Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 08-14-2008, 09:04 AM

Let us ignore the tendency of this thread to talk about anything but the claims the OP makes. The point then is the following. Whatever you may think of AS, she makes the following claims in the video snippet:

Claim 1 A number of reputable mainstream scholars say (via quotes given by AS) that there is scant evidence for a historical Jesus.

Claim 2 (an implicit claim) These quotes are representative of mainstream thinking.

So we have the following questions:

Question 1 Are the scholars quoted not reputable mainstream scholars?

Question 2 Have the scholars been misquoted, or are the quotes not representative of their thinking?

Question 3 Are the quotes not representative of mainstream thinking in general?

I would suggest that until these questions have been addressed, the claims of the OP stand unopposed (whether they are true or not).

Gerard Stafleu

Toto · 08-14-2008, 09:13 AM

The quotes are valid and representative of mainstream thinking. But they do not show what the writer of the OP later claimed - that mainstream scholars admit that there is no evidence for Jesus. They merely show that mainstream scholars admit that there is not a lot of good evidence for Jesus, but omits their later conclusions that the evidence is still sufficient to conclude that he existed.

gstafleu · 08-14-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The quotes are valid and representative of mainstream thinking. But they do not show what the writer of the OP later claimed - that mainstream scholars admit that there is no evidence for Jesus. They merely show that mainstream scholars admit that there is not a lot of good evidence for Jesus, but omits their later conclusions that the evidence is still sufficient to conclude that he existed.

So is it then correct to say the following:

Mainstream scholars say that there is not a lot of good evidence for an HJ
Mainstream scholars say that an HJ existed

I have left out here the connection between evidence and conclusion, to wit that "their later conclusions [are] that the evidence is still sufficient to conclude that he [HJ] existed." The point being that in (1) they say that the evidence isn't very good, and that hence their conclusion (2) is based on not very good evidence, apparently bby their own admission. This of course leads to all kinds of questions about how "not very good" evidence can be good enough for such an important conclusion. But we can skip that.

The issue here seems to be that, while they may think there was an HJ, they also think there is not much evidence for that. Would that be a correct interpretation of mainstream thought?

Gerard Stafleu

thedistillers · 08-14-2008, 10:43 AM

As far I as know, mainstream scholars are unanimous that the evidence is good enough to conclude a HJ existed.

Where they see difficulty is more to know who the historical Jesus really was. Which is what the Meier and Bruce quotes were about in the video. Trying to use Meier, Bruce, etc quotes to show mainstream scholars think there is no evidence for a historical Jesus is misleading. Like I said, Meier makes clear he thinks the existence of Jesus is certain, and he supports his claim with data, not faith.

Elfman · 08-14-2008, 10:50 AM

http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ans...racy-pt-1.html

Is any of this true?

Toto · 08-14-2008, 10:50 AM

I think the mainstream justification is that the evidence for Jesus is not all that good, but it is what you would expect for someone who was at the time a minor figure in history in the backwaters of the Roman Empire. Charges of massive forgery are dismissed as mere conspiracy theories.

My subjective impression is that the mainstream consists of either Christians who know that Jesus exists because of their personal experience of His Presence, or secular post-Christians who think that some charismatic preacher must have started the Jesus movement, and someone at least vaguely resembling the gospel Jesus is as good as any candidate. But evangelical scholars are becoming mainstream, so you see highly literate, well written books that claim that miracles are a possibility, and which try various means to support the historical validity of the standard Christian narrative. Most of the recent scholarship that I have read avoids the question of the historical Jesus and focuses on narrow questions of literary analysis or language use or other issues where there is more material to work with.

Toto · 08-14-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfman

http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ans...racy-pt-1.html

Is any of this true?

Is any of what true? Astrotheology or Licona's criticism?

I'm sorry, but life is too short to wade through Mike Licona's prose. I think you can find a reply from Acharya S to this essay and decide for yourself.

I'm sure that there are errors in the Christ Conspiracy, but there is also a different mind set. If you read Acharya S's latest work, now using her real name of Diane Murdock, she does a much better job of following scholarly norms and qualifying her statements so they can't be attacked so easily.

Dave31 · 08-14-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Jeffrey "Interesting. You excoriate Roger for saying something about AS without --so you resume -- first having read AS' "work". But you yourself say things about Meier (not Meyer), Bruce, and Crossan without having read their books.

So who really is the hypocrite here?. Who is the one who actually works from a double standard?"

Nice try Jeffrey but yes, I have actually read those books. And I needless to say, I was pretty disappointed.

Quote:

Jeffrey "And I ask again, using your own criterion that someone who is not published"

LOL, no Jeffrey, you just continue to screw it up everytime by turning it into a fallacy. My point, which I thought I made clear in the Luxor thread was:

Quote:

"...Have you confined all of your ideas - everything you've ever heard or considered - to ONLY the most qualified individuals in history? "Qualification" is a subjective term as well. Those who only listen to the most pedigreed authorities must live in a bubble as well. In fact, it's an impossibility. In any event, the argument in this case seems like a fallacy to me."

I'm not interested in a pissing contest with you Jeffrey.

Dave31 · 08-14-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The quotes are valid and representative of mainstream thinking. But they do not show what the writer of the OP later claimed - that mainstream scholars admit that there is no evidence for Jesus. They merely show that mainstream scholars admit that there is not a lot of good evidence for Jesus, but omits their later conclusions that the evidence is still sufficient to conclude that he existed.

So is it then correct to say the following:

Mainstream scholars say that there is not a lot of good evidence for an HJ
Mainstream scholars say that an HJ existed

I have left out here the connection between evidence and conclusion, to wit that "their later conclusions [are] that the evidence is still sufficient to conclude that he [HJ] existed." The point being that in (1) they say that the evidence isn't very good, and that hence their conclusion (2) is based on not very good evidence, apparently bby their own admission. This of course leads to all kinds of questions about how "not very good" evidence can be good enough for such an important conclusion. But we can skip that.

The issue here seems to be that, while they may think there was an HJ, they also think there is not much evidence for that. Would that be a correct interpretation of mainstream thought?

Gerard Stafleu

Great questions & points brought up by gstafleu.

There certainly does appear to be a lot of confusion concerning assumption vs. conclusion as it relates to a HJ. Many scholars hold a priori assumption towards a HJ; meanwhile, they present it as a foregone conclusion &/or some sort of appeal to authority argument for a HJ.

How reliable are scholars who assume historicity without the critical research to back it up? This giant leap of faith by HJers needs a giant spot light on it.

As I mentioned before in post 18:

"When I check the citations throughout Acharya's WWJ book, she makes it clear that while they point out that the evidence for Jesus is, for example, "scanty and problematic" they continue on to insist that he must have existed while providing no "evidence" for these assertions."

Dave31 · 08-14-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfman

http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ans...racy-pt-1.html

Is any of this true?

Don't let Christian Mike Licona do your thinking for you. Keep in mind that Suns of God was largely a response to the criticisms of Christ Conspiracy

Here's Acharya's response to Licona:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm

However, since these rebuttals in in I think, 2001, Acharya has apparently, learned a few more things about Licona's tactics. I got it from her myspace blog when it came up:

Quote:

"...Licona's methodology of 'debunking' my work included making random phone calls to professors, reading them a couple of sentences taken out of context, such that they pronounced my book to be 'ridiculous' and made other disparaging comments about my person, and then hanging up. As an example of this unethical behavior of Licona - during which time he apparently also identified some of these 'ridiculous' sentences as mine when they were not - we received the following response from one of his main 'sources' in his attempts at discrediting me, Professor Edwin Bryant. When we asked Prof. Bryant about this affair concerning Licona, my work and Bryant's derogatory comments, Bryant responded as follows:

"'I somewhat remember receiving a phone call from someone sometime back requesting my views on Krishna in connection with a book he was critiquing. I had no time or interest to read the book to which he was referring, nor was I criticizing the book itself, as you suggested in a previous email since, not having read it, I had no grounds to do so. As a scholar of the Krishna tradition, I felt duty-bound to answer his questions, which I did, and gave my opinion of the views he represented to me regarding Krishna's supposed crucifixion. There are no traditional sources indicating Krishna or any avatara of Vishnu was crucified. If western authors from (I assume) the colonial period have published claims that there are alternative folk narratives that do represent such a version of events, then the onus is on them to provide specific references to these sources if they are to be taken seriously by scholars.

"'best wishes, Edwin Bryant'

"Obviously, Licona was not as cozy with these scholars as the impression he gives in order to depict himself as an authority. Nor did he give much a disclosure concerning my arguments, which Bryant acknowledges he has never read. Moreover, again, my book 'Suns of God' goes into greater detail regarding this issue in particular, much of which data I would think would be fascinating to a 'scholar of the Krishna tradition.' In specific, I address the assertion concerning the depiction of Krishna as 'crucified' or in cruciform.

"Please also see my rebuttal of Licona vis-a-vis my work -

"'It is obvious that apologist Licona's main tactic in refuting The Christ Conspiracy is to attack my credibility, constantly misrepresenting statements from my book and website in order to make me look absurd. Such is a classic tactic of apologists and other used-religion salesmen attempting to sell their shoddy goods to an unsuspecting public. Apologists are not generally trained to think independently or to refute facts but to assail the credentials and credibility of the individual who does not buy such shoddy goods. In other words, don't bother them with the facts or the science, they will simply retort that your hair is the wrong color or you will be punished by God or some other playground rubbish.'

"In any event, even if a few assertions from my work are shown to be in error, and I admit to being fallible, the general premise - to wit, Jesus Christ is as mythical as Hercules - remains sound and unrefuted."

-- Acharya S

Licona probably did the same thing with the others he used in his rebuttal too like the Buddhism professor Dr. Chun-fang Yu. I doubt they would stand behind their comments if they were to actually study Acharya's work which *NONE* of them have done. Licona simply read some info via the phone or e-mail and recorded their responses - without providing any further citations or history. All they had to go on is what Licona gave them. *NONE* of them actually read *ANY* of Acharya's work for themselves. We should not take Licona's rebuttals too seriously.

Before making any false assumptions, consider reading Suns of God for yourself.

08-14-2008, 10:50 AM	#35
Elfman Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 340	Where do you get this stuff??? http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ans...racy-pt-1.html Is any of this true?

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

08-14-2008, 09:04 AM	#31
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Let us ignore the tendency of this thread to talk about anything but the claims the OP makes. The point then is the following. Whatever you may think of AS, she makes the following claims in the video snippet: Claim 1 A number of reputable mainstream scholars say (via quotes given by AS) that there is scant evidence for a historical Jesus. Claim 2 (an implicit claim) These quotes are representative of mainstream thinking. So we have the following questions: Question 1 Are the scholars quoted not reputable mainstream scholars? Question 2 Have the scholars been misquoted, or are the quotes not representative of their thinking? Question 3 Are the quotes not representative of mainstream thinking in general? I would suggest that until these questions have been addressed, the claims of the OP stand unopposed (whether they are true or not). Gerard Stafleu

08-14-2008, 09:13 AM	#32
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The quotes are valid and representative of mainstream thinking. But they do not show what the writer of the OP later claimed - that mainstream scholars admit that there is no evidence for Jesus. They merely show that mainstream scholars admit that there is not a lot of good evidence for Jesus, but omits their later conclusions that the evidence is still sufficient to conclude that he existed.

08-14-2008, 10:43 AM	#34
thedistillers Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 586	As far I as know, mainstream scholars are unanimous that the evidence is good enough to conclude a HJ existed. Where they see difficulty is more to know who the historical Jesus really was. Which is what the Meier and Bruce quotes were about in the video. Trying to use Meier, Bruce, etc quotes to show mainstream scholars think there is no evidence for a historical Jesus is misleading. Like I said, Meier makes clear he thinks the existence of Jesus is certain, and he supports his claim with data, not faith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.