Watch theidiot (name appropriate) struggle! [Trollville]

theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Watch theidiot (name appropriate) struggle! [Trollville]

I've taken on Jesus Mythicist for sometime, on other forums, but it's gotten boring recently as I've run out of challengers. 

And I want to lay some more smack downs, and I'm calling out Rook Hawkins. I'm far from an uniformed individual on the History of the New Testament, or historical method in general, and I want put my knowledge to the test. Usually I find mythicist who are quite ignorant of history, and they make easy but boring targets. So I'm looking for a real challenge, to take on someone who doesn't consider his knowledge of history to be lacking, and that's why I'm calling out Rook. 

Is our Rooky up for the challenge?

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
As long as you never call me

As long as you never call me "Rooky" again, sure.  Otherwise I can't take you seriously, as a serious detractor.  You can start.  I await your arguments.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Here, I'll start off

Here, I'll start off simple.

There is no such thing as 100% certainty in historical claims or even scientific claims. History like science is about probability. A "truth" claim of history, is that a particular scenario is more probable than all other scenarios. 

A claim of Jesus existing in history, is: "It is more probable the Jesus existed, than not existed", that Jesus existing is a more probable explanation of the data/evidence we have at hand, than Jesus not existing. 

Our common Jesus mythicist, share patterns with creationist, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, holocaust denier and such, in that they attempt to create an argument purely out of doubt, rather than scenario building. In order for creationism to be true, it would have to portray the creationism scenario as a more probable explanation of the development of life than evolution. Creationist can cast doubts all they want, but unless they build a scenario that can be perceived as a more probable explanation, their efforts are in vain. 

To repeat again, In order for it to historically "true" that Jesus did not exist, than this would have to be a more probable explanation of all data we have at hand, than Jesus existing. 

Do you concur so far?

Now the question to you Rook, before we go any further, is do you believe that Jesus not existing is a more probable explanation for all evidence/data we have at hand, than Jesus existing? Or in other words, do you believe that it's more probable the Jesus did not exist, than exist? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Here, I'll

theidiot wrote:

Here, I'll start off simple.

There is no such thing as 100% certainty in historical claims or even scientific claims.

Yes there is.  Alexander the Great was a man.  There is one example of a historical certainty.  Atoms exist.  There is an example of 100% certainty in science.

Quote:
History like science is about probability. A "truth" claim of history, is that a particular scenario is more probable than all other scenarios.

It depends on how probable a claim is.  If, for example, there are two competing solutions to a historical problem, both equal in weight, how would you determine which is more probable?  What if, in another scenario, the evidence leans more in one direction than the other, but the evidence is contradicting?  Probability is largely based on what evidence is extant enough to actually compare. 

But yes, generally speaking, that is a mostly accurate statement.

Quote:
A claim of Jesus existing in history, is: "It is more probable the Jesus existed, than not existed", that Jesus existing is a more probable explanation of the data/evidence we have at hand, than Jesus not existing.

That is a claim, sure.  I would say the evidence is not more probable that he existed.  Rather, the evidence is in such a state that it is more probable that Jesus did not exist historically.

Quote:
Our common Jesus mythicist, share patterns with creationist, 9/11 conspiracy theorist, holocaust denier and such, in that they attempt to create an argument purely out of doubt, rather than scenario building. In order for creationism to be true, it would have to portray the creationism scenario as a more probable explanation of the development of life than evolution. Creationist can cast doubts all they want, but unless they build a scenario that can be perceived as a more probable explanation, their efforts are in vain.

That's hyperbole.  Perhaps some mythicists are as you claim (I can think of a couple); but there are many who are of the scholarly vein. 

Quote:
To repeat again, In order for it to historically "true" that Jesus did not exist, than this would have to be a more probable explanation of all data we have at hand, than Jesus existing.

Do you concur so far?

I'm waiting for some sort of argument for his historicity.  So far you have gone on at some short length trying to explain to me what I already know.

Quote:
Now the question to you Rook, before we go any further, is do you believe that Jesus not existing is a more probable explanation for all evidence/data we have at hand, than Jesus existing? Or in other words, do you believe that it's more probable the Jesus did not exist, than exist?

That is my position.  It is more probable that Jesus did not exist historically.  This could be seen by simply reading anything I've written on the subject.  I suppose I'm not going to get an argument from you?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes there is. 

Quote:
Yes there is.  Alexander the Great was a man.  There is one example of a historical certainty.  Atoms exist.  There is an example of 100% certainty in science.

Let's confront this silly oddity first, since it's the source of the dilemma for the rest of your post.

I'm surprised an individual who claims to be an ancient text expert and historian, doesn't understand this basic point.

Giving a historical or scientific claim 100% certainty, affords it a sense of absolutism, and implies that it cannot be proven wrong, that no evidence can exist contrary to it. Science and history do not make claims of 100% certainty, because all historical and scientific claims retain with it the possibility of being proven wrong. 

Let's just confront the Alexander the Great was a man. You claim this has a 100% certainty attached to it, which implies that it cannot be proven wrong. That all other scenarios are impossible (0% probability). Yet it can be conceivably proven wrong.

It's possible to have or find evidence that Alexander the Great was really a woman disguised as a man. Unless you claim this is impossible (something that history nor science would claim), than affording a 100% certainty to Alexander the Great was a man, is false.

Even a basic student of history should understand this, and I'm surprised that I have to go over this with you.

Either you'd like to continue arguing this with me, or concede and revise your previous post accordingly. 

Your choice pilgrim.

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Quote:Yes

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
Yes there is.  Alexander the Great was a man.  There is one example of a historical certainty.  Atoms exist.  There is an example of 100% certainty in science.

Let's confront this silly oddity first, since it's the source of the dilemma for the rest of your post.

I'm surprised an individual who claims to be an ancient text expert and historian, doesn't understand this basic point.

Giving a historical or scientific claim 100% certainty, affords it a sense of absolutism, and implies that it cannot be proven wrong, that no evidence can exist contrary to it. Science and history do not make claims of 100% certainty, because all historical and scientific claims retain with it the possibility of being proven wrong. 

Let's just confront the Alexander the Great was a man. You claim this has a 100% certainty attached to it, which implies that it cannot be proven wrong. That all other scenarios are impossible (0% probability). Yet it can be conceivably proven wrong.

It's possible to have or find evidence that Alexander the Great was really a woman disguised as a man. Unless you claim this is impossible (something that history nor science would claim), than affording a 100% certainty to Alexander the Great was a man, is false.

Even a basic student of history should understand this, and I'm surprised that I have to go over this with you.

Either you'd like to continue arguing this with me, or concede and revise your previous post accordingly. 

Your choice pilgrim.

A certainty does not imply absolutism.  Why do you make that leap in logic?  If the evidence is such that there is no doubt (the present state of evidence does confirm Alexander was a man) then there is certainty.  That does not mean that new evidence couldn't negate this.  However, that was not your point.  You said that there were no certainties in historical and scientific research when there are, in fact, certainties.  I hate when people shift goal posts when they realize they have no understanding of a thing.  So how about you stop shifting them and give me an actual argument?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote: That is my

Quote:
That is my position.  It is more probable that Jesus did not exist historically.  This could be seen by simply reading anything I've written on the subject.  I suppose I'm not going to get an argument from you?
  

One has to be aware that an individual speaks the same language first, before we begin to speak with him in English. 

You might be an exception to the rule, but in my experience with mythicist, one has to take him back to kindergarten and teach him the basics of historical analysis, often times I have to teach the meaning of evidence. Your notion that Alexander the Great was a man, is 100% certain, reveals even your own ineptness that needs to be addressed before we can continue. 

Without an established language and structure, our discussion would lack a certain coherency, and it tends to be more tedious confronting problems in communication when turtle heads emerge later. I prefer a more focused and structured discussion, so I tend to start such discussions gauging if we are on the same page before we begin. 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Quote: That

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
That is my position.  It is more probable that Jesus did not exist historically.  This could be seen by simply reading anything I've written on the subject.  I suppose I'm not going to get an argument from you?
  

One has to be aware that an individual speaks the same language first, before we begin to speak with him in English.

k.

Quote:
You might be an exception to the rule, but in my experience with mythicist, one has to take him back to kindergarten and teach him the basics of historical analysis, often times I have to teach the meaning of evidence. Your notion that Alexander the Great was a man, is 100% certain, reveals even your own ineptness that needs to be addressed before we can continue.

So far you have no displayed any knowledge of historical methods.  You claim you have knowledge of them, but have not presented an argument forming out your criteria with them.  This is now the (7th?) post in this thread and nothing has been accomplished.  I gave you the opportunity to present a case, so far you've only skirted around having to present one using hyperbole and ad hominem attacks against Mythicists.  I don't know who you have been talking to previously, but in the community I am in, we do things much differently.

Quote:
Without an established language and structure, our discussion would lack a certain coherency, and it tends to be more tedious confronting problems in communication when turtle heads emerge later. I prefer a more focused and structured discussion, so I tend to start such discussions gauging if we are on the same page before we begin.

Why do you spend paragraphs explaining how you're going to prove your point without once ever presenting a point?  Who doesn't want to establish language and structure?  That is why we use things called "sentences" and put these "sentences" into "paragraphs".  These paragraphs are (in this instance) supposed to be forming intelligible points which form the foundation of an argument.  So far you've told me you're going to do that - but haven't put a line towards doing it.  You talk a lot of hype...when are you going to stop talking and bring some substance to this conversation?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:theidiot

Quote:
A certainty does not imply absolutism.  Why do you make that leap in logic?  If the evidence is such that there is no doubt (the present state of evidence does confirm Alexander was a man) then there is certainty.  That does not mean that new evidence couldn't negate this.  However, that was not your point.  You said that there were no certainties in historical and scientific research when there are, in fact, certainties.  I hate when people shift goal posts when they realize they have no understanding of a thing.  So how about you stop shifting them and give me an actual argument?

Ah, let's see whose actually shifted the goal post. Earlier you claimed that there is 100% certainty in science and history, now you've dropped the 100%. It's no longer science and history make claims of 100% certainty, now it's just science and history make claims of certainty. I agree with the latter; I don't agree with the former. Are you going to apologize for accusing me of shifting the goal post? Since it's quite clear that I haven't, but you have.

Saying we are certain about a particular truth doesn't imply absolutism, saying we are 100% certain about a particular truth does. 

This is not that hard to understand my dear Rook. When you say a claim that Alexander was a Man is 100% certain, that means the possibility of any other scenario is 0%. Let's show you your own contradiction, you claim that Alexander is a man, but yet you still claim that it's possible that Alexander wasn't a man (when you say that future evidence can negate this). This statement alone reveals that Alexander was a man, is not 100% certain. You can says it 99.99999999% certain, leaving .00000001 that this is not true, but it's surely not 100% certain. 

Sure there is certainty that Alexander was a man, in fact it's quite certain that he was, it's just not 100% certain (implying that there is 0% probability of this being wrong). Do you understand this basic point Rook? It shouldn't be all that challenging for you to comprehend.

Perhaps one of your fellow trusted atheist on this forum can reveal your logical flaw for you, since you have trouble seeing it yourself. 

It wasn't my desire to get hung up on this point, but since someone is having a little difficulty comprehending what I consider to be an obvious and simple point, I feel like I have to. Perhaps some of our fellow Rational Responders would like to help Rook out, to make things go a little faster. 

Edit: Here I found a kindergarten breakdown for you. Let's say it's a 100% certain that every time you flip a particular coin that it's going to land on heads. That means no matter how many times  I flip it, it's going to land on heads, and that there is no possibility that it's going to land on tails. If i say that somewhere down the line it's possible for the coin to land on tails, perhaps on the 1 millionth toss, than it was never 100% certain to begin with.

One can say this expression in numerous ways, such as it's far more likely or more probable for the coin to land on heads, than tails. Or it can even be expressed in terms of it's numerical probability such as it is 99.999999% likely that the coin would land on heads and .000001% that it'll land on tails. 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:when are

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
when are you going to stop talking and bring some substance to this conversation?

When you figure out that 1+1=2. 

I had no idea that I was going to have to go through several posts to explain to you a basic concept. I'm sure many of your fellow rational responders got it in the first post. 

Judging that history deals with probability, it's quite important to have a basic understanding of this, and how it works. Since you're having trouble getting through the ABC's, I'm going to have to sit there and break it down for you, until you get it. 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Quote:A

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
A certainty does not imply absolutism.  Why do you make that leap in logic?  If the evidence is such that there is no doubt (the present state of evidence does confirm Alexander was a man) then there is certainty.  That does not mean that new evidence couldn't negate this.  However, that was not your point.  You said that there were no certainties in historical and scientific research when there are, in fact, certainties.  I hate when people shift goal posts when they realize they have no understanding of a thing.  So how about you stop shifting them and give me an actual argument?

Ah, let's see whose actually shifted the goal post. Earlier you claimed that there is 100% certainty in science and history, now you've dropped the 100%. It's no longer science and history make claims of 100% certainty, now it's just science and history make claims of certainty. I agree with the latter; I don't agree with the former. Are you going to apologize for accusing me of shifting the goal post? Since it's quite clear that I haven't, but you have.

Saying we are certain about a particular truth doesn't imply absolutism, saying we are 100% certain about a particular truth does. 

This is not that hard to understand my dear Rook. When you say a claim that Alexander was a Man is 100% certain, that means the possibility of any other scenario is 0%. Let's show you your own contradiction, you claim that Alexander is a man, but yet you still claim that it's possible that Alexander wasn't a man (when you say that future evidence can negate this). This statement alone reveals that Alexander was a man, is not 100% certain. You can says it 99.99999999% certain, leaving .00000001 that this is not true, but it's surely not 100% certain. 

Sure there is certainty that Alexander was a man, in fact it's quite certain that he was, it's just not 100% certain (implying that there is 0% probability of this being wrong). Do you understand this basic point Rook? It shouldn't be all that challenging for you to comprehend.

Perhaps one of your fellow trusted atheist on this forum can reveal your logical flaw for you, since you have trouble seeing it yourself. 

It wasn't my desire to get hung up on this point, but since someone is having a little difficulty comprehending what I consider to be an obvious and simple point, I feel like I have to. Perhaps some of our fellow Rational Responders would like to help Rook out, to make things go a little faster. 

Edit: Here I found a kindergarten breakdown for you. Let's say it's a 100% certain that every time you flip a particular coin that it's going to land on heads. That means no matter how many times  I flip it, it's going to land on heads, and that there is no possibility that it's going to land on tails. If i say that somewhere down the line it's possible for the coin to land on tails, perhaps on the 1 millionth toss, than it was never 100% certain to begin with.

One can say this expression in numerous ways, such as it's far more likely or more probable for the coin to land on heads, than tails. Or it can even be expressed in terms of it's numerical probability such as it is 99.999999% likely that the coin would land on heads and .000001% that it'll land on tails. 

You do realize this whole post you just made is all based on an ad hoc, right?  I never said I was dropping 100%.  Alexander was 100% certainly a man.  Because all the data we have suggests he was male.  Your whole diatribe here is nothing but a joke.  Perhaps you can grasp that easy enough?  Or, like you, do I need to throw in more ad hominems for it to be childish enough for you to grasp?

I see you have no interest in actually making an argument about a historical Jesus.  All you seem to want to do is waste my time. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:You do

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

You do realize this whole post you just made is all based on an ad hoc, right?  I never said I was dropping 100%.  Alexander was 100% certainly a man.  Because all the data we have suggests he was male.  Your whole diatribe here is nothing but a joke.  Perhaps you can grasp that easy enough?  Or, like you, do I need to throw in more ad hominems for it to be childish enough for you to grasp?

Well, you dropped a 100% from your previous post, it sure looked like a shifting of the goal post, but if you claim you omitted the 100%, assuming that it would still be implied even with the omission, than sure, whatever you say.

But let's continue to break this down even to more basic blocks. 

With a simple question? 

Is there a possibility that Alexander was not a man? Even if it's a highly unlikely possibility, is there still a possibility? Is there room for deviation? 

Do you understand that when you claim a 100% certainty that Alexander was a man, that this means there is no possibility that he wasn't a man? This is basic logic Rook, even a fifth grader can comprehend. It's a logical contradiction to claim a hundred percent certainty in X being true, and yet claim there is a possibility that X may not be true. 

Let's teach you something that any unbeliever on this forum with a science background here can validate. In science (just like in history) there always has to be at least a very slim chance of deviation, therefore science and history cannot make claims of 100% certainty. Do you comprehend this point yet? Perhaps you should seek the guidance of individuals here with a science background, if you still fail to grasp this point? 

I'll continue with this point, until you get it. But here I'll move on a bit as well. 

Quote:
I see you have no interest in actually making an argument about a historical Jesus.  All you seem to want to do is waste my time. 

I have a real interest in arguing about the historical Jesus, in fact your claim that the modern literary-critical methods reveals that gospels are not a greco-roman biography of a religious person (and not that they are not modern biographies), really interest me. It's  a claim that I'm flabbergasted by, since it's the first time that I have ever heard this. I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's text book on The New Testament, where he in fact claims that they are greco-roman biographies. Has Ehrman missed out on modern literary-critical methods rejecting this?

The Gospels are exactly written as one would expect a greco-roman biography of religious person to be written as, as narrative of his life cast into his message, a conveying of the meaning of his life. 

You seem to be suggesting that a Greco-Roman biography of a religious person would be written differently, and not in the style of the Gospels, and I'm curious as to how you believe it would be written differently if it was a Greco Roman biography?

What is the style of a greco-roman biography of a religious person, that you believe the Gospel betray?

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Rook_Hawkins

theidiot wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

You do realize this whole post you just made is all based on an ad hoc, right?  I never said I was dropping 100%.  Alexander was 100% certainly a man.  Because all the data we have suggests he was male.  Your whole diatribe here is nothing but a joke.  Perhaps you can grasp that easy enough?  Or, like you, do I need to throw in more ad hominems for it to be childish enough for you to grasp?

Well, you dropped a 100% from your previous post, it sure looked like a shifting of the goal post, but if you claim you omitted the 100%, assuming that it would still be implied even with the omission, than sure, whatever you say.

What are you rambling on about?

Quote:
But let's continue to break this down even to more basic blocks. 

With a simple question?

Are you asking for a simple question?  Do you know how to formulate a question correctly?  Can you write in English after all that dodging about speaking the same language earlier?

Quote:
Is there a possibility that Alexander was not a man? Even if it's a highly unlikely possibility, is there still a possibility? Is there room for deviation? 

Do you understand that when you claim a 100% certainty that Alexander was a man, that this means there is no possibility that he wasn't a man? This is basic logic Rook, even a fifth grader can comprehend. It's a logical contradiction to claim a hundred percent certainty in X being true, and yet claim there is a possibility that X may not be true. 

Let's teach you something that any unbeliever on this forum with a science background here can validate. In science (just like in history) there always has to be at least a very slim chance of deviation, therefore science and history cannot make claims of 100% certainty. Do you comprehend this point yet? Perhaps you should seek the guidance of individuals here with a science background, if you still fail to grasp this point? 

I'll continue with this point, until you get it. But here I'll move on a bit as well.

Why do you insist on deviating from the original point you had?  Where is your argument for a historical Jesus?  I have no problems accepting the definite fact that Alexander was a man.  Do you really think he wasn't?  If not, I see no value to you hounding the point that the possibility exists he was a she.  Sure, and you might be the opposite sex too, in some other universe.  We're in reality here.  Perhaps you should bring yourself back to it.  There is no reason at all to assume that Alexander was anything but male. 

You can speculate all you want, but the evidence for such a position does not exist.  You can claim that by speculating you are being critical, and to a lesser person (such as yourself, obviously) that may seem like a logical position.  But to somebody who knows something about how the historical evidence is interpreted, you look foolish.  There are billions of things we can speculate on, that does not mean that they are possibilities (certainly not probabilities - which you seem to think is the same thing as a possibility.  Get a dictionary for the difference between probability and possibility).  Real historical research doesn't work this way.  We let the evidence determine the perspective, we don't speculate on the vast possibilities of "what if", we examine the data and determine the best answer from what the evidence provides as possibilities.  The evidence does not allow for the possibility of Alexander being a woman.

But fine, if you WISH to continue pressing this.  We are 100% certain Julius Caesar was a man.  There is a 2nd example of a historical certainty.  Now can you PLEASE provide an argument for the original point.

Quote:
Quote:
I see you have no interest in actually making an argument about a historical Jesus.  All you seem to want to do is waste my time. 

I have a real interest in arguing about the historical Jesus, in fact your claim that the modern literary-critical methods reveals that gospels are not a greco-roman biography of a religious person (and not that they are not modern biographies), really interest me. It's  a claim that I'm flabbergasted by, since it's the first time that I have ever heard this. I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's text book on The New Testament, where he in fact claims that they are greco-roman biographies. Has Ehrman missed out on modern literary-critical methods rejecting this?

Yes, Bart is apparently missing something if he is claiming that.  Part of the reason your flabbergasted is only because you don't know the sources Bart uses, nor do you seem to care to read beyond what you read in the text.  Bart Ehrman uses Charles Talbert as a source.  But Talbert is decades old (his book What is a Gospel is the one Ehrman cites).  Perhaps Bart should look into Michael E. Vines, Roland Boer, Mary Ann Tolbert and many others in the scholarly community who no longer hold to the genre being SIMILAR to Greco-Roman biography.  (By the way, if Bart is claiming Talbert said that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biography, he is wrong.  Talbert explicitly states in his conclusions that he believed the Gospels to represent a similarity to Greco-Roman biography - not that they were Greco-Roman biographies.  You should read more books outside of Bart Ehrman.)

Quote:
The Gospels are exactly written as one would expect a greco-roman biography of religious person to be written as, as narrative of his life cast into his message, a conveying of the meaning of his life.

This is a false statement.  If anything, as Vines shows in his thorough critique of Talbert's position, the Gospels resemble a narrative (not a biography) similar to Jewish Fiction writing in the Hellenistic and Second Sophistic periods (which the Gospels fall into).  His examination of the methods employed by Talbert suggest that Talbert was unequipped to handle the study because he lacked knowledge of proper literary-critical analysis.  I would also recommend you read Dennis R. MacDonald's book The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark for more understanding as to why the Gospels do not reflect biography but literary fiction.  The genre you are suggesting is something out of date, and if Ehrman is suggesting this as well, he needs to brush up on his research. 

Quote:
You seem to be suggesting that a Greco-Roman biography of a religious person would be written differently, and not in the style of the Gospels, and I'm curious as to how you believe it would be written differently if it was a Greco Roman biography?

No. I'm suggesting you have the genre wrong entirely. 

Quote:
What is the style of a greco-roman biography of a religious person, that you believe the Gospel betray?

You like ad hoc fallacies, don't you?  You thrive on making useless points and attack positions I never make.  I have yet to see a solid argument from you.  You keep whining about Greco-Roman biographies, but you have no knowledge of genre criticism or literary criticism, the same methods used to determine genre are the ones you need to study - not historical criticism (which has little basis on literary methods except by studying the means ancient authors wrote and why they wrote).   Come back to this discussion when you know what you're are talking about.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Why do you insist on

 

Quote:
Why do you insist on deviating from the original point you had?  Where is your argument for a historical Jesus?  I have no problems accepting the definitely fact that Alexander was a man.   Do you really think he wasn't?  If not, I see no value to you hounding the point that the possibility exists he was a she.  

Uhm, no Rooky, I claimed history like science doesn't make claims of 100% certainty, science and history leave room for deviation. You used "Alexander the Great was  a man", as an example of a historical claim with 100% certainty. I used the possibility of Alexander being a man disguised as a woman, as an example of such deviations. I believe Alexander the Great was a man to the farthest extent of historical certainty, which is never 100%; you can say I'm 99.99% sure of this. 

The reason I even went over this in my original post, was to say that the existence of Jesus (as well as any other historical) figure cannot be shown as 100% certain, and that language of conveying this, at best would be that it's more probable than Jesus existed than not existed. 

 

Quote:
You keep whining about Greco-Roman biographies, but you have no knowledge of genre criticism or literary criticism, the same methods used to determine genre are the ones you need to study - not historical criticism (which has little basis on literary methods except by studying the means ancient authors wrote and why they wrote).   Come back to this discussion when you know what you're are talking about.

This is how I know you're a fucking idiot who tries to hide behind names, and appeals to authority, yet lack the ability to develop a cogent argument. I asked you to explain how modern-literary criticism rejects the Gospels as a Greco-Roman biography of a religious person, but yet you have failed to actually show this. 

This happens often when i speak with mythicist, (as well as creationist) most of them get their information from individual like Earl Doherty, but they don't understand half the shit Earl Doherty talks about. They're like creationist who run with terms such as "kinds", without have having any fucking clue as how to explain what it means. 

If you think I don't know shit about literary and historical criticism, I bet your Brian Sapients, Kelly's and the rest of the RRS has much less of a clue. So if you don't know how to articulate your arguments to me, you sure wouldn't know how to articulate it to them. I know what you're doing Rook, you're trying to compensate. You don't understand half the shit you read, but you think repeating quotes from the material, or dropping names makes up for this. The dimwits on this forum may not pick up on this, but you sure as hell can't hide this shit from me. 

See, this is why our common mythicist doesn't have a fucking idea as to what he is talking about. They derive their understanding from individuals such as yourself, who are inept as they are. You don't have a clue as to how to explain half this shit you sprout to them, because you don't understand it your fucking self. 

You went off on this tirade accusing me of not having any knowledge of historical and literary criticism. I find that funny, because I'll probably shame you on this any day. Just admit it Rook, it's not me who doesn't comprehend literary criticism, but you. It's why you lack the ability to articulate what I asked you to explain.

What's even funnier, is that you didn't even provide an argument, in which to gauge my knowledge of literary and historical criticism, but yet you're quick to claim I'm ignorant. What a dumb, silly fuck you are. You're not getting away from me that easily bitch. I'll reveal to everyone here that you're a fucking a fraud, no better than a Kent Hovind. 

Let me tell you a little about yourself. 

You read in one of your mythicist books, some author claiming that the modern-literary method rejects the Gospels as written in the style of a greco-roman-biography and that it's written more in the style of Jewish fiction ( a silly claim). You had no fucking clue how this supposed "expert" came to this conclusion. You accepted it because you were too fucking eager to believe. Now you hide behind their names, thinking that provides you a safe haven, a refuge for not actually having to make a case. You know am right, don't you?

But let's go ahead and be a bit more serous now. I'll stop calling you out. I wouldn't want you to shit in your pants.

Quote:
the Gospels resemble a narrative (not a biography) similar to Jewish Fiction writing in the Hellenistic and Second Sophistic periods

You mean to say the Gospels are written more in the style of the stories of Joshua, Moses, etc.. rather than more aligned with Greco-Roman biographies? Why? Because the gospel writers use elements of those narratives in their narrative of Jesus? such as the slaying of innocent? Is this what you're getting at? Since you, didn't bother explaining, I'm going to assume this is so.

This is how you show don't know what you're talking about. In the pre-modern world there was little distinction between history and narrative, biography and narrative. For example, oral histories passed down from pre-historic societies contain literary aspects, characters, or settings which appear again and again in stories from ancient civilizations.

The life of Elder Hillell is made parallel to the life of Moses. This is called literary topoi, and it's commonly used in the narrative of historical characters. Such as the stories of Muhammad's conflict with the Pagan leaders, are cast into a similar narrative structure as Jesus' conflicts with the pharisees.

But I'll give you the chance, to actually explain your points, perhaps you can put you accusations of ignorance to the side. Because in the end, it's going to make you look dumb, not me.  

We can call a truce, if you like rooky. I'll go easy on the belittling, and calling you out, so that we can have an actual dialog, as long as you refrain from it yourself. 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Quote:Why do

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
Why do you insist on deviating from the original point you had?  Where is your argument for a historical Jesus?  I have no problems accepting the definitely fact that Alexander was a man.   Do you really think he wasn't?  If not, I see no value to you hounding the point that the possibility exists he was a she.  

Uhm, no Rooky, I claimed history like science doesn't make claims of 100% certainty, science and history leave room for deviation. You used "Alexander the Great was  a man", as an example of a historical claim with 100% certainty. I used the possibility of Alexander being a man disguised as a woman, as an example of such deviations. I believe Alexander the Great was a man to the farthest extent of historical certainty, which is never 100%; you can say I'm 99.99% sure of this.

Then once more, your name suits your position.  You're an idiot.  History does make some certain statements in regards to the state of the evidence.  One more, I pose you a second example: Julius Caesar was a man.  This is certain.  Do you want to try to tell me he was a woman in disguise too? 

Quote:
The reason I even went over this in my original post, was to say that the existence of Jesus (as well as any other historical) figure cannot be shown as 100% certain, and that language of conveying this, at best would be that it's more probable than Jesus existed than not existed.

I reiterate my point.  You're name suits you.

Quote:
Quote:
You keep whining about Greco-Roman biographies, but you have no knowledge of genre criticism or literary criticism, the same methods used to determine genre are the ones you need to study - not historical criticism (which has little basis on literary methods except by studying the means ancient authors wrote and why they wrote).   Come back to this discussion when you know what you're are talking about.

This is how I know you're a fucking idiot who tries to hide behind names, and appeals to authority,

Don't project.  This is what you've been doing all along.  I simply provided you with evidence showing you how the position you were holding (appealing to Ehrman) was actually outdated, and had been taken to task more recently.  It's your own fault for not checking sources and reading them.  Instead you've done exactly what you're claiming I've done (falsely, I would add).  You are reading things at face value and assuming their accuracy without question.

Quote:
yet lack the ability to develop a cogent argument.

Do you really think that babbling on and on about me not having an argument is an argument?  Tell me, idiot, who do you think really lacks argument here?  Somebody who directly quotes from wikipedia without citing a source about something he clearly doesn't understand (you), or somebody who offers well-sourced books which have been published through academic series and academic presses? 

Quote:
I asked you to explain how modern-literary criticism rejects the Gospels as a Greco-Roman biography of a religious person, but yet you have failed to actually show this.

I don't have to show it.  It's been done already by those who are much better able to defend the position than I am.  The sources I have given you are not only exactly what you asked from me, but they are credible sources written by those with scholarly credentials (because apparently that is a big deal to you, even though I am certain you lack them as well).  Perhaps you feel sore because you weren't expecting me to give you an answer?  Maybe you just didn't realize that for your first several posts on this message board, ridiculing others about something you said they adamentaly didn't know would backfire on you.  All of a sudden, you're the stooge who doesn't know the difference between the genre of Luke-Acts and the genre of Epictetus' Life of Apollonius

I'm sorry, but it is not my fault you are not familiar with how modern literary criticism uses and often applies Bakhtin's theory of genre to the Gospel narratives.  I'm sorry you are not aware that Bart Ehrman cites Talbert, who wrote his book on genre in 1977, who has been taken to task by Michael Vines and Mary Ann Tolbert as recently as this past year.  Get a clue.  Read a book.  I am just toying with you in this discussion so far.  To me, you're not somebody to take seriously, and you've demonstrated continuously in this conversation that you are not capable of having a dialog.  So I will not do your homework for you.

Quote:
This happens often when i speak with mythicist, (as well as creationist) most of them get their information from individual like Earl Doherty, but they don't understand half the shit Earl Doherty talks about. They're like creationist who run with terms such as "kinds", without have having any fucking clue as how to explain what it means.

Only somebody completely unfamiliar with my research would make a claim like that. Here's a clue for you, why don't you read one of my articles before assuming you know something about me.  Here, you can check this out as well:

Google Search This Site for Rook Hawkins on Earl Doherty
 

Or try my article on this very subject: Mythicism, Minimalism, and its Detractors

And when you're done making assumptions, you'll cease making yourself look foolisj.

Quote:
If you think I don't know shit about literary and historical criticism, I bet your Brian Sapients, Kelly's and the rest of the RRS has much less of a clue.

Actually I have a 100% certainty that you don't know shit about literary and historical criticism.

Quote:
So if you don't know how to articulate your arguments to me, you sure wouldn't know how to articulate it to them. I know what you're doing Rook, you're trying to compensate. You don't understand half the shit you read, but you think repeating quotes from the material, or dropping names makes up for this. The dimwits on this forum may not pick up on this, but you sure as hell can't hide this shit from me.

You complaining to me for 90% of this post is not the same thing as making an argument.  I know you feel embarrassed from being called out on your ignorance and intellectual laziness, but I don't have time to deal with childish rantings about it.  Get a clue.

Quote:
See, this is why our common mythicist doesn't have a fucking idea as to what he is talking about. They derive their understanding from individuals such as yourself, who are inept as they are. You don't have a clue as to how to explain half this shit you sprout to them, because you don't understand it your fucking self.

This is you so far, "Whhhaaaaa!  Rook knows more than me and hurt my feelings so I'm going to attack him without knowing a thing about him and his position!  Wahhhhh!!!!"  Dude, grow up.  Get a tissue.  Act like a man. 

Quote:
You went off on this tirade accusing me of not having any knowledge of historical and literary criticism. I find that funny, because I'll probably shame you on this any day. Just admit it Rook, it's not me who doesn't comprehend literary criticism, but you. It's why you lack the ability to articulate what I asked you to explain.

You have spent seven paragraphs telling me how much you're going to kick my ass in history and have not presented a single argument.  You just keep complaining about me.  Like I said, you're completely laughable.

Quote:
What's even funnier, is that you didn't even provide an argument, in which to gauge my knowledge of literary and historical criticism, but yet you're quick to claim I'm ignorant. What a dumb, silly fuck you are. You're not getting away from me that easily bitch. I'll reveal to everyone here that you're a fucking a fraud, no better than a Kent Hovind.

Blah blah blah.  Look, you didn't know about me, you tried to make yourself all big and bad, and when push comes to shove, you fell off the horse.  Dust yourself off.  Get back up.  Man the fuck up and stop whining.

Quote:
Let me tell you a little about yourself.

Oh this ought to be good.  *Gets popcorn*

Quote:
You read in one of your mythicist books,

Projection much?  Hmm, I recall you going on and on about Bart Ehrman's "Textbook" on the New Testament.  Problem is you were pwned on that and now have to find some way to deal with your embarrassment by trying to push it onto me.

Quote:
some author claiming that the modern-literary method rejects the Gospels as written in the style of a greco-roman-biography and that it's written more in the style of Jewish fiction ( a silly claim). You had no fucking clue how this supposed "expert" came to this conclusion. You accepted it because you were too fucking eager to believe. Now you hide behind their names, thinking that provides you a safe haven, a refuge for not actually having to make a case. You know am right, don't you?

Let me tell you about yourself.  You are a deluded, a silly little man who is a nobody who wants to act big.  You probably tackled some small, zit-faced teenager who wants to bang Acharya S and thought, "Yeah, I pwn mythicists".  You find out about me, think I share opinions with everyone out there, and try to taunt me.  When that fails, you insult me.  When you finally come up with some semblance of a statement (the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies) and later come to find out I know much much more than you do, you go on a tirade about how much I such at history and blah blah blah.  Look kid.  I've got no time for wannabes and bullshiters.  Make an argument.  Put out or shut up.

Quote:
Quote:
the Gospels resemble a narrative (not a biography) similar to Jewish Fiction writing in the Hellenistic and Second Sophistic periods

You mean to say the Gospels are written more in the style of the stories of Joshua, Moses, etc..

You could say that, but I didn't.  I would never be so brash as to make the ignorant claim that Joshua and Exodus were written during the Hellenistic or Second Sophistic periods.  The books of Joshua and Exodus (not "Moses&quotEye-wink were written during the Persian Period. 

What I said was "the Gospels resemble a narrative (not a biography) similar to Jewish Fiction writing in the Hellenistic and Second Sophistic periods."  If you're clueless as to what this means exactly, I'm talking about a tradition of novelistic fiction writing that does date back to the Persian Period, but doesn't take root until the Hellenistic period, at least not in the same sense.  So, what we have is a tradition of Jewish fiction novels being written by Hellenistized and Romanized Jews for hundreds of years, and the Gospels fit right smack-dab in the center of this tradition.

I'm talking about the books of Tobit, the books of Kings, Samuel, the prophets, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Maccabees, Ester, Esdras, 1-3 Enoch, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Isaiah, Testament of Moses, Baruch, Shepard of Hermes, Daniel, Bel and the Dragon, and the many other numerous Jewish fiction genre books written during the period when Alexander the Great conquered the ancient Near East in the 4th Century BCE through the end of the Second Sophistic some time around the 3rd Century CE. 

Quote:
rather than more aligned with Greco-Roman biographies? Why? Because the gospel writers use elements of those narratives in their narrative of Jesus? such as the slaying of innocent? Is this what you're getting at? Since you, didn't bother explaining, I'm going to assume this is so.

Why assume?  That's a silly thing to say, but then again, assumption seems to be your MO.  Instead of assuming things, why not just read the books from the scholars I recommended?  Here are a few to help you along:

  • Michael E. Vines, The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel; SBL Academia Biblica 3 (2002)
  • Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel (2005)
  • Roland Boer, Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies; SBL SemeiaSt 63 (2007)
  • G. Aichele & G.A. Phillips, Intertextuality and the Bible; SBL SemeiaSt 69/70 (1995)
  • Marianne Palmer Bonz, The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic (2000)
  • Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epic and the Gospel of Mark (2000)
  • Thomas L. Thompson, The Bible in History: How Writers Create the Past (2005)

When you read all these books as (and many more) as I have, and you want to present a case against the position of the Gospels as literary fiction novels, we can talk.  Until then, citing Bart Ehrman and complaining about how I am disagreeing with you will not be helpful in this ''discussion" - if I were to even call it that. 

Quote:
This is how you show don't know what you're talking about.

By creating another ad hoc fallacy again?  Like I said, you're superb at attacking arguments I never made.  If only you could actually address the issue.

Quote:
In the pre-modern world there was little distinction between history and narrative, biography and narrative. For example, oral histories passed down from pre-historic societies contain literary aspects, characters, or settings which appear again and again in stories from ancient civilizations.

No argument here. But then again, that wasn't from you.  That statement was taken right from here: http://www.answers.com/topic/topos   Next time site your source or I'm putting you on time out for plagiarizing.  How much else have you stolen from other websites and tried to put it in your work without citing a source? 

Quote:
The life of Elder Hillell is made parallel to the life of Moses. This is called literary topoi, and it's commonly used in the narrative of historical characters. Such as the stories of Muhammad's conflict with the Pagan leaders, are cast into a similar narrative structure as Jesus' conflicts with the pharisees.

Stolen from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

But I would still agree with the statement.  It seems to smack of intent rather than recalled memories.  This is a start to exploring the role that genre plays in literary research.  You can not adequately assume anything about a text unless you can first examine the genre.  As I have shown, as well as the scholars above, the books of the Bible represent fiction, not Greco-Roman biography. 

Quote:
But I'll give you the chance, to actually explain your points, perhaps you can put you accusations of ignorance to the side. Because in the end, it's going to make you look dumb, not me. 

Pfft.   Like I really give a shit what you think about me?  You're a nobody who steals things from websites (wikipedia for Christ's sake!) after ostricizing me for citing an actual source for information.  You probably don't even realize you helped make my point!  The fact that topoi exist is exactly why the Gospels better represent novel fictions rather than Greco-Roman biographies.  If you had a clue as to how to interpret topoi, motifs, archetypes and tropes, you might have a fucking clue as to why no scholar (except perhaps people like you who are stupid enough to think that wikipedia is a good source to steal things from) familiar with literary-critical methods would claim the Gospels best represent Greco-Roman biography.  You're a damn joke.

If I catch you plagiarizing in the next post to me, you're on time out. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
theidiot;Perhaps it's time

theidiot;

Perhaps it's time were were introduced to a concept known as 'consistency'. Watch the opening segment of the following video, please:

 

...This is why if I were to say, 'The moon is actually Cybertron,' you could be 100% certain I was wrong. All of the evidence is consistent with the falsehood of that statement.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:History does make

 

Quote:
History does make some certain statements in regards to the state of the evidence.  One more, I pose you a second example: Julius Caesar was a man.  This is certain.  Do you want to try to tell me he was a woman in disguise too? 

Oh my God, I'm not going to even go through this shit with you anymore. I repeat again, history like science does not make claims of 100% certainty, all scientific and historical claim allow deviation. This is fucking basic logic, it shows how dumb you are that you can't fucking comprehend this.  History cannot claim 100% that Julius Caesar of Alexander was man, because 100% certainty does not allow deviation. But fuck it, we'll move on. 

Quote:
I'm sorry you are not aware that Bart Ehrman cites Talbert.[...]

Projection much?  Hmm, I recall you going on and on about Bart Ehrman's "Textbook" on the New Testament.  Problem is you were pwned on that and now have to find some way to deal with your embarrassment by trying to push it onto me.

Rook, do you suffer some sort of mental illness? Is this where your delusions come from? Did I go on and on about Bart Ehrman. I said I have never heard anyone claim that the gospels were not written in the style of Greco-Roman biography, I refereed to Ehrman's textbook as the last bit of material I read on the subject, that stated the same thing. Now, I have no idea what you're talking about you pwned me? You claimed that Ehrman is citing Talbert? When in fact he's not citing any authority, but rather he's comparing the gospel with other Greco-Roman biographies, such as those written by Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus. His claim is that people in antiquity would have read the Gospels as such. So, I have no clue, as to what I'm suppose to be embarrassed. 

I wasn't resorting to Ehrman as an appeal to authority. In fact I can see the Gospels as Greco-Roman biography by reading author Greco-Roman biographies as well, and see that they exhibit similar literary styles. 

Quote:
Only somebody completely unfamiliar with my research would make a claim like that. Here's a clue for you, why don't you read one of my articles before assuming you know something about me.  Here, you can check this out as well:

Read the paragraph again, did I claim that you use Doherty as a source? I didn't even use your name. What I said was, most mythicist get their information from individual like Earl Doherty. That doesn't mean they get their information from Earl Doherty, but individuals like him.  I could have easily just of said that most mythicist get there information from individuals such as Rook Hawkins, and made the same point. They run with quotes, without having a clue as to what their talking about. 

Quote:
Actually I have a 100% certainty that you don't know shit about literary and historical criticism.

Well, that's good you think that, but too bad you haven't shown that to be true. But go ahead, continue tooting your own horn, your content will reveal how knowledge you are and I'm not, so let's continue. 

Quote:
I'm talking about the books of Tobit, the books of Kings, Samuel, the prophets, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Maccabees, Ester, Esdras, 1-3 Enoch, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Isaiah, Testament of Moses, Baruch, Shepard of Hermes, and the many other numerous Jewish fiction genre books

This is even odder. I don't know how one could claim that the Gospels are written in the style of let's say the Maccabees. Now the Gospels share certain themes, such as notion of suffering and redemption with the Maccabees, but this is kind of no shit. It just goes to show the themes of the Gospel are grounded in certain strains of Judaism. Jesus as a Jew and the Gospel writers, are going to share a body of thought and influence with Judaism. But just because they share certain thematic elements, this doesn't mean they're written in the same style. Nor do these thematic elements negate that the gospels are written in the style of Greco-Roman biographies of religious figures. 

Quote:
Why not just read the scholars I recommended:

This is how you know someone doesn't have an argument. Do you really expect me to go out and spend over a $100 on books, and spend hours reading them, because you're ncapable of articulating a point? 

I doubt your fellow mythicist on this forum have read your book list. Are you incapable of arguing the relevant points yourself? If individuals look to you, and not those books as the source of their own position, they'd probably be quite uninformed wouldn't they, when you can't make the case yourself? 

You claim that literary-criticism reveals that the style of the gospels are more aligned with books such as the macabees than greco-roman biographies of religious figures. I asked you to make a case (or at least the beginnings of case) for this, not a reading list. If you actually knew how to apply the literary-criticism, it shouldn't be that hard to do this? 

Quote:
The fact that topoi exist is exactly why the Gospels better represent novel fictions rather than Greco-Roman biographies.  If you had a clue as to how to interpret topoi, motifs, archetypes and tropes, you might have a fucking clue as to why no scholar.

Uhm, no. Greco-Roman biographies also incorporate topoi, motifs, archetypes, etc. 

One of the fundamental difference between ancient and modern biographies, is that ancient biographers were less interested in showing what actually happened in the lives of there subjects than in portraying their essential character and personality traits.

In Plutrach's greco roman biography of Alexander he claims that he was a descendent from Hercules, and has a mythological birth. In fact in his introduction to the life of Alexander, he said that he desired to express the "souls of these men". The ancient historian is writing a narrative of their subject. 

Greco-roman biographies do contain fictional elements, right? They incorporate literary devices such as topoi right? So what's your fucking argument. 

Quote:
Pfft.   Like I really give a shit what you think about me?  You're a nobody who steals things from websites (wikipedia for Christ's sake!) after ostricizing me for citing an actual source for information. 

No my friend, what you do is provide a list of books, not even what is  in the books, but just a list of books, with the silly expectation that I read them. I would prefer that you provide uncited cut and pastes from the books, that elaborate your points, than expecting me to doll out over $100 bucks, and countless hours to read them.

And i really don't give a shit that I cited wikipedia for two quite simple points, or that I was too lazy to actually cite them. If you have a problem with what is being said, go ahead and argue it. Crying that it comes from wikipedia get's you nowhere, other than making you sound like a whiny bitch. You didn't provide information, you haven't made one single coherent argument. You make dumb claims that the Gospel are written in the style of the Maccabees, rather than claim the obvious, that they share certain thematic elements, particularly on redemption through suffering, and voluntary  suffering as the price of sin, but that's pretty much as far as it goes. 

Let's also move on to another point. 

The Gospels though deeply rooted in Judaism, is a drastic if not blasphemous re-visioning of it. Jesus claims that his purpose is to spread this radical revisioning, the Good news of the kingdom. He had a message, in fact we have the Gospel of Thomas, that contains no narrative account of the life of Jesus, but rather just sayings.  You have a message that exalts and empowers victimhood, and a communal table with the poor, sinners, and publicans. We have complex kingdom parables, we have the sermon of the mount, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile (a reference to the Roman law of Angaria), a love for one's enemy, and non-violence,  a radical revisioning of the law, etc. And most of narrative elements of the Gospel are an embodiment of this message. 

I'm an exegete, especially of the Gospels and the New Testament. I spend a great deal of time in this. And it's why i have an interest in history, because history helps to add depth and clarification in interpreting the message. One cannot really comprehend  the cross unless one understand it's context in history, as a Roman symbol of despair. 

When I read the gospels it seems obvious to me what's going on.

You have a message from a person of history, Jesus, and the Gospels are narrative of that message. In the same way that Plautrach writes of Alexander to express his souls, the Gospels are written to convey the meaning of the person and message of Jesus. There concern is to not to provide a literal history, to appease our modern sensibilities, but to convey what it all means. 

The Gospels are narratives based on the life of a Jewish religious figure, his message is found within it's pages. The writers of the Gospel take this message, and whatever pieces they know of his life, create mythologies out of the parts they don't know of like his birth, or the 30 years prior to his ministry, and use these elements in order to convey that message. This is the most probable scenario, that the Gospels are based on a historical person. 

But you claim to disagree? Please make an actual case as to why. Asking me to read books is not going to get you too far, in fact it seems more a less like an attempt to weasel your way out of debating me. If the book has something relevant to say, then provide quotes or summaries of the material you find relevant. But expecting to spend $20 on a book so I can argue your point for you, is ridiculous. 

I haven't had a chance yet to confront the definition of evidence, but I'm going to quote wikipedia for the definition and than provide "evidence"

"Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."


So here, I'll provide some evidence:


Greco-roman biographies are evidence for a historical person. 

 

Individuals who believe a figure to be an existing person is evidence for a historical person, particularly when they trace back to the first century.

 

Lack of individuals who did not believe the figure was an existing person, is evidence in favor of a historical person. 


The best explanation for the bulk of the teachings, and parables of the Gospels (as well as non-canonical Gospels, such as the saying Gospel) is one person, particularly when the teachings are not found anywhere else in Judaism, is evidence for a historical person. A coherent skeleton of thought found etched in every Gospel, even the non-canonical ones, is evidence of historical person. 


The unlikelihood that the Jewish community would create a fictional messiah, the lack of any evidence of any community who would, the fact that communities that would have benefited from a purely fictional messiah such as the gnostics who still claimed christ came in the appearance of human flesh rather than claiming that christ came in a purely fictional form, is evidence of a historical person proclaimed as the Messiah. 


The fact that a historical Jesus is the best explanation of all the material we have at hand, is evidence of a historical person. 


The fact that the all the material/evidence we have is exactly what we would expect on a historical Jesus, the fact that there is not single bit of credible piece of evidence to assume otherwise, is all evidence for a historical Jesus. 

Chew on that for a bit. 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Jesus as a Jew and the

Quote:
Jesus as a Jew and the Gospel writers, are going to share a body of thought and influence with Judaism. But just because they share certain thematic elements, this doesn't mean they're written in the same style. Nor do these thematic elements negate that the gospels are written in the style of Greco-Roman biographies of religious figures. 

Circular reasoning. If you're so fond of Wikipedia, try reading it's excellent articles on logical fallacies.

Quote:

And i really don't give a shit that I cited wikipedia

...Except you didn't 'cite' it. You didn't even mention it. You outright copy/paste plagiarized an article, portraying it as your own original arguments.

Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it is strong evidence that you don't even have the knowledge required for arguing your own case.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote: ...This is why if I

Quote:
 ...This is why if I were to say, 'The moon is actually Cybertron,' you could be 100% certain I was wrong. All of the evidence is consistent with the falsehood of that statement.

We can claim that we are a 100% certain of many things. But science and history cannot claim 100% certainty in anything, because all scientific and historical claims allow for deviation. 

I'll use a coin example again. If I claim that it's a 100% certain that no matter how many times a coin is slipped that it will land on heads, this allows no deviation. It's not possible for the coin to land on tails; it's not possible for the coin to land on anything but heads, that is what it means when we say a 100% certainty. A 100% certainty does not afford science and history to allow even a slim deviation. All historical and scientific claims allow deviation, there by all scientific and historical claims can never be afforded a 100% certainty. 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Circular reasoning.

Quote:
 Circular reasoning. If you're so fond of Wikipedia, try reading it's excellent articles on logical fallacies.

Uhm no, a claim that the worldview of the writers of the Gospel, and Jesus' could be understood within the context of second-temple Jewish worldview is not circular reasoning. Anymore so than my claiming that my own worldview, is influenced by the writing of many Christians writers and thinkers. Perhaps you can do a better job at pointing out the logical fallacy here? 

Quote:
..Except you didn't 'cite' it. You didn't even mention it. You outright copy/paste plagiarized an article, portraying it as your own original arguments.

I had meant to write was "used".

Oh well, I failed to cite a source for one fucking paragraph, what are you going to do suck my balls? You can pick on this shit all you want. Is someone going to report me to the plagiarism police? But to be honest, it wasn't intentional, but it annoys me that I'm dealing with a bunch of whinos, that I have no desire to justify myself.

Let's just move the fuck on. 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Are you 100% sure you are

Are you 100% sure you are certain. This is fucking silly. This is like saying nothing we can say is correct, and therefore not worth our investigation. Everyone simply makes statements of opinions. Do we need to post a disclaimer before we speak our minds ?

   Attention: I am merely human , so what I have to say is basically worthless ....

     This thread is a major disappointment .... WTF ???  

                            Did I miss something ?


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Quote:I've

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
I've taken on Jesus Mythicist for sometime, on other forums, but it's gotten boring recently

Thanks so much for bringing the boring to this one.

What I've learned from this thread so far:

- You are an argumentative ass.

- You have yet to use this all too common ability to actually argue anything that has substance.

- Rook is being far more patient than he should have to be.

We don't know w/ 100% certainty that our President is a man.

We could check his autobigraphy, but as you already mentioned, I'm sure that contains numerous "fictional elements".

So what?

Enough Semantics...Make an argument or take your dog and pony act to church...where boring is the baseline

 

 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Are you 100% sure

 

Quote:
Are you 100% sure you are certain. This is fucking silly. This is like saying nothing we can say is correct, and therefore not worth our investigation. Everyone simply makes statements of opinions. Do we need to post a disclaimer before we speak our minds ?

   Attention: I am merely human , so what I have to say is basically worthless ....

And not it isn't like saying nothing we say is correct. What its saying is that a correct statement in science, is the statement that is the most probable.

Hence, evolution is correct, because it's the most probable explanation of the evidence at hand. 

Since historical and scientific statements allow for deviation, all scientific and historical statements are less than 100% certain. You can go ahead and claim you're 100% certain about any thing, it's just that science doesn't claim that degree of certainty. 

Any claim that allows for deviation can not be 100% certain, all scientific and historical statement allow for deviation, therefore scientific and historical statement can not be stated as 100% certain. 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote:We don't know w/ 100%

 

Quote:
We don't know w/ 100% certainty that our President is a man.

We could check his autobiography, but as you already mentioned, I'm sure that contains numerous "fictional elements".

Here, let's shut all you fucking dumb assess up all at once. 

"2. Are scientific conclusions proven facts? 

No. Proven implies 100% certainty, and nothing in science is 100% certain. Science arrives at conclusions, and conclusions can be verified, but there’s no 100% guarantee. If a researcher’s conclusions are verified by other, independent or even skeptical researchers, then we start to think the conclusions are correct. But they are always subject to further, and better research. Science is always a work in progress. We don’t prove things; we find support for our claims. Science is a field of probabilities, not certainties. "

 http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~mofsowit/psy-handouts.PDF"  Is everybody fucking dumbfounded now? I can't believe i had to go over this a hundred times, something that even those with basic understanding of science should understand? Is the discussion on this matter over? Does anyone want to claim that there are things in science which are 100% certain? Or do we still have more retards? Does our buddy Rooky over here want to take back his assertion that science does claim 100% certainty? Or does he lack the balls and the humility to admit that he was wrong?   

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Death Dragoon
Bronze Member
Death Dragoon's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2008-07-24
User is offlineOffline
In science, isn't a Law 100

In science, isn't a Law 100 percent certain?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot

theidiot wrote:

 

Quote:
History does make some certain statements in regards to the state of the evidence.  One more, I pose you a second example: Julius Caesar was a man.  This is certain.  Do you want to try to tell me he was a woman in disguise too? 

Oh my God, I'm not going to even go through this shit with you anymore. I repeat again, history like science does not make claims of 100% certainty, all scientific and historical claim allow deviation. This is fucking basic logic, it shows how dumb you are that you can't fucking comprehend this.  History cannot claim 100% that Julius Caesar of Alexander was man, because 100% certainty does not allow deviation. But fuck it, we'll move on.

If you say it enough times maybe it will magically become true?  You completely dodged my point.  Are you going to now suggest that Julius Caesar was 100% certainly a man?  What about Cicero?  What about Cleopatra, was she possibly not a woman?  What about Ptolemy I?  Certainties do indeed exist in scientific and historical research.     

Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry you are not aware that Bart Ehrman cites Talbert.[...]

Projection much?  Hmm, I recall you going on and on about Bart Ehrman's "Textbook" on the New Testament.  Problem is you were pwned on that and now have to find some way to deal with your embarrassment by trying to push it onto me.

Rook, do you suffer some sort of mental illness?

No but you certainly do. 

Quote:
Is this where your delusions come from?

Projection!

Quote:
Did I go on and on about Bart Ehrman.

That's a question...not a statement.  Learn English.

Quote:
I said I have never heard anyone claim that the gospels were not written in the style of Greco-Roman biography, I refereed to Ehrman's textbook as the last bit of material I read on the subject, that stated the same thing. Now, I have no idea what you're talking about you pwned me? You claimed that Ehrman is citing Talbert? When in fact he's not citing any authority, but rather he's comparing the gospel with other Greco-Roman biographies, such as those written by Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus. His claim is that people in antiquity would have read the Gospels as such. So, I have no clue, as to what I'm suppose to be embarrassed.

Which "textbook" are you refering to?  Bart has several dozen books.  I know for a fact, however, that he cites Talbert as a source.  And Ehrman compares these pieces of literature because this is how Talbert shows this in his book. 

I would bring up several points of contention here.  Do you really follow that the Gospels are best defined as similar to the works of Tacitus and Suetonius?  I would have to wonder why, especially since the Gospels are pseudonymous, and all represent different types of literature.  And why would you agree with Ehrman that Plutarch's style and manner is similar to Mark's?  In what way? 

Quote:
I wasn't resorting to Ehrman as an appeal to authority.

Yes you were.  Don't back track now.

Quote:
In fact I can see the Gospels as Greco-Roman biography by reading author Greco-Roman biographies as well, and see that they exhibit similar literary styles.

Then explain where in Greco-Roman biography names function as eponymically as they do in the Gospels.  We'll start there.

Quote:
Quote:
Only somebody completely unfamiliar with my research would make a claim like that. Here's a clue for you, why don't you read one of my articles before assuming you know something about me.  Here, you can check this out as well:

Read the paragraph again, did I claim that you use Doherty as a source? I didn't even use your name. What I said was, most mythicist get their information from individual like Earl Doherty. That doesn't mean they get their information from Earl Doherty, but individuals like him.  I could have easily just of said that most mythicist get there information from individuals such as Rook Hawkins, and made the same point. They run with quotes, without having a clue as to what their talking about.

This would still be a hilariously ridiculous statement.  You don't know most mythicists, and I doubt you would find those in the scholarly field who would agree with your assessment of them.  Thomas L. Thompson certainly wouldn't.  I certainly don't.  But even if that were the case, it wouldn't matter.  Those who claim that a historical Jesus exist are guilty of this more than I am.  I would say every scholar I know who claims a historical Jesus is getting their information from a Bultmannian school of thought.  "There is nothing new under the sun," because its the same mistakes every time there is a historical Jesus quest. 

Quote:
Quote:
Actually I have a 100% certainty that you don't know shit about literary and historical criticism.

Well, that's good you think that, but too bad you haven't shown that to be true. But go ahead, continue tooting your own horn, your content will reveal how knowledge you are and I'm not, so let's continue.

Oh, I feel you've done the best job at exposing your ignorance in this conversation.  I only brought it to the attention of the reader.  The fact that you can't even cite a book correctly ("Ehrman's textbook" is not the correct way to cite a book, even lazily) and the fact that you use information from wikipedia proves to me you do not have a clue as to what constitutes knowledge of literary and historical criticism. 

Quote:
Quote:
I'm talking about the books of Tobit, the books of Kings, Samuel, the prophets, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Maccabees, Ester, Esdras, 1-3 Enoch, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Isaiah, Testament of Moses, Baruch, Shepard of Hermes, and the many other numerous Jewish fiction genre books

This is even odder. I don't know how one could claim that the Gospels are written in the style of let's say the Maccabees.

Apparently you aren't familiar with the Macabbees are the Gospels.

Quote:
Now the Gospels share certain themes, such as notion of suffering and redemption with the Maccabees, but this is kind of no shit. It just goes to show the themes of the Gospel are grounded in certain strains of Judaism. Jesus as a Jew and the Gospel writers, are going to share a body of thought and influence with Judaism.

Occam's razor suggests that you drop Jesus and leave it at "the Gospel writers."  You don't need Jesus to express the thoughts of the authors.  It is obvious that the authors had no trouble inserting words into the character of Jesus' mouth at will. 

But I would challenge you here to show me one statement and one event you feel comes directly from the so-called historical Jesus. 

Quote:
But just because they share certain thematic elements, this doesn't mean they're written in the same style.

Literary critics of the Bible such as Erich Gruen, Roland Boer, Philip R. Davies, and Thomas L. Thompson would disagree with you.  Especially since Macabbees 2, 3 & 4 are fictional narratives with no elements of historicity.  In both instances (with 3rd Macabbees in particular and the Gospels) there are clear eponymic functions with names (Aeschylus is used more times in Macabbees 3 than any other narrative, and with good reason because it draws in tropes and archetypes from Prometheus Bound), clear allusions to the books of Kings and Samuel are riddling the narrative of the Macabbee accounts as are other literary tropes found in the Hebrew Bible--just as they do in the Gospel narratives.  I suggest a thorough reading of Erich Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (1998).

Quote:
Nor do these thematic elements negate that the gospels are written in the style of Greco-Roman biographies of religious figures.

Actually they do.  What separates Greco-Roman biography from Greco-Roman fiction is precisely the thematic elements.  How they are used, how often they are used, and in particularly why they are used separates these two genre types.  The fact that you do not know this belays your ignorance of the subject matter.

Quote:
Quote:
Why not just read the scholars I recommended:

This is how you know someone doesn't have an argument. Do you really expect me to go out and spend over a $100 on books, and spend hours reading them, because you're ncapable of articulating a point?

Top somebody who hasn't a clue about methods and genre, I definitely expect you to read those books.  I expect it because so far you have assumed some role of authority here where clearly you have none.  You and I are not on equal levels here - you are severely lacking in an education on this subject.  I have read the arguments on both sides and understand the debate, you do not.  You assumed coming into this discussion (and continue to do so) that the Gospels represent Greco-Roman biographies (in fact in one instance you said they were Greco-Roman biographies - hilarity ensued I assure you).   This is not the position of somebody who grasps the current trends of scholarship on this matter. 

So yes, I demand you read these books, in fact, before we have any serious conversation on the subject.  Spend a few days at the library if you must.  Otherwise you'll continue to make yourself look silly.  We wouldn't want to have that.

Quote:
I doubt your fellow mythicist on this forum have read your book list. Are you incapable of arguing the relevant points yourself?

Of course not.  That is why I'm writing a book and editing a collection of scholarly essays on this subject.  I just don't think you would understand a think I said on the matter without having some knowledge as to the current trends of scholarship. 

What is your problem anyway?  Are you too proud to read?  I'm offering you a gateway to knowledge and you are acting as if I handed you back your fathers head on a pike.

Quote:
If individuals look to you, and not those books as the source of their own position, they'd probably be quite uninformed wouldn't they, when you can't make the case yourself?

I have made the case in my blog quite thoroughly.  But this is what I had feared from the get-go.  You do not read things - you just assume them.  No wonder you won't give me a reference to Bart Ehrman's book - because you haven't read enough of it to know for sure I'm not right in my assessment of his use of Talbert.  I, on the other hand, have read all of Bart's books.  I'm quite familiar with his sources. 

Quote:
You claim that literary-criticism reveals that the style of the gospels are more aligned with books such as the macabees

No, I said they are representative of a tradition of fiction writing that started (for the Jews) during the Persian Period and continued through to the end of the Second Sophistic.  This includes Macabbees 2, 3 & 4 , but is not limited to them.  The Gospels are much more related to Tobit, the stories of Daniel, the Testament of Abraham, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul, 1 Enoch and many other apocrypha which are nothing but novelistic creations of scribes who purposefully created plot and narrative to form their own eponymous stories.

Quote:
than greco-roman biographies of religious figures. I asked you to make a case (or at least the beginnings of case) for this, not a reading list. If you actually knew how to apply the literary-criticism, it shouldn't be that hard to do this?

You have yet to show me how the Greco-Roman biography best fits the Gospels as their genre.  Remember?  I told you to go first in the second post.  You then went on a tirade, 9 posts in finally you brought up Bart Ehrman (briefly).  I suggested that using Bart Ehrman was not useful to this discussion because of his sources, then you replied with non-sequitor and ad hom.  So far, I have not seen any argument with which to respond to.  Would you finally like to provide an argument so we can get to the point without you whining for hours?

Quote:
Quote:
The fact that topoi exist is exactly why the Gospels better represent novel fictions rather than Greco-Roman biographies.  If you had a clue as to how to interpret topoi, motifs, archetypes and tropes, you might have a fucking clue as to why no scholar.

Uhm, no. Greco-Roman biographies also incorporate topoi, motifs, archetypes, etc.

Again, it is in the manner they are employed and why which separates the two genre types. 

Quote:
One of the fundamental difference between ancient and modern biographies, is that ancient biographers were less interested in showing what actually happened in the lives of there subjects than in portraying their essential character and personality traits.

Well by that logic, the Gospel authors were writing about Moses and David, not about Jesus.  The character and personality traits exhibited in Jesus in the Gospels are of none-other than characters from the Hebrew Bible.  Although, Dennis R. MacDonald (one of those pesky sources I cite that you won't read) suggests that Mark was also using Homer as a model (not just the Hebrew Bible, which almost every critical scholar admits to), and often Mark will use narrative to enforce the idea that Jesus is Odysseus, sometimes that Jesus is better than Odysseus. 

What you fail to realize, my little nimrod, is that the authors of the Gospel were not reciting stories about a person, they were organizing narrative using literary models to create these character personalities and traits.  A biographer would not do this in the same manner that the Gospel authors would. 

Take Plutarch's "biography" of Alexander the Great.  First, we know who the author is of the biography.  Second, although there are obvious topoi in the story (Alexander being from the line of Hercules, for example) Plutarch still cites his sources.  He makes sure to include where he is getting at least some of his information.  Third, Plutarch does not engage in narrative; although he does often elaborate on speeches, there are no signs the same sort of plot creation that we would see in Josephus' creation of the Alexander the Greats march on Israel (a complete fabrication) - who, by the way, also created a High Priest who never existed in real life but ended up in his Histories none-the-less. 

In the Gospels, what we have is exactly the opposite of what you would expect from somebody writing a biography.  The authors are never named, they copy off each other (Matthew copies Mark, Luke copies from Mark and Matthew, and John copies from all three) yet they never cite each other - even when there is philological evidence, clear evidence where Luke copies from Matthew, Luke never cites his sources.  Additionally, where Luke takes from Josephus, for example in Acts where he mentions the three sages, or where he uses a clear parallel to Moses ascension in Josephus' Antiquities, or where he incorporates themes from him concerning the heavens, etc...he never cites Josephus.  Why?  Because the intent behind the crafting of the Gospels is such that the authors are using these sources as models to explain a story.  Additionally, where Luke and Matthew and John take from each other, they alter it in ways which reflect not the character and personality traits of Jesus but their own story line and narrative to the point where they purposefully contradict each other.   I suggest you start reading my blog for more details. 

Quote:
In Plutrach's greco roman biography of Alexander he claims that he was a descendent from Hercules, and has a mythological birth. In fact in his introduction to the life of Alexander, he said that he desired to express the "souls of these men". The ancient historian is writing a narrative of their subject.

Read above.  Just because the story encompasses mythology, like the Gospels, does not mean that the mythology is used the same way between them.  For example, the mention of Hercules in the story of Alexander along with the mythological birth are representative of divine relationships yes.  But in the Gospels, the Matthew account is more than just a mention but a narrative reflexive of the traditions of Isaac.  Matthew also organizes his narrative with a promise: That Jesus would be the new Immanuel.  At the end of the narrative Jesus is the new Immanuel, and the whole narrative reflects this.  It's a novel.  It has a beginning, a climax, and an end.  Where does Alexander's biography by Plutarch have these traits?  Where is the allusion and model use by Plutarch?  

Quote:
Greco-roman biographies do contain fictional elements, right? They incorporate literary devices such as topoi right? So what's your fucking argument.

Incorporating some fictional elements and some literary devices are not the same thing as being completely comprised of them.  The Gospels are complete fabrications.  Again, if you wish to challenge this position, give me one saying and one event that you think came from a historical Jesus.

Quote:
And i really don't give a shit that I cited wikipedia for two quite simple points,

You didn't cite them.  You plagiarized them.  Loser.

Quote:
or that I was too lazy to actually cite them.

It's called plagiarism.  You can be put in jail for that.  Expelled from a university.  You're educated?  Yeah, okay.

Quote:
If you have a problem with what is being said, go ahead and argue it. Crying that it comes from wikipedia get's you nowhere, other than making you sound like a whiny bitch.

Projection again.  Who spent 7 posts complaining?  It wasn't me.  Want me to quote you back all the sniveling little remarks you made?  Let's not play the game of "Who cries like a bitch more".  Trust me, you won't win.

Quote:
You didn't provide information, you haven't made one single coherent argument.

Projection, projection, projection.

Quote:
You make dumb claims that the Gospel are written in the style of the Maccabees, rather than claim the obvious, that they share certain thematic elements, particularly on redemption through suffering, and voluntary  suffering as the price of sin, but that's pretty much as far as it goes.

This coming from somebody who is too lazy to know the difference between citation and plagiarism.  Get a grip.  The rest of us are back here in reality.  Come join us.


Quote:
The Gospels though deeply rooted in Judaism, is a drastic if not blasphemous re-visioning of it.

How so?  Blasphemy implies orthodoxy.  Are you suggesting there was an Orthodox Judaism in antiquity?  Funny, because no Jewish scholar from Feldman to Barclay would agree with that statement.

Quote:
Jesus claims that his purpose is to spread this radical revisioning, the Good news of the kingdom.

So did Isaiah, David, and Daniel.

Quote:
He had a message, in fact we have the Gospel of Thomas, that contains no narrative account of the life of Jesus, but rather just sayings.

We have the same thing with Job.  By the way, there is a scene in Thomas, line 24:

"His disciples said, 'Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it.'"

Certainly an interesting statement if Jesus was right there.  We have narratives where Jesus is speaking from an ascended perspective, called the Sophia of Jesus Christ, which is nothing but a rewritten Christianized copy of Eugostos the Blessed.  Does that make it any more real?  Don't be naive.  The Gospel of Thomas represents a type of narrative going back to the times of Sumeria.  The fact that the Gospel of Thomas exists is not evidence of a historical Jesus but rather evidence of human ability to take a narrative and recreate it.  Why the hell do you think there are conflicting accounts?  It isn't because the authors were illiterate or uneducated followers.  I'll give you one guess.

Quote:
  You have a message that exalts and empowers victimhood, and a communal table with the poor, sinners, and publicans.

This comes right from the Psalms.

Quote:
We have complex kingdom parables,

Taken right from David and the Psalms.

Quote:
we have the sermon of the mount,

Taken from the Torah.  Not to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls have a similar set of beatitudes, also taken from the Torah. 

Quote:
turn the other cheek,

A reference in Matthew to when Zedekiah struck Micaiah on the cheek during questioning.  Matthew makes this reference implicit as an allusion to Jesus' trial where he is struck, and demanded to answer a question about God and his kingdom (as in 1 Kings 22:24-28). 

Quote:
go the extra mile (a reference to the Roman law of Angaria), a love for one's enemy, and non-violence,  a radical revisioning of the law, etc. And most of narrative elements of the Gospel are an embodiment of this message.

Which oddly enough all stem from scripture, which, by the way, the Gospel authors all let us know about.  Matthew in particular, and Luke, "go the extra mile" to tell us how to interpret the narrative through models.  See Chapter 1 of my online book-in-progress here.

Quote:
I'm an exegete, especially of the Gospels and the New Testament. I spend a great deal of time in this.

Sure you do.  And I'm the Pope.  Reading Ehrman and Wikipedia do not educated make you.

Quote:
And it's why i have an interest in history, because history helps to add depth and clarification in interpreting the message. One cannot really comprehend  the cross unless one understand it's context in history, as a Roman symbol of despair.

And yet you're so deluded about its interpretation that you will run circles around yourself.  So far you have not shown to me you have an understanding of historical or literary methods, nor an understanding of the Gospels, nor do you know the difference between Greco-Roman biography and Jewish fiction novel.  If you're an exegate, you're an exegate in idiocy, as your name implies.  But don't worry, there is a cure.  It's called reading books.  I suggest you start with the list I gave you. 

Quote:
When I read the gospels it seems obvious to me what's going on.

Sure, when you delude yourself, even the most far-off conclusions seem obvious realities.

Quote:
You have a message from a person of history, Jesus, and the Gospels are narrative of that message.

No, the Gospels are a narrative of the message of the Patriarchs of the Hebrew Bible.  Rewritten tradition, a common tradition in Judaism, actually. 

Quote:
In the same way that Plautrach writes of Alexander to express his souls, the Gospels are written to convey the meaning of the person and message of Jesus.

No, they don't.  They are completely separate genres who use narrative differently.

Quote:
There concern is to not to provide a literal history, to appease our modern sensibilities, but to convey what it all means.

Agreed.  You don't need a historical Jesus (by the way, Jesus is an eponymous name) to have a story about how "Yahweh Saves". 

Quote:
The Gospels are narratives based on the life of a Jewish religious figure,

Stop claiming it.  Prove it.  Show me the evidence.

Quote:
his message is found within it's pages.

Prove it.

Quote:
The writers of the Gospel take this message, and whatever pieces they know of his life, create mythologies out of the parts they don't know of like his birth, or the 30 years prior to his ministry, and use these elements in order to convey that message.

Prove it.

Quote:
This is the most probable scenario, that the Gospels are based on a historical person.

No it isn't.  You have not proven this.  Here is the thing, idiot; even if the Gospels were Greco-Roman biographies, that does not prove the historicity of the figure of Jesus.  It only proves the genre of the Gospels.  But, you have not proven to me or anybody using any criteria at all that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biography.  You gave one shitty example of what you took as a parallel between the two, and ran with that.  You are making a lot of claims without backing up a single one. 

So far you've appealed to emotion but given no evidence.

 


Quote:
So here, I'll provide some evidence:

Oh joy!


Quote:
Greco-roman biographies are evidence for a historical person.

 

So Romulus and Remus were historical?  Orpheus was historical?  Both are mentioned in biographers accounts.  So was Aeneas.  Was he historical?  The events of Troy and the sailing of the Argonautika and the Amazons in the east are documented on a stele from the Hellenistic period which claims that these events are historical and datable.  Are they?  You're delusional if you think Greco-Roman biographies are evidence of a historical person.


Quote:
Individuals who believe a figure to be an existing person is evidence for a historical person, particularly when they trace back to the first century.


Say what?  So if individuals believed in the existence of Holding from Catcher in the Rye, somebody two thousand years ago can claim that their belief in this person proives his historical existence?  Belief does not equal fact, idiot.  Scholars in the Hellenistic age thought that Orpheus and Dionysus existed as historical people too.  They believed that Telemachus really traveled all over at the behest of Mentor.  That does not make these events true simply because people believed in them.

 

Quote:
Lack of individuals who did not believe the figure was an existing person, is evidence in favor of a historical person.

 

You're a loon, that's what you are.  I hope everyone reading this can see how illogical that statement was.  Lack of individuals in antiquity didn't deny the existence of Dionysus, or Orpheus, or Zagreus, or Osirius, or Serapis, even when Serapis was created by a Hellenistic king (Ptolemy) to unite Greece and Egypt, people still believed in him as a real historical entity!  EARTH CALLING IDIOT!  ARE YOU THERE, IDIOT?


Quote:
The best explanation for the bulk of the teachings, and parables of the Gospels (as well as non-canonical Gospels, such as the saying Gospel) is one person,

 

No, the best explanation is that the events and sayings in the Gospels, as well as the noncanonical Gospels and Jewish literature from the period, all reflect a tradition of rewriting. 


Wait, where is all this evidence you're supposed to offer?  So far you're making a lot of illogical statements, but have not presented evidence!

 

Quote:
particularly when the teachings are not found anywhere else in Judaism,

 

What are you going on about?  These "teachings" are directly from Judaism!  Have you gone completely mental?  Exqueeze me?  Baking powder?

 

Quote:
is evidence for a historical person.

 

No its not.  How do you make such drastic jumps in logic that defy all reason?  Even IF everything you said were true (which is the exact opposite of the case), that does not negate human creativity.  Homer created a whole war from scratch.  The authors of Exodus-Joshua created a whole exile and conquest that never happened, with people who never lived historically.  You just WISH that this were evidence of Jesus.

 

At this point I'm done with this.  You've wasted too much of my time, presented no argument, no evidence, and are a disgrace to human life.  

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:We can claim that we

Quote:
We can claim that we are a 100% certain of many things. But science and history cannot claim 100% certainty in anything,

This statement is internally inconsistent. 'Science' means 'knowledge', 'to know'. If we can claim to know things with 100% certainty, that's science recognizing 100% certainty.

Science is not just some arbitrary label.

Quote:
Perhaps you can do a better job at pointing out the logical fallacy here?

Your claim: Jesus being Jewish(a) explains the Judaic influences present in the gospel writings(b).

(a) implies (b)

You presuppose (a)

Therefore, (b) is accurate.

 

This is begging the question, otherwise known as circular reasoning.

Quote:

Oh well, I failed to cite a source for one fucking paragraph, what are you going to do suck my balls? You can pick on this shit all you want. Is someone going to report me to the plagiarism police? But to be honest, it wasn't intentional, but it annoys me that I'm dealing with a bunch of whinos, that I have no desire to justify myself.

...I already did what I intended to do. Pointed-out your misuse of the term 'cited', pointed-out that you were being intellectually dishonest and pointed-out that this strongly implies that you really have no knowledge of your own concerning the subject at hand.

'One fucking paragraph' that Rook was able to dig-up, sure. But this evidence now throws your entire argument into question - how much plagiarism have you engaged-in above that has gone unnoticed?

And don't lie. It certainly was intentional; it's not like you can copy/paste another author's work by accident.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Here, let's

theidiot wrote:
Here, let's shut all you fucking dumb assess up all at once.

Warning: This violates 2.1. Antagonism in the forum rules.  This is your last warning.  We've been more than patient with you, especially concerning how you treat people on this board.  Continue to violate this, and you'll be gone from this message board.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote: Quote:Are

theidiot wrote:

 

Quote:
Are you 100% sure you are certain. This is fucking silly. This is like saying nothing we can say is correct, and therefore not worth our investigation. Everyone simply makes statements of opinions. Do we need to post a disclaimer before we speak our minds ?

   Attention: I am merely human , so what I have to say is basically worthless ....

And not it isn't like saying nothing we say is correct. What its saying is that a correct statement in science, is the statement that is the most probable.

Hence, evolution is correct, because it's the most probable explanation of the evidence at hand. 

Since historical and scientific statements allow for deviation, all scientific and historical statements are less than 100% certain. You can go ahead and claim you're 100% certain about any thing, it's just that science doesn't claim that degree of certainty. 

Any claim that allows for deviation can not be 100% certain, all scientific and historical statement allow for deviation, therefore scientific and historical statement can not be stated as 100% certain. 

 

And so say nothing ? You are a nihilist ?


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
The argument seems to circle

The argument seems to circle around semantics. A lot of this argument would come to an end if both sides made it clear what they mean by certain terms.

Proof can be understood in a deductive and inductive sense and both senses are founded upon certain axioms or propositions. For example: assuming nonsolipsism, A -> B; ~B; ~A. That is an oversimplification of the falsification process in science, which is considered a proof of falsity in the deductive sense, so long as one accepts the axioms and founding propositions. Another example, in the inductive sense, concerns endogenous retrovirus genetic material in the DNA of all life forms. The perspective that does not include common evolutionary descent leads to the matching genetic material being considered so mathematically improbable, especially in comparison to the common evolutionary descent view, that one may as well call it proven wrong and common descent proven true. In other words, our confidence in the one grew so low while the other grew so high that we concluded, from the balance of evidence, that one is true and the other is not. This is a proof in the inductive sense of the word.

I say all this because there seems to be much confusion over the term certainty. This word can also be used in two senses. One is in the deductive sense. This is how theidiot seems to use the word. The other sense is the psychological or inductive sense, which is how Rook uses the word. In a sense, you are both correct, when your statements are interpreted properly. In the psychological or inductive sense, it is 100% certain that Alexander the Great was a male. In the deductive sense, it is not 100% certain. All of it hinges on the meaning one attributes to the word certain. As Rook said earlier, certainty and absoluteness are not necessarily one and the same. He is correct. Certainty can exist for tentative or marginally-uncertain propositionsis, depending on how one uses the word certain.

As I said, the argument here seems to circle around semantics. You two are simply wasting eachother's time and running down eachother's patience in continuing that form of argumentation. Move on, please.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I doubt your fellow

Quote:
I doubt your fellow mythicist on this forum

I am not a 'Jesus mythicist' any more than I am a 'Darwinist' or 'Evolutionist'; I'm a skeptic.

'Jesus existed!' is a positive claim. If you wish to make that claim, the burden of proof lies with you. If I want to say, 'Megatron existed!' I imagine you'd ask the same of me; it's no use crying and whining that classical history is so murky - if a claim isn't falsifiable, it can never be accepted as fact. It doesn't make your case stronger, somehow, that evidence for much of anything in times of antiquity is so lacking.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:If you

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

If you say it enough times maybe it will magically become true?  You completely dodged my point.  Are you going to now suggest that Julius Caesar was 100% certainly a man?  What about Cicero?  What about Cleopatra, was she possibly not a woman?  What about Ptolemy I?  Certainties do indeed exist in scientific and historical research.    

 

History does not claim 100% certainty, regardless for Julius Caesar being a man, or Alexander. You can believe with 100% certainty that Caesar man, but history will not make such a claim with 100% certainty. 


But I wanted to confront this real quick, since I just dealt with it in a reply to someone else.

You claimed that 100% certainty exist in science. But here:

 

"2. Are scientific conclusions proven facts? 

No. Proven implies 100% certainty, and nothing in science is 100% certain. Science arrives at conclusions, and conclusions can be verified, but there’s no 100% guarantee. If a researcher’s conclusions are verified by other, independent or even skeptical researchers, then we start to think the conclusions are correct. But they are always subject to further, and better research. Science is always a work in progress. We don’t prove things; we find support for our claims. Science is a field of probabilities, not certainties. "

 http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~mofsowit/psy-handouts.PDF"  

 

Are we done yet  on this point? Any questions? are you still going to argue this point?

 It's 4am, I'm going to bed, I'll respond to your silly argument, and we can start to see why the Jesus Mythicist belong to a fringe. 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
theidiot is so smart, he has

theidiot is so smart, he has said nothing .... that's so cleaver, and worthless .... this is actually getting fun now .... a post of nothing  

My goof, that's worth something  


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:But I wanted to

Quote:
But I wanted to confront this real quick, since I just dealt with it in a reply to someone else.

You claimed that 100% certainty exist in science. But here:

 

"2. Are scientific conclusions proven facts? 

No. Proven implies 100% certainty, and nothing in science is 100% certain. Science arrives at conclusions, and conclusions can be verified, but there’s no 100% guarantee. If a researcher’s conclusions are verified by other, independent or even skeptical researchers, then we start to think the conclusions are correct. But they are always subject to further, and better research. Science is always a work in progress. We don’t prove things; we find support for our claims. Science is a field of probabilities, not certainties. "

 http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~mofsowit/psy-handouts.PDF"  

Ah, excellent. The twisting of the scientific method and it's veracity to be equated with human and mechanical fallibility, translating 'theory' into 'uncertainty' and, in the words of PotHoler, reducing science to nothing more than a barrel load of ideas.

Such a wonderful service people of your caliber do for rational discourse.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
One for the idiot, I am 100%

One for the idiot, I am 100% certain I am god. Got a beef with that ? 

I am 100% certain of many things , as I am what I am. Did jesus exist? If I must pick the religious bible one of a higher perfection above me , NO.

I am 100% positive. I cant lie to myself .... I am certain. I am the christ, as you !

     Yet there is lots to debate .... what was Jesus ? What are we, what are you , what am I ?  

     I am 100% certain my words confuse and my history will be distorted, ignored, forgot, but not 100%    I am important, and significant , I am god  , I am what IS ....  are you ? 

    Crazy Babel Games , get it on ....

                       

    

      


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Rook_Hawkins

theidiot wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

If you say it enough times maybe it will magically become true?  You completely dodged my point.  Are you going to now suggest that Julius Caesar was 100% certainly a man?  What about Cicero?  What about Cleopatra, was she possibly not a woman?  What about Ptolemy I?  Certainties do indeed exist in scientific and historical research.    

 

History does not claim 100% certainty, regardless for Julius Caesar being a man, or Alexander. You can believe with 100% certainty that Caesar man, but history will not make such a claim with 100% certainty. 


But I wanted to confront this real quick, since I just dealt with it in a reply to someone else.

You claimed that 100% certainty exist in science. But here:

 

"2. Are scientific conclusions proven facts? 

No. Proven implies 100% certainty, and nothing in science is 100% certain. Science arrives at conclusions, and conclusions can be verified, but there’s no 100% guarantee. If a researcher’s conclusions are verified by other, independent or even skeptical researchers, then we start to think the conclusions are correct. But they are always subject to further, and better research. Science is always a work in progress. We don’t prove things; we find support for our claims. Science is a field of probabilities, not certainties. "

 http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~mofsowit/psy-handouts.PDF"  

 

Are we done yet  on this point? Any questions? are you still going to argue this point?

 It's 4am, I'm going to bed, I'll respond to your silly argument, and we can start to see why the Jesus Mythicist belong to a fringe. 

 

 

I'd just like to point out that you're quoting a handout from an introductory class in psychology to make your point.  There are many ways that the many fields encompassed in the broad term of "science" can be described, and your argument that "nothing can be known with 100% certainty" is more an argument of philosphy or semantics than relating to your apparent disagreements with Rook.


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'd just like to point

Quote:
I'd just like to point out that you're quoting a handout from an introductory class in psychology to make your point.  There are many ways that the many fields encompassed in the broad term of "science" can be described, and your argument that "nothing can be known with 100% certainty" is more an argument of philosphy or semantics than relating to your apparent disagreements with Rook.

All historical, and scientific claims allow for deviation, only claims that don't allow for deviation can be labelled as 100% certain. I'd wager that any actual scientist on this forum, can back this up, and I'm sure there's a few of them.

From Talkorigins: "In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. "

 

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

 

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of ConflictReligion and Science, 1953.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

 

It looks individuals here have a hard time admitting that they are wrong. 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
At present, the only thing

At present, the only thing I'm certain of is that you have yet to bring up an argument for the probability of there being a historical Jesus.

All I've seen from you are excuses about why you can't.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
All he/she/it is doing is

All he/she/it is doing is pushing a tangent for this entire thread instead of addressing the issue - which is annoying. Shit or get off the pot.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:All

MattShizzle wrote:

All he/she/it is doing is pushing a tangent for this entire thread instead of addressing the issue - which is annoying. Shit or get off the pot.

I agree.  I was really looking forward to this thread when I first saw it, but rather than a discussion on history and what it actually displays all we've had are a handful of naked assertions from theidiot and a whole lot of arguing as to whether anything can be 100%.  He is yet to prove any of his grand claims of scholarly knowledge as despite a few peoples attempts to bring this discussion back to where it was originally proposed to be he's kept it off on the tangent the whole time.  This tangent doesn't have anything to do with the original topic of whether jesus is history or myth, it doesn't help either sides argument against the other.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
"I SHALL MAKE YOU SEEM

"I SHALL MAKE YOU SEEM DUMBER THAN ME BY USING LOTS OF BIG WORDS AND BELITTLING YOU!!" Compensating for the lack of something??

It's kind of funny. You can tell when he/she/it is cutting and pasting, the mis-use of then and than and the f-bombs stop.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
 Unwittingly, theidiot has

 

Unwittingly, theidiot has contributed to the nonexistence side of the jesus argument.

If what he says is true in that even with proven evidence of  historical personages it is not 100% certain that the personage actually existed, then the case for jesus' nonexistence is even more puissant because there is NO evidence of the jesus character. None, zero.

There are no coins, no paintings, no statues, no buildings, no witnesses, no personal writings, no remnants of a cross, no cave where the supposed body was lain, no crown of thorns, no plates - cups - utensils - or cook wear from the so called last super, no written accounts of any writer who lived while this jesus character lived, no remnants of the boat he boarded when supposedly walking on water, no clothing, no lock of hair, no hand print, no foot print, no pottery, no cross, not even the location of the supposed crucifixion, etc, etc ...NOTHING!

 Such a great and awe inspiring individual with a following and having fed 5000 people with a loaf of bread and loved by apostles, a god no less, would have had at least ONE groupie that would have hoarded something he touched. No, not even his disciples thought it was worth it to keep something of their beloved teacher. After the jesus character rose and disappeared, everyone just shrugged and went away never to be heard from again. This smacks of fiction!

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


netjaeger
netjaeger's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-05
User is offlineOffline
small note, plz

Good eve, I hope you are well.

I also hope you don't mind small introjection.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You claimed that 100% certainty exist in science. But here:

"2. Are scientific conclusions proven facts? 

No. Proven implies 100% certainty, and nothing in science is 100% certain. Science arrives at conclusions, and conclusions can be verified, but there’s no 100% guarantee.

 

Noting that for positive stuff the above holds.

We can, however, toss out the garbage.

E.g. While the 'TRUTH' may end up being a closer and closer approximation, the garbage may be tossed out with certainty on more than one occasion.

tq

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
aiia pounds another nail ...

aiia pounds another nail ... how many more nails will it take? How can we contain a ghost !? 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Quote:Is

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Quote:
Is there a possibility that Alexander was not a man? Even if it's a highly unlikely possibility, is there still a possibility? Is there room for deviation? 

Do you understand that when you claim a 100% certainty that Alexander was a man, that this means there is no possibility that he wasn't a man? This is basic logic Rook, even a fifth grader can comprehend. It's a logical contradiction to claim a hundred percent certainty in X being true, and yet claim there is a possibility that X may not be true. 

Let's teach you something that any unbeliever on this forum with a science background here can validate. In science (just like in history) there always has to be at least a very slim chance of deviation, therefore science and history cannot make claims of 100% certainty. Do you comprehend this point yet? Perhaps you should seek the guidance of individuals here with a science background, if you still fail to grasp this point? 

I'll continue with this point, until you get it. But here I'll move on a bit as well.

Why do you insist on deviating from the original point you had?  Where is your argument for a historical Jesus?  I have no problems accepting the definite fact that Alexander was a man.  Do you really think he wasn't?  If not, I see no value to you hounding the point that the possibility exists he was a she.  Sure, and you might be the opposite sex too, in some other universe.  We're in reality here.  Perhaps you should bring yourself back to it.  There is no reason at all to assume that Alexander was anything but male. 

You can speculate all you want, but the evidence for such a position does not exist.  You can claim that by speculating you are being critical, and to a lesser person (such as yourself, obviously) that may seem like a logical position.  But to somebody who knows something about how the historical evidence is interpreted, you look foolish.  There are billions of things we can speculate on, that does not mean that they are possibilities (certainly not probabilities - which you seem to think is the same thing as a possibility.  Get a dictionary for the difference between probability and possibility).  Real historical research doesn't work this way.  We let the evidence determine the perspective, we don't speculate on the vast possibilities of "what if", we examine the data and determine the best answer from what the evidence provides as possibilities.  The evidence does not allow for the possibility of Alexander being a woman.

But fine, if you WISH to continue pressing this.  We are 100% certain Julius Caesar was a man.  There is a 2nd example of a historical certainty.  Now can you PLEASE provide an argument for the original point.

Hi Rook, I don't want to detour the thread, but I thought it might be helpful for you in the future if this point was clarified.

It appears to me there are two points of view, each talking past the other. First, there is your view that if all the evidence points to X, then it is fair to call X a 100% certainty. Second, there is the statistical view that nothing empirical can strictly be claimed to be 100% certain, for there is always the possibility that future evidence may change things.

The point I would make to you is that while it is true that all evidence points to X, you will avoid a lot of misunderstanding if you avoid using '100%' to describe that level of 'certainty'. Ultimately, historical methods will rely on statistics, so sticking with statistical concepts will guard you from detours (such as the detour in the beginning of this thread) arguing over what 'certainty' means. In empirical studies, such as historical methods, using 100% would mean there's no possibility of ever finding contradictory evidence. The only time this could be the case is in the case of a logical impossibility, such as the possibility of finding a swan that is both completely white and completely black at the same time. It is 100% certain that we will never find such a swan.

However, if we are talking about the ordinary case, then we should avoid using '100%'. For example, if we find 100,000,000 white swans, we 'have no reason to think that there are black swans', but it would strictly be wrong to claim that it is 100% certain that the next swan we find (assuming there are more to be found) will be white.

In statistics there is the concept of a population vs. a sample. When you have the whole population (all possible evidence), then it is fair to talk about that population with levels of 100% certainty. For example, if there are only 100 swans in existence, and you have all 100 of them, then you could claim that 100% of the swans are white. But in nearly all practical cases, we don't have access to the entire population, only a sample from the population. E.g. We have 100 out of an estimated 1 million swans. In this case, we can only strictly make claims of less than 100% certainty.

So, while all the evidence we have points to X, we don't have all the possible evidence. There is still more evidence that may be found. We can only use sample-based statistics, not population-based statistics. Therefore, it is strictly wrong, from a statistical point of view, to claim with 100% certainty that X is true. E.g. it is strictly wrong from a statistical point of view to claim that it is 100% certain that Alexander the Great was a male, even though 100% of the evidence collected (so far!) points to him being male.

On the other hand, it is fair to say that it is 'certain' that AtG is a male if we do not use the statistical interpretation of 'certain', and instead mean 'with great confidence', such as 99.999% probable. In many statistical studies, the level of confidence is chosen at 95%, and I think in historical methods, this would probably be a very strong confidence level. In such cases, you might informally call a fact 'certain' if it meets this confidence criterion. Personally, I think the case for the non-historicity of Jesus is much better than 95%, as my own lay estimate. So, I think in this case it would be fair to informally claim that it is 'certain' that Jesus was not historical.

However, I still think that in the future it would be in your best interest not to use claims of '100%', especially because ultimately to support your research you must rely on statistical methods, which can never make claims of 100% certainty (unless they have the entire population of data, which is extremely rare).

Sorry for the long belaboured post. I just wanted to be very clear on what I'm saying.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
No, Natural, this is just a

No, Natural, this is just a dodge from idiot.  Romans would take plaster masks of Emperors (so future generations would have a mold - sculptors would use these molds at times to produce busts) and we have Caesar's own writings, we have contemporary enemy attestation (Cicero) to who he was.  We know for a fact that Caesar was a man.  There is absolutely no doubt to this.  This is 100% certainty.  It is only irrational thinking that would spawn the idea that there can be no 100% certainty.  We live in a finite world that is testable and observable.  We have and still can make certain observations about things.  The world is spherical - 100% certainty.  The earth revolves around the sun - 100% certainty.  The chemical properties of fire - 100% certain.

We don't have to play this silly game of his, which will only muddle the discussion and distract the issue. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
He needs to shut the fuck up

He needs to shut the fuck up about this non-issue and bring up what the thread was actually supposed to be about and now on the second page?? I was starting to think maybe he was banned but I guess maybe he's been too butthurt to come back.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:No,

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

No, Natural, this is just a dodge from idiot.

I don't doubt it, and it's not relevant to the point I'm making.

Quote:
  Romans would take plaster masks of Emperors (so future generations would have a mold - sculptors would use these molds at times to produce busts) and we have Caesar's own writings, we have contemporary enemy attestation (Cicero) to who he was.  We know for a fact that Caesar was a man.  There is absolutely no doubt to this.  This is 100% certainty.

Only if by '100%' you mean 'rounded up from 99.999...%'. I'm talking about the methodology of statistics. In these kinds of statistical claims, it is not possible to claim exactly 100% certainty. Since historical scholarship relies on empirical statistics, you cannot claim exactly 100% certainty. Sorry, you just can't. But hey, it's up to you. I'm just saying that this kind of claim is going to lead you down many detours.

Quote:
The world is spherical - 100% certainty.

Not even here, at least not in a statistical sense. In a less-strict, casual sense, it is a fair claim, but not in statistics. I may be pedantic here, but such is the nature of technical points.

Quote:

We don't have to play this silly game of his, which will only muddle the discussion and distract the issue. 

Again, that's largely my point. A good way to avoid this kind of distraction is to stick to the foundations of the methodology, namely statistics.

I've said all I care to say. Enough said.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:It's called

 

Quote:
It's called plagiarism.  You can be put in jail for that.  Expelled from a university.  You're educated?  Yeah, okay.

Yea, it looks like the pot’s calling the kettle black:

Is Rook Hawkins Plagiarizing: http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-rook-hawkins-plagiarizer.html

Of course when David from Myspace showed that you plagiarized somewhere else.

You said that this: “Biggest Cop-Out Of All Time.”

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_mail_bag/637

I didn’t properly cite a source, and on a number of occasion neither have you. So what, let’s move on. I’ll make sure to be more careful next time.

Quote:
Warning: This violates 2.1. Antagonism in the forum rules.  This is your last warning.  We've been more than patient with you, especially concerning how you treat people on this board.  Continue to violate this, and you'll be gone from this message board.

Yea, and I’m guessing this doesn’t:

Quote:
You're a loon, that's what you are.  And are a disgrace to human life. 

Yep, you’re the big dude with the mod power. You can say whatever you want, and try to censor others who do the same. But that’s fine. I’ll start to moderate my tongue.

I can see that our discussion has gotten out of hand, and I’m willing to acknowledge my hand in this. I was unnecessarily provoking. So perhaps we can start over. I finished quite a lengthy response to your previous post. It’s far more polite, far more to the point, and I covered an extensive amount of ground. It’s quite polite to you, though I do take some playful jabs, but you should be light hearted enough not to mind.

But let’s get a few things straight. I don’t claim to be an expert, I said I’m quite informed, but I don’t declare myself an expert or a historian. I read as much as I can on the subject of history, but I’m student of economics and risk assessment, and juggle a semi-hectic personal life. Though I read a lot, on many different subjects, I don’t have a stack of 600 books on my bookshelf.

The Mythicist that I’ve ran into on forums are not as informed as me, not because they are less intelligent than me, but because they have no desire to pursue even a hobbyist interest in ancient history, and are not to eager to venture past the shallow.

And  this is why, I came to this forum, and called you out, because I figured you’d offer me the challenge I was looking to spurn my brain juices. And you have, and so I am thankful for that.

But let’s get a few things straight. I’m not looking for entire paragraphs ranting about how intelligent you are, how many books you’ve read, how superior you are to me. I’m not looking for someone to point out when I’ve mispunctuated a sentence, or improperly cited Bart Ehrman. I’m not looking for you to hide behind your backgrounds or your books, but actual arguments.

I don’t have self-esteem issues, when I’m wrong I can admit it better than most people.

I care little if you actually are more intelligent than me or not, so constantly trying to rub your credentials in my face, get you nowhere. And it’s nothing but a waste of time

As far as I’m concerned I could care less if I used my peasant farmer of a grandfather as source, argue with what’s being said not that man or wikipedia.. I wouldn’t care if a mythicist quoted a 25 year old with nothing but a HS diploma, as long he made a decent case.  

 

I don’t want to hear nothing about I’m deluded, or whatever other ad hominems you can flay at me, particularly since you have just threatened to ban me from these forum. If you feel that I have given into “delusions” i.e. cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias etc.. point it out, show me how and where I’d done so.

It’s should be pointed out, that the classification of me a theist, is not accurate. I’m surely not represenative of Christianity. I’m not looking to save no soul. I like woman, boos, and violence, and all the pleasures that hedonism offers. My acceptance of Jesus as a historical person, is not the result of my religious belief, or whatever else have you. There was a period in my life before I actually knew much about anything, that I was exposed to the Jesus Myth Hypothesis, and I thought it was fucking cool. I felt it spokes volumes for the human imagination. And it was out of a more learned understanding of history that my position changed. I accept that Jesus was a historical figure, the same way that I accept evolution, I don’t have a real vested interest in these positions, such as you may having being a member here.

 If someone can reasonably argue that the mythicist case is more probable than Jesus being a historical person, I’d be quite happy for the enlightenment.

 

Quote:
At this point I'm done with this. 

 Rook, no one is holding a gun up at you. I’m going to post my response to you, regardless if you plan on responding to it or not. I don’t really care for your comments of how I’m not worthy of you responding or whatever shit like this. Keep them to yourself. If you’re obliged to respond do so, if not, that don’t

 Anyways, I’ll post my response to you later in the day, after I spell and content check it. I’m going to start another thread with it, since this is pretty much covered in feces.  And so we can start the new one fresh. I apologize for taking so long with it, but it’s just that your post required a lengthy response, and with my weekly obligations it generally takes me a few days to complete it.

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Your claim: Jesus

 

Quote:
Your claim: Jesus being Jewish(a) explains the Judaic influences present in the gospel writings(b).

(a) implies (b)

You presuppose (a)

Therefore, (b) is accurate.

 This is begging the question, otherwise known as circular reasoning.

Uhm, no that's not what I said. I said the gospels are written within the jewish context, and that explains the Judaic influences present in the gospel. A claim no different that saying a writer being a devout catholic, explains the christian influences present in his writings. 

And the Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus of history is a Jew, a jewish teacher in fact, and as such his thoughts are also influenced by the Jewish worldview. 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Is everybody

theidiot wrote:

Is everybody fucking dumbfounded now? I can't believe i had to go over this a hundred times, something that even those with basic understanding of science should understand? Is the discussion on this matter over? Does anyone want to claim that there are things in science which are 100% certain? Or do we still have more retards? Does our buddy Rooky over here want to take back his assertion that science does claim 100% certainty? Or does he lack the balls and the humility to admit that he was wrong?

You can't be an adult. I'll just call it. You started an argument about literary styles and have ended up in a metaphysical quagmire made of ad hominems.

Rook was obviously saying that reasonable humans have no evidence that contradicts the notion that Alexander was a man. If you have evidence that Alexander was a woman, then we could change that, and we'd all be impressed with your new probability figure of 99%, or whatever. But that hasn't happened. With no reason (zero) to believe otherwise, Alexander was a man with 100% probability.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence