Metacrock

Sure, so why base a big thesis on it?


NOt exactly what I said. I said that Zeus was never thought to be a real person. NO one ever passed him off as such (except in the sense of being on Mt. Olympus as a real deity but no one every tried to say he lived in history--me may have. Mabye he's the great great x times great grandpapy of us all, who knows? No reason to assume so because no one ever did).






We might be justified in doubting it anyway. I never said we can't think about it. We can't treat that doubt like a foregone conclusion. Which I find these myther cats doing that all the time. They don't just doubt, they are convienced.






I know a woman who grew up on a KGB instillation in Siberia. She came to believe in Jesus thorugh reading KGB propaganda. She never had to cope with the assertion that Jesus didn't exist.So they may not have cared if you said that he didn't, but they didn't teach that as a "fact" of history.


Well gee willigars. why didn't you say that? I can even agree with that statment as far as it goes there. But that's a far cry from the Doherty groupie thing where he is treated like the Noam Chomsky of history.





Look, we don't have a picture of Julie Ceasar. We don't have his birth cirtificate. We don't have a figer print, we don't have a blood sample, we don't have his school records. Why should we think he existed?Because everyone said he did and no one doubted it. What if we found a huge cashe of docs asserting the fictional nature of all Cesars? That would give us a reason to doubt them. But as things stand now, why does the idea that Cesar never existed sound odd? Because it's the nature of the world as we know it to accept that as fact. It became a fact because no one every doubted it or gave a reason to doubt it.


but the real assumptions historians make is upon the validity of documents. Historians don't look for people they look for documents. Then the question becomes the nature of the document. If we have a diary entry from Robert Boyle saying "today I realized that the air pump leaks and so none of my experiments disprove plenism," we dont run and try to find an eye witness who can testify that the pump really leaked. We try to ask is there a reason to assume that Boyle was wrong? Did he have a motive for saying this? Did he make a mistake in his observation. We don't try to find some other eye witness who can show that the pump leaked. What I'm saying is, we have to assume the nature of he document first, before we do anything else.

The Gospels were never treated as fictional. so We should assume they are reputed to be the testimony of the community. They we can start asking questions about the validity of the community to observe the historical facts.

True but perhaps it should.

Peter Kirby

1. The status quo is often right. (This means you are wrong in imputing "status quo has to be wrong" to me.)
2. Things asserted in a religious-type document are often right. For example, in the books of Maccabees. (This means you are wrong in imputing "anything asserted in a religious document is fictional" to me.)
3. I don't care whether a person describes herself as "religious" when she supports a historical opinion. (This means that you are wrong in imputing "religoius people must have tons of archaeologial evidence" to me.)
4. Any person who wishes to persuade can be expected to make an actual argument. (This means that you are wrong in imputing "skeptics don't have to ever prove anything" to me.)
5. I accept that the city of Rome existed. (If you're going to make an analogy, please try to draw some actual connections that establish what you are trying to say, viz., that if one doubts the existence of X [Jesus here], one must doubt the existence of some other thing that you don't actually doubt [you chose Rome].)
6. Once again, I don't discount something simply because it is found in a document written by a "religious" person (and, besides, it is questionable whether all the classical authors were "religious"--so, wrong again).
7. Egypt was actually the first century empire of the Mediterranean? See 5.
8. It was Rick Sumner who first posted that Moses did not exist. Is it important to me? Not much, early Christianity is more my field of study. And, yes, there is no "objective" choice of what your area of study is.

Once more we have an immature, ill-conceived tirade by Metacrock that introduces his prejudices (his detest of all things atheist/skeptic and assumption that such people hate him and all things Christian in return) where others are trying to have a reasonable discussion.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

If you are accused of a crime, the state has the burden of proof to show that you are guilty, but this burden is very high - it is recognized that many guilty people will go free to be sure that an innocent person is not sent to jail. I conclude from this that the burden of proof is not a device for finding the truth, but a procedural matter with other aims.

The burden of proof and statutes of limitations are part of a legal system which exists to resolve disputes in an economic fashion so that people can get on with the rest of their lives, with as much justice as the parties can afford, but without spending all of their incomes trying to prove who was right or wrong.

So I don't see the relevance of burden of proof here. Scholars do not play by legal rules. If the evidence is not clear, there is no need to reach a decision - you can remain agnostic until there is enough evidence, or forever. Any "fact" that has been accepted can be challenged on the basis of new evidence or new thinking.

My experience with debates is that they are even less relevant to a search for truth or understanding.

spin

We are working on literature of unknown provenance. It's content is literary, until shown to be otherwise. You cannot assume what you need to demonstrate.

So what? Ancient people's opinions are not evidence for veracity of literature.

You are again assuming conclusions. The Mishna was put together quite late. Which parts do you assume come from contemporary sources and why?

So what?

Rubbish, why use an interpolation as though it had some significance other than to show xian corruption of sourcecs beside biblical ones?

And so the Swiss understood William tell to have been a real figure as well. And lots of kids of lots of generations think Santa Claus is real as well. Stop wasting time and deal with evidence of historicity not evidence that people believed him to have been real.

Still rubbish. You simply gave an unanalysed list of claptrap.


You have repeated this irrelevance many times so far as though it had some meaning other than to bolster yor beliefs. You are not attempting to argue anything based on evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock Tu Compron? (note the insulting familiar tu form)

"Tu" is also used in a friendly manner. Try and keep it that way.

Why?

Because a bunch of people believe something is no reason to think that it contains some basis of veracity. As I have said a number of times we are not doing a popularity contest. We are trying to understand what happened.

Because it means that everything a vast number of people say is true must be true. Doh.

You make the unsubstantiated claim that something I said is absurd. This shows you were not thinking. It doesn't help that you play, "it's not me, it's you!!!!!"

You have no point of perspective from which to say that.

Of course you can. Do it and see what happens. Hopefully you'll get my point.

I said persistence of belief and you have continued to argue that because vastnumbers of people persist in believing things they must be true.

You ad hominem a bit too much.

It doesn't matter that it has no positive evidence, of course.

Not quite. Not just any record. The use of a witness must be justified.

Please supply contemporary evidence that Jesus was real.

Because I don't need to. Just because your predecessors have got away with not fullfilling their responsibilities towards rational argument, it doesn't mean that you can also duck your responsibility. You hold the view that Jesus existed. Where is your contempoaray evidence. Once you table it, we can analyse it.

OK. Colored pencil time for Metacrock. Now stick your tongue out and write: spin is not a "myther". Got it? I have said many times here in this forum that I am agnostic on the matter. I have also said those professing the substantive position have never argued the case logically.

You show no knowledge of historical methodology, so it's hard for anyone to take your forays into the theoretical side of the business seriously.

You had said:

And I agreed.

Who said anything about fiction? Try an encyclopaedia for a short list of literary genres. Histiry and fiction are just two.

Why compound your assumptions?

Assuming for a moment you're right, how did they know "he was a real guy"?

You continue to argue because something has been favoured by survival it inherently has some value. Would you care to defend that position, before you continue to assume it?

I don't accept this premise. Paul never knew him and he's your earliest witness. Time and time again I see your unanalysed presuppositions being proffered as though they had some value. Each needsa to be established.

Well, at least, I'm interested in what did or did not happen.


spin

Toto

But other scholars have looked at Luke-Acts and said, this is a historical legendary tale blending Hebrew Scripture and Hellenistic themes with no indication that it is a factual history. It has few indicia of reliability, it is anonymous, it has a clear theological purpose.

But this is the subject of another thread, since this one may be hopeless.

Metacrock

It woudln't be if you guys didn't insist on making up your own rules. If you would think like historians you could it up right now:

(1) Schoarly casution

(2) theor of presumption

(3) no evdience to support the thesis.

Metacrock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
No that's wrong! in defining him as "a literary figure" you are defining him as fictional from the outset.

SpinWe are working on literature of unknown provenance. It's content is literary, until shown to be otherwise. You cannot assume what you need to demonstrate.




We have no reason to assume that the Gospels are merely fictional. They were never treated as such by anyone in any venue at any time. They wer always treated as factual and historical from the outset. Now get it stairght; that doesn't prove that everything in them happened just like it says; it means that we should not assume they were merely litterary works.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Jesus was never understood as ficiton.

SpinSo what? Ancient people's opinions are not evidence for veracity of literature.



That's so foolish. Of course they are! Look we can't go back in time, and we don't have anyone around now who was there. The only way we can judge the validity of any historical document is by the demonstrable attitude that has historically been taken toward it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Never! He was not understood that way by the Mishna writters who were his contemporaries,

Spin:You are again assuming conclusions. The Mishna was put together quite late. Which parts do you assume come from contemporary sources and why?


wrong! What you mean by "late" is third century, and it's common knowledge and I refurred to soruces that document, the background material is thought to have come from the frist century. Eveyone knows that. If you don't know that you don't know much about this field. I can document that in numerous sources: Bruce, Edersheim, Neil and Rabbincal websites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
nor by their redactors who complied the Mishna,

SpinSo what?


Marty So no one assumed Jesus wasn't real. Why should we assume he wasn't? We have no reason to. focuss man, focuss. There's no reason to make that assumption. no evdience for the theory no reason to assume it it's garbage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
nor by Jospehus writting latter in the century (remember the "borther of James" passage if not the TF) nor by anyone else

Spin:Rubbish, why use an interpolation as though it had some significance other than to show xian corruption of sourcecs beside biblical ones?



Geeeezzzzzzzz, the Brother of James passage is not an interpolation! no one thinks it is.

The TF is totally defensable and the majority of scholars support it, big majority


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
he was never understood that way. You are assigning that priority to the text that it shouldn't have. He was understood as a historical figure and these are texts about that historical figure.

Spin:And so the Swiss understood William tell to have been a real figure as well. And lots of kids of lots of generations think Santa Claus is real as well. Stop wasting time and deal with evidence of historicity not evidence that people believed him to have been real.




How do you know William Tell wasn't a real person. I actually thought he was. Why should we assume otherwise? Santa Clause is a pastiche that really didn't exist until the 19th century. He was put together out of Father Chrismass, Cender klauss and other elifin figures who were never thought to be real. The only real character in the mix is Saint Nicholas whcih blows your theory competley, because actually Santa was real in that sense!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
I just showed there is.

SpinStill rubbish. You simply gave an unanalysed list of claptrap.



you are such a hypocrite! there is not a dimes worth of shit to prove the theory, and yet you take it as fact. but anything anyone says oppossing it they have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. YOu don't understand the basic nature of an argument. you don't know what you are talking about!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Because no one in history as close as we can go to the orignal events on any kind of writting ever assumed other than that he was a real guy. No one ever says otherwise!

SpinYou have repeated this irrelevance many times so far as though it had some meaning other than to bolster yor beliefs. You are not attempting to argue anything based on evidence.



beause there is no evidence! yea I did give evidence. I said the peole who Jesus existed and we have some of their writtings, I mean like Papias. So you don't know what you are talking about. you not one stich of evidence that Jesus didn't exits, I've given 9 reasons to assume he did (hear that? I said ASSUME! WE HAVE TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AND THESE ARE THEM!) You have no reason to assume he didn't! your only arugment is "it's new it's aginst the esablishement. which is not a reason to do anything



Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Tu Compron? (note the insulting familiar tu form)

"Tu" is also used in a friendly manner. Try and keep it that way.


Only for people you like. So that let you OUT!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
That [lots of people believed Jesus to have been real] is a reason to think he was real.

Why?


In the absense of evidence to the contrary, it means there's no resaon to assume he didn't. Doesn't it ever occur to you, why didn't at someone doubt his existence? why didnt' the original audience in Jerusalem go "I dont' remember any guy like that? I don't remember any tables overturned in the temple or any empty tomb?" Dont' you kind of figure they would?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Why can't you see that?

Because a bunch of people believe something is no reason to think that it contains some basis of veracity. As I have said a number of times we are not doing a popularity contest. We are trying to understand what happened.


but I've given a lot more than that. I've given testimony from people who knew his friends, the works of historians, the original community that followed him, and more You have nothing! You have not one centilla of any kind of evidence other than just "it's new it's against the esablistment it's time to think new things, i like to doubt." that's not a reason.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
The fact that everyone else in the world from the day he died until the 19th century thought he was real, is a reason to assume he was real! the fact that there is no counter evidence or historical reason to think otherwise is a reason to think he was real. Why can't you see that i't's so palinly obvious!???

SpinBecause it means that everything a vast number of people say is true must be true. Doh.



What is wrong with you? No it doesn't it "Has to be true."It means there's no reason to assume other wise. Why can't you speak English? NO reason means no reason. we can't do it casue there's no reason. Can you not undertstand that? If there is no reason then there's no reason see? It's logical. There is no reason to! you haven't given me one.

Geeezzzz dont' talk to me. really, just dont' talk to me. I have better things to do than argue with ignroant people.

Toto

Hi Meta: would you care to revise that so I can understand what you are talking about?

Here are some references on The historicity of Acts

spin

Umm, because no-one assumed something was not historical, I gather, is some sort of criterion that that something must be historical. This is a new one! Does that mean transubstantiation is historical?

On metacrock's plea to authority of the masses:
Everybody believes something so it must be true. Doh.

Maybe you're right.

We have no reason to think it's fact.

No, there is no necessary assumption of the kind. You have a request for you to live up to your responsibility and provide your substantive evidence. You can't simply say that something is true solely because it has never, or seldom, been questioned. It is true because your evidence shows it to be.

Yup.

You say that your guy is real. Prove it.

I don't hold the assumption so it's not universal. But because it is a universal assumption has no relevance to an argument based on reason and evidence. The fact that the position is very wide-spread is not evidence in the matter.

You've said these assumptions many times before. They are still useless assumptions.

I suggest you open a book on historical methodology, before you continue here.

You may apologize now.

Scholarly analyses don't work this way. You can repeat your assumptions until the cows come home, but it won't change this fact. All debate works on what both parties marshall as evidence. You have none so far.

This is yet another waste of time. We are not interested in protecting rights but in understanding the past. You put up barriers which stop you from doing your job. All things are up for debate.

I don't see much evidence that you know anything about logic or debate.

I don't believe you. But feel free to cite something.

I have often seen historians question basic tenets. All scientific and quasi-scientific fields are in a permanent state of flux. This is why they change.

True. Novelty is not a useful criterion in itself.

This is true but means little. All academics without tenure are worried about their positions, hence they are conservative. Most lunatic ideas come from tenured academics.

No, just upon your fear of scientific methodology.

Unfortunately, this is typical of your lack of knowledge. You should read what I write about before you ad hominem. Better ad hominems have a certain veracity about them.

Let me repeat myself: you are putting forward a substantive position, ie that Jesus existed. The onus is on you to provide the proof. I have simply tried to remind you of your unfullfilled responsibility.

You are right again. It is merely a reminder that long held assumptions are not evidence.

Grind: You say Jesus exists. I don't need to prove the contrary. You need to prove the position. Yawn.


I'm afraid t hat you are going to continue this unsupportable claim ad infinitum. When you start talking based on evidence, let me know, and I'll start reading again.

I'm also awaiting an apology.


spin

Metacrock

why do I have to have evidence and you don't?

Papias knew the Apostles. The Apostles told him "Jesus was real." He wrote it down for us. Why is that not evidence?


I hope you own a good pair of snowshoes.