Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-01-2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Competent...

You've disqualified yourself from being able to use this word in such a context. You need sufficient knowledge about what you are trying to talk about to be competent enough to say who is competent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

...scholars have found that parts of John are clearly early, and date is an important factor in deciding accuracy. I'll continue to believe them, unless you can offer a reason why I should not.

You persist in this non-argument. No true Scotsman would doubt that there are some parts of John that are clearly early. Challenged to provide evidence to back up such opinions, you cite more opinions, apparently oblivious to what evidence really means in the matter. You've been challenged to provide evidence from any contemporary historian (yes, historian rather than biblical text scholar), but haven't it seems given any tangible content.

spin

ercatli · 12-01-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Ercatli -- you may have missed this. Which gospel(s) claim that Jesus really existed as a historical person? What specific points do scholars claim are historical and on what basis?

(Is there anything beyond the list in Funk's book, Honest to Jesus that I should know about, or any of the points he lists that have a substantial reason to believe in their historical character?)

Why don't you tell me your answers to these questions first? I reckon you probably know at least as much as I do. After all, the OP asked you if you had any reasons for me to reconsider my views. I think I've presented my views pretty clearly, including in a reply to you. Let's hear a bit from you.

ercatli · 12-01-2009, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizdek

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

So, why should I change my belief? Any takers?

Thanks.

Because just after you die, you'll feel really bad about things that you believed in and you'll burn in hell forever because of them. There, is that what you've been looking for?

:devil1: Not exactly, but "good enough for government work!"

spin · 12-02-2009, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Ercatli -- you may have missed this. Which gospel(s) claim that Jesus really existed as a historical person? What specific points do scholars claim are historical and on what basis?

Why don't you tell me your answers to these questions first?

He already has.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

I reckon you probably know at least as much as I do. After all, the OP asked you if you had any reasons for me to reconsider my views. I think I've presented my views pretty clearly, including in a reply to you. Let's hear a bit from you.

GakuseiDon · 12-02-2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It gives a timeline between the end of "mythicism" and the start of "historicism".

No, it doesn't. Stop being naughty. The passage you refer to supposedly from the hands of Tacitus comes from a manuscript from late medieval times (that has plainly been worked on by the christian scribes who maintained it, changing the spelling of the word "christian"). You are assuming the validity of the passage, when the best you can hope for is the possible validity of it.

Oh dear! You mean, there are things in history we can't be sure about? You shock me.

I'm assuming the validity of the passage, and if it is valid, the implications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Some ahistoricists are what you term mythicists. They might need to respond to the last statement I cited of yours (when you cite a more trustworthy passage). But Doug doesn't. I think you're shooting at the wrong person.

I'm not shooting at anyone, really. Just the implications IF the Tacitus passage is valid. If it isn't valid, then the implications change. :Cheeky:

youngalexander · 12-02-2009, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

about the historical Jesus

Which?

Having just got home from the Aussie Skeptics Conference in Brissie, I am late to the feast, but have nevertheless read the thread.

ercatli mate!
Skeptics respond to a proposition, such as 'historical jesus', by asking for evidence followed by reasoned argument. You have supplied little of either.

Many (most) of your respondents have pointed this out in one way or another. Some at length and eloquently.

I have only felt moved to comment re your archaeological statements. It is perfectly true that if you search for 'jesus archaeology' at Amazon or any web engine a plethora of results will ensue. However, as I am sure that you understand quite well, this does not imply that 'Christian archaeology' exists prior to ~180 CE.

No, I am not going to justify that statement - it is simply a fact.

spin · 12-02-2009, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

No, it doesn't. Stop being naughty. The passage you refer to supposedly from the hands of Tacitus comes from a manuscript from late medieval times (that has plainly been worked on by the christian scribes who maintained it, changing the spelling of the word "christian"). You are assuming the validity of the passage, when the best you can hope for is the possible validity of it.

Oh dear! You mean, there are things in history we can't be sure about? You shock me.

I'm assuming the validity of the passage, and if it is valid, the implications.

That doesn't deal with the issue. You don't say why you assume the validity of the passage despite its several problems. History is not based on one's assumptions. You could be talking utter rubbish based on your assumption and have no way of knowing. It's better to talk about what you know something about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Some ahistoricists are what you term mythicists. They might need to respond to the last statement I cited of yours (when you cite a more trustworthy passage). But Doug doesn't. I think you're shooting at the wrong person.

I'm not shooting at anyone, really. Just the implications IF the Tacitus passage is valid. If it isn't valid, then the implications change. :Cheeky:

If the passage is valid, it doesn't help what you were trying to talk about. Nothing changes from Paul believing in a real Jesus to the hypothetical sources of Tacitus's information believing in a real Jesus. (And people believing something to be real is no evidence that that something is in fact real.)

spin

ercatli · 12-02-2009, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Just like in novels and mythical tales. ..... On what basis do we afford them any historical credibility at all?

Neil,

I wonder could you please answer the questions I asked back to you before I respond to your second lot of questions, please?

Thanks

ercatli · 12-02-2009, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I think one of the great ironies of Christianity (and maybe most religions) is that it seems to have originated among people who, if encountered on the street today, would be judged eccentric or possibly psychotic. These people (eg. the Qumran writers or the author of Revelation) seem to be on the fringe of society, ranting in extreme black-and-white terms about good and evil, "us and them" and so on.

Whether they fasted and meditated themselves into trances, or took hallucinogenic drugs, these people would not be considered "normal" in their time or ours. If Peter or Paul walked into a modern church they would probably be ejected if not arrested.

I find that a bit of an overstatement, though I'm inclined to agree that Jesus may not be welcome in many churches today. But what do you find so abnormal about Peter and Paul, or Luke, John or the other disciples?

ercatli · 12-02-2009, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Are you applying a general principle here, or is the principle applicable only to certain kinds of documents? Please state the principle, and if it is applicable only to certain kinds of documents, which kinds?

Doug, I'm not sure if I was applying any principle, I was just answering Neil's question. But I do think if we are doing history, we should analyse all documents in consistent ways. Do you agree?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.