Sauron

Did anyone ever receive a response from Layman about this? He mentioned the following:

but when pressed for specifics and the credentials/areas of expertise of these 50 and 100 scientists, I didn't see any response.

Vorkosigan

The list was explored recently, but I can't find the thread. As I recall, Infidels identified many of them as well known ID proponents, although a few were not actually working scientists, and none had any background in evolutionary biology.

Vorkosigan

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

First of all , thank you Layman for starting this thread: it has really harvested great ideas. (of course it takes a little emotional ruffles to do that but thats the by-product of the refutation process).
Secondly, your main thrust at the start of the thread (I have read only two pages - I can see we have six) seems to be based on "scholarly consensus". If SC was all we needed to form opinions, we would be taking surveys and using the statistics then basing our ideas on numbers not on their own merit. In other words, I find the appeal to scholarly consensus (a form of argumentum ad populum), complete hokum. But thats just me I guess. You seem to have been appealing to numbers, not arguments. I think that is a flawed way of approaching issues its too easy and is the easiest way out. History has proved one person can be right and 2 billion people wrong. Scholars or otherwise. And then again, there are scholars, there are serious scholars and there are legitimate scholars(the P.HDs). Its all a matter of taste and inclination(personal values) it all depends on which ideas one finds appealing.
then about this:
I believe Jeffrey was saying its valid to appeal to the Testimonium as an independent source. This does NOT mean that (he meant)the testimonium was proof, of even reliable as a confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. J. Lowder refered to its use, not its validity. Its use is valid. That does not mean its valid.
Just like its valid to use an eyewitness in court to support a claim. Its perfectly valid even if the eyewitness lies. Whether or not the eyewitness is telling the truth is another matter.
ilgwamh This is untrue, Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him three times, Thomas doubted him and the rest all but disappeared during the time of reckoning. They even refused to believe "the women" when they claimed Jesus had resurrected.
Toto
Granted """""Is Stein right that people like Lowder and me are "dishonest," "fooled" and "ignorant" because of our use of the Testimonium? Or are Lowder and I right that the Testimonium provides independent historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus?"""" is a false dilemma and a fallacy of bifurcation on Laymans part (because we could all be wrong) but I dont think thats enough to plant a chip on his shoulder and label his approach "lawyerly". It was just a fallacious question. I think we are not qualified to say who is wrong or right because we werent there. What we can say is, whose arguments are "strongest".
Having said that, I think motive is irrelevant and Totos argument is a form of ad hominem. We need to refute arguments, not criticise motives. Even in court, where lawyerly approaches are used, each lawyer must make a case. Not make the other lawyer a case.
So, for what its worth, I dont think Layman came swinging.
I don't know about everyone else, but I like an agressive challenge. So long as its within civility.
Let me now read the rest of the thread. My apologies if I have raised issues that have already been settled.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Not nearly as sorry as I am. I actually read it, only to find that everyone agrees that some people think a guy named Jesus actually existed and some don't.

Who cares? As others pointed out repeatedly, the fact of someone's existence means absolutely nothing other than they existed.

The only relevant point is whether or not Jesus was God.

I tell you what. I, in my infinite wisdom and grand stature, shall grant that Jesus actually existed.

Ok? Done.

Now what? Where are we? Still at zero.

FreeToThink

Oh no, Koy. If Jesus existed, then he was either a liar, a lunatic, or, Lord!

Yeah.

Or maybe the gospels don't accurately portray his actions and words and he was just some radical with a few nifty recycled ideas for reform who got killed by the Romans.

I'll go ask Billy Ockham what he thinks and get back to you.

Jayhawker Soule

So much for the value of history.

Respectfully, relevance is in the eye of the beholder. If your agenda is to reinforce Christianity (or, for that matter, atheism) the existence or non-existence of Jesus may not matter in the least. If your interest is to understand the early rise of the Judaic Christian movement, it may well be important. And, of course, if you simply don't care, you have every right to ignore the entire thread. Whatever the case may be, I'm not at all sure that your criteria for relevancy is as universal as you seem to believe.

PopeInTheWoods

If it could somehow be proven that Jesus was entirely mythical, then he couldn't be god. So now we're actually at step 1 (of approximately 2418) of finding him to be god.

Andy

Jayhawker Soule

If we can exclude all the "entirely mythical" folk, we get rid of YHWH, Mitra, Baal, Shiva, ...

Koyaanisqatsi

If you establish that a man named Jesus existed then you have done nothing at all other than establish a man named Jesus existed.

There have been many hundreds of thousands if not millions of men named Jesus existing throughout humanity's history (both BCE and CE), therefore, to establish that one did, in fact, exist is trivial, pointless and exceedingly easy to do.

Hence, the only relevant question is, "Was this particular man named Jesus written about in the NT mythologies what those myths claimed he was?"

I guess you're right. Since this thread is utterly pointless and ultimately means absolutely nothing other than some poeple think a guy named Jesus lived at some point and others don't, I shall simply bow out.

Enjoy the trivia!

Toto

The non-trivial version of the question is whether a man named Jesus started the religion called Christianity, or whether the religion started as a Jewish variant on the mystery cults and then created a history for itself by inventing a founder named Jesus.

The question is important to Nomad, Layman, Bede, et al. because their cult indoctrination is based on the historical accuracy of the gospels, even though they have been forced to give up on their fundamentalist inerrantist positions (too easy to disprove.) If there is no shred of accuracy in the gospels the house of cards they have constructed comes tumbling down. If they can convince themselves that there is even a sliver of validity to the gospel stories - that there was a teacher named Jesus who started the whole thing - they can quell all the doubts they might have about their religion being based on unprovable assertions.