Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 03-23-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

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.

And so? Is it denied by the maximalist approach that figures can enter history as historical without being historical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So the onus is on the demonstration of historicity rather than the assumption.

I agree. The onus is on historicists to show that they have the best explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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

In my very own personal opinion, based purely on an amateur understanding of the texts, and without any knowledge of the ancient languages involved: a prima facie reading of their contents and history points to the existence of a central character called Jesus who was crucified in the first half of the First Century as the best explanation for those contents.

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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.

Oh, come on. If it were all mistakes, it would all be more random. But this is too uniform. Half a dozen extrabiblical sources uniformly change the story to a simple human nailed up by the Romans. Why?

Quote:

they accepted Christians claims that their leader was crucified

And why did they, I wonder?

Chaucer

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

the extrabiblical Jesus is very sketchy, with no details.

So is Hannibal, until one gets to sources written way later than Hannibal's death -- at least a generation or so later. Remind you of anything?

Chaucer

Toto · 03-23-2011, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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

If it were all mistakes, it would all be more random. But this is too uniform. Half a dozen extrabiblical sources uniformly change the story to a simple human nailed up by the Romans. Why?

Probably because it is the simplest factoid that can be extracted from the more complex story.

Quote:

they accepted Christians claims that their leader was crucified

And why did they?

Chaucer

Because they knew that a lot of Jewish rebels had been crucified. This was probably just unremarkable, not worth disputing, and somewhat embarrassing to the Christians in any case.

Toto · 03-23-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

the extrabiblical Jesus is very sketchy, with no details.

So is Hannibal, until one gets to sources written way later than Hannibal's death -- at least a generation or so later. Remind you of anything?

Chaucer

If you can't see the differences, I can't really help you. I need to end this discussion for a while. :wave:

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

If it were all mistakes, it would all be more random. But this is too uniform. Half a dozen extrabiblical sources uniformly change the story to a simple human nailed up by the Romans. Why?

Probably because it is the simplest factoid that can be extracted from the more complex story.

Extracted in the same way by all? I see you have a deep faith in coincidence..................

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

And why did they?

Chaucer

Because they knew that a lot of Jewish rebels had been crucified. This was probably just unremarkable, not worth disputing

So why are we disputing it today?

Chaucer

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

So is Hannibal, until one gets to sources written way later than Hannibal's death -- at least a generation or so later. Remind you of anything?

Chaucer

If you can't see the differences, I can't really help you. I need to end this discussion for a while. :wave:

Correction: You can't see the differences either, because there are none. And that's why you're getting out of the discussion.

Chaucer

Toto · 03-23-2011, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you can't see the differences, I can't really help you. I need to end this discussion for a while. :wave:

Correction: You can't see the differences either, because there are none. And that's why you're getting out of the discussion.

Chaucer

Bullshit. Look at the quantity of boring, realistic detail for Hannibal, compared to the magic realism of the gospels.

Compare this, regarding two ancient sources for Hannibal:

Quote:

Livy and Polybius indirectly used the same eyewitness account. This may have been written by one of Hannibal's companions, Sosylus of Lacedaemon, who is known to have written a history of the Second Punic War in seven books. Polybius used the original text; Livy knew it indirectly. His real source cannot be identified, but we can be confident that this intermediary was a careful author, who meticulously copied all the chronological indications he found in the eyewitness report. He also added explanations; that these are correct can not be known, but Livy's chronology is precise:...

So there was an early eyewitness source, that is lost, but left evidence of its existence.

In contrast, the gospels show no indication of being based on written documents or other testimony from eyewitnesses. They were composed in a language that Jesus did not speak (if he resembled the character in the gospels.) Every pericope in the gospels can be connected to the Hebrew Scriptures. There are errors in geography.

The author of the page you cited, James Hannam, used to post here as Bede. He used to lose arguments. He couldn't convince anyone here that Jesus was historical. He believes that Jesus was historical because he had a religious experience and became a Christian, not because of any overwhelming amount of historical evidence.

If you think that the historical record for Hannibal is remotely comparable to that for Jesus, please make a better case than James Hannam's joke.

Toto · 03-23-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...
So why are we disputing it today?

Chaucer

We know more than they did.

maryhelena · 03-23-2011, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Poor Jews - once again having to carry the can for the Christian obsession with a literal gospel JC storyline...:constern01:

That, of course, is an utter distortion of the position that Jewish scholars have actually taken on this subject. Jewish scholars do not endorse the Chrisitian religion's views on the New Testament and its central figure, nor do they endorse mythicism.

Seems to me that you failed to detect a little irony in that statement...

Consider this:

Jewish deicide

With this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

And we have Judaism reclaiming him as one of its own greatest exemplars.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.