Solitary Man

Why?

Now you introduced a strawman. There aren't many secular scholars who think that Jesus raised the dead and cured lepers. One does not have to keep everything written about someone upon reconstruction. Benny Hinn was said to have healed people - we know this is physically impossible, so does this negate the existence of Benny Hinn? Of course not. You need to be able to distinguish the historical core with the legendary accretions added to it.

Your own admissions conclude that you are not qualified to judge the case I made. You have not given any good reasons for dismissing the evidence or calling it worthless. Your handwaving is merely a product of your own poorly formed opinions on historical reconstructions, not any

Actually, you have that entire scenario backwards. What I was proposing was to use "Mark" to validate "bosephus", but, believe it or not, there's a process behind it, and it is not just "ergo it must be true!".

Because I just want to misunderstand, right?

It's obvious from your posting, and from your reaction to the charge.

You never said this the first time. You said the "axiom I exist and the axiom that Jesus existed". Axiom does not equal evidence. That you would think they're the same thing indubitably proves your ignorance with the matter. It's not a big deal, I'll quickly admit my ignorance when it comes to specifics with evolution and genetic material. I'm not a pretensions fart who comes onto a board, having read a couple of books, and therefore claims that "there's no evidence for evolution!". Come to think about it, the actions here are remarkably similar to another group that does exactly that!

Your paradigm? Are you or are you not working with historical-criticism? What reality are you working in? And please, the only one who's "peavy" is you.

Vespasian walked the earth and performed miracles. Once again, you have a terrible methodology if you think "performing miracles" says anything about the historicity of a character.

Hey bub, this is the first time you've said this to me.

But it cannot be assumed.

I wasn't trying to support the view that the laws of physics were different. I was pointing out your ignorance concerning phenomenology and epistemology.

Do you have evidence that the Psalms were payed for?

Do you have any evidence at all that the Bible is about money?

No, au contraire, I know there isn't a raising of the dead. As for burning bushes, I've seen them all the time. One that is on fire but does not burn, that I don't believe.

There were men named Jesus. One was the object of the legends found in the Gospels. He did not actually perform miracles, as it's scientifically impossible for him to do, but it is possible for people to have thought that he performed miracles. It happens all the time.

Hundreds of thousands of people named Jesus have lived. The Bible describes one. The Bible may not be entirely accurate, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't describe a real person.

Oh, I understand it perfectly. I just think your criteria is redundant.

Throughout my time here, I've repeated countless times the evidence for Jesus. I'm kind of getting fed up with people ignoring the evidence. Explain it away? Have fun doing so. Denying it exists? Somebody please read a friggin' book about what evidence actually is.

Fair enough. That's the price of anonymity. It's obvious you lack education in the subject matter from your words. I'll stick with that.

I believe so.

Hey, we're finally getting somewhere. You've introduced "accurately" to the statement you made earlier, and the first of this kind in this thread. Keep on with this and we might agree on something.

Good! Nice of you to change your opinion.

I never once said this.

I in fact only brought it up upon you raising the question. I don't use that line often except when uneducated people get pissy when it becomes obvious that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Where were those goal posts? When did I ever make such a claim?

Do you know who the Jesus Seminar is?

Well, you should be interested in it if you're interested in the historical Jesus, precisely for the reason that we have only literary evidence for the person and no concrete evidence.

Degree, not diploma. I never doubted you had a diploma...

And yes, formal training in an area makes one more qualified, over and over again, to understand the specifics of an argument, to get the big picture when it is presented. It's the number one reason why creationists irk me so - they are degreeless and ignorant.

So...no methodology?

Granted! Good-bye.

Solitary Man

Great! Discussion over. Perhaps now you'll go out and find real statistics on who believes in what.

The opposite of atheist is theist, not fervent theist. My point still stands, and stands well.

Toto

I've read a lot of books. The evidence is unconvincing unless you really want to believe for whatever reason, and even then it just comes down to slightly more probable than not, at best.

This whole discussion between SM and Mr. U. seems to have gotten off on the wrong foot in defining the historical Jesus. It sounds like Mr. U. is not opposed to the existence of a minimal HJ, and I don't think that SM claims to be able to prove more than this minimal HJ. But in the meantime the rest of us have had to read through some really ugly exchanges before learning that there is no big disagreement here.

mrunicycler

Note that, from above, the first time I said it 'to you' was not the first time I said in this thread that a person named jesus may have lived ~2000 years ago, but that, 'he isn't the man as the bible describes him.'

If you're incapable of reading the entire thread, then you shouldn't bother making posts.

Or, is it poor methodology for me to assume that people making posts in argument will have bothered to read what they're trying to argue against?



The bible itself gives exact demands as to how the priests are to get paid by the devout.

Perhaps it is poor syntax to say that the bible is about money.

Saying, 'religion is about money,' would be more precise, and the bible is a tool of a religion.



So, it would seem that you and I only disagree on how the bible should be interpreted.

I, as I've said, think that religious books do offer a window into the inner workings of ancient societies, and, with care, can be used to understand some of the things from ancient times (like, how to build a gilded tent, and how they sacrificed lambs and birds).

You are arguing that anything in the book that is not miraculous should be assumed to be true because it's physically possible to have happened.

That approach leaves much to be desired by discerning readers.

I've already described my problems with the evidence you give. If you have more, offer it up.

But, you haven't even argued why my thoughts on your evidence are wrong. All you've done is beaten your chest and thrown ad hominems at me in the hopes of discrediting my viewpoint, without ever defending your initial claim that you have evidence I'm looking for.

Why should I believe your evidence, when scholars themselves doubt its validity?

I may have never used the word 'accurately', but that you chose to misread the post I linked shows that you only read what you want into what people post, so that you may regurgitate the same old arguments I've seen you use in other threads.



diploma:
A diploma is the piece of paper I have hanging on the wall (more honestly, in a closet somewhere...) that was given to me by my almer mater showing I 'completed a course of study'.

If you doubted that I had a degree, you must have doubted that I had a diploma....


While I tend to agree with you, I'll maintain that formal training does not always set in as it should. There are bad teachers, bad students, and people who have been trained well and choose to use their training to push their own agenda.

If you want to get me to agree with your viewpoint, then you need to do a better job of defending your evidence, because I don’t care how far along you are in your studies.

The only thing that needs to be reinforced is that, in the future, you need to read what is written in threads, and not skip over those parts that will forestall your ability to argue.

mrunicycler

Agreed, and I'll apologize for my part in it.

I wrote the post above before reading yours that I've quoted (we must have been writing at the same time).

I'm sure you wouldn't have used my words, but we agree that there is little of real disagreement between Solitaryman and myself on this issue.

Solitary Man

The disagreements aren't from the conclusions so much as your pretension of being qualified to evaluate the evidence, totally lacking a methodology and all. To me, you criticizing the evidence is no more valid than a creationist criticizing the evidence for evolution. Perhaps you'll go back and look at what I actually was trying to get across rather than what you thought I was getting across. I was responding to some of your ludicrous statements like this:

"Prove it. Show me evidence that he existed that isn't based on the ramblings of the religious."

Anyone reading this would conclude that you don't think that Jesus existed, and you don't see any evidence for him.

Meanwhile, I never gave any indication that I was a Christian or that I thought Jesus actually performed miracles.

aa5874

Is there a book with evidence for a real Jesus? The only book of antiquity, external of apologists, that mention the words Jesus Christ is Antiquities of the Jews, and the passages are considered to be interpolated, reworked or forged.

mrunicycler

Perhaps.

But, anyone who had bothered to read the entirety of my posts and given that statement some context would have known that, when I said 'he', I meant the 'he' that the bible describes.

youngalexander

SM, I would not presume to detail the legitimacy of historical criticism, but this I do know; creationists have as much right as anyone to criticize the evidence for evolution.

It is the quality and nature of the criticism that counts.

Solitary Man

Sure, but most creationists lack quality, which is why I used the comparison in the first place. Mr Unicycler has the right to criticize whatever he sees fit, but he lacks the training to make that criticism a worthwhile critique.