Freethought & Rationalism Archive

12-16-2003, 03:59 PM

Jesus mythers disregard the opinion of experts. Richard Carrier has recently explained why this is wrong. I quote:

Quote:

But there is still a difference between "scientific history" and what I would call "dogmatic history." The latter is basically just a branch of rhetoric. The former, however, does share certain features in common with science: preeminence of fact over opinion, thorough documentation and peer review, fundamental reliance on clarity and logic and disdain for misleading or fallacious rhetoric, consensus-seeking among qualified experts, proportioning belief to the evidence, and "standing on the shoulders of giants" (i.e. trusting that thoroughly-and-expertly-confirmed generalizations need not be questioned without good reason, and then building on them).

(new quote)

Amateurs often disregard the crucial importance of field-familiarity, i.e. that one must have a long and deep acquaintance with a particular time and culture in order to make reliable judgments about the probable and improbable, the expected and unexpected, and all the other background assumptions necessary to understanding the significance of any particular fact or claim--in short, one must be cognizant not merely of the literary context of a statement, but its entire socio-historical context as well. And that is no easy thing to achieve.

This explains why Layman quoting professionals is to the point.

Sad for mythers when not even your own can bring themselves to support you.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto · 12-16-2003, 04:23 PM

Bede quoting Carrier is like the Devil quoting Scripture.

I would suggest that most of the history of Jesus is dogmatic history. In particular it lacks "proportioning belief to the evidence," not to mention "preeminence of fact over opinion, thorough documentation and peer review, fundamental reliance on clarity and logic and disdain for misleading or fallacious rhetoric."

The field of New Testament criticism is far, far removed from the sort of science where anyone can trust many of its conclusions.

Ted Hoffman · 12-16-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

If there are no methods for learning the truth about history, how did Doherty do it?

By putting together the twelve pieces of the Jesus puzzle:
Let me help you with them:
1. Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Xstian writings earlier than the gospels.
2. There is no non-christian record of Jesus before the 2nd century.
3. The early epistles e.g. Hebrews speak of a heavenly, spiritual christ being revealed by God through scripture.
4. Paul and other early writers place the death of Jesus in a mythical world.
5. The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered. Pauls christ operated within this system
6. Paul christ shares many features with pagan deities who performed salvific acts.
7. Intermediary concepts such as the Greek logos and Jewish wisdom (sophia) were prominent in the early times.
8. All Gospels derive their story from GMark
9. The Gospels are constructed via midrash and are not historical accounts.
10. Q had no physical Jesus at its roots.
11. Christianity emerged as a confluence of variegated cults and religious trends and not as a response to a serious individual
12. Well into the 2nd century, Xstian documents lack or reject the notion of a HJ until much later.

Put these together and a mythical Jesus emerges, resplendent in his glory, and filling our hearts with love and adoration. And we are able to experience the love and admiration Justin Martyr felt.
And don't tell the huddling scholars about these pieces. Let them crack their heads with MA, embarrasment criterions, dissimilarities building stratums and the like. We will debunk each methodology as soon as they publish them. And they will go back under a rock and huddle for consensus once again as they wonder why they cant lay their finger on an effective tool for separating fact from the mountains of fiction.

[I have chosen to ignore your strawman about 'the truth about history'. I will give you the benefit of the doubt]

Thanks Toto for Bede's fallacious attempt at comparing science with Biblical scholarship.

I repeat Carrier's statement:

Quote:

Amateurs often disregard the crucial importance of field-familiarity, i.e. that one must have a long and deep acquaintance with a particular time and culture in order to make reliable judgments about the probable and improbable, the expected and unexpected, and all the other background assumptions necessary to understanding the significance of any particular fact or claim--in short, one must be cognizant not merely of the literary context of a statement, but its entire socio-historical context as well. And that is no easy thing to achieve.

Carrying out inane surveys of scholarly opinion is simply idiotic.

Layman · 12-16-2003, 10:19 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
By putting together the twelve pieces of the Jesus puzzle:

So the study of history is possible. Thanks. All I wanted to know. I'm familiar with Doherty's fallacies.

Ted Hoffman · 12-16-2003, 10:41 PM

Quote:

So the study of history is possible. Thanks.

Strawman again. Nobody said studying History is impossible. Surprise us one day and argue without constructing a strawman.

Layman · 12-16-2003, 11:16 PM

Plenty have argued that there is no methodology to distinguish truth from fiction.

I'm glad you disagree.

spin · 12-16-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Plenty have argued that there is no methodology to distinguish truth from fiction.

A historian is interested in what happened, nothing so hairy as truth, which suggests you're not interested in history.

spin

Layman · 12-16-2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin
A historian is interested in what happened, nothing so hairy as truth, which suggests you're not interested in history.

spin

What happened is the truth.

Ted Hoffman · 12-17-2003, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Plenty have argued that there is no methodology to distinguish truth from fiction.

I'm glad you disagree.

I don't.

Toto · 12-17-2003, 12:41 AM

I think it is a misstatement to say that some have argued that there is no methodology for distinguishing truth from fiction.

What has been stated on these boards is that where there might be some historical core to the gospels, which is overlaid with legend and moral tales, there is no methodology for separating out the historic core from the fictional accretions. This makes the gospels useless as a source of the history of what happened, although they may still be useful in the history of ideas.

I see that the last 4 or 5 posts in this thread have degenerated into one liners. I suggest not posting unless you have something substantive to say.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-16-2003, 04:23 PM	#82
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Bede quoting Carrier is like the Devil quoting Scripture. I would suggest that most of the history of Jesus is dogmatic history. In particular it lacks "proportioning belief to the evidence," not to mention "preeminence of fact over opinion, thorough documentation and peer review, fundamental reliance on clarity and logic and disdain for misleading or fallacious rhetoric." The field of New Testament criticism is far, far removed from the sort of science where anyone can trust many of its conclusions.

12-16-2003, 10:19 PM	#84
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jacob Aliet By putting together the twelve pieces of the Jesus puzzle: So the study of history is possible. Thanks. All I wanted to know. I'm familiar with Doherty's fallacies.

12-16-2003, 11:16 PM	#86
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Plenty have argued that there is no methodology to distinguish truth from fiction. I'm glad you disagree.

12-17-2003, 12:41 AM	#90
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think it is a misstatement to say that some have argued that there is no methodology for distinguishing truth from fiction. What has been stated on these boards is that where there might be some historical core to the gospels, which is overlaid with legend and moral tales, there is no methodology for separating out the historic core from the fictional accretions. This makes the gospels useless as a source of the history of what happened, although they may still be useful in the history of ideas. I see that the last 4 or 5 posts in this thread have degenerated into one liners. I suggest not posting unless you have something substantive to say.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.