Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24421  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 5:25 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:

What is exactly circular about noting where and how words are written? As for "defending tradition", I've no interest in doing that. But to ignore all evidence is to open the door wide for inane speculation. Now your reply could imply you think research is irrelevant, but you haven't replied directly so far. So, I ask again:

Do you think lexicographical research is relevant when suggesting novel readings for words? If so, do you think it is odd that Richard Carrier neglected to do such research?


I thought your interest was in the meanings of the words themselves. Now you're saying 'context' is important. Welcome to the world of textual criticism. I'm still asking you how expertise in philology is decided.

Yes, people read and read and read, and they can read about where and how words were written, but I am seriously asking you for the criteria for expertise in deciding how words were written.

You understand that I am pointing to the circularity of insisting that academic philologists in one field are somehow more expert than academic philologists in another. Are you not simply defending the concept of academic fiefdoms in which use is made of philology?

For all we know, Richard Carrier may actually have read more words than Bart Ehrman, and done more philology, or they've read about the same quantity of words, and discussed the words philologically with other philologists. How do you decide? You read what Ehrman writes, and it is not obvious he's brain-farting the philological equivalent of an aria from some opera by Mozart.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on May 07, 2012 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28234
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24422  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 5:33 pm

Evan Allen wrote:If you are going to bring up Occam's razor, IgnorantiaNescia, you are going to have to do the math for us. So please, show us your math that postulates fewer entities in the case of the HJ than in the case of the MJ.


1. It was angelo who brought it up, without doing any math. Perhaps you should first check this through with him.

2. Occam's Razors cannot be used to explain away historical facts or entities strongly defended by the available evidence, the existence of oral story tellers and collectors in the Roman Empire and the existence of gospel writers in your list for example would be more or less facts. On the other hand, artificial attempts to circumvent those facts tend to result in bonus useless entities. So I'd disagree with your suggested method, but I'll play along for this post.

3. A conspiracy of relevant scholars or their enormous incompetence coupled with the Mythicist "explanations" to remove the evidence and all the mythical entities they postulate should be enough to count well over your "five entities". But anyway, copying your suggested list for the historical Jesus:

Historical Jesus: Historical Jesus, followers of Jesus in Palestine, Oral story tellers throughout the Roman Empire, collectors of oral stories from throughout the empire, gospel authors

Mythical Jesus: Gospel writers, fictional kinship or unattested group of "brothers of the Lord", necessary scholarly incompetence/conspiracy, interpolations, weird readings, unattested belief in a crucified Messiah before Jesus, reference to Nazareth alongside attempts in later Gospels to suggest Jesus was born in Bethlehem

I already count seven, happy now?
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24423  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 5:44 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:

What is exactly circular about noting where and how words are written? As for "defending tradition", I've no interest in doing that. But to ignore all evidence is to open the door wide for inane speculation. Now your reply could imply you think research is irrelevant, but you haven't replied directly so far. So, I ask again:

Do you think lexicographical research is relevant when suggesting novel readings for words? If so, do you think it is odd that Richard Carrier neglected to do such research?


I thought your interest was in the meanings of the words themselves. Now you're saying 'context' is important. Welcome to the world of textual criticism. I'm still asking you how expertise in philology is decided.

Yes, people read and read and read, and they can read about where and how words were written, but I am seriously asking you for the criteria for expertise in deciding how words were written.

You understand that I am pointing to the circularity of insisting that academic philologists in one field are somehow more expert than academic philologists in another. Are you not simply defending the concept of academic fiefdoms in which use is made of philology?

For all we know, Richard Carrier may actually have read more words than Bart Ehrman, and done more philology, or they've read about the same quantity of words, and discussed the words philologically with other philologists. How do you decide? You read what Ehrman writes, and it is not obvious he's brain-farting the philological equivalent of an aria from some opera by Mozart.


The meaning of a word can only be decided by looking at its context. Without any doubt you know there are words with multiple meanings and that words can be used non-literally. Good luck establishing what is meant without the context.

The issue is not that the Greek lexicography of ancient historians is irrelevant compared to that of NT scholars (and the fields are obviously not as demarcated as you imply, though there clearly is specialisation), but whether interpretations should be based on research and thus evidence, or whether it shouldn't.

Richard Carrier has described lexicographical research as counterfactual, so that clearly indicates he hasn't done quantitative research on "brother of the Lord. Such research can not credibly be called merely "reading words", it is actually rather time-consuming. But if you insist on questioning such research, what alternative method would you suggest?
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24424  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 5:49 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
The meaning of a word can only be decided by looking at its context. Without any doubt you know there are words with multiple meanings and that words can be used non-literally. Good luck establishing what is meant without the context.

The issue is not that the Greek lexicography of ancient historians is irrelevant compared to that of NT scholars (and the fields are obviously not as demarcated as you imply, though there clearly is specialisation), but whether interpretations should be based on research and thus evidence, or whether it shouldn't.

Richard Carrier has described lexicographical research as counterfactual, so that clearly indicates he hasn't done quantitative research on "brother of the Lord. Such research can not credibly be called merely "reading words", it is actually rather time-consuming. But if you insist on questioning such research, what alternative method would you suggest?


I thought you understsood: I'm willing to bin all of it. How then would be the bin laden?

You're still assuming that philological research is determinate. That's fine, but you and I are on different frequencies, leaving you still a quest for philological (i.e., contextual) authority, so that you can read a text to me and tell me what it means. The problem is not that we cannot ever decide the meanings of words from context, but who is to be the Humpty-Dumpty. I can be perfectly happy with the meaning I take away from a text, including context. I'm so sorry if you cannot be happy with that.

You don't really expect me to follow you through every step of your search for the meaning of 'brother of the Lord', do you? Your search for what limits the context of that phrase? Your authority to limit that context is necessarily limited.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on May 07, 2012 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28234
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24425  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 5:56 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
The meaning of a word can only be decided by looking at its context. Without any doubt you know there are words with multiple meanings and that words can be used non-literally. Good luck establishing what is meant without the context.

The issue is not that the Greek lexicography of ancient historians is irrelevant compared to that of NT scholars (and the fields are obviously not as demarcated as you imply, though there clearly is specialisation), but whether interpretations should be based on research and thus evidence, or whether it shouldn't.

Richard Carrier has described lexicographical research as counterfactual, so that clearly indicates he hasn't done quantitative research on "brother of the Lord. Such research can not credibly be called merely "reading words", it is actually rather time-consuming. But if you insist on questioning such research, what alternative method would you suggest?


I thought you understsood: I'm willing to bin all of it. How then would be the bin laden?

You're still assuming that philological research is determinate. That's fine, but you and I are on different frequencies, leaving you still a quest for philological (i.e., contextual) authority.


Okay, I gathered you were sceptical of the enterprise, but thanks for stating clearly that you reject it. We can then move on with the discussion. Now one question that arises is: What method would you then suggest to discover what words in ancient languages mean in different contexts?
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24426  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 5:58 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Now one question that arises is: What method would you then suggest to discover what words in ancient languages mean in different contexts?


There's a question, of course, which precedes that one by a mile, and it is, "Why the fuck would I want to do that?" You may think that sarcastic, but it does help me with my contextualisation. You will see that the context includes the status of religion in the modern world. Oops.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28234
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24427  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 6:01 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Now one question that arises is: What method would you then suggest to discover what words in ancient languages mean in different contexts?


There's a question, of course, which precedes that one by a mile, and it is, "Why the fuck would I want to do that?" You may think that sarcastic, but it does help me with my contextualisation.


All right, that leads to some more questions... But my first is: Do you think that "the brother of the Lord" refers to Jesus' brother?
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24428  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 6:04 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Now one question that arises is: What method would you then suggest to discover what words in ancient languages mean in different contexts?


There's a question, of course, which precedes that one by a mile, and it is, "Why the fuck would I want to do that?" You may think that sarcastic, but it does help me with my contextualisation.


All right, that leads to some more questions... But my first is: Do you think that "the brother of the Lord" refers to Jesus' brother?


The fair answer is that we don't fucking know the answer to that, and that liking one answer or another isn't a path to producing an answer.

What the fuck is 'Jesus' but a religious icon? Status as a religious icon does not guarantee or preclude anything. (Hint: Don't assume your fucking conclusion, which is to say otherwise.)

At this point, you'll decline further conversation with me because I'm asking you how you know anything about 'Jesus' that doesn't come from that book. The book, my man, is a religious scripture, and there is no a priori reason to assume it contains history about a man named Jesus.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on May 07, 2012 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28234
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24429  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 6:08 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Now one question that arises is: What method would you then suggest to discover what words in ancient languages mean in different contexts?


There's a question, of course, which precedes that one by a mile, and it is, "Why the fuck would I want to do that?" You may think that sarcastic, but it does help me with my contextualisation.


All right, that leads to some more questions... But my first is: Do you think that "the brother of the Lord" refers to Jesus' brother?


What the fuck is 'Jesus' but a religious icon? (Hint: Don't assume your fucking conclusion, which is to say otherwise.)

At this point, you'll decline further conversation with me because I'm asking you how you know anything about 'Jesus' that doesn't come from that book.


Okay... Do you think that "brother of the Lord" has some different meaning then, like Carrier's fictive kinship?

Note: I didn't assume much in my previous post aside the (attested) existence of the phrase "brother of the Lord" and the hypothetical existence of Jesus' brother (and thus Jesus).
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24430  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 6:10 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Okay... Do you think that "brother of the Lord" has some different meaning then, like Carrier's fictive kinship?

Note: I didn't assume much in my previous post aside the (attested) existence of the phrase "brother of the Lord" and the hypothetical existence of Jesus' brother (and thus Jesus).


What I am asking you is for the context in which that phrase is notable for any reason at all. It's notable in a context where one is inquiring as to whether or not Jesus is historical, prior to any reason to believe that the bible contains history about people and events.

If Carrier promotes a theory about 'fictive kinship', does it imply to you that Carrier does not believe James is a fictional character? In point of fact, the only reason you might not yourself believe James is fictional is because Josephus refers to him, but Josephus (if not interpolated) might simply be parroting early xian dogma about the characters of James and Jesus.

You don't fucking know, do you? You don't really know what reason Josephus had to believe that there was a person executed thirty years before he wrote Antiquities. So you are forced to trust that he had his sources. Nobody else reports anything about this event. It's not a very-well-documented event. And from that, you want to ask me questions about what 'brother of the Lord' means in the context of Galatians. I walk away, realising that you've assumed your conclusion.

Considering how poorly-documented are the subjects of this tale, the amount of fuss over them is disproportionate to the data. Two guesses as to why there is so much fuss, and the first one does not count.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28234
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24431  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 6:36 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Okay... Do you think that "brother of the Lord" has some different meaning then, like Carrier's fictive kinship?

Note: I didn't assume much in my previous post aside the (attested) existence of the phrase "brother of the Lord" and the hypothetical existence of Jesus' brother (and thus Jesus).


What I am asking you is for the context in which that phrase is notable for any reason at all. It's notable in a context where one is inquiring as to whether or not Jesus is historical, prior to any reason to believe that the bible contains history about people and events.

If Carrier promotes a theory about 'fictive kinship', does it imply to you that Carrier does not believe James is a fictional character? In point of fact, the only reason you might not yourself believe James is fictional is because Josephus refers to him, but Josephus (if not interpolated) might simply be parroting early xian dogma about the characters of James and Jesus.

You don't fucking know, do you? You don't really know what reason Josephus had to believe that there was a person executed thirty years before he wrote Antiquities. So you are forced to trust that he had his sources. Nobody else reports anything about this event. It's not a very-well-documented event. And from that, you want to ask me questions about what 'brother of the Lord' means in the context of Galatians. I walk away, realising that you've assumed your conclusion.

Considering how poorly-documented are the subjects of this tale, the amount of fuss over them is disproportionate to the data. Two guesses as to why there is so much fuss, and the first one does not count.


Much in your post is disagreeable, but let me state that your accusation of me assuming my conclusion is beyond bizarre. As you said, what I simply want to know is what you think "brother of the Lord" means. In any case, we have a chap claiming in a letter to have met a certain James, "the brother of the Lord". I can tell you that Carrier believes that the kinship relation between James and Jesus is fictive, but that he does not believe that James was a fictional person.

However, if you think it is all too much fuss, perhaps you should not contribute to this topic. But then you should also not expect that this belief of yours in a mythical Jesus becomes respectable any time soon.

So the option for you is: do you want me to treat your Mythicism seriously or not? If you would want me to take it seriously, I would like to ask you to say how the relation is between tòn adelphòn toû kuríou (Gal 1:19) and Mythicism according to you and where you get the meaning of these words from, if you reject word research.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24432  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 6:50 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:So the option for you is: do you want me to treat your Mythicism seriously or not?


What you take seriously is of very little concern to me.

Now, you want me to take seriously the notion that historicism is the theory that anything not accepting historicism is mythicism. I don't promote mythicism or historicism. I promote the idea that you don't fucking know the answer to that question.

If you think that "I don't know" is not the right answer, then all I have to say is that binaries are for those who can only count to two.

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:I simply want to know is what you think "brother of the Lord" means.


I don't think you know the answer in terms of history or myth, and, as long as you are stuck in binaries: Not everything that isn't history is myth, and vice versa. With you people, it's like the difference in witch-burnings between 'guilt' and 'innocence'. You're wishing for witch-burnings, but haven't got the poetry for it. You present me nothing to fear, until you win at the ballot box. Then you'll make me say all the right things.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28234
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24433  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 7:17 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:So the option for you is: do you want me to treat your Mythicism seriously or not?


What you take seriously is of very little concern to me.

Now, you want me to take seriously the notion that historicism is the theory that anything not accepting historicism is mythicism. I don't promote mythicism or historicism. I promote the idea that you don't fucking know the answer to that question.

If you think that "I don't know" is not the right answer, then all I have to say is that binaries are for those who can only count to two.

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:I simply want to know is what you think "brother of the Lord" means.


I don't think you know the answer in terms of history or myth, and, as long as you are stuck in binaries: Not everything that isn't history is myth, and vice versa. With you people, it's like the difference in witch-burnings between 'guilt' and 'innocence'. You're wishing for witch-burnings, but haven't got the poetry for it. You present me nothing to fear, until you win at the ballot box. Then you'll make me say all the right things.


Who said my position is binary? I've never said "I know for certain" and knowing doesn't have to be binary. So there's no need to adopt ternary logic either (which is not only for those who can count to three).

In any case, if your position is "I don't know", there are still important issues. It is more than obvious that you don't think "brother of the Lord" means Jesus actual brother, but do you think Paul is untrustworthy (here) or do you accept Carrier's explanation?

Keep in mind this point has arisen from your hyperscepticism from lexigraphical research. What I want to know is how you figure out what these words mean. Or is this Jesus scepticism not an intellectually serious position for you?
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24434  Postby Evan Allen » May 07, 2012 7:43 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Evan Allen wrote:If you are going to bring up Occam's razor, IgnorantiaNescia, you are going to have to do the math for us. So please, show us your math that postulates fewer entities in the case of the HJ than in the case of the MJ.


1. It was angelo who brought it up, without doing any math. Perhaps you should first check this through with him.


Since Angelo assumed no multiplied entities, I think he gets a pass.

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:2. Occam's Razors cannot be used to explain away historical facts or entities strongly defended by the available evidence, the existence of oral story tellers and collectors in the Roman Empire and the existence of gospel writers in your list for example would be more or less facts. On the other hand, artificial attempts to circumvent those facts tend to result in bonus useless entities. So I'd disagree with your suggested method, but I'll play along for this post.


Please explain how something can be a "more or less" fact, when there is not a shred of historical evidence for it. Is there any archaeological evidence for Christianity in the first century? Nope. Therefore, nothing about Christianity in the first century is a fact. Do we have any extant primary texts that describe oral traditions going from Jesus to the gospel authors that date from the first century? Do we have any first century writers who describe this process in other works?

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:3. A conspiracy of relevant scholars or their enormous incompetence coupled with the Mythicist "explanations" to remove the evidence and all the mythical entities they postulate should be enough to count well over your "five entities". But anyway, copying your suggested list for the historical Jesus:

Historical Jesus: Historical Jesus, followers of Jesus in Palestine, Oral story tellers throughout the Roman Empire, collectors of oral stories from throughout the empire, gospel authors

Mythical Jesus: Gospel writers, fictional kinship or unattested group of "brothers of the Lord", necessary scholarly incompetence/conspiracy, interpolations, weird readings, unattested belief in a crucified Messiah before Jesus, reference to Nazareth alongside attempts in later Gospels to suggest Jesus was born in Bethlehem

I already count seven, happy now?


But your math is all wrong.

Prior to the first gospel writer the mythical Jesus postulates no story of Jesus of Nazareth, so it stems from one source. You have to document your other findings as entities that are actually multiplied before the first gospel writer. Seems like all of them happen after the first gospel is written.

"Brothers of the Lord" appears to be the only rung that the historical Jesus hat can hang on. I don't think it can carry that weight, but to be ultra-generous, even if we assume Paul's "lord" is Jesus of Nazareth, which he nowhere states, we can grant you that one to be sporting.

Scholarly incompetence is well after the gospel is written and has already been shown to be irrelevant to this issue. Interpolations happen after there is a gospel. Weird readings happen after there is a gospel. Unattested belief in a crucified messiah before Jesus is a bizarre non sequitur. Reference to Nazareth happens after there is a gospel.

So giving you the most generous account possible, you are still postulating only five entities, versus the two that the MJ requires even under those extremely forgiving scenarios.
Evan Allen
 
Name: Evan Allen
Posts: 446

Country: USA
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24435  Postby tanya » May 07, 2012 7:49 pm

stein wrote:...an array of genuinely scholarly atheists, agnostics and believers have all researched their way toward a conclusion that an entirely human mortal Jesus lived and emphatically died in Palestine in the 1st century c.e.,...


Writing as a genuinely non-scholarly atheist, cher stein, can you teach me whether a scholarly array has confirmed the existence of "an entirely human mortal" Heracles, who lived and died (one imagines that all death is final, therefore "emphatic") sometime a thousand years before the 1st century CE?

:)
tanya
 
Posts: 285

France (fr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24436  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 9:47 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:What I want to know is how you figure out what these words mean.


Depends on what's in it for me. In the case of Ehrman, it looks like a long series of contracts with publishers. The words appear to reflect reflect religious beliefs. I have no idea whether they refer to actual persons or events, and neither do you, though you think you do.

IgnorantiaNescia wrote: do you think Paul is untrustworthy (here) or do you accept Carrier's explanation?


I don't know who wrote the words attributed to 'Paul', and neither do you, though you think you do.

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Who said my position is binary?


You seem to infer that someone not defending the concept of historicism is defending 'mythicism'. All I say is that you don't know anything historical about the individuals who wrote down your texts. They're testimonials, anecdotes, with a bit of raving lunacy thrown in for spice. I guess you'd say I'm someone who does not take bible scholarship seriously at all, let alone taking the texts themselves seriously, and I've explained to you why.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28234
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24437  Postby proudfootz » May 07, 2012 11:09 pm

Evan Allen wrote:If you are going to bring up Occam's razor, IgnorantiaNescia, you are going to have to do the math for us. So please, show us your math that postulates fewer entities in the case of the HJ than in the case of the MJ.


Obviously every HJ requires one more 'entity' than any MJ, namely Jesus.

The 'Occam's razor' business is just as much a red herring as the 'credentials' nonsense.

Is the state of HJ theory so poor its fans must resort to such rhetorical weapons instead of simply stating a case?
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Can We Reasonably Infer An 'Historical Jesus'?

#24438  Postby proudfootz » May 07, 2012 11:22 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
What's your point about Thompson?

No one is claiming anyone should take Thompson's word for anything simply because he's an 'authority'.

Thompson is a biblical scholar who's written a book relevant to the topic we're here to discuss. :coffee:


Good. My point about him is that he is as an amateur on the life of Jesus - and as a result not much of an 'authority' on it at all.


So what? No one is making the argument from authority regarding Thompson.

You sound like we should have just junked Einsteins physics because he wasn't an authority on physics but a patent clerk when he wrote his ground-breaking papers. :crazy:

Pity there was no one around to denounce Einstein as 'insane' because he didn't hold a teaching post... :drunk:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24439  Postby proudfootz » May 07, 2012 11:25 pm

tanya wrote:
stein wrote:...an array of genuinely scholarly atheists, agnostics and believers have all researched their way toward a conclusion that an entirely human mortal Jesus lived and emphatically died in Palestine in the 1st century c.e.,...


Writing as a genuinely non-scholarly atheist, cher stein, can you teach me whether a scholarly array has confirmed the existence of "an entirely human mortal" Heracles, who lived and died (one imagines that all death is final, therefore "emphatic") sometime a thousand years before the 1st century CE?

:)


Obviously it's more 'parsimonious' to assume Heracles really existed... :whistle:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24440  Postby dejuror » May 08, 2012 5:06 am

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:...This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc. We have some biographical details about Jesus in Pauline epistles and in non-Christian accounts that are simply dismissed by these methods with insufficient evidence, sometimes no evidence at all. Material in the gospels that is poorly explained by an invented figure is nevertheless explained away. Aside that, it would require that around one hundred years ago either the overwhelming majority of relevantly trained scholars suddenly stopped asking a question that was posed before that time or developed a very strong bias against Mythicism. What we have there is not the simpler hypothesis, but an unsound hypothesis that is laden with extensive and dubious claims.


Occam's Razor argues AGAINST HJ.

First of all the HJ argument requires AD HOC explanations NOT found in the evidence.

For example HJers claim HJ was Obscure. There is NO source of antiquity that make such a claim.

HJers state in their argument that THEIR Jesus was Embellished but FAIL TO PROVIDE any source of antiquity about their Jesus that is without embellishment.

HJers claim their HJ was NOT Christ but use sources about a character that was called Christ and WELL-KNOWN.

HJers cannot find a source which identifies a human father for their Jesus.

HJers cannot Identify any REAL person outside the Canon who became a Christian and MET Jesus personally and wrote about it.

In the Canon the supposed contemporaries of Jesus, Paul and the author of Acts, based on the assumed writings, did NOT meet or see a real Jesus.

No DATED Text by Paleography or scientific means about the Jesus stories and the Pauline letters are from the 1st century.

Dated Texts from the 1st century do NOT mention an OBSCURE preacher called Jesus.

Occams Razor DESTROYS HJ.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4709

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 6 guests