Free wrote:Scar wrote:Free wrote:Scar wrote:My point stands. Your argument for authority is nothing but that, an argument from authority. A fallacy. Either the evidence can withstand criticism or it can't.
And I haven't said I don't agree with the historians.
Just let me educate you here, myther.
As mentioned earlier, all consensus' of professionals can indeed be wrong. Since I admitted that, then I am not arguing that because the consensus is in agreement, they absolutely must be correct.
Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused. When misused, It becomes fallacious to assert that the conclusion
must be true.
However, it is a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person (or consensus) presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.
More on Argument from Authority ...In respect to a consensus, it is far more than just a singular authority, as it actually represents a Collective of Intelligence.
Collective intelligence is shared or group intelligence that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligenceNow you know ...
And you're still ignoring my explanation on why mindlessly accepting every conensus is stupid. Stop the strawmanning, please.
Since you are ignoring the fact that I explicitly said that any and all consensus' from any academic community can indeed be wrong, then you are intentionally misrepresenting my position. Now, here is the definition of a stawman:
"A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_manSo, guess who is doing the strawmanning here? It certainly isn't me!
Well the field of biblical studies is not remotely comparable with research science. Science can "prove" far beyond even grossly unreasonable doubt or any claims to the contrary, all of it's many millions of discoveries and all of it's "Theories", such as the Theory of Evolution, Relativity Theory, "Quantum Theory" and all other such scientific "Theories".
But that is not remotely the case for the claims of Christian bible scholars & theologians who believe in Jesus on the basis of what they claim is "evidence" in the bible.
In fact there is actually zero evidence of Jesus in the bible, and that is actually a literal "fact". What bible scholars and theologians are claiming as their "evidence" from the bible, is in fact only evidence of peoples 1st-4th century religious messiah beliefs. It's evidence of a
belief in Jesus ... not actually any evidence of Jesus himself being known to anyone at all who ever wrote to make any such claim of ever knowing Jesus.
In a court of law (do not tell me we are not in a court, because that would be a very stupid remark), what is being called "evidence" from the bible, and indeed from all non-Christian sources such as Tacitus and Josephus, would be called "Hearsay Evidence", meaning the witness (in this case the biblical writers and/or Tacitus and Josephus etc.) were only presenting evidence of what they had heard from other unknown people ... it's only evidence of the writers claiming to have once heard such stories from other unnamed "witnesses" none of whom can be named, none of whom can be traced, and none of whom ever wrote to confirm they ever made any claims at all about Jesus.
In a court of law with a jury trial, hearsay evidence is rarely if ever admissible before the jury, because centuries of legal experience has taught the law-makers that hearsay evidence is highly likely to seriously mislead a jury into an entirely mistaken conclusion/verdict.
In addition, totally anonymous un-evidenced hearsay from claimed witnesses who can never even be produced before the court, which is actually the situation with the biblical writing, is NEVER allowed even to be heard or considered by any Jury. Because such "testimony" (it is not actually "evidence" - in a court what is called "evidence" is actually "testimony" put before the jury for the jury to decide whether such testimony is indeed evidence of whatever is being claimed) is far too unreliable even to be considered as any kind of evidence at all.
OK, so we are not in a court of law here. But we are trying to judge if the claimed evidence is good enough to decide whether Jesus was likely to be real or not. And the precedent carefully established by law over several centuries in almost all advanced western nations, would instantly rule that such anonymous un-evidenced hearsay from witnesses who were never even named and could never be produced to confirm that they had ever said anything at all about Jesus, would be instantly ruled totally inadmissible even to be put before any jury at all.
So what you are claiming for a HJ, is not actually "evidence" at all. It is not "evidence" of that which is being claimed, i.e. the existence of human Jesus ever known to anyone. It is grossly inadmissible hearsay testimony from unknown witnesses claiming unknown untraceable informants, none of whom can be produced to confirm a single word of it.
Against that - the scientific evidence showing that the miracles and the supernatural stories which are central to almost every mention of Jesus in the bible, are not merely admissible before any jury and/or in any comparable situation such as we are arguing here, but would of course be instantly overwhelming before any judges or Jury. In fact on that scientific evidence alone, an actual court of law with a jury, would probably rule that there was no case even to put before any jury - any claims of Jesus-evidence, would be ruled out before a trial even began!
And as if that were not enough, as I have already pointed out, a "witness" such as Randel Helms could spend a whole day before a jury showing beyond all doubt numerous examples of how, where and why the gospel writers had most certainly used the OT as a source for their Jesus stories. And that's quite apart from all the other evidence I listed back on page 1933.
by 
