leonarde

Butters,
I was not making a appeal to numbers as an authority per se . Rather I was responding very closely to what Ion had posted before. A repost of my partial repost of what had prompted
my '1 billion' remark. (Ion) How does one establish that a "claim" (ie of historicity here) is "recognized" or even "most
recognized in human history"????

There could be several criteria but they would certainly include:

1)length of time that a given claim is given credence. (we are talking about close to 2000 years in the given instance).

2)spread of the claim across cultures and a wide
geographical distribution. (7 continents and counting)

3)recognition by specialists in the field. (here
it is the field of ancient history).

I was not claiming that because X number of people
believe something it is true. I was merely
observing that by Ion's own general criterion (recognition) the claim he denies
had more than passed the test.

Cheers!

Ion

I don't see any inconsistency with what I posted October 14 on the Biblical characters that are not historically established (Adam, Eve, Noah, Jesus, Judas), as opposed to historically established (Pontius Pilate):
It means that Jesus for example, if he existed, the history hasn't established it.
If a certain 'Jesus' was performing miracles like the Bible claims, history would have taken notice of Jesus.
I say "Who cares?" about Jesus, since history hasn't established 'Jesus', he is historically insignificant and certainly didn't perform miracles that history would have recognized.

If 'Jesus of Nazareth' did exist, which is not established historically, then he was an insignificant unhappy person in its time, and other unhappy people started a religious cult after his death, claiming that 'Jesus' had supernatural powers.

Peter Kirby

leonarde writes: 2)spread of the claim across cultures and a wide geographical distribution. (7 continents and counting)

You got plans on Atlantis, or is it outer space?

best,
Peter Kirby

leonarde

Ion,
But don't you see that you are in effect moving the goalposts?????

To make an analogy: if we are discussing Alexander
the Great's historicity, that question can and
should be pursued separately from:

1)whether Alexander the Great was divine as some
of his contemporaries held.

2)whether Alexander conquered a particular
kingdom in India.

3)whether Alexander died from poison or an inflamed appendix (or some other cause).

4)whether Alexander had Aristotle as a teacher.

etc. etc.

I understood us to be primarily discussing in connection with Jesus on this thread
particular alleged contradictions in the
Gospel accounts: both about Judas' death and about
statements made by Jesus. The Resurrection and other alleged miracles are, for those purposes,
rather peripheral.

If every time we start to make progress on the
existence of Jesus of Nazareth, you then
pull the old switcheroo and say 'There's no historic confirmation outside the Bible that He walked on water, changed water into wine etc',
then we'll never get anywhere. Those other questions are interesting ones but you, I and others can start separate threads for those items
as a historical Jesus in principle could
have existed without doing any of those things.

Cheers!

Ion

By being the most formidable act in the history of humanity, the 'Jesus resurrection'.

It would get more historical recognition than Iulius Caesar against Vercingetorix, for example.

Instead, history, medicine, archeology (all the tribes on earth mourning -predicted in Matt 24:30- and inscriptions of the 'resurrection' in other tribes on earth) haven't heard of 'Jesus resurrection'.
Then why believe in something that is extraordinary and has zero historical support?

Just by blind faith in one religious book?

It's not a reason to scientific-minded people.

leonarde

Posted by Peter Kirby: Funny you should mention it: I was trying to recall whether Buzz Aldrin or Neil Armstrong read
from Genesis on one of those Apollo trips. But it
is only the vaguest of memories for me now.

Cheers!

Ion

Leonarde,
after many days you finally catch up on one of my earlier posts I can quote, that basically said:
history sorts out what it has established from what it has not established, and claims as consistent truth what it has established.

Nothing is historically established about Judas, for example his status of apostle of one unestablished Jesus is not, and the use of "...thirty piece of silver..." in the Bible is contradictory to the established fact that mint coins not silver coins were being used then.

I posted this October 13.
Judas, Jesus are not established historically as having existed, and Jesus is not established historically as having performed any miracle.
Do you remember now?

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

leonarde

Posted by Ion: Huh?
This seems to be circular reasoning to me. (ie
How does one become famous? By getting lots of fame!!! Okay, but are you really saying anything?)

Do you really think 1 billion people on this planet presently know anything about Vercingetorix?????? I assure you they do not. (I had 3 years of high school Latin some 30
years ago and we read J. Caesar but I recall, alas
very little of it)

Your criteria (on recognition and other things)seem to come and go on the most ad hoc of bases.

Cheers!

leonarde

Partial post by Ion: You talk about "history" as if it, as a field of
human inquiry, had an existence separable from
those people involved in it: ie mostly historians.
It does not.
Earlier I asked you to explain why, if there is
no historical record of Jesus, so many professional historians think he was historical.
So far: no answer. It is the historians of each
period who personify the judgement of history.

Cheers!

Ion

So?

It's a historical fact, unlike Jesus and Judas.

Recognition = historical recognition, not 1 billion people's recognition.