Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 11-28-2009, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

APOSTATE ABE
The thing we do not see is what makes Doherty's theory seem absurd--Christian writers arguing with other leading Christians about the existence of Jesus.

CARR
SO an argument from silence.

Already by the time of Paul, he complained about people following a different Jesus to him.

As he never spells out what those people believed about Jesus, an argument from silence about their beliefs is extremely weak.

OK. An argument from silence is not always weak. For example, suppose that you are so pessimistic about American conservatism that you think that the Republicans in the United States Congress believe that the Earth is flat like a pancake just like it says in the Bible, and the Democrats believe that the Earth is round like an orange. Then I will counter your point with an argument from silence. Neither party states explicitly what they think about the shape of the Earth, but their complete lack of debate about the subject implies that they are probably in agreement with each other. An argument from silence is used to counter Doherty's point that the early Christian's believed that Jesus was myth. We would expect to see arguments about whether Jesus was myth or genuine, because we see arguments about so many other things that seem more trivial. At the very least, if the silence doesn't prove the position of Doherty's opponents, then the silence deprives Doherty of evidence, which is what his theory needs to stay on the table at all.

So nothing but an argument from silence, even though early Christians writers had to write defending their Jesus stories as not cleverly invented myths, and had to write denouncing Christians who did not believe in a flesh and blood Jesus?

Clivedurdle · 11-28-2009, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Now the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized world to the end of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples its faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all that is in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets proclaimed the dispensations of God --the comings, the birth of a virgin, the suffering, the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily reception into the heavens of the beloved, Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from the heavens in the glory of the Father to restore all things, and to raise up all flesh, that is, the whole human race, so that every knee may bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King, according to the pleasure of the invisible Father, and every tongue may confess him,30 and that he may execute righteous judgment on all. The spiritual powers of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and fell into apostasy, and the godless and wicked and lawless and blasphemers among men he will send into the eternal fire. But to the righteous and holy, and those who have kept his commandments and have remained in his love, some from the beginning [of life] and some since their repentance, he will by his grace give life incorrupt, and will clothe them with eternal glory.

Quote:

The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in .number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, he who sits upon the cherubim and sustains all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, " sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself." 77 For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these.78 For that According to John expounds his princely and mighty and glorious birth from the Father, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and, "All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made." Therefore this Gospel is deserving of all confidence, for such indeed is his person. That According to Luke, as having a priestly character. began with the priest Zacharias offering incense to God the fatted calf was already being prepared which was to be sacrificed for the finding of the younger son.79 Matthew proclaims his human birth, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham," and, "The birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner," for this Gospel is manlike, and so through the whole Gospel [Christ] appears as a man of a humble mind, and gentle. But Mark takes his beginning from the prophetic Spirit who comes on men from on high, saying, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet," showing a winged image of the gospel. Therefore he made his message compendious and summary, for such is the prophetic character. Again, the Word of God himself used to speak to the patriarchs before Moses, in a divine and glorious manner, but for those under the Law he established a priestly and liturgical order; after this, becoming man, he sent out the gift of the Holy Spirit into the whole earth, guarding us by his own wings. As is the activity of the Son of God, such is the form of the living creatures; and as is the form of the living creatures, such is also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures were quadriform, and the gospel and the activity of the Lord is four-fold. Therefore four general covenants were given to mankind: one was that of Noah's deluge, by the bow; the second was Abraham's, by the sign of circumcision; the third was the giving of the Law by Moses; and the fourth is that of the Gospel, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN212/irenaeus.html

And we seem to start with accepting this polemic, when there were real differences of opinion about the nature of Christ?

ApostateAbe · 11-28-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK. An argument from silence is not always weak. For example, suppose that you are so pessimistic about American conservatism that you think that the Republicans in the United States Congress believe that the Earth is flat like a pancake just like it says in the Bible, and the Democrats believe that the Earth is round like an orange. Then I will counter your point with an argument from silence. Neither party states explicitly what they think about the shape of the Earth, but their complete lack of debate about the subject implies that they are probably in agreement with each other. An argument from silence is used to counter Doherty's point that the early Christian's believed that Jesus was myth. We would expect to see arguments about whether Jesus was myth or genuine, because we see arguments about so many other things that seem more trivial. At the very least, if the silence doesn't prove the position of Doherty's opponents, then the silence deprives Doherty of evidence, which is what his theory needs to stay on the table at all.

So nothing but an argument from silence, even though early Christians writers had to write defending their Jesus stories as not cleverly invented myths, and had to write denouncing Christians who did not believe in a flesh and blood Jesus?

Complete unexpected silence is what makes Doherty's specific theory seem absurd, the same as for the theory that early Christians believed that Jesus was born and raised in Japan. That's what I believe, so try to prove me wrong without an argument from silence. But there are many other lines of evidence that strike down all theories with the position that Jesus was not historical, and I am sure you have seen them already. I am working on a big thread on the subject. Also, be sure you don't miss the point I made (twice now) about 2 Peter 1:16.

aa5874 · 11-28-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavy_wonder1

I see absolutely no reason why Paul's personal letters mentioning his personal acquaintances who were apparently personally conversant with Jesus should be considered suspect and part of some elaborate fabrication of a nonexistent person. I think that's ridiculous, and it amazes me how people on this forum seriously wonder why it is that scholars dismiss the Mythicist position out-of-hand without an inkling of compunction.

Finis,
ELB

But, you are the ridiculous one. You are propagating a most absurd notion that whatever in the Pauline writings APPEAR PLAUSIBLE is INERRANT.

You think that whatever you guess is PLAUSIBLE in the Pauline letters MUST be true even though some of the statements made by the Pauline writer ARE known fiction.

1. Paul claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man, but of one who was raised from the dead.

2. Paul claimed his gospel is NOT from man.

3. Paul implied that Jesus must be raised from the dead for sins to be forgiven.

4. Paul stated that Jesus was raised from the dead.

It must be obvious that the Pauline writer is NOT INERRANT.

You must realize by now that your notion is completely absurd since the Pauline writer is a known fiction writer.

Paul cannot be the corroborative source for his own stories filled with fiction.

There is no reason to accept your most absurd notion that Plausibility is most likely Inerrancy in the Pauline letters.

ApostateAbe · 11-28-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

It is completely normal for religions to denounce doubt about their claims of miracles. Clearly, the "Transfiguration" story really was a cleverly invented story, and doubt about such a thing would come from outside the church and at least it would be present inside. In other words, it is the sort of thing we would expect regardless of whether or not Doherty is correct. The thing we do not see is what makes Doherty's theory seem absurd--Christian writers arguing with other leading Christians about the existence of Jesus.

You mean every time Christians write to other Christians mentioning miracles of Jesus, you would expect them to say that these are not cleverly invented stories?

It is the sort of thing you would expect them to say?

Where is the evidence for that position?

In these peer-reviewed articles that don't exist?

Sorry, I missed what you posted here until now. I don't know exactly what you find unlikely about someone who claims to have seen a miracle to then claim it isn't a cleverly invented story. Skepticism seems to be a quality present in all social dynamics containing claims of miracles, and not just in the modern age. You see it all over the gospel accounts, including Matthew 12:38, Matthew 28:17, Mark 14:61-65, Mark 16:11, Luke 1:18-20, John 20:24-29 and Acts 12:15. Doubters would tend to believe that the claims are derived from either madness or deceit. I am sorry if I am missing the point, but I don't know exactly what you are thinking.

aa5874 · 11-28-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So nothing but an argument from silence, even though early Christians writers had to write defending their Jesus stories as not cleverly invented myths, and had to write denouncing Christians who did not believe in a flesh and blood Jesus?

Complete unexpected silence is what makes Doherty's specific theory seem absurd, the same as for the theory that early Christians believed that Jesus was born and raised in Japan. That's what I believe, so try to prove me wrong without an argument from silence. But there are many other lines of evidence that strike down all theories with the position that Jesus was not historical, and I am sure you have seen them already. I am working on a big thread on the subject. Also, be sure you don't miss the point I made (twice now) about 2 Peter 1:16.

The historicity of Jesus cannot be obtained through default, only through historical evidence or information external of the NT and the Church writings.

It is absurd just to say everyone is wrong about Jesus so you are right, therefore Jesus did exist.

The information about Jesus coming from the NT and the Church writings is that he TRULY was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, the Creator who was God, who walked on water, transfigured with the resurrected Moses and Elijah, RAISED FROM THE DEAD, and ascended through the clouds.

This description of Jesus can NEVER be refuted.

There is no HJ in the Bible or the Church writings, just a God/man.

avi · 11-29-2009, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There are some theories that are absurd on the face. .... So Doherty's theory is on the same level as someone claiming that early Christians believed that Jesus crawled out of a volcano. You can go ahead and believe it, but it takes only four words to refute it--"Where is the evidence?"

Here are links to five men's ideas which were regarded as absurd, at the moment of their publication. Some of these ideas are still, today, contentious, disrespected, and doubted by a majority of humans on the planet earth.

Einstein's theory of general relativity--oh yeah, sure, gravity bends light??? What rubbish. WHERE is the evidence???? Oops....

Darwin

Pasteur -- and a Frenchie besides, who in their right mind would possibly believe such nonsense...

Tesla's theory of wireless transmission of electrical power Now, that is definitely a bit of genuine nonsense, right Abe? --> "Where is the evidence"

And, finally, Abe, how about this guy? He predicted the existence of something entirely imaginary, mythical I suppose. Not some kind of "holy spirit', but a physical entity, observable, testable, but nonexistant at the time of his publication. Do you suppose that there may have been more than a few chuckles by some of your antecedents, back then Abe, when this was first published?
Mendeleev

avi

:wave:

avi · 11-29-2009, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

To my knowledge there has never been a peer reviewed article pointing out anything about Earl's thesis.

What is so special about "peer review"?

I wonder if Mark was reviewed by his peers, prior to publication? Who were his peers? Oh, Gosh, who was Mark? Did he publish his thesis in the vanity press?

Why does a critique of a work of fiction require peer review? If one of us on this forum decides to publish a critique of Mark Twain's writing, must our effort first be reviewed by x quantity of English professors at certain universities, in order for the public at large to judge the merits of our critique?

Many, perhaps not all, peer reviewed journals, demand editorial changes in the submitted text, as a prerequisite to publication. I for one, would absolutely refuse to allow anyone, for any reason, to impose such a restriction on my own publications. If the "scholarly" community dislikes what I write, then they need not read it, nor respond to it. They, and you, may freely put me on "ignore".

I dislike the arrogance of "peer review". Friendly criticism is wonderful. Hostile criticism can be constructive, and very useful. But, editoral dicta, demanding changes else denial of publication, are not on my agenda. I may disagree with Abe, for example, but I would not hesitate to defend Abe's right to express himself, exactly the way he wants, without any interference from me or anyone else.

"Peer review", as a method for ensuring quality of publication, is overblown, in my opinion.

avi

DCHindley · 11-29-2009, 09:32 AM

AVI,

Don't forget Alfred Wegener, who proposed a theory of continental drift in 1912. It was initially received with a great deal of derision, until the theory of plate tectonics, developed by S W Carey in 1958, and confirmed by studies of the deep sea floor in the 1960s, was formalized in the late 60s. The latter theory, derived from and improving upon the first, is now the standard theory to account for movements of the earth's crust.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There are some theories that are absurd on the face. .... So Doherty's theory is on the same level as someone claiming that early Christians believed that Jesus crawled out of a volcano. You can go ahead and believe it, but it takes only four words to refute it--"Where is the evidence?"

Here are links to five men's ideas which were regarded as absurd, at the moment of their publication. Some of these ideas are still, today, contentious, disrespected, and doubted by a majority of humans on the planet earth.

Einstein's theory of general relativity--oh yeah, sure, gravity bends light??? What rubbish. WHERE is the evidence???? Oops....

Darwin

Pasteur -- and a Frenchie besides, who in their right mind would possibly believe such nonsense...

Tesla's theory of wireless transmission of electrical power Now, that is definitely a bit of genuine nonsense, right Abe? --> "Where is the evidence"

And, finally, Abe, how about this guy? He predicted the existence of something entirely imaginary, mythical I suppose. Not some kind of "holy spirit', but a physical entity, observable, testable, but nonexistant at the time of his publication. Do you suppose that there may have been more than a few chuckles by some of your antecedents, back then Abe, when this was first published?
Mendeleev

avi

:wave:

ApostateAbe · 11-29-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There are some theories that are absurd on the face. .... So Doherty's theory is on the same level as someone claiming that early Christians believed that Jesus crawled out of a volcano. You can go ahead and believe it, but it takes only four words to refute it--"Where is the evidence?"

Here are links to five men's ideas which were regarded as absurd, at the moment of their publication. Some of these ideas are still, today, contentious, disrespected, and doubted by a majority of humans on the planet earth.

Einstein's theory of general relativity--oh yeah, sure, gravity bends light??? What rubbish. WHERE is the evidence???? Oops....

Darwin

Pasteur -- and a Frenchie besides, who in their right mind would possibly believe such nonsense...

Tesla's theory of wireless transmission of electrical power Now, that is definitely a bit of genuine nonsense, right Abe? --> "Where is the evidence"

And, finally, Abe, how about this guy? He predicted the existence of something entirely imaginary, mythical I suppose. Not some kind of "holy spirit', but a physical entity, observable, testable, but nonexistant at the time of his publication. Do you suppose that there may have been more than a few chuckles by some of your antecedents, back then Abe, when this was first published?
Mendeleev

avi

:wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

AVI,

Don't forget Alfred Wegener, who proposed a theory of continental drift in 1912. It was initially received with a great deal of derision, until the theory of plate tectonics, developed by S W Carey in 1958, and confirmed by studies of the deep sea floor in the 1960s, was formalized in the late 60s. The latter theory, derived from and improving upon the first, is now the standard theory to account for movements of the earth's crust.

DCH

avi and DCHindley, as you know, the difference is the evidence. When a "fringe" theory starts to have evidence, then it starts to be taken seriously by the professionals, even if the theory is non-intuitive. Let me give you another list of theories, and tell me if you think all of these theories should be critically examined in reputable publications.
N/A

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.