Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-08-2002, 09:11 AM

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
We have the New Testament,
----------------

Date the texts please.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
letters by Ignatius,
----------------

Ignatius is writing in the second century and doesn't show any direct knwoledge of the topic. Failed.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
Clement and others,
----------------

Clement we can date, but doesn't provide any historical information, does he?? And these others??

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
we Tacitus (regardless of what Spin thinks),
----------------

Despite Tacitus, as a source he is writing in the second century. Where are contemporary citations? Alexis Comnenus has none. Just a lot of rehash.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
we have the Gospel of Thomas
----------------

Date that one, Alexis. Be good.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
and Peter,
----------------

Or this one.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
we have Justin Martyr etc etc etc.
----------------

Ahh, now we're in historical documentation. Justin was writing after all in the late 150s. Really useful, isn't he? Fail Alexis Comnenus. This is the same old ahistorical hopefulness that we have seen by the Josh McDowells of the world.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
I know most of these are Christian. So what?
----------------

You've provided nothing that could be classed as historical witnesses, have you?

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
We make allowances for that as we must with all other sources. Historians have become quite highly skilled at picking up bias and knowing where to look for it.
----------------

Historians have become quite good at weeding out non-starters in historical research source materials.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
Basically, we know that Jesus existed because the alternative explanations either tie us up in knots (like the unfortunate Iasion),
----------------

This is not an argument. We are attempting to do historical analysis not explain why a datum was current. There are many possible reasons for any datum. It is not the task of the historian to show that something didn't exist, but for the historian to show what actually happened.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
rely on explaining away inconveniences galour (like Spin with Tacitus)
----------------

I don't need to explain Tacitus away, Alexis Comnenus. You can't show the historical utility of the witness. He was, after all, writing over 80 years after the reputed event. My views on Tacitus are extra.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
and that there is absolutely no reason why, if one wanted to invent a god man, they would have created the total mess of contradiction and failed prophecies that the New Testament authors are obviously struggling with.
----------------

You should read some of the other religious movements. Have a look at the mess in gnosticism. Look at some of the apocryphal gospels. There are fertile minds in operation in these texts. You have no evidence for your claim and are putting the onus on other people to justify the negative of what you apparently can't, though you need to.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
The Jesus of the Gospels makes a very bad messiah who requires all sorts of acrobatics to promote to divine status. Any invention would be far better at the job.
----------------

Most Christians would disagree with you.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
Finally, the idea that a Jewish preacher went around giving an anti-establishment rant and got killed off by the authorities for his troubles is so commonplace, so normal, so totally unsurprising that not to believe it is plain perverse. The surprising thing is that this failed preacher got turned into a God after he died but that is another question.
----------------

That is merely one scenario, one that's been around for a long time, yes. It's frequent appearances don't make it any more reliable.

Do your job and make your case.

Toto · 04-08-2002, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexis Comnenus:
Toto, I fear I've come down a bit hard on you.

You're new here. I can take it.

Quote:

I'm not actually making an allegation (apart from the one we all admit, that Mr Carrier's quote is inaccurate).

I have not admitted that Carrier's quote is inaccurate. It sounds technically accurate to me. But if someone thinks there is countering evidence, I suspect he would want to deal with it, which is why I emailed him.

Quote:

Instead, I am challenging the oft repeated allegation that Eusebius was a 'forger' or 'liar'. I'm not even clear if you hold to these allegations or not.

Anyway, I've not read Lightfoot (indeed I'd never heard of him and don't consider him an authority).

I have only read the excerpt that your source cited as authority.

Quote:

You might like, instead, to read the introduction to Eusebius's History in the Penguin Classic edition. You might even like to read the History as this is an excellent translation and easy to read.

Eusebius is actually well liked by historians as he quotes older sources at length and his editorialising is so clumsy as to be obvious. When he speaks with his own voice, as in a sermon at the end of the History, he's simply boring.

Boring, clumsy, what a recommendation.

Quote:

Finally, that Josephus passage is completely worthless to the historian. It is clearly tainted and the idea of pulling out the interpolations to be left with the pristine original is pure fantasy. The only people interested in this passage are pseudo historians who think Jesus never existed and Christians who can be bothered to argue with them. All other historians are fully aware Jesus existed from the multitude of other sources and don't need a doctored Josephus to tell us.

Regards

Alex

On the contrary, most historians sift through the other evidence on the existence of the historical Jesus, and reject all of it until they get down to Josephus. Josephus's reference to James the brother of Jesus is considered to be the most reliable indicator that there may have been a Jesus. It's a very thin thread.

There seems to be on a list of talking points for Christian apologists that includes the idea that Jesus' historical existence is so well accepted, that any dissenters must be compared to UFO followers and YEC creationists. The apologists have even intimidated a number of atheists into announcing that of course Jesus existed (but he's someone totally different from Jerry Falwell's Jesus...)

I don't buy it. It is easier to explain lots of things if we start with the idea that the original Jesus was a spiritual entity, and the second century church created an essentially fictional person for its own institutional purposes. Why is there such a wide variation in ideas about Jesus so shortly after his supposed death? Why do the earliest Christian writings speak of Christ as a spiritual entity, and details about his life are supplied only much later? Why is it that the Christian idea seems to have been so widespread so early, instead of radiating out from a central point?

If the case for Jesus' existence is so obvious, why has no secular mainstream historian rebutted Doberty's Jesus Puzzle?

Alexis Comnenus · 04-09-2002, 12:47 AM

As turtonm says "I don't know of any reason to regard the several dozen gospels and related propaganda as anything other than myth, with perhaps some basic kernel of truth."

Lose the 'perhaps' and he and I can agree. I don't know of any modern historians who claim Jesus didn't exist but that doesn't mean that there are not any. Certainly, though, I would have thought if one existed, he or she would be being quoted ad nauseam by some people on this list just as they always point to Mr Doherty at the moment (who, from a brief look at his site, is a serious writer and I do wish professionals would engage more with his ideas).

However, as I told Pandora I'm not willing to engage in a pointless discussion about what, to me, is a non-subject.

For those who have kindly advised me about how to do history, thanks. But I get plenty of teaching from my professors who seem to think I'm quite good at it.

Regards

Alex

spin · 04-09-2002, 02:28 AM

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
I don't know of any modern historians who claim Jesus didn't exist but that doesn't mean that there are not any.
----------------

There aren't many historians who actually deal with the subject -- you know, look at the historical sources and muster the evidence. Besides we are supposed to be trying to use historical methods, not take surveys. It doesn't matter how many people are of a particular opinion, if you are learning to do history, learn to do it based on evidence, not what the herd says.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
However, as I told Pandora I'm not willing to engage in a pointless discussion about what, to me, is a non-subject.
----------------

This is typical avoidance. When someone cannot even analyse their basic assumptions, then their assumptions are treated as worthless.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
For those who have kindly advised me about how to do history, thanks. But I get plenty of teaching from my professors who seem to think I'm quite good at it.
----------------

If that pacifies your conscience... Pat, pat.

The bottom line is always: any fundamental position needs to be open to scrutiny.

Alexis Comnenus's position is not open to scrutiny.

Vinnie · 04-12-2002, 10:02 PM

I think Lowder offers a nice discussion on the Josephus passage in II library where he is critiquing Mcdowell's book:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#josephus

Quote:

In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus

Though Lowder critiqued a lot of what was said.

Vinnie

Zetoumene Alethia - "Seeking Truth"
http://pub5.ezboard.com/bzetoumenehoalethia

Toto · 04-13-2002, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ilgwamh:
I think Lowder offers a nice discussion on the Josephus passage in II library where he is critiquing Mcdowell's book:

You have taken one sentence and ripped it from its context. The full paragraph gives more of the flavor of the quote:

Quote:

In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. However, given the centuries-old debate over how much, if any, of the Testimonium is authentic, McDowell's mere quotation of the full Testimonium (combined with an acknowledgement that the quotation is "hotly-disputed") is simply inexcusable. By itself, the unqualified quotation of the Testimonium in ETDAV gives readers the misleading impression that, although there is some unspecified controversy concerning the passage, McDowell accepts the full authenticity of the Testimonium. Furthermore, since skepticism concerning the authenticity of the Testimonium is fairly widespread, I think McDowell did a disservice to his mostly Christian audience by not answering these objections. Indeed, if McDowell had made it clear in ETDAV that his own view is that the Testimonium is partially authentic, that would have answered most of the objections. Of course, McDowell and Wilson have discussed the objections at some length in their 1988 book, He Walked Among Us. But many of their arguments for authenticity are weak; their response to one of the objections against authenticity is incomplete; and they neglected what I consider to be a very serious objection against their view.

Lowder's article is an evaluation of McDowell's evidence, not a consideration of the validity or meaning of the passage in Josephus. There are scholars who think that the mention of Jesus in Josephus (even though there is evidence of tampering) provides a thin thread of evidence that tips the balance in favor of his historical existence. I think that all that Lowder is saying in this passage is that would be a respectable argument if McDowell had made it properly.

Vinnie · 04-13-2002, 08:23 AM

Quote:

You have taken one sentence and ripped it from its context. The full paragraph gives more of the flavor of the quote:

I didn't rip the line out of context. I merely pointed out JJL's stance that he thinks the Testimonium is independent confirmation of a historiccal Jesus.

Quote:

Lowder's article is an evaluation of McDowell's evidence, not a consideration of the validity or meaning of the passage in Josephus. There are scholars who think that the mention of Jesus in Josephus (even though there is evidence of tampering) provides a thin thread of evidence that tips the balance in favor of his historical existence. I think that all that Lowder is saying in this passage is that would be a respectable argument if McDowell had made it properly.

Lowder's own words: "In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus."

Lowder just goes on to say he does not think Joshy argued it very well. He said given all the debate centering around it Joshy should have gone into depth here. I agree with Lowder on this. I also pointed that out in my post where I said: Though Lowder critiqued a lot of what was said.

So how did I rip anything out of context?

Quote:

"Lowder is saying in this passage is that would be a respectable argument if McDowell had made it properly

Actually, I think that by Lowder's own words, he believes that the argument is respectable and provides independent confirmation of a historical Jesus when discussed or argued in depth. How do you circumvent these words:

"I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus."

In my opinion Joshy was accurate in his appeal to the Testimonium as a source which provided independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

I can't beleive Lowder said/meant something other than he said/meant.

Quote:

There are scholars who think that the mention of Jesus in Josephus (even though there is evidence of tampering) provides a thin thread of evidence that tips the

I am not a Josephan scholar but I feel the Testimonium does provide independent confirmation on the basis of my readings. Also, when one removes what appear to be the patently Christian elements we are still left with a valuable witness that tells us and confirms certian Christian beliefs.

Vinnie

Toto · 04-13-2002, 09:24 AM

Vinnie -

I guess "Joshy" is a good buddy of yours, and you want us to know it.

But you still need to learn to read more critically. Lowder is evaluating McDowell's arguments, not Josephus. He is playing that scholarly game of examining the evidence from every point of view without necessarily reaching a firm conclusion, like a debate critic.

He explicitly did not say that he believes that the Testimonium is independent evidence of the existence of the Historical Jesus - he said that McDowell was right to rely on it, but then goes on to say that McDowell fails to deal with many valid objections to the validity of the passage.

Lowder does not draw his own final conclusion on the value of Josephus as evidence of Christ. He explicitly says:

Quote:

There was one objection which McDowell and Wilson did not discuss, but which I think deserves to be taken seriously by anyone who defends a reconstructed Testimonium. According to that objection, the fact that there has been any tampering with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial authenticity. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what to think about this objection.

Conclusion: Lowder takes no stand in this essay on the validity of the Testimonium, but thinks that interesting arguments can be made on either side, and that McDowell (or "Joshy") failed to adequately describe the evidence. The actual conclusion on the Testimonium is left to "an exercise for the reader."

Lowder may in fact believe that the Testamonium is independent confirmation of Jesus' historical existence, because he believes that the Gospels by themselves are sufficient evidence for Jesus' existence - which only shows that he thinks there is a very low burden of proof on this question given that the mere existence of Jesus is not a very extraordinary claim. Does this "confirm certain Christian beliefs"? It does nothing to confirm the Christian belief that Jesus was divine, or that the Gospels contain any iota of truth on his teachings or life beyond his existence, a few followers, and his death.

I suppose this is how you read the Bible - take a sentence out of its context and meditate on it. It just doesn't work for writings by mere mortal academics. </sarcasm>

Haran · 04-13-2002, 11:11 AM

There are good atheist scholars that believe Jesus was a real person such as Michael Grant and Will Durant, among others [I believe that even Lowder believes that Jesus existed.]

Anyway, I just thought I'd add some insights to this discussion from a respected atheist polymath by the name of Will Durant. This philosoper and historian managed to spend 5 decades composing his magnum opus, "The Story of Civilization".

In this historical series, he wrote a book entitled Caesar and Christ. Here are some exerpts that might be of interest to this thread:

Quote:

There may be a genuine core in these strange lines [i.e. Josephus' Testimony]; but the high praise given to Christ by a Jew uniformly anxious to please either the Romans or the Jews - both at the time in conflict with Christianity - renders the passage suspect, and Christian scholars reject it as almost certainly an interpolation. [Haran: Durant still seems to leave an opening for the core to be genuine. There are other good scholars who believe this. A case in point is John P. Meier, who, in his A Marginal Jew, presented arguments based on the Greek structure of the Testimony and was very persuasive in showing that part of the Testimony very well could have been penned by Josephus himself.]

...Tacitus described Nero's persecution of the Chrestiani in Rome, and pictured them as already (A.D. 64) numbering adherents throughout the Empire; the paragraph is so tacitean in style, force, and prejudice that of all Biblical critics only Drews questions its authenticity. Suetonius (ca. 125) mentions the same persecution and reports Claudius' banishment (ca. 52) of "Jews who, stirred up by Christ [impulsore Chresto], were causing public disturbances," the passage accords well with the Acts of the Apostles, which mentions a decree of Claudius that "the Jews should leave Rome."

These references prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ; but unless we assume the latter we are driven to the improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation; moreover, we must suppose that the Christian community of Rome had been established some years before 52, to merit the attention of an imperial decree.

...The denial of that existence [i.e. of Jesus] seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity.

...We may conclude with brilliant but judicious Schweitzer, that the Gospel of Mark is in essentials "genuine history."

...The half-Gnostic character of the work [i.e. Gospel of John], and its emphasis on metaphysical ideas, have lead many Christian scholars to doubt that its author was the apostle John. [b]Exerience suggests, however, that an old tradition must not be too quickly rejected; our ancestors were not all fools.

...In summary, it is clear that there are many contradictions between gospel and another, many dubious statements of history.... All this granted, much remains. The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.

...In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies - e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates - would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they recored many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed...[he gives many examples here]

...That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.

Wow! This was the first bit of history I ever read when I began my own quest years ago. Durant challenged the beliefs that I had inherited and really made me think hard about what I believed. He introduced me to the Loeb Library and pretty much set me on the path to more scholarly works rather than those sensational works like "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The Jesus Puzzle". I will always be searching, but so far I have found no reason to give up my faith in Jesus.

Enjoy,
Haran

Vinnie · 04-13-2002, 10:56 PM

"I guess "Joshy" is a good buddy of yours, and you want us to know it."

And you base this on what? I do knot personally know Josh Mcdowell nor have I ever corresponded with him. I have New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. I read it. Its on my bookshelf. Wasn't overly impressed by any means.

Quote:

But you still need to learn to read more critically.

I still need to learn to read more critically? And you base this on one isolated case of where you think I misinterpreted an author's comment? Would it follow if I said you need to learn to guess more critically?

Quote:

Lowder is evaluating McDowell's arguments, not Josephus.

The point being? Mcdowell is making claims about the TF. Lowder is responding to his arguments and claims. While doing so it seems that Lowder expressed his opinion that he does in fact view the TF as independent confirmation of a historical Jesus. Though he states, and I agree with him on that, that Joshy leaves a lot to be desired in this area. He seems to have shared Mcdowell's conclusion that the TF is reliable as a historical reference of Jesus but disagreed with the means Mcdowell used to get there.

Quote:

He is playing that scholarly game of examining the evidence from every point of view without necessarily reaching a firm conclusion, like a debate critic.

That is the tone I get overall. I often report things neutrally in arguments and discussions. I know how that works but the statement I quoted says what it says.

Quote:

He explicitly did not say that he believes that the Testimonium is independent evidence of the existence of the Historical Jesus - he said that McDowell was right to rely on it, but then goes on to say that McDowell fails to deal with many valid objections to the validity of the passage.

If its not independent evidence how is Mcdowell right to rely on it?

I'd argue that he explicitly stated the TF is indpendent evidence:

"In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus."

I am not stating he set out to argue that. He simply expressed his conclusion.

Quote:

There was one objection which McDowell and Wilson did not discuss, but which I think deserves to be taken seriously by anyone who defends a reconstructed Testimonium. According to that objection, the fact that there has been any tampering with the text at all makes the entire passage suspect; a heavy burden of proof falls upon anyone who defends partial authenticity. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what to think about this objection.

That does not substantiate what you wrote. It does not state Lowder is open on whether the TF is independent confirmation. Letting the reader decide does not mean Lowder has not decided for himself. After this quote comes his conclusion. After surveying the material and evidence Lowder presents a conclusion. And that is what I quoted.

Quote:

The actual conclusion on the Testimonium is left to "an exercise for the reader."

Actually, the actual conclusion that you speak of applies to the objection that Lowder was discussing. He stated: "I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what to think about this objection." It doesn't mean Lowder cannot state his thoughts on the TF later on. Its an excercise left for the readers. Later on comes his conclusion: "In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus."

Quote:

It does nothing to confirm the Christian belief that Jesus was divine, or that the Gospels contain any iota of truth on his teachings or life beyond his existence, a few followers, and his death.

That is certianly better than 'there is not extra-biblical evidence confirming the historicity of Jesus' or the objection that asks "why doesn't any historian make mention of Jesus?" The details given in the TF certianly fit with some other Christian doctrine but other models that don't can be espoused that fit as well.

Quote:

I suppose this is how you read the Bible - take a sentence out of its context and meditate on it. It just doesn't work for writings by mere mortal academics.

I suppose that fatuous and puerile ending delineates the fact that you ran out of substantial things to say. Note that I do not intend to give the impression that I found your arguments to actually be substantial. I am inclined to believe that they were more substantial than your ending but that doesn't tell us much.

Vinnie

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

04-08-2002, 09:11 AM	#31
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- We have the New Testament, ---------------- Date the texts please. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- letters by Ignatius, ---------------- Ignatius is writing in the second century and doesn't show any direct knwoledge of the topic. Failed. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- Clement and others, ---------------- Clement we can date, but doesn't provide any historical information, does he?? And these others?? Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- we Tacitus (regardless of what Spin thinks), ---------------- Despite Tacitus, as a source he is writing in the second century. Where are contemporary citations? Alexis Comnenus has none. Just a lot of rehash. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- we have the Gospel of Thomas ---------------- Date that one, Alexis. Be good. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- and Peter, ---------------- Or this one. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- we have Justin Martyr etc etc etc. ---------------- Ahh, now we're in historical documentation. Justin was writing after all in the late 150s. Really useful, isn't he? Fail Alexis Comnenus. This is the same old ahistorical hopefulness that we have seen by the Josh McDowells of the world. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- I know most of these are Christian. So what? ---------------- You've provided nothing that could be classed as historical witnesses, have you? Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- We make allowances for that as we must with all other sources. Historians have become quite highly skilled at picking up bias and knowing where to look for it. ---------------- Historians have become quite good at weeding out non-starters in historical research source materials. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- Basically, we know that Jesus existed because the alternative explanations either tie us up in knots (like the unfortunate Iasion), ---------------- This is not an argument. We are attempting to do historical analysis not explain why a datum was current. There are many possible reasons for any datum. It is not the task of the historian to show that something didn't exist, but for the historian to show what actually happened. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- rely on explaining away inconveniences galour (like Spin with Tacitus) ---------------- I don't need to explain Tacitus away, Alexis Comnenus. You can't show the historical utility of the witness. He was, after all, writing over 80 years after the reputed event. My views on Tacitus are extra. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- and that there is absolutely no reason why, if one wanted to invent a god man, they would have created the total mess of contradiction and failed prophecies that the New Testament authors are obviously struggling with. ---------------- You should read some of the other religious movements. Have a look at the mess in gnosticism. Look at some of the apocryphal gospels. There are fertile minds in operation in these texts. You have no evidence for your claim and are putting the onus on other people to justify the negative of what you apparently can't, though you need to. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- The Jesus of the Gospels makes a very bad messiah who requires all sorts of acrobatics to promote to divine status. Any invention would be far better at the job. ---------------- Most Christians would disagree with you. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- Finally, the idea that a Jewish preacher went around giving an anti-establishment rant and got killed off by the authorities for his troubles is so commonplace, so normal, so totally unsurprising that not to believe it is plain perverse. The surprising thing is that this failed preacher got turned into a God after he died but that is another question. ---------------- That is merely one scenario, one that's been around for a long time, yes. It's frequent appearances don't make it any more reliable. Do your job and make your case.

04-09-2002, 12:47 AM	#33
Alexis Comnenus Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 63	As turtonm says "I don't know of any reason to regard the several dozen gospels and related propaganda as anything other than myth, with perhaps some basic kernel of truth." Lose the 'perhaps' and he and I can agree. I don't know of any modern historians who claim Jesus didn't exist but that doesn't mean that there are not any. Certainly, though, I would have thought if one existed, he or she would be being quoted ad nauseam by some people on this list just as they always point to Mr Doherty at the moment (who, from a brief look at his site, is a serious writer and I do wish professionals would engage more with his ideas). However, as I told Pandora I'm not willing to engage in a pointless discussion about what, to me, is a non-subject. For those who have kindly advised me about how to do history, thanks. But I get plenty of teaching from my professors who seem to think I'm quite good at it. Regards Alex

04-09-2002, 02:28 AM	#34
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- I don't know of any modern historians who claim Jesus didn't exist but that doesn't mean that there are not any. ---------------- There aren't many historians who actually deal with the subject -- you know, look at the historical sources and muster the evidence. Besides we are supposed to be trying to use historical methods, not take surveys. It doesn't matter how many people are of a particular opinion, if you are learning to do history, learn to do it based on evidence, not what the herd says. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- However, as I told Pandora I'm not willing to engage in a pointless discussion about what, to me, is a non-subject. ---------------- This is typical avoidance. When someone cannot even analyse their basic assumptions, then their assumptions are treated as worthless. Alexis Comnenus: ---------------- For those who have kindly advised me about how to do history, thanks. But I get plenty of teaching from my professors who seem to think I'm quite good at it. ---------------- If that pacifies your conscience... Pat, pat. The bottom line is always: any fundamental position needs to be open to scrutiny. Alexis Comnenus's position is not open to scrutiny.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.