TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

spin wrote:
You don't seem to be able to recognize the way you came into the discussion, unsuccessfully trying to turn a phrase of mine against me.

Not, at all spin. Not at all. You still haven't been able to show us how your views aren't dogmatic, spin. You've failed to produce any standard of any kind that would tend to mitigate that tendency on your part, spin. That would show us that it isn't all just ad hoc bullshit, spin.

You're joking, TheOneTrueZeke. The burden is on your shoulders to demonstrate your vacuous claim of dogma.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:You've failed, spin.

And the irony comes thick. Dogma, that was your claim. You've been speaking non-stop bullshit rather than justify your assertion.

Yes, you made the assertion. The burden is yours. That's why you've been trying to change the topic in continuation.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

You have since given up that mistake and have pursued the attempt to change the topic for several posts.

No, spin, you're absolutely wrong about that, spin. I've been doggedly staying to the topic, spin, while you've been attempting to make the topic a digression about me, spin.

Utter rubbish. You made a statement which you cannot support. So, start by defining the dogma, then by justifying your crap claim.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

It has nothing directly to do with your current attempts to change the conversation and focus on me.

I'm not interested in you, spin, I'm interested in your answer to the question I've posed you.

Don't be facile. The focus is your attempt to shift the burden.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:C'mon, spin, how hard could it be? Just provide us with those all important standards for historicity, spin.

Or just continue with the ad hoc bullshit, spin.

Shift, shift, shift....
Shift, shift, shift....
Shift that burden.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

You're just weaseling, TheOneTrueZeke. You've been weaseling for half the page. You've been caught misrepresenting reality and all you're doing is sticking to the misrepresentation.

So, you say, spin, so you say. Yet you're the one who's attempting to change the topic and personalize the discussion by making it about me.

This is about you taking a statement of mine out of context specifically to snipe. Well, you were called for your rubbish. That's when you tried to change the topic.

So, dogma, TheOneTrueZeke. Either put up or shut up.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

See TheOneTrueZeke weasel. Weasel, TheOneTrueZeke, weasel.

Ah, now spin, look what you've done, spin. You've gone from personalizing the discussion directly to an ad hom.

Rubbish. All you've done is weasel so far in this conversation.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:That's beneath you, spin. I'm disappointed in you, spin.

But I'm not surprised, spin.

It's all you have left, spin.

You wouldn't know what I've got left. You've admitted knowing nothing about the general subject, yet you are keen on inflicting your attacks on people who apparently don't adhere to your unstated point of view.

You won't get fed. You'll never participate in the thread in a substantive manner and you know it. You so frequently don't answer people's questions, but you insist on getting your questions answered, especially when you weasel and change topic. Your involvement in this thread is not at all fair or open. Will that ever sink through to you?

spin wrote:

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

spin wrote:
You don't seem to be able to recognize the way you came into the discussion, unsuccessfully trying to turn a phrase of mine against me.

Not, at all spin. Not at all. You still haven't been able to show us how your views aren't dogmatic, spin. You've failed to produce any standard of any kind that would tend to mitigate that tendency on your part, spin. That would show us that it isn't all just ad hoc bullshit, spin.

You're joking, TheOneTrueZeke. The burden is on your shoulders to demonstrate your vacuous claim of dogma.

I have, spin, I have. You assert that we have insufficient evidence to make a claim of an historical jesus yet you adamantly refuse to give a standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence.

It is insufficient because you, spin, say that it is insufficient.

That makes it mere dogma, spin. A point which you take as authoritative and refuse to justify with a standard.

Don't be facile. The focus is your attempt to shift the burden.

If anyone is being facile it is you, spin. And attempting to personalize the discussion rather than address the issue is a mere diversionary tactic on your part.

This is about you taking a statement of mine out of context specifically to snipe. Well, you were called for your rubbish. That's when you tried to change the topic.

No, you tried to change the topic by resorting to ad homs and personalizations.

You wouldn't know what I've got left. You've admitted knowing nothing about the general subject, yet you are keen on inflicting your attacks on people who apparently don't adhere to your unstated point of view.

Sorry, spin, but you're the one resorting to personal attacks here.

You won't get fed.

Fed what, spin?

Won't you make this cryptic allusion more clear for us all? Is it another ad hom?

You so frequently don't answer people's questions, but you insist on getting your questions answered

You're free to answer or not answer the question posed you. That's entirely up to you. If you don't want to justify your dogmatic beliefs that's up to you. It's just going to be a little awkward on a message board for rational skeptics.

Byron wrote:

Mus Ponticus wrote:

Byron wrote:(birth in the wrong place....

Like spin has pointed out, there is no story about birth in Nazareth, and those who don't believe in colossal coincidences see that the Nazarene-tradition originally wasn't about a place called Nazareth.

(I know this has been argued ad nauseam, but I can't help myself! )

Spin indeed "pointed it out." As this pointer relied on the usual brew of unevidenced interpolation claims and bad Greek, it's a view confined to spin. He was unable to produce a solitary piece of peer reviewed research to back his claim.

Like I have pointed out before, Dale Allison says that "Mt 2.23 almost certainly has to do with a play on the word, nazir." Allison also notes that in Mk 1.25 "holy one of god" and nazarene are paralleled! (source)

Byron, why not at least admit that there is a connection? Even though you think that it isn't the original one, it's clearly there.

spin wrote:

nunnington wrote:

spin wrote:

Byron wrote:
Of course they don't. Never claimed they did. Point is that "apostle" identifies someone as "Christian," so "the Lord's brother" has to be a category of Christian.

You appear to agree, so what'd you think the category is?

This is about as silly as a person bitching that "confessor" and "priest" imply the same sort of Byronic tautology. Byron certainly knows how to trumpet his linguistic inabilities to the world.

Wow, this syntax thing sounds real interesting, and I anticipate the academic research and its response you're surely about to summarize for us all.

Having already been told about the syntactic issue (constraint on word order) before, Byron needs to take steps to improve memory retention: write notes to remind himself or get tattoos.

I thought that Byron was asking for the scholarly background to your remarks about syntax, that is, articles or books which will give the curious reader some information about this kind of syntactic analysis. It's very interesting, but surely, there is some scholarly hinterland behind it?

You're probably right, but I don't care what Byron was asking for. As he doesn't want to deal with the data I've already pointed him to, he can do his own linguistic study to understand the issue. I'm not here as an educational advisor to him. He has consistently proven he's not interested in understanding the material so much as in finding ways of sustaining his own dogma. If one wants to do some research on the issue, the subject is syntactic markedness, ie the study of less common syntactic formations. The interesting thing about markedmess is that it requires explanation. Whereas the discourse of AJ doesn't supply one, a christian discourse through interpolation would, christ being more significant that James. As to books, most university linguistics books on syntax will deal with syntactic markedness, so that one could get a theoretical backgrounder. The "theory" is applicable in all languages where syntax is significant.

Yes, I have some understanding of the unmarked/marked distinction, as I did a Ph. D. in linguistics. However, to argue that a particular construction is marked, one has to demonstrate first that it stands out against a norm, which is said to be unmarked. Thus, you refer to 'less common syntactic formations'. I am just curious where you get the information about what is less common, and what the baseline or norm is said to be. Have you done your own statistical study, or are you referring to published work?

Mus Ponticus wrote:

Byron wrote:

Mus Ponticus wrote:

Byron wrote:(birth in the wrong place....

Like spin has pointed out, there is no story about birth in Nazareth, and those who don't believe in colossal coincidences see that the Nazarene-tradition originally wasn't about a place called Nazareth.

(I know this has been argued ad nauseam, but I can't help myself! )

Spin indeed "pointed it out." As this pointer relied on the usual brew of unevidenced interpolation claims and bad Greek, it's a view confined to spin. He was unable to produce a solitary piece of peer reviewed research to back his claim.

Like I have pointed out before, Dale Allison says that "Mt 2.23 almost certainly has to do with a play on the word, nazir." Allison also notes that in Mk 1.25 "holy one of god" and nazarene are paralleled! (source)

Byron, why not at least admit that there is a connection? Even though you think that it isn't the original one, it's clearly there.

This confirms my suspicion that 'of Nazareth' may well be there for reasons other than sometime in the 2nd century someone suddenly came upon evidence there was a Jesus who hailed from such a place.

http://books.google.is/books?id=z79ltm3 ... &q&f=false

Yet another 'riff on scripture' to add to the scales on the side of mythification.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:You assert that we have insufficient evidence to make a claim of an historical jesus yet you adamantly refuse to give a standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence.

I have to say that this is a grand undertaking, the establishment of a legal standard for sufficient evidence to declare someone 'historical'. I wouldn't worry about sufficiency, when it is becoming obvious how necessary it is sometimes found for someone to be declared 'historical'. It's like declaring someone legally dead. It's a status, like citizenship. For the time being, Jesus is just kind of undead. Let's lay those unquiet ghosts to rest! Pace, dejuror.

This belongs in the journal Anals of Progress in Ancient Historistory.

logical bob wrote:

nunnington wrote:Although if Christianity had died out in the 2nd century, probably no-one would doubt that Jesus had existed, as another messianic claimant. Isn't it the success of Christianity, and the considerable theological or legendary treatment given to Jesus, that has made anti-Christians want to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

You're quite right of course. If it wasn't for Christianity nobody would have embellished the Testimonium and nobody would bother to attempt to reconstruct the original. You'd never get a thousand page thread on the origins of any other 1st Century religious movement. This is was Cito's been saying all along. There is no objectivity here and some other agenda is always being served. Jesus is lost to us as a question we can approach without prejudice.

I agree about the motivation for christians to meddle with Josephus, though I am persuaded Josephus never mentioned 'our Jesus' if indeed he ever heard of such a person.

But I don't imagine being skeptical of an historical Jesus is 'anti-christian' any more than doubting an historical Abraham is 'anti-semitic'.

logical bob wrote:There is no objectivity here and some other agenda is always being served. Jesus is lost to us as a question we can approach without prejudice.

Especially when you find people inquiring into legal standards for evidence sufficient to declare someone historical. I guess it is important not to make such declarations arbitrarily. Let's instead establish arbitrary fucking standards for sufficiency.

The arrogance of setting up such a paper target utterly astonishes me. Indeed, it implies asking a judge to rule on the case for sufficiency or insufficiency. I'll mullah it over. Let's have a tribunal. The pissing contest we have here is a tribe urinal.

[LF, you're needed over in the "Reasonable Belief" thread. To the bat cave!]

1078 pages and still going strong. Is anyone keeping a record of the things so far that have been reasonably inferred about the historical Jesus? Out of curiosity, roughly how many things have been reasonably inferred so far? What is the current tally?

LucidFlight wrote:1078 pages and still going strong. Is anyone keeping a record of the things so far that have been reasonably inferred about the historical Jesus? Out of curiosity, roughly how many things have been reasonably inferred so far? What is the current tally?

This is like some sort of game where there are no referees and no disinterested score-keepers.

No doubt everyone is keeping their own score and I wouldn't be surprised if everyone thought they were 'winning'.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Especially when you find people inquiring into legal standards for evidence sufficient to declare someone historical. I guess it is important not to make such declarations arbitrarily. Let's instead establish arbitrary fucking standards for sufficiency.

The alternative is being purely arbitrary as a set of standards could at least be tested against a wide variety of cases. But, then again, It's not hard to see why you wouldn't be bothered by that...

LucidFlight wrote:1078 pages and still going strong. Is anyone keeping a record of the things so far that have been reasonably inferred about the historical Jesus? Out of curiosity, roughly how many things have been reasonably inferred so far? What is the current tally?

If we had credible historical Records of Jesus of Nazareth it would have been PLASTERED all over the Internet. The Search for HJ of Nazareth continues because NO-ONE kept records of HJ of Nazareth.

TheOneTrueZeke wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Especially when you find people inquiring into legal standards for evidence sufficient to declare someone historical. I guess it is important not to make such declarations arbitrarily. Let's instead establish arbitrary fucking standards for sufficiency.

The alternative is being purely arbitrary as a set of standards could at least be tested against a wide variety of cases. But, then again, It's not hard to see why you wouldn't be bothered by that...

You have shamefully refused to justify your dogma statement. You were called on it and you have backed out of it. You tried your darned hardest to change the topic and now your back talking about the topic you wanted to duck to. As your presence in this thread involves not a participation so much as a series of snipes, usually consisting of no more than a few lines of provocation, it's time you stopped the sniping and provided content. What are your criteria for ascertaining the existence of people mentioned in ancient literature that is anonymous, undated and unprovenanced of a religious nature? How can you decide the veracity of comments about christianity found in non-christian literature maintained by christian scribes over many centuries?

proudfootz wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:1078 pages and still going strong. Is anyone keeping a record of the things so far that have been reasonably inferred about the historical Jesus? Out of curiosity, roughly how many things have been reasonably inferred so far? What is the current tally?

This is like some sort of game where there are no referees and no disinterested score-keepers.

No doubt everyone is keeping their own score and I wouldn't be surprised if everyone thought they were 'winning'.

Sounds a bit like Mornington Crescent.

dejuror wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:1078 pages and still going strong. Is anyone keeping a record of the things so far that have been reasonably inferred about the historical Jesus? Out of curiosity, roughly how many things have been reasonably inferred so far? What is the current tally?

If we had credible historical Records of Jesus of Nazareth it would have been PLASTERED all over the Internet. The Search for HJ of Nazareth continues because NO-ONE kept records of HJ of Nazareth.

I see. So, there hasn't been much progress thus far, I would imagine.

LucidFlight wrote:1078 pages and still going strong. Is anyone keeping a record of the things so far that have been reasonably inferred about the historical Jesus? Out of curiosity, roughly how many things have been reasonably inferred so far? What is the current tally?

dejuror wrote: If we had credible historical Records of Jesus of Nazareth it would have been PLASTERED all over the Internet. The Search for HJ of Nazareth continues because NO-ONE kept records of HJ of Nazareth.

LucidFlight wrote:I see. So, there hasn't been much progress thus far, I would imagine.

Not much progress in inferring a Historical Jesus, if any (beyond relying increasingly dubiously on the NT itself); so, the longer there is lack of inference, the less, it would seem, there was such a person.

RealityRules wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:1078 pages and still going strong. Is anyone keeping a record of the things so far that have been reasonably inferred about the historical Jesus? Out of curiosity, roughly how many things have been reasonably inferred so far? What is the current tally?

dejuror wrote: If we had credible historical Records of Jesus of Nazareth it would have been PLASTERED all over the Internet. The Search for HJ of Nazareth continues because NO-ONE kept records of HJ of Nazareth.

LucidFlight wrote:I see. So, there hasn't been much progress thus far, I would imagine.

Not much progress in inferring a Historical Jesus, if any (beyond relying increasingly dubiously on the NT itself); so, the longer there is lack of inference, the less, it would seem, there was such a person.

That's all the HJ have are the gospels and the dubious Pauline letters. Nothing else can be of any use in forming a case for the HJ. All else is hearsay written many decades after the supposed lifetime of this fictional character.

angelo wrote:That's all the HJ have are the gospels and the dubious Pauline letters. Nothing else can be of any use in forming a case for the HJ. All else is hearsay written many decades after the supposed lifetime of this fictional character.

And it seems likely that even the gospels and those "Pauline" letters were also worked or reworked, and collated "many decades after the supposed lifetime of this fictional character"

They are working with mythical writings. It's as if in future years someone reads a copy of Harry Potter and try to dig up a historical character of that name.

angelo wrote: It's as if in future years someone reads a copy of Harry Potter and try to dig up a historical character of that name.

What? A fictitious one to go with the real one ... wait a minute ....

Dejuror makes some more good points about "Paul, and writings attributed to him" here