of the passage, when the best you can hope for is the possible validity of it.

More of the same assumption. Knowing that Tacitus was well aware of the status of the administrators of Judea, can you explain how he could possibly call Pilate a procurator? This is the type of error which should caution you from assuming what you do.

And this also should make you suspect. Suetonius the scandal-mongering chronicler who had access to state archives, provides none of the sort of juice he would revel in about crispy christians burning into the night at the hands of the awful Nero.

It doesn't depend on some version mythicism at all. One doesn't need to be a mythicism to think that there may not have been a biblical Jesus. One isn't a mythicist to think that Ebion didn't exist.

Doug doesn't talk about mythicism, but instead an "ahistorical" analysis.

You said, ahistoricists...
Your use of terminology is causing you confusion. Paul believed that Jesus was real (despite apparently not having any evidence for any reality). What has changed in the time of (for the sake of your argument) Tacitus? Have people stopped believing Jesus was real? No. Have people begun to do research along the lines of modern historical research? Obviously not. Has the quality of their approach to Jesus changed? No evidence suggests so. Your distinction between that which people of the era of Paul and of the era of Tacitus thought doesn't seem to have any substance.

An ahistoricist is a modern analyst, who thinks that ancient people believed something that has no historical basis. It says nothing in itself about ancient understandings. Some ahistoricists are what you term mythicists. They might need to respond to the last statement I cited of yours (when you cite a more trustworthy passage). But Doug doesn't. I think you're shooting at the wrong person.


spin

ercatli

If you can believe that, then I won't argue with you, but I can't believe it. For a start, where are the many, many university scholars with relevant PhDs and long history of study supporting the historicity of the stories behind scientology or Hercules?

Competent scholars have found that parts of John are clearly early, and date is an important factor in deciding accuracy. I'll continue to believe them, unless you can offer a reason why I should not.

And this is not a good reason. This is poisoning the well. I don't even know if it is true that they are believers. You don't seem to realise that on those terms, you are a "faithful" non-believer who keeps repeating the same argument. The main difference between you and the scholars is that they have studied the evidence and gained peer recognition. If indeed their well is poisoned, then so is yours. (Doesn't it worry you to smear reputable scholars for no good reason, just because they don't agree with you? Is this the brave new world of neo-atheism??) I'm afraid I don't respect such arguments, and I hope, deep down, you don't either.

I have already mentioned to you that my time is limited and I have plenty of people to discuss with who are courteous and who use arguments I can respect even if I don't agree with them. So I'm really sorry it turned out this way, but I think I'll just quit, and retire unhurt like the cricketers. Best wishes.

ercatli

Sorry. I certainly didn't mean to.

All except one (Jesus) or maybe two (the Buddha). But I won't press the matter further. I don't think there is any evidence to say the Jesus story is a myth, it doesn't read like a myth to me, the ancients mostly didn't think it was a myth and the modern scholars almost universally don't think it is a myth. That's good enough for me. People have won fortunes on worse odds than that! So I guess we can agree to differ - even if one of us doesn't agree, it's not going to change anything! :huh:

It think the boot is on the other foot. I have read and know atheist historians who conclude Jesus is not a myth. I don't think they take Jesus for granted any more than they take God. I just think it is the obvious conclusion, requiring very good evidence (which is very hard to work up) to give the myth idea any legs at all.

I appreciate your honesty and friendliness. I don't think my belief in Jesus depends on scholarship. I think the stories are true (broadly) and I trust the authors. I find scholarship supports this view to a degree at least. I have changed my views in places because of scholarship, but I don't think my views depend on it alone - its a whole package, as I explained before.

Well, I didn't particularly want to argue with anyone, I much prefer to exchange views and then each can depart, somewhat wiser at least in now understanding the other, perhaps with something more besides. And that is what we have done. So thanks for your comments, I don't think there's much more to be said.

Best wishes.