spin

EDIT: what about "accept as having a historical core related to a once real Jesus that other such parts are related to"?

So if someone said that none of it is historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to disagree. You'd just play the burden of proof card.

I have the distinct impression that you're expressed stronger positions in the past apparently based on this nothing.


spin

Amaleq13

Wow, it is difficult to respond to such substantive comments.

A story that is explicitly set in a historical setting does not give a "first appearance" of telling a story that happened in history?

Unfortunately, it isn't a straw man but the actual position double-a holds and repeats ad nauseum. I didn't say it was yours, Neil, though your disagreement with me makes me wonder whether I actually understand what your position is.

I was simply responding to this:
IIUC, Josephus reports without blanching various miracles from Hebrew Scripture as well as suggesting that Vespasian performed miraculous healings.

I've attempted to answer all your questions to the best of my ability. Your charge of stonewalling is simply absurd and false. You have apparently misunderstood my position from the start and continue to do so despite my repeated attempts to correct your misunderstanding. You argue with me as though I am some sort of literalist Christian when that is enormously off-base and flatly contrary to what I've actually written. More sleep may be needed.

The apparently historical setting is the obvious place to start and you've utterly failed to demonstrate otherwise.

A presumption of the possibility of historicity is certainly not meaningless in the face of the opposite assertion.

To the contrary, I try to be very careful with my words since I've learned, and you have certainly reconfirmed, that it is very easy to be misunderstood online. I have no choice but to work with the words others write regardless of how careful they were in chosing them to accurately reflect their position or in understanding what their statements seem to imply. Given your clearly and dramatically wrong impression of my position, I can only conclude that your research into my posting history has been woefully inadequate.

As do I. It is another matter entirely to throw out the possibility that a miraculous story "hides" an historical reality simply because it is a miraculous story.

I tend to agree since I think your reaction to my posts was mistaken from the start and nothing confirms that more than your next statement:
I neither believe in miracles nor that the Gospel myths contain any "religious truth" as I have no faith in the existence of God.

I think your initial misunderstanding of my position has prevented you from reading my subsequent statements accurately. I don't think my words have been confusing absent an incorrect initial mindset but my apologies if they were. Something is certainly screwed up in our communication if you can reach such a blatantly wrong conclusion from my words.

I don't know that they are actually comparable in terms of the historical details offered but, if they were, I would tend toward the same agnostic position.

That isn't quite what I wrote but, yes, I personally don't find any alternate explanation for a death that was arguably the most humiliating, most socially unacceptable and, possibly most significantly, enormously problematic regarding obtaining converts to be more credible than it was a brute fact with which believers had to cope.

I continue to remain open to new ones, however.

You couldn't be further from reality if you tried. :banghead:

Solitary Man

Not everyone has an axe to grind.

Amaleq13

Not explicitly, no.

What point do you think it made?

I am and it wasn't. But you are certainly free to report it as such to see what uninvolved mods think.

Reading habits not skills. I suspect you have adequate skills but you have demonstrated bad habits (ie not actually reading your alleged sources) in the past.

I don't think that statement is pointless and I've never said it was. False as an overgeneralization, perhaps, but not "pointless". I was very clear in asking about the point of the contrast between that statement and the one previous to it (ie "trying to honestly record history"). You've since indicated that there was no such point being made. At least that is what I've understood you to be saying. Please clarify if I am mistaken.

Amaleq13

Why can't an agnostic position oppose either extreme?

In the distant past I was a strong advocate of Doherty's position but I have since found that unsustainable and, for the past few years, I have argued against proponents of either extreme.

Amaleq13

Nobody seems willing to believe that, though. :huh:

Amaleq13

IIUC, I would say that seems like a viable possibility to me.

spin

That's an evasion, though I might agree with the sentiment. You don't disagree with the significance of the statement you are evading.

Again that's not the impression I've sometimes received. Then again, as the pro-christian assumptions have been given free reign for over 1600 years, why not give a bit of rein for the contrary by being sympathetic to the endeavor and being a little more constructive? Edward de Bono devised the term "po" for reserving judgment, ie instead of an immediate "yes" or "no", to allow the opportunity to explore angles to issues more freely. This allows one to see if new derived positions do eventually provide tangible paths forward.


spin

spamandham

Two or three pages into this nonsense and you finally just ask!

...answer below

At least you admit you are in the habit of making such a claim. That's a good first step toward reform. :wave:

Until now, you haven't asked for clarification. Instead, you built a strawman out of assumptions, which you proceeded to tear down. I even agreed with you a couple of times that elements of the strawman were absurd.

But since you are now asking, I'll answer. There is no contrast. The two are somewhat related but distinct points.

The first point is that frequently, we (collectively) assume the authors were trying to accurately record history, and the reason for that assumption seems to be a matter of nothing but tradition.

The second point is that the writings in question are not typically treated as propoganda, with no clear rationale for treating them differently.

Combined, the point is that there seems to be a widespread (though certainly not universal) form of special pleading going on in regards to these writings - treating them differently than we would other similar period propoganda.

In no way does that imply the writings contain no accurate history. Rather, it implies we should not give the same weight to prima facie historical claims within those writings, that we might otherwise give.

Amaleq13

I don't see how it is an evasion but, if it was unclear, I don't agree with your statement and think an agnostic position can oppose either extreme.

I hope you can improve the accuracy of your impression, then.

I consider pointing out the logical flaws in a position to be very constructive if the flaws are adequately addressed.