lee_merrill

Well, this is what I meant: "The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both place the birth of Jesus in reign of Herod the Great. However, Josephus stated that Quirinius was sent to govern Syria and carry out a census of Judea, in AD 6, ten years after the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.)."

"Most modern scholars explain the disparity as an error on Luke's part."

The skeptics, when given such a discrepancy, do at times choose to say Luke was wrong, and either got the time of the census wrong, or said there was another one, and there wasn't. Only now we have some evidence that Luke was correct.

But the main point is that arguing from silence in such historical areas is not the best of ideas...

gurugeorge

It wouldnt surprise me at all. Sure, he's bound to be wrong in some areas, that's another general reasonable assumption, like the reasonable assumption that people cherish details and juicy tidbits about the real lives of people they're interested in. Again, you are misunderstanding my point: it's not "Doherty is the dog's bollocks, he is God incarnate, everything he says is true, you should all believe him or you suck!", it's "I think Doherty's argument is sound so far as the logic of it goes, and so far as the evidence goes it's plausible to me."

I'm not "arguing" that at all Chris, I'm saying (or was saying to Lee) that that is his position, I was reporting the general idea.

Right about what? Over time, hanging around here, I've seen pro- arguments and I've seen con- arguments on some of those points, and many others; generally the con- arguments are more convincing to me, but not always, and there are always some areas of doubt. I'm often impressed by the quality of the pro- arguers here, and sometimes waver.

And, again, it's not "my theory" ("which is mine" ), it's a theory I like and support, and was defending the logic of (against what I thought was a misunderstanding of that logic as being more simplistic than it in fact is). For me to have an actual defensible theory that's better than informed speculation (which is what my own personal theory about the matter is), I'd have to learn all the languages, master all the materials, etc.

You may say the substance is bunk, but to really attack directly what I was actually saying (in outlining a form of argument I endorsed), you'd have to attack the logic (of the "argument from silence" as used by Doherty, etc.), which you haven't actually done.

As to the substance, that's your opinion, but there are other seemingly well-informed opinions on this board, people who seem to me to be as clever as, maybe even cleverer than, you, and also academics in relevant fields, who think otherwise. What's a poor boy to do?

Are you a psychologist too Chris, that you are competent to judge psychological papers on the matter? If not then we are both laypeople when it comes to that. I gave 2 general outlines of the psychology that supported my position. That is quite sufficient in this context.

ROTFLMAO!!! You are kidding right? Can any scholar anywhere show that Paul by necessity would have done anything??? That's a pretty absurdly high estimate of the capabilities of scholarship.

Absent such "necessity" ( ) we are all just talking about plausibilities - some plausibilities based on obscure philological points, some plausibilities based on other, broader kinds of assumptions we bring to the study (like, "there must have been a Jesus Christ, 2,000 years of Christianity can't be wrong"), some plausibilities based on science, our general understanding of the world (like mine about the psychology of celebrity), etc.

If you're looking for knock-down arguments based on evidence, you're looking in the wrong field, so far as I can see: clinching arguments are quite rare and precious in the field of ancient history and the study of ancient religions, and (again) so far as I can see there are few clinchers in biblical studies. (Yeah, now about this "Jesus", was he a political rebel, a preacher, an apocalyptic, an epileptic, etc. (I'm thinking of the list on Peter Kirby's website, IIRC)? In case you hadn't noticed there is no academic consensus about this supposed HJ other than on a few skeletal points.)

So what's happening here is simply that you are refusing to give assent to the general proposition that human beings, as a rule (and a fortiori, human beings in ancient times), are interested in the sayings, doings, and material wake, of people they are interested in who they consider great in some way, until you have been given scientific proof in academic form (that you are in fact no more academically qualified to judge than I). I leave it to others to judge how plausible your denial is.

Really? Have you read Price's paper on the Pauline Epistles? Judging by that, it doesn't seem nearly as cut and dried as you make out, exactly what the damn things are. There seems to be some kernel of something really old, and closer to the time of any purported "Jesus" than anything that we have, but what exactly they were in their original form, how much they've been collated and re-collated, added to, subtracted from, paraphrased, tampered with, edited, etc., and even who they were actually originally by (btw, I favour "Simon Magus", as per F C Bauer I think it is), still seems un-settled to me.

Bluntly, no, not if "Jesus Christ" had been a living human being at any point, and had had anything important to say, it would have been all over any "sermon" any "Christian" would have written. The significance of a "Jesus"' death would depend on the context of his life; if there's no life, then the significance is purely mystical/mythical (and yes there are variables combinations of these).

The question of "conquest of the flesh" in terms of sin is hardly relevant to the "conquest of the flesh" in terms of resurrection. If Jesus' conquest of the spirit over the flesh, as a living being, was in any way important to Paul, then it's likely he would have given some concrete examples of the struggle, and how Jesus did it. It's precisely in your "somehow" that the gap lies Chris. If "Christ" had been a living human being, Paul would surely have have given us more than vague references and the quoting of Scripture in his "sermons" - there would have been concrete examples from this supposed examplar "Jesus"' actual life.

And what, exactly, do you think the cash value of "met the risen Christ" is Chris? You do realise there are many options here? I mean, after all, if there's one thing everybody agrees on, it's that he wasn't talking about a flesh and blood meeting - so what the hell was he talking about? Can you be sure from the text? How much of your own presuppositions are you putting into it, and how much can you genuinely read off the text without presuppositions of some kind (or as you say, knowledge of ancient world mores and stuff)? Do you really know what the ancient "belief in the supernatural" entailed?

That he had what New Agers and Occultists would call an "astral vision" of an entity that he called, or that called itself "Christ" (something as vivid as a lucid dream, but had while awake, and very real-seeming, probably looking quite solid), and that this vision precipitated a non-dual mystical experience (a sense of oneness with this entity, and thereby with "God", or as we moderns would say, the Universe). Traditional stuff in terms of religion worldwide, as I'm sure you will agree (consider Buddhist tantra for example, or Daoist magic/mysticism, or Jewish mysticism of "ascent", etc., etc., et multae ceterae).

That's how it looks on the face of it. The idea that this was a vision of a human being recently departed is a further step that has to be proved, and cannot be assumed.

"We should presume", should we? :notworthy:

There's a whole barrel full of presumptions in that paragraph.

Well in my interested amateur's way I've read a fair bit of classical stuff (plus academic stuff on historical and social context), not in the original languages of course, but I often look at several translations of texts I'm interested in. My main interest, in terms of ancient texts has been in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophies, and the neo-Platonists.

Well, generally, by there being some sayings and doings reported of them by their enthusiasts.

Well there's your secret report of Carrier (just like the amusing CI Lewis secret report quoted by Lee further up), fair enough. It might be true - or it might just be that a whole lot of people wish it to be true.

Yes I agree, but in this case I think they are strongly linked. There's a "magical" apparition or "vision" (the sort of thing that's at the root of most religious myth, which then gets filtered through culture, like "Chinese Whispers"), and then there's the mystical experience of "dying in Christ" (that doesn't always come with the magical apparition, but seemed to come in Paul's case, and in the case of some of the Gnostics).

Uh-huh. And is it the same Jesus that Paul was "familiar with"?

Nonsense, the argument from silence isn't a piece of evidence in itself, it's a form of argument used to sift evidence, a form of argument that's based on un-strained, un-contested, un-technical assumptions - e.g. material world, normal human psychology, and then whatever general facts about the ancient world that are broadly accepted - and that doesn't actually pretend to peer into Paul's particular head before the sifting even gets started. I do that in my mysticism argument, just as you do above in your argument (which incidentally shows no wonderful, specialist knowledge about the ancient world and its ways); but that's my personal take, nothing to do with mythicism per se.

If someone knew of a great teacher who had recently died, was inspired by some sort of vision of them, inspired to the extent of going to meet some of the people who he believed actually knew the great man in person (and why the hell would he bother to do that if he was oh-so-"uninterested" in the living Jesus btw?), then we can expect some quotes from that famous person's pithy wisdom (passed on to him by people who would, I am sure, have been eager to pass them on, were they truly people who knew the man), some tidbits about the great man's life (not necessarily in a tabloid way, but at least showing some of the struggles with sin and evidence of the victory you talk about), some "colour".

Well you're the one who dashed into the midst of my quite mild-mannered outline of the mythicist position as I understand it, laying about you like some academic HJ Errol Flynn, trying to catch me bending with your demands for "proof!", "support!", etc., in a context where such a request clearly (as I hope you see by now) wasn't necessary. So, given the fact that we don't seem to be on the same wavelength (and haven't been, in recent exchanges), perhaps you should.

No, I took Latin, none of which I have retained. However, I can read translations of, and what other people say about, any ancient text, and can form an opinion on the basis of that plus my own experience and my own ongoing personal theory about the world. That doesn't make me a scholar in the subject, or somebody anybody should necessarily take seriously when it comes to nitty gritty arguments, but it does give me a right to an opinion, based on what other people (who are more knowledgeable than me) say about it, doesn't it? And it does allow for conversation - with the civil flinging back and forth of ideas and covert insults.

(Do you expect any of these questions to actually be settled in a forum like this, btw?)

Zeichman

What Chris is trying to say is that this is nothing at all like what the words should be translated. "According to flesh" is more along the lines of what it means. There is nothing about "you," "in," or "Christ" related to it. I suspect he was just trying to save you from some embarrassment.

gurugeorge

Aye, and 'twas a noble effort, but it might have been more appropriate had I actually claimed "kata sarka" ought to be translated as "in the flesh".

However, what I said was that I think "Christ in you" "means roughly the same as" "kata sarka"- i.e. I think a similar idea is being expressed. Something is misunderstood to be exist in a certain way (flesh), but it actually exists another way (spirit). That "something" is the Christ "principle", something that is intermediary between God and man - i.e. it is your very being/perception, which "belongs" not to the physical world and the body, as it seems to do, but rather "belongs" to God.

Your being and perception aren't (as they seem to be) yours and your body's, aren't individual or personal, but are actually God's, and are universal and impersonal. This is the "thing" that was hidden (crucified/entombed) that has to be revealed, the good news, etc., and also that "thing"'s awakening to Itself (i.e. God waking up in you) is the resurrection.

Pure perception, considered in and of itself as impersonal perception of the Universe by itself (which is, metaphysically and absolutely, what is happening every time you see, hear or feel something), isn't literally "in" the flesh either. (Nor are we to suppose Paul meant by "Christ in you" some sort of homunculus!)

(I'm aware of the debates around this term, and "en sarki", which is more directly translated as "in flesh" - there have been several on IIDB already.)

JoeWallack

JW:
The Birth Dating contradiction between "Matthew" and "Luke" is one of the clearest and most important errors in the Christian Bible. By an Act of Providence we have a dedicated Thread here to discuss it in:

Carrier's Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth Now Up At ErrancyWiki

This Birth Dating error as well as Irenaeus' assertian that Jesus was old when he died and the difference between the day of Jesus' death between the Synoptics and John, are all very good ammunition for Doherty. Personally though, I think it all just means that Orthodox Christianity did not have Jesus' disciples as a Source. It had the competition (Paul and "Mark").

You seem unaware that Vardaman is dead and even Fundamentalists have since moved away from using his magic coins as evidence (which Richard Carrier has personally inspected by the way).



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Chris Weimer

Tacitus for one.

Amaleq13

I don't think you read the article. Luke is generally considered wrong because of the discrepancy within his text and with Matthew. The census under Quirinius didn't happen until well after Herod was dead.

None of this involves an argument from silence and nobody claims, as you suggested, that we'd never heard of the census under Quirinius.

There is no credible evidence suggesting another census-conducting Quirinius nor a previous tenure in the same office by the same Quirinius so this is simply false.

This is a poor example to make your point and the strength of arguments from silence vary according to how likely something other than silence is to be expected.

lee_merrill

Sure it does, the claim is that the Luke census did not happen because we don't have a record of such. Only censuses (censii?) happened about every dozen years or so, and we do have some evidence of a Quirinius in Luke's timeframe.

Whaddayaknow! An argument ... from silence. Only the evidence is not completely silent here, as in the MJ arguments.

But see "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel, a recent book, where he interviews a recognized scholar, John McKay, if memory serves me here. And Tacitus is long gone, yet this does not somehow invalidate all his points and opinions, even from this distance.

spamandham

The inscription in question seems to be dated to the late 3rd/early 4th century. I can not find the original reference for this dating, but since you entered it as evidence, it's up to you to do that legwork anyway. Web searches bring up pages and pages of references back to your source and jesusneverexisted.org, neither of which provide a reference for the dating of this artifact.

Since we both agree it seems unlikely such a list would have been copied for centuries, and then finally engraved in stone, I don't see how the engraving makes for compelling evidence of the existence of Nazareth in the first century.

Ben C Smith

It is more than silence in the case of Luke. He has Gamaliel say in Acts 5.37:

After this man Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.

What census? Luke has mentioned only one, the one in Luke 2.1. Unless he has been clumsy here, these two censuses are probably one and the same.

To what evidence are you referring. (Surely not to the micro-letters.)

Ben.