Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 03-23-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I think Juststeve is pointing out that just floating some theory doesn't make it "just as likely". There is "argument by counter-argument", or what I call "Ned Ludding", which basically boils down to "my low probability option is equal to or even trumps your higher probability option, until you can show my low probability option is wrong". But just introducing an alternative doesn't do anything where we are not talking about certainties. The few examples of Ned Ludd, William Tell and Ebion just means we can't say we "know for sure" that there was a historical Jesus. But that's par for the course in historical studies.

This is cheating, Gak. What you call Ned Ludding is an effort to show that the playing field is falsely biased and needs to be leveled.

But how do the examples of Ned Ludd and others show that the playing field is falsely biased and needs to be leveled? Can you explain the logic of that please? What light does the example of Ned Ludd or Ebion shine on the Gospels, the letters of Paul, references in Tacitus and Josephus?

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I can't think of any.

Fair enough.

I can think of someone else -- Hannibal --

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...es-Hannam.html

Chaucer

GakuseiDon · 03-23-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Fair enough.

I can think of someone else -- Hannibal --

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...es-Hannam.html

Chaucer

Yep. Also Honi the Circle Drawer, John the Baptist, the Egyptian, various people mentioned in the Talmud, people referred to in the works of Tacitus, etc, etc.

spin · 03-23-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is cheating, Gak. What you call Ned Ludding is an effort to show that the playing field is falsely biased and needs to be leveled.

But how do the examples of Ned Ludd and others show that the playing field is falsely biased and needs to be leveled? Can you explain the logic of that please?

They show that the presumption of historicity, ie the maximalist approach is flawed. There certainly can be figures who entered history as historical without being historical. So the onus is on the demonstration of historicity rather than the assumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

What light does the example of Ned Ludd or Ebion shine on the Gospels, the letters of Paul, references in Tacitus and Josephus?

Ned Ludd and others don't "shine" on such things.

Why exactly do you list "the Gospels, the letters of Paul, references in Tacitus and Josephus"?

Toto · 03-23-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Fair enough.

I can think of someone else -- Hannibal --

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...es-Hannam.html

Chaucer

This is a spoof, not a serious proposal.

Hannibal was not a supernatural figure, and did not fit the pattern of any mythic hero. The idea that the Romans would invent an opponent is far fetched; we know that religious figures have been invented, but I can't think of any invented military leader from an opposing country.

But there is a wealth of information on Hannibal that is lacking for Jesus.

Hannibal lists a family history, grubby details of his upbringing, his military strategies, etc.

spin · 03-23-2011, 07:29 PM

[]

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

And since therefore the extrabiblical sources only pick up "that they followed some guy who was crucified by the Romans", your notion, as expressed earlier, that the most likely fit to all these documents is "the son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead" makes no sense at all.

I see your problem. The explanation of the documents is not that there was a son of God who was crucified etc. but that Christians developed a story about a son of God who was crucified and rose from the dead.

So how come the extrabiblical sources don't agree on that, changing it substantively to a human who's killed for good at the cross? If it's only a story, then why need they change the Christians' story? But they do change their story. Why? There's no reason to change their story unless it's taken as referencing something that really happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is an explanation of how the story arose, and how it was propagated. Propagation of a story may result in the addition or subtraction of details.

But that begs a similar question. How come the changes that were made went in the direction of something more plausible rather than more implausible? That makes no sense when one recalls that some extrabiblical sources reflect a stance of disapproval of Christians, if not downright mockery. The substantive changes in extrabiblical sources doesn't work unless the extrabiblical sources reflect an assumption that the crucifixion really happened.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I can think of someone else -- Hannibal --

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Add...es-Hannam.html

Chaucer

This is a spoof, not a serious proposal.

Hannibal was not a supernatural figure, and did not fit the pattern of any mythic hero.

Neither does the Jesus described in the extrabiblical sources.

Chaucer

Toto · 03-23-2011, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

... If it's only a story, then why do they change the Christians' story? But they do change their story. Why? There's no reason to change their story unless it's taken as referencing something that really happened. ..

Oh come on. There are many possible reasons, from mistake, failure to pay attention, anti-Christian bias.

Quote:

.... How come the changes that were made went in the direction of something more plausible rather than more implausible? That makes no sense when one recalls that some extrabiblical sources reflect a stance of disapproval of Christians, if not downright mockery. The substantive changes in extrabiblical sources doesn't work unless the extrabiblical sources reflect an assumption that the crucifixion really happened.

Chaucer

Your objection makes no sense. The extrabiblical sources had no way of knowing whether there was a crucifixion or not - they accepted Christians claims that their leader was crucified (which was not impossible and not especially flattering to Christians) and rejected claims of rising from the dead.

Toto · 03-23-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

...
Hannibal was not a supernatural figure, and did not fit the pattern of any mythic hero.

Neither does the Jesus described in the extrabiblical sources.

Chaucer

The Jesus of the extrabiblical sources is derivative of the gospel Jesus, who is a supernatural figure that fits the mythic hero pattern.

But, more importantly, the extrabiblical Jesus is very sketchy, with no details.

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

03-23-2011, 07:29 PM	#196
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	[]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.