Freethought & Rationalism Archive

steve_bnk · 05-25-2012, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethema

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Jefferson believed in an afterlife. He is identified as a deist as opposed to a Christian. He opposed mixing religion and politics. As much a hot button then as now.

What TJ "believed" is absolutely moot to the conversation. The real problem is the mixing of studies. In actual studies of 1st century history you cant find HJ. But all those writers presuppose HJ. Its almost akin to brainwashing before the fact. Stephen Gould put it this way "there nonoverlapping magisteria", but the hj's wont accept that. Thats just the way it is. I'll never find out if Alexandar thought he was god and I'll never know if HJ is true. The one true thing is whatever my mindset is its based on evidence not wish thinking, presupposition, circular reasoning, or a host of other logical fallacies. For want of a better theory, I'll go with aa's. Its all theology anyway.

Conjecture of an HJ is not based on jhard evidence, it is based on what we we know of the times and by analogy to more recent history of which we know details. One method of historical analysis.

Adam's problem is he's trying to finagle a proof of a divine Jesus and the gospel witnesses thinking he's putting one over on us. If we but accept his conjectiure we will all suddenly reject atheism.

I saw Gould speak here in Seattle not too long nefore he passed. What was intyeresting was his apprent in depth knowledge of the bible which he quoted from time to time.

anethema · 05-25-2012, 01:41 PM

I feel sad on his passing. I didnt know that. I dont want to be dogmatic about anything, but there are certain things in history we can can be clear on . Tell me one thing we can be clear on in theology, please!!!!!. I heard this guy dan dennett say "if something is not worth doing, its not worth doing well". These are two different things that good people are expressing a bunch of vitriol about. Kind of reminds me of dem's and rep's.

aa5874 · 05-25-2012, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Conjecture of an HJ is not based on jhard evidence, it is based on what we we know of the times and by analogy to more recent history of which we know details. One method of historical analysis...

An argument MUST be based on credible evidence, credible sources--credible DATA, NOT on methodology.

If you have NO credible evidence then not even the best "lawyer" can help you.

Even Ehrman argues for an historical Jesus with Discredited sources. This is unheard of in the re-construction of the past at any level.

In court trials people may be JAILED for knowingly presenting statements that are false or were known in advance to be NOT credible.

Please, explain methodology WITHOUT evidence because HJers may be doing the very same thing as Adam???

anethema · 05-25-2012, 02:05 PM

I am not trying to convert anybody to anything. All Im trying to say is that the study of history does not include theology. I know I know, theirs peoples jobs involved here. But you know what? fuck em. I've been a student of near eastern ancient history for 40 years. If your wrong your wrong. Dont bring whatever inherant prejudices you have to the conversation.

sotto voce · 05-25-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethema

I am not trying to convert anybody to anything. All Im trying to say is that the study of history does not include theology.

The first requirement of a historian of the Western world is a grounding in basic theology. Without it, nothing will ever make sense.

anethema · 05-25-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethema

I am not trying to convert anybody to anything. All Im trying to say is that the study of history does not include theology.

The first requirement of a historian of the Western world is a grounding in basic theology. Without it, nothing will ever make sense.

Are you kidding me? Making sense involves educing evidence. I hate rhetoric but are you kidding me?????

steve_bnk · 05-25-2012, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethema

I feel sad on his passing. I didnt know that. I dont want to be dogmatic about anything, but there are certain things in history we can can be clear on . Tell me one thing we can be clear on in theology, please!!!!!. I heard this guy dan dennett say "if something is not worth doing, its not worth doing well". These are two different things that good people are expressing a bunch of vitriol about. Kind of reminds me of dem's and rep's.

History is rarely about facts alone. It is about relationships between people. Something happened in the first century, otherwise the debate would not be going on after 2000 years.

Christianity and religion are major parts of history still today. Muslims are playing out centuries old issues. The RCC still thinks it should be master of the world.

The question of an HJ is a valid historical question to be explored. No more or less than the continued popular interest in Egyptology and Mayan history.

anethema · 05-25-2012, 04:18 PM

It doesnt have to be that way. The hijacking of history pretty much started with Eusibius, but there is still real history to be found. There isnt much in the 1st ce. because there isnt much period. Thats what you have to go on. At the same time the Chinese were painstakingly chronicling their history. Theres no reading between the lines or presuppositions involved. The way the Chinese look at their history is the same way we have to look at ours. No blinders, no presuppositions, no rhetoric.

anethema · 05-25-2012, 04:30 PM

Im sitting here thinking about your post. Have you ever heard of Howard Zinn? His "A peoples history of the united states" is scholarly, erudite, profound, and abbsolutely disregarded by mainstream historians. Does that make it any less historical?

steve_bnk · 05-25-2012, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethema

Im sitting here thinking about your post. Have you ever heard of Howard Zinn? His "A peoples history of the united states" is scholarly, erudite, profound, and abbsolutely disregarded by mainstream historians. Does that make it any less historical?

If you want to debate 'what is truth' we can take it over to philosophy.

look at WWII nd atomic weapons. We hve the Japanese and American internal and nation to nation communictions. We know what the state of Japan was. We know what the geo-political situation was with the Soviets.

And today the debate goes on as to whether or not nuclear weapons were needed. not looking for a WWII debate, but an example of differences on history even when we have a good picture of the facts.

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

05-25-2012, 01:41 PM	#232
anethema Regular Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: ohio Posts: 112	I feel sad on his passing. I didnt know that. I dont want to be dogmatic about anything, but there are certain things in history we can can be clear on . Tell me one thing we can be clear on in theology, please!!!!!. I heard this guy dan dennett say "if something is not worth doing, its not worth doing well". These are two different things that good people are expressing a bunch of vitriol about. Kind of reminds me of dem's and rep's.

05-25-2012, 02:05 PM	#234
anethema Regular Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: ohio Posts: 112	I am not trying to convert anybody to anything. All Im trying to say is that the study of history does not include theology. I know I know, theirs peoples jobs involved here. But you know what? fuck em. I've been a student of near eastern ancient history for 40 years. If your wrong your wrong. Dont bring whatever inherant prejudices you have to the conversation.

05-25-2012, 04:18 PM	#238
anethema Regular Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: ohio Posts: 112	It doesnt have to be that way. The hijacking of history pretty much started with Eusibius, but there is still real history to be found. There isnt much in the 1st ce. because there isnt much period. Thats what you have to go on. At the same time the Chinese were painstakingly chronicling their history. Theres no reading between the lines or presuppositions involved. The way the Chinese look at their history is the same way we have to look at ours. No blinders, no presuppositions, no rhetoric.

05-25-2012, 04:30 PM	#239
anethema Regular Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: ohio Posts: 112	Im sitting here thinking about your post. Have you ever heard of Howard Zinn? His "A peoples history of the united states" is scholarly, erudite, profound, and abbsolutely disregarded by mainstream historians. Does that make it any less historical?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.