mata leao

well Vorkosigan, can you kindly show any of us a scholarly article agreed to and peer reviewed by at least 14 world class middle eastern scholars stating that the weight of the evidence establishes that Jesus was NOT a historical person?

Toto

What is the evidence for churches spreading like wildfire? or spreading at all - outside of the book of Acts, which was written a few generations after the supposed death of Jesus?

Evidence?

Not in the first century, you don't.

Christianity only became a major force in history after it was adopted by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Of course, some would also argue that establishing it as an official religion was the beginning of its downfall.

Atheism is marginal in terms of institutional power, but highly influential in intellectual circles.

spin

We are not interested in statements of belief, no matter how many people, or who, make them. What is necessary is evidence and logical argument. If you want to argue a point, you have to demonstrate it. This is the central rule of engagement here.

Before you can argue such things, you need to demonstrate that what you claim is the case.

Sources are necessary for such a claim, but you have to validate your sources. If for example you want to cite from Acts, you need to be able to show when Acts was written in order to show that the writer had the opportunity to know what the text claims. How can you date Acts? When was the text first mentioned or at least a clear reference to it?

Before you can make the claims you do, you need to have solid evidence to back them up.

You are not responding to Vork. You are changing the subject. He asked you for "the methodological basis for that belief", indicating the necessity to be able to show how one gets to the conclusion you espoused: you know -- logic and evidence. Running and hiding behind authorities is no escape from your responsibilities in the discourse. You must demonstrate your claims if you want to claim them here, otherwise you will be taken as incapable of entering the discourse and will be ignored.


spin

mata leao

uh Spin, this is the second time now you have tried to lecture me on posting, ...please keep your posting theories to yourself. second, Vorkosigan can speak for himself, I dont think he needs you to tell me what he was/is thinking. And yes, I am responding directly to Vork. And yes, in every profession, including Middle Eastern studies, there are majority (scholar) positions as reflected in the peer reviewed articles and abstracts and as held among tenured academic professionals sophisticated in the field.And yes, that is the prevailing majority position : Jesus was a historical person.

youngalexander

I thort that you were making a general comment, but it occurs to me in the light of subsequent postings that by 'debunkers' you may have been referring to the skeptical methodology I briefly mentioned.

A skeptic does not have to 'show a plausible reason' until there is a proposition to be considered and evidence proffered in support with some reasoned argument. As others have pointed out, you have not as yet done this.

Toto

Do you in fact have a reference to a peer reviewed paper that shows that Jesus was a historical person? If not, why do you think this is?

spin

Why?

Vork speaks for himself. It doesn't change the validity of my observation:
No, you plainly weren't. When requested to let him know "the methodological basis for that belief", you said not a sausage about "the methodological basis for that belief".

Does that mean, because you are not sophisticated in the field, you yield to their better knowledge and you withdraw your basic assertions? Naaa.

Prevailing majority positions are not helpful to the pursuit of what is/was the reality of what is being investigated. Prevailing majority views have included: the world is flat; the world has corners; the world is at the centre of the universe; the sun revolves around the earth; and a host of other clangers. We work on what can be said from evidence here, not from popularity. If you cannot back your statements up with evidence then you don't say anything particularly meaningful.


spin

mata leao

well, I am new here so maybe it is taking me awhile to get the lay of the land....so then, let me get this very clear...majority scholarly views,peer review by experts,and reference to legitimate experts on a specific topic are not deemed as relevant here...okay. I trust then that we won't be hearing much from the revisionists of "Jesus Seminar" fame or the new psuedo-scholarly "Jesus Myth" proponents. Now what was that OP again..ah yes..."An argument that skeptics shouldnt make:that Jesus didnt exist"......okay:The proponent argues Jesus did not exist: PROVE IT!

spin

Now surely these experts manipulate a bit of evidence in order to get their opinions. What you need is their evidence, if they have any. Then we can evaluate at it. What good is their opinions if they are not supported by sufficient evidence? It comes down to what the evidence indicates, so they are welcome to their opinions and we welcome their evidence.

I'm not a proponent of either position you mention. I do work from what can be shown. That Jesus existed has never been shown and from my knowledge of the available evidence I can see no way of getting past the problem. How can you show history when you don't have historical information? By this I mean, given that the gospel texts which tell us about the Jesus who is central to christianity cannot be either dated or shown to be based on historical materials, the gospels don't make very good source material. In a court of law such materials would be ruled inadmissable, as they cannot be shown to be relevant to the case.

The onus is always on the one who holds a substantive position, eg that Jesus existed, to demonstrate it.


spin

Djugashvillain

mata leao, all the posters in this thread are requesting of you is some evidence to back up your claims. Vague references to middle-eastern scholars and popular support is not enough: track down an example article, one you think is strong on evidence in support of its assertion, and present that evidence in support of your case. That is the very basis of historical debate. Making assertions without directly sourcing evidence means you will be quickly dismissed as either incompetent or a bullshit artist--or both, which gives you no fair grounds to cry persecution.