avi

overview of greek philosphy,
Hegel,
I would have thought that History is the act of RECORDING events, not "making" them. Is there some confusion, perhaps only in my mind, between those who imagine that History is created by Historians, and those who suppose that History is NOT a struggle against anything (apart from our own lethargy,) but rather, a creative exposition, ideally free from prejudice, documenting as accurately as possible, some type of conflict or novel aspect of society.
In the realm of science, unlike History, one can argue that absence of a data pattern, supports a particular hypothesis, but if the historical record has been mutilated, changed, altered, or deleted, one cannot draw a similar inference. Unlike History, in scientific endeavors one has controls which ought to display absence of evidence, and that absence, in that contrived, artificial setting, is meaningful to the argument.
With History, however, if the documentary record has been damaged, or altered, one is analyzing not a control, but the data itself--in this circumstance, a defective record. Accordingly, absence of historical evidence simply changes the debate from one based on data to one based on opinion. Dialectic utility requires an intact record, and hence, in my opinion, offers little value in this debate on the meaningfulness of the non-existent data concerning the major players of the christian myth .
Then????
Then what?

aa5874

So, how do you determine that a written text is indeed history and was mutilated, altered, change, or deleted?

History is not what you believe. History is not a religion.

You must understand that my position is that the Jesus of the NT is fiction, not history at all.

Perhaps you can tell me what was mutilated, changed, altered or deleted from the conception, temptation, baptism, miracles, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension of Jesus as described in the NT.

The church writers claimed it was true that Jesus did those things, he did go through the clouds and was witnessed by the disciples during the days of Tiberius.

Please tell me what was mutilated?



So, again every time you see a document of antiquity, you think it is history, it just cannot be fiction. You think there were no fiction writers in antiquity, just writers of mutilated history.

So was Homer's Achilles, the offspring of the sea-goddess, mutilated history or just simply a myth?

Now there is no credible evidence for Jesus of the NT as described, I will say Jesus of the NT NEVER existed until some-one can produce information or evidence that is credible to contradict.

As of right now, based on the written statements of the authors of the NT and church writers, if I say Jesus existed, then I have MUTILATED history.

There will never be any credible evidence for the fiction called Jesus of the NT, not even after 2000 years.

Sheshbazzar

But, credible evidence continues to accumulate, that Jesus was and is fictional.
We still live in an age lodged in credulity, patience is required, as this also shall pass.
The dead horse will not rise no matter how long they beat it.

No Robots

Right. With Hegel, the unfolding of the spirit of Christ over time is the essence of history:

There is one further crucial thought that this pattern does not contain nor allow for, but which is decisive for Hegel. This is the coming of Christ.—“Introduction” / C. J. Friedrich. In The Philosophy of History (Courier Dover, 2004), p. v.

Historical study, like any science, is established on principles that can be practically applied. Thus we can use the principles of history to undertake meaningful human activity just as we use the principles of atomic theory in chemistry.

Again, the continual assertion of the uncertainty of the data in this matter amounts to refusal to apply basic historico-literary analysis, a resistance to the self-evident fact of Christ's domination of history.

spin

Philosophy in itself is not a basis for history. It is a basis for understanding how history might be done. History by its nature of uncovering the past is based on evidence from the particular past. It is unavoidable.


spin

rcscwc

Absence of evidence does not amount to evidence of absence.

So in the morning, you did not find any elephant foot prints in your yard. It could be because you have high walls or fences, so elephant could not come in. If not so, then the elephants could not leave foot prints because the soil might hard. Or there might have been rainfall, washing off the footprints.

rcscwc

When an object has smoke, it has fire too.

The presence of smoke is thus evidence of presence of fire.

But is the absence evidence [smoke] an evidence of absence [of fire]? Not at all.

aa5874

So, based on your logics, if there is no smoke in your house, it is likely or most reasonable to expect that your house is on fire or it has burnt to the ground.

Based on your logics, no evidence for Unicorns is a good indicator for the existence of Unicorns.

Based on your logics, a defendant must be guilty of a crime or likely to have committed a crime once no evidence can be produced.

Your logics is not reasonable, it is upside down.

And, in the real world, smoke is not the only evidence of a fire.

Doug Shaver

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense, logically speaking. It's your basic affirming-the-consequent fallacy.

Here is a good argument from lack of evidence.

If elephants had been in my back yard, they would probably have left footprints. If there are no elephant footprints in my back yard, that is fairly good evidence that there have been no elephants in my back yard.

aa5874

And it was absence of evidence that resulted in the conclusion that Unicorns do not exist even though I have not searched the entire globe, or every shrub.

Those who believe Unicorns exist MUST provide the evidence, failure to do so would make the non-existence of Unicorns a most reasonable and logical conclusion.

The same applies to Jesus of Nazareth, those who believe he was a mere human preacher must provide the evidence from some credible source, that is, outside of the source that claimed Jesus was a God during the reign of Tiberius.

And they have all failed.

Jesus was impossible, there is no evidence to support his possiblity.