Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-04-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...You are effectively suggesting that Bales' enemy, the Pope, didn't believe in this fable of christ because he was corrupt, but that Bales certainly believed in an historical Jesus because ...... why?

Because he was a Protestant Christian, and Protestants believed in a historical Jesus as an item of dogma. If he had not so believed, he would not have been a Christian, by definition.

Quote:

Obviously I dont agree. When Bales writes about "this fable of Christ" he is publishing to his readers the notion that at least someone is operating under the assumption that Jesus is a fable. Did Bales question the historicity of Jesus by refering to "this fable of Christ"?

Not necessarily. His fictional character says that something in the Jesus story was false. It could have been the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Quote:

I think that it's possible that he did. I dont see how squabbling scholars can be so adamant that Bales could not possibly be questioning the existence of the historical jesus, in writing about the fabulous jesus.

It's theoretically possible, but you have produced no evidence that the idea was current at the time, or that Bales would have accused the Pope of such an idea.

mountainman · 04-04-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It's theoretically possible, but you have produced no evidence that the idea was current at the time, or that Bales would have accused the Pope of such an idea.

Evidence can easily be produced that there was, and had been, a systematic fascist inquisition by the Roman Church over the centuries leading up to the statement. It is theoretically possible that people who refused to confess that Jesus was historical and real and whatever the church wanted to hear at the time, were branded heretics, and simply disposed of.

In fact, it is quite logical that in any century between the 4th and the 19th, while such a fascist inquisitional system operated, anyone who was silly enough to publically state that an opinion that Jesus was a fiction (fable) would expect certain death at the hands of the inquisitors.

Ehrman's and mainstream's opinion that everyone (before the 18th century) assumed Jesus was historical is very nieve. It is a well known fact hat everyone before the 18th century who stated OTHERWISE was likely to be executed as an undesireable heretic.

What happened in the 18th century was that the inquisition folded, and the church - superficially - no longer had the power to execute dissidents who might have opinions that contradicted their dogma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

The Inquisition, Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis (inquiry on heretical perversity), was the "fight against heretics" by several institutions within the justice system of the Roman Catholic Church. It started in the 12th century, with the introduction of torture in the persecution of heresy.[1] Inquisition practices were used also on offences against canon law other than heresy.

Definition

The term "Inquisition" can apply to any one of several institutions which fought against heretics (or other offenders against canon law) within the justice-system of the Roman Catholic Church. The term "Inquisition" is usually applied to that of the Catholic Church. It may also refer to:[2]

* an ecclesiastical tribunal
* the institution of the Catholic Church for combating heresy
* a number of historical expurgation movements against heresy (orchestrated by some groups/individuals within the Catholic Church or within a Catholic state)
* the trial of an individual accused of heresy.

Generally, the Inquisition movement was concerned only with the heretical behaviour of Catholic adherents or converts, and did not concern itself with those outside its jurisdiction, such as Jews or Muslims.[3]

Tribunals and institutions

Before 1100, the Catholic Church had already suppressed heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but without using torture[1] and seldom resorting to executions.[4][5] Such punishments had a number of ecclesiastical opponents, although some countries punished heresy with the death penalty.[6][7]

In the 1100's, to counter the spread of Catharism, prosecution of heretics by secular governments became more frequent. The Church charged councils composed of bishops and archbishops with establishing inquisitions (see Episcopal Inquisition). The first Inquisition was established in Languedoc (south of France) in 1184.

Two priests demand a heretic to repent as he is tortured.In the 1200's, Pope Gregory IX (reigned 1227–1241) assigned the duty of carrying out inquisitions to the Dominican Order. They used inquisitorial procedures, a legal practice common at that time. They judged heresy alone, using the local authorities to establish a tribunal and to prosecute heretics. After 1200, a Grand Inquisitor headed each Inquisition. Grand Inquisitions persisted until the 1800's.[8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Is Ehrman's claim falsifiable?

We must recognise, not only that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it and that we have a tendency to look only for positive evidence, but also that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless this negative evidence could exist. The principle is well known to scientists and philosophers of science, who call it disconfirmability. They insist that if a proposition does not invite disconfirmation, if there is no conceivable evidence the existence of which would contradict it, then is cannot be tested and so cannot be taken seriously. If it is not disprovable, it is not provable.

I am testing Ehrman's and mainstream's claim: everyone assumed jesus was historical before the 18th century.

To what extent is this claim nieve or self-serving?

Toto · 04-04-2012, 09:17 PM

The word is naive.

People were not executed for claiming that Jesus did not exist. They were executed for claiming that Jesus was either merely human, or not fully equal to God (while still being fully human.)

Your theoretical possibilities are just that - your own fantasy. You are not testing Ehrman's claim unless you actually find some evidence. .

Doug Shaver · 04-05-2012, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Are you seriously arguing that Bale could not have himself thought that "this fable of christ" had bought the church great profit?

I am making no argument about what he could have thought. Unlike fundamentalists, I do not infer "must have" from "could have."

Doug Shaver · 04-05-2012, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is nothing in that wiki entry to indicate that Bale was anything other than a believing Christian.

Bale is decribed as an apostate

Do you even know what an apostate is? Or what a person has to do in order to be described as one?

Do you even know which source describes Bale as an apostate?

Do you even know this source is of unquestionable integrity?

The reliability or integrity of the source of the accusation of apostasy is irrelevant to the point I am making.

The point I am making is reinforced, however, by your apparent unwillingness to answer my question about your knowledge of what constitutes apostasy.

Juma · 04-05-2012, 12:58 AM

Another important aspect is the history of source-criticism. Before the 19th-century this was not something secular historians, bothered with, so why would theologicians? The discussion was never if the bible was true or not, but how to interpret it.
Medieval texts saying that the bible is only a literary work would be enormously anachronistic.

mountainman · 04-05-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Are you seriously arguing that Bale could not have himself thought that "this fable of christ" had bought the church great profit?

I am making no argument about what he could have thought. Unlike fundamentalists, I do not infer "must have" from "could have."

In which case, I asked a general question in the OP, about the inferences that Ehrman makes in his statement that the idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion.

But firstly, do you agree or disagree with Ehrman's claim?

mountainman · 04-05-2012, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

..... your apparent unwillingness to answer my question about your knowledge of what constitutes apostasy.

Let's therefore start with Emperor Julian as an example. He is called an apostate. In fact the WIKI mongering apologists have registered him under the name of "Julian the Apostate". But was he an apostate?

Or was he just one of the 95% demographic pagans?

mountainman · 04-05-2012, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The word is naive.

People were not executed for claiming that Jesus did not exist.

Source?

Quote:

They were executed for claiming that Jesus was either merely human, or not fully equal to God (while still being fully human.)

Is this what they claimed prior to execution, or what their executioners claimed after they executed them?

Quote:

Your theoretical possibilities are just that - your own fantasy. You are not testing Ehrman's claim unless you actually find some evidence. .

Do you not understand that Ehrman's claims are also theoretical and hypothetical? Are we supposed to think that EVERYONE believed Jesus was historical before the 18th century, while the church was conducting mass executions of heretics?

Is this not an utterly naive idea?

Is it not also quite possible that the cessation of the church executing people for their antithetical beliefs in the 18th century, gave rise to the publications of such beliefs with more freedom of speech from the 18th century, thereby explaining Ehrman's claim?

Doug Shaver · 04-06-2012, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

But firstly, do you agree or disagree with Ehrman's claim?

I believe it is justified by the absence of evidence to the contrary.

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

04-04-2012, 09:17 PM	#143
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The word is naive. People were not executed for claiming that Jesus did not exist. They were executed for claiming that Jesus was either merely human, or not fully equal to God (while still being fully human.) Your theoretical possibilities are just that - your own fantasy. You are not testing Ehrman's claim unless you actually find some evidence. .

04-05-2012, 12:58 AM	#146
Juma Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,812	Another important aspect is the history of source-criticism. Before the 19th-century this was not something secular historians, bothered with, so why would theologicians? The discussion was never if the bible was true or not, but how to interpret it. Medieval texts saying that the bible is only a literary work would be enormously anachronistic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.