Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 09-05-2002, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Layman -

Accusing people of insanity is not a very convincing argument. Quoting a dead German theologian who claimed that his opponents were insane is even less convincing.

The man said he wanted facts, not conclusions.

Yep, he's dead. But he was a leading New Testament scholar who was known for his skepticism of the New Testament. Yet even he knew that the assertion of Jesus' nonexistence was obviously erroneous.

I don't share his idea that "no sane person" could deny Jesus' existence. I think plenty of sane, yet highly agendized gullible hyper-skeptics buy into the story because of their own biases, prejudices and bigotry. Yet the citation is a fact and it shows the very real fact of even what a leading skeptical New Testament scholar thought of the idea.

And for you to accuse others of not making an argument is another example of Toto silliness. Most of your posts are nothing more than references to books on amazon.com.

Toto · 09-05-2002, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


. . .

I don't share his idea that "no sane person" could deny Jesus' existence. I think plenty of sane, yet highly agendized gullible hyper-skeptics buy into the story because of their own biases, prejudices and bigotry. Yet the citation is a fact and it shows the very real fact of even what a leading skeptical New Testament scholar thought of the idea.

. . . .

"highly agendized gullible hyper-skeptics" with "biases, prejudices and bigotry". Could this be an ad hominem argument? Or is there any argument there behind the name-calling?

Layman · 09-05-2002, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


"highly agendized gullible hyper-skeptics" with "biases, prejudices and bigotry". Could this be an ad hominem argument? Or is there any argument there behind the name-calling?

Its a personal observation.

Beats a link to a book on amazon.com that no one will buy anyway though.

Toto · 09-05-2002, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Its a personal observation.

Oh come on Layman. You don't know your internet opponents on a personal basis. You have already defined Jesus Mythers as hyper-skeptical, and you sseem to think that anyone who criticizes your religion is an anti-religious bigot.

Your arguments are getting tiresome. Have you even read Carrier's essay? It directly challenges some of your previous statements on the issue.

Quote:

Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting, and adjust that initial degree of doubt according to several factors, including genre, the established laurels of the author, evidence of honest and reliable methodology, bias, the nature of the claim (whether it is a usual or unusual event or detail, etc.), and so on. [insert - is this how you define hyper-skpetical?] . . .
Historians have so much experience in finding texts false, and in knowing all the ways they can be false, they know it would be folly to trust anything handed to them without being able to make a positive case for that trust. This is why few major historical arguments stand on a single source or piece of evidence: the implicit distrust of texts entails that belief in any nontrivial historical claim must be based on a whole array of evidence and argument.

As for Bultmann (note the spelling),
<a href="http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/pricejhc.html" target="_blank">Robert Price</a> observes

Quote:

In our field of biblical criticism, for instance, the shocking notion that no historical Jesus ever existed, once seriously debated by scholars (even by those who strongly rejected it), was only a few years later dismissed, ruled out of court by Rudolf Bultmann as the mad fancy of unstable minds. . .

Each scholarly generation seems to feel it must define a basic consensus so that all may have a common game board and set of rules. Certain questions are just not kept open, certain disturbing theories left to collect dust, frozen out by agreed neglect, though it is far from clear that they were ever really refuted. Indeed, one of the most important lessons to be learned by the biblical student from a study of the history of the discipline is that many of the critical dinosaurs consigned to the museum had much more in their favor than any of today's standard textbook summaries would lead their readers to believe.

The text of <a href="http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showbook?item_id=426" target="_blank">Jesus and the Word</a> is online.

You should probably quote the sentence following the one that you do:

Quote:

Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community. But how far that community preserved an objectively true picture of him and his message is another question.

and a few other passages:

Quote:

I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist.

Family Man · 09-05-2002, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
I don't share his idea that "no sane person" could deny Jesus' existence. I think plenty of sane, yet highly agendized gullible hyper-skeptics buy into the story because of their own biases, prejudices and bigotry. Yet the citation is a fact and it shows the very real fact of even what a leading skeptical New Testament scholar thought of the idea.

And for you to accuse others of not making an argument is another example of Toto silliness. Most of your posts are nothing more than references to books on amazon.com.

[sarcasm]
Gosh, Layman, I know who've convinced me. Anyone who can spew forth such hyperbole must know the truth.
[/sarcasm]

Glad you haven't changed much.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]

Radorth · 09-05-2002, 05:20 PM

So Toto, anybody who hasn't read what you have read is behind the curve by definition?

Maybe you should read Will Durant's or H.G Wells' writings about Jesus. At least we don't have to worry about them being biased. They're not Christians, or even theists really. The former calls the objections of the "higher criticism" minutiae. Why shouldn't I believe him? (Since we are going by what other people say is so).

Radorth

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Toto · 09-05-2002, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
...Maybe you should read Will Durant's or H.G Wells' writings about Jesus. . . .

We obviously can't go by what other people say, since experts don't agree. I've read some of Will Durant's work, but it's old. H. G. Wells was a science fiction writer. Do you think that there have been no advances in the search for the historical Jesus in the past half century? If Durant and Wells are your only sources, you really are behind the curve.

You might want to skim Peter Kirby's <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html" target="_blank">Historical Jesus Theories</a> to see what you're missing.

RogerLeeCooke · 09-05-2002, 05:43 PM

I agree that Paul gets a bum rap. Feminists despise him because he endorsed the views of his society on the place of women. He hardly noticed them, unless they were wealthy patronesses.

But in terms of humanity, the things he wrote in his letter to the Corinthians are beautiful, much more so than most of the dominical sayings from the Gospels. As CS Lewis once pointed out, it was Jesus himself who proclaimed hell and damnation, unequivocally. It is Paul who gives some hope that maybe everyone will be saved.

RogerLeeCooke · 09-05-2002, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Yep, he's dead. But he was a leading New Testament scholar who was known for his skepticism of the New Testament. Yet even he knew that the assertion of Jesus' nonexistence was obviously erroneous.

Ah, but he was wrong. Recent research has shown conclusively that the actions attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were not performed by Jesus, but by another man of the same name.

LLaurieG · 09-05-2002, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Recent research has shown conclusively that the actions attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were not performed by Jesus, but by another man of the same name.

*smile* Hello Roger. Nice to read you again.

09-05-2002, 05:20 PM	#16
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	So Toto, anybody who hasn't read what you have read is behind the curve by definition? Maybe you should read Will Durant's or H.G Wells' writings about Jesus. At least we don't have to worry about them being biased. They're not Christians, or even theists really. The former calls the objections of the "higher criticism" minutiae. Why shouldn't I believe him? (Since we are going by what other people say is so). Radorth [ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

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

09-05-2002, 05:43 PM	#18
RogerLeeCooke Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Burlington, Vermont, USA Posts: 177	I agree that Paul gets a bum rap. Feminists despise him because he endorsed the views of his society on the place of women. He hardly noticed them, unless they were wealthy patronesses. But in terms of humanity, the things he wrote in his letter to the Corinthians are beautiful, much more so than most of the dominical sayings from the Gospels. As CS Lewis once pointed out, it was Jesus himself who proclaimed hell and damnation, unequivocally. It is Paul who gives some hope that maybe everyone will be saved.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.