Historical Jesus 2

AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Historical Jesus 2

 I want to start from scratch and deal with one argument at a time. Rook and the other moderator, you chose. Give me Seneca, Philo, Thallus whatever you want, but only one at a time. Please don't post links from essays and articles. Let's start from scratch. I want to keep this thread clean and free from links. Who or what is your biggest argument against the historicity of Christ. Thank you.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: I want to

AL500 wrote:
I want to start from scratch and deal with one argument at a time. Rook and the other moderator, you chose. Give me Seneca, Philo, Thallus whatever you want, but only one at a time.

I responded to your own points. If you don't consider responding to the points that you, yourself raised,  'one argument at a time' then you should not have raised those points.

There's no need to 'start from scratch' here. Merely pick what you wish to respond to...

As for links, they save space. If you intend to merely ignore evidence, then the entire link will just be posted for you.

Here's the initial thread where this all began:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/7497

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 I mentioned the calendar

 I mentioned the calendar of the world and the fact that Christ launched a world religion. You threw in all that other stuff about Seneca, Philo, etc. I don't mind addressing those men, but only one at a time. Let me ask you a question. As far as I know, every religion had an historical founder. And some of those religions are not historical in the sense of Christianity, but are more about principles and concepts. Why then doubt that Christianity had a founder? Yale historian Edwin Yamauchi stated that there is more evidence that Jesus existed then for the founder of any other religion (Moreland, "Jesus Under Fire," chap.7) Why this assualt on Jesus only? I know the true answer to my question. But it amazes me.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: I mentioned

AL500 wrote:
I mentioned the calendar of the world and the fact that Christ launched a world religion. You threw in all that other stuff about Seneca, Philo, etc.

You are misrepresenting the actual situation.

You wrote this:

 

If you bring out too many things at once it will only serve to confuse. Please, lets deal with one at a time. Give me your best argument. My position is that for a man who only had three years of public ministry, its amazing we have anything on Jesus at all.

While you asked for "one at time" you also asked for an argument.

So I gave you an argument: one that specifically dealt with your claim that it's "amazing' that we have anything on jesus at all"

I showed the contradiction in that claim for anyone who holds that the gospels are true. You can't hold to the miracle claims in the gospels AND hold that Jesus was not a noteworthy figure.

Quote:
 

  I don't mind addressing those men, but only one at a time.

1) The argument given to you responds to the single issue raised above.

2) Deal with the argument as quickly as you like. 

3) Don't raise an issue and then complain when it's addressed. If you only want 'one issue at a time' then only raise one issue at a time. 

Quote:
 

 Let me ask you a question. As far as I know, every religion had an historical founder.

What do you mean by 'founder'?   Even you have to agree that all the other founders were incorrect, right? So what exactly is a founder? Clearly it can't be an actual Hercules, or Zeus, right? So even you must agree that a founder can just be a person who makes something up.

Quote:
 

 And some of those religions are not historical in the sense of Christianity, but are more about principles and concepts. Why then doubt that Christianity had a founder?

Who doubts it?  The fact that christianity has a 'founder' only means that there was someone who began the legend. A real Jesus is not required, in fact, a real Jesus might well get in the way of a good story.

Quote:
 

Yale historian Edwin Yamauchi stated that there is more evidence that Jesus existed then for the founder of any other religion )Moreland, "Jesus Under Fire," chap.7)

Well that's good news for you then! It should be a simple matter for you to present the evidence!  

 

Quote:
 

Why this assualt on Jesus only?

Odd that you call it an 'assault'. You beg the question that there was a Jesus, and that these legitimate points are an 'assualt'.

Why can't you accept that there are no contemporary historical records of Jesus, even though the book of Mark claims that Jesus was a miracle working, crowd drawing, spectacle? Why can't you accept this as legimate questioning of a belief. Why must you rewrite it as an assualt?

Could it be that the truth is that you take this all very personally, because its your belief, and that any question at all feels  like an assault to you? 

 

Quote:
 

 I know the true answer to my question.

Oh, I bet. 

By 'true" you mean that you write off anyone who dares to question your 'Jesus" is really just a closed minded naysayer. Am I right? Seeing as there is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus, and seeing that christianity is taken on faith, might it be possible that you're the dogmatic naysayer and that your  just projecting out your own dogmatism?

Quote:
 

But it amazes me.

I bet it amazes you.... most likely because you haven't really bothered to explore our position honestly...  I'm not surprised that a dogmatist feels threatened by having his dogma questioned....

 

By the way, did I cover too many issues by responding to your own post?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: I mentioned

AL500 wrote:
 I mentioned the calendar of the world and the fact that Christ launched a world religion. You threw in all that other stuff about Seneca, Philo, etc. I don't mind addressing those men, but only one at a time. Let me ask you a question. As far as I know, every religion had an historical founder. And some of those religions are not historical in the sense of Christianity, but are more about principles and concepts. Why then doubt that Christianity had a founder? Yale historian Edwin Yamauchi stated that there is more evidence that Jesus existed then for the founder of any other religion (Moreland, "Jesus Under Fire," chap.7) Why this assualt on Jesus only? I know the true answer to my question. But it amazes me.

These issues have already been dealt with on this site and it appears to be nothing more than sheer laziness on your part that you haven't at least attempted to look for and read them. 

A moderator took the time, effort and more patience than I would have had to address your original post.  Your decision to completely ignore his address w/ the weak excuse of "one point at a time" is childish. 

What sense does it make to continue this conversation if your plan is to ignore replies and why should anyone even engage you at all? 

And please tell me you bring more to the table than that idiotic statement by Yamauchi !

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


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Don't get me started on

Don't get me started on Yamauchi.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
You are misrepresenting

You are misrepresenting the actual situation.

You wrote this:

 

If you bring out too many things at once it will only serve to confuse. Please, lets deal with one at a time. Give me your best argument. My position is that for a man who only had three years of public ministry, its amazing we have anything on Jesus at all.

While you asked for "one at time" you also asked for an argument.

So I gave you an argument: one that specifically dealt with your claim that it's "amazing' that we have anything on jesus at all"

I showed the contradiction in that claim for anyone who holds that the gospels are true. You can't hold to the miracle claims in the gospels AND hold that Jesus was not a noteworthy figure.

Quote:
 

You didn't give me an argument as I requested. You gave me arguments (plural). Second, I never said he was not noteworthy. I said that the individuals you listed would not have been interested in an itinerant preacher from Galillee. There were many "messiah's running around Judea and many alleged "wonder-workers."  To them, Jesus would have been no different. The official position from the Jewish leaders was that Jesus was a demon-posessed magician. They also denied his miracles and resurrection. The individuals you listed would have no interest in a person of that description.

1) The argument given to you responds to the single issue raised above.

2) Deal with the argument as quickly as you like. 

3) Don't raise an issue and then complain when it's addressed. If you only want 'one issue at a time' then only raise one issue at a time. 

Quote:
 

I did.

What do you mean by 'founder'?   Even you have to agree that all the other founders were incorrect, right? So what exactly is a founder? Clearly it can't be an actual Hercules, or Zeus, right? So even you must agree that a founder can just be a person who makes something up.

Quote:
 

Whether or not the founders of other religions were correct or incorrect is completely irrelevant to my point. And Hercules and Zeus did not found any religion. True, a founder could make something up. But that also is not the issue. The issue is that every known religion has an historical founder. It is therefore illogical to conclude that Christianity, which by definition is an historical religion (according to every encyclopedia I know of) would also have a founder. Again, Dr. Yamauchi, noted historian from Yale ,stated that there is more evidence for Jesus than for the founder of any other religion.

 

Who doubts it?  The fact that christianity has a 'founder' only means that there was someone who began the legend. A real Jesus is not required, in fact, a real Jesus might well get in the way of a good story.

Quote:
 

That's an assumption. Nothing more.

Well that's good news for you then! It should be a simple matter for you to present the evidence!  

 

Quote:
 

That is exactly what I'm doing.

Odd that you call it an 'assault'. You beg the question that there was a Jesus, and that these legitimate points are an 'assualt'.

Why can't you accept that there are no contemporary historical records of Jesus, even though the book of Mark claims that Jesus was a miracle working, crowd drawing, spectacle? Why can't you accept this as legimate questioning of a belief. Why must you rewrite it as an assualt?

Could it be that the truth is that you take this all very personally, because its your belief, and that any question at all feels  like an assault to you? 

 

Quote:
 

You beg the question that there was no Jesus, so logically it is an assault. You must first prove that having no contemporary writers suggests he didn't exist. You have invented your own criteria of historical methodology that even historians don't use. Do you know how many ancient persons there were who had no contemporary writers yet history does not dispute their existance? Additionally, Jesus had 12 apostles who wrote of him. They were contemporaries. The rest of the non-biblical writers wrote about him soon after his resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15 is dated by scholars to five years after Jesus death.

Oh, I bet. 

By 'true" you mean that you write off anyone who dares to question your 'Jesus" is really just a closed minded naysayer. Am I right? Seeing as there is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus, and seeing that christianity is taken on faith, might it be possible that you're the dogmatic naysayer and that your  just projecting out your own dogmatism?

Quote:
 

Again, according to the historians of Jesus day, Jesus was just a "blip" on the screen. He never addressed the Roman Senate and he didn't write any philosophical treatises. He never traveled outside Palestine and was not a member of any politcial party. and the fact that he died as a criminal severly places him as a marginal Jew in whom they would have no interest. For a man who only had a public ministry of three years to have produced a world religion, a New Testament, the world calandar, and multiple non-biblical writings of him, is amazing in itself.

 

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Funny, I know I see words

Funny, I know I see words there, but I get absolutely no substance from anything AL500 has written...

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


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry, I'm still trying to

 Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out the quoting thing.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Sorry, I'm

AL500 wrote:
Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out the quoting thing.

There is a post at the end of this thread on how to use the quote function. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Funny,

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Funny, I know I see words there, but I get absolutely no substance from anything AL500 has written...

 

He's wasting our time. He simply ignores the key points of arguments, and when you respond to his false claims, he whines that you're writing too much.

If he really were concerned with limiting what was written back to him, he'd do his homework.

I made the point to him, several times, that you can't BOTH hold that the gospels accounts are true AND claim that Jesus was a minor figure. Yet, guess what each every response to the argument from silence from contemporaries was? That Jesus was too minor a figure to catch their notice. He even repeats the same error here! How any sane person could avoid writing about a miracle working, crowd drawing god man, raising people from the dead, himself rising from the dead along with a zombie army of saints, during earthquakes and an eclispse of the sun, is never explained. He just asserts that Philo and Seneca simply wouldn't be interested enough in an invasion of zombie saints during an eclipse to notice.

One wonders what it would take to movitate these men to action.

In addition, he also added the same old error we see from theists: that 'arguments from silence' are always invalid. I pointed out, in detail, how one makes a valid argument from silence. All I heard back was silence....

If a person is really concerned with keeping things brief, they can do so by merely reading what is written to them. So far,

I see no discussion in this thread, no exchange of ideas, no willingness to give even a show of consideration to other views. So far, we're talking at an output-only device. Which seems just about as intelligent as any device that never allows any input - the same errors are repeated, without change.

 

Here are the points he keeps ignoring:

1)  One cannot hold, at the same time, that the Gospels are true eyewitness accounts of actual events, AND that Jesus a figure that men like Philo, Pliny or Seneca would not take note of...

It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'. (The writings of Paul are not comptemporary accounts: they do not appear until years after the purported time of Jesus and they include a concession that Paul never actually met Jesus. The Gospels come much later (as evidenced by the fact that Paul never cites them) and there is good reason that all four of the surviving, accepted Gospels are based on Mark, which in turn is likely to be midrash, not historical documentation: (See: http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash)).

While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus"would not have been a noteworthy figure, this apologetic tactic contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus.

Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', presents us with a Jesus who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great, that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Elsewhere Mark tells us that the crowds that Jesus drew were so overflowing that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him. Mark also tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1).

In short, 'Mark' gives us a 'Jesus' who is bigger than the Beatles, and I believe the Beatles analogy is a good one: we even have a nice parallel between the story of Jesus' lecture from a ship at Galilee, and the Beatles famous 'rooftop' audition, where they were forced to play an impromptu concert on a rooftop, lest the crowds that would rush to see them cause a riot. In both cases, the crowds had reached, hysterical, historically noteworthy, proportions. Yet, John E. Remsberg, in 'The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence' (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25) makes the curious observation that no one from this era wrote a single word about the Jesus Hysteria. Remsberg notes: "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

 

2)

How to make an Argument from Silence

According to Gilbert Garraghan (A Guide to Historical Method, 1946, p. 149)

To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked would certainly have known about it; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.

It ought to be clear to even the casual reader that the men I have cited meet both criteria.

In addition, the historian Richard Carrier suggests two additional criteria to strengthen an argument from silence:

1) Whether or not it is common for men to create similar myths.

It is prima facie true that this is the case. History is replete not only with 'god' claims, but with claims for messiah status.

2) The claim is of an extraordinary nature, it violates what we already know of nature.

The miracle claims in the book of Mark violate what we know of nature.

The argument presented here meets the two additional criteria.

 

 As with most theist encounters, so far this debate has involved me repeating key points that our friend just continues to ignore. If there is yet another failure on his part to deal with point 1, and concede point 2, I see no reason to continue.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 I am well aware that some

 I am well aware that some arguments from silence are valid. My point is that yours are not.  You assume to much. You assume that the Gospel accounts were so dramatic that they would have received notice by uninterested pagan authors. You fail or refuse to admit that the Jews, Pharisees, Saducees and the Sanhedrin rejected the claims of Jesus miracles all the way up to his crucifiction and resurrection. Therefore. his miracles were not as widely known and accepted as you want to claim. People like Seneca and Philo would have no interest in some obscure self-procalimed "wonder-working Messiah" of Judea. There were many crackpot messiah's wondering around at that time. The fact that Jesus died by execution as a criminal, further demonstrates that outside authorities would have no interest in such a person. They would receive their official information from the Jewish authorities, and the Jewish authorities classifed Christ as a fraud. It's amazing that we even received information of Jesus at all. If he was just like all the other itinerant crackpots, his message would have died out like their did. For a man who only have three years of public ministry, it is astounding that we have a New Testament, a world religion, a global calendar based on his birth, several extra-biblical references to him, and the entirety of western civilization based on his teachings. There was something different about him. So much so that his disciples were willing to die for him. And in fact all but John did die for him.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
David Koresh's disciples

David Koresh's disciples died for him, and that story is actually true.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Oh, and by the way, your a

 Oh, and by the way, your a priori rejection of the miraculous aspects of the NT are not based on historical methodology and evidence, but on philosophical presuppositions. You assume beforehand that nature is a closed system (naturalism), then proceed to dismiss all claims of the miraculous based on that presuppostion. History does not work that way. I agree miracles are unusual. But they are not impossible if God exists. You assume beforehand that God does not exist and that miracles are impossible. THAT is why you reject the NT and the historicity of Christ. You have a precommitment to naturalism and interpret material based on that presupposition. That is not historical methodology. It is sheer bias.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Yes, the followers of

 Yes, the followers of Koresh died for his teaching, and you know what? David Koresh existed. He was a historical person. People don't die for unhistorical fabrications.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: I am well

AL500 wrote:

I am well aware that some arguments from silence are valid.

Please stop lying. You wrote this in the other thread:

Quote:

CONCLUSION Your arguments are based on silence. Arguments from silence are never valid.

You declared that arguments from silence are NEVER valid.

You've been exposed as a liar.  

Quote:

My point is that yours are not.

No, your point was that arguments from silence are always invalid. Stop lying. You never even attempted to demonstrate how my 'arguments from silence were invalid. Never. You just argued that 1) my arguments were arguments from silence, and then declared them necessarily invalid.

And you did this because you didn't even know that there were valid arguments from silence.

Please don't lie. If you lie about this again, I'll lock this thread. We don't  have time or space for people who will simply lie when refuted. 

Quote:

You assume that the Gospel accounts were so dramatic that they would have received notice by uninterested pagan authors.

I dont just assume it. I demonstrate it through citation. How can a crowd drawing, miracle working, godman who raises others from the dead, himself rising from the dead, along with zombie saints and earthquakes go unnoticed by ANY SANE HUMAN IN HISTORY?

I await your LATEST dodge of this point.

Quote:

You fail or refuse to admit that the Jews, Pharisees, Saducees and the Sanhedrin rejected the claims of Jesus miracles all the way up to his crucifiction and resurrection.

You fail to realize that you are begging the question. You assume that there was a resurrection that they rejected. The more parsimonious explanation is that there wasn't a resurrection in the first place. You can't just assume that everyone would naysay your godman when the more rational explanation is that they never saw such a thing.

 

I can't take you seriously, you just keep ignoring the same points over and over.

 

Quote:

Therefore. his miracles were not as widely known and accepted as you want to claim.

Again, you just ignore my argument.

 

Quote:

 

People like Seneca and Philo would have no interest in some obscure self-procalimed "wonder-working Messiah" of Judea.

Again, you just ignore my argument.

 

Quote:
For a man who only have three years of public ministry, it is astounding that we have a New Testament,

Again and again you just ignore the argument .

As predicted.

 

Perhaps bold will help:

1) One cannot hold, at the same time, that the Gospels are true eyewitness accounts of actual events, AND that Jesus a figure that men like Philo, Pliny or Seneca would not take note of...

It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'. (The writings of Paul are not comptemporary accounts: they do not appear until years after the purported time of Jesus and they include a concession that Paul never actually met Jesus. The Gospels come much later (as evidenced by the fact that Paul never cites them) and there is good reason that all four of the surviving, accepted Gospels are based on Mark, which in turn is likely to be midrash, not historical documentation: (See: http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash)).

While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus"would not have been a noteworthy figure, this apologetic tactic contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus.

Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', presents us with a Jesus who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great, that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Elsewhere Mark tells us that the crowds that Jesus drew were so overflowing that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him. Mark also tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1).

In short, 'Mark' gives us a 'Jesus' who is bigger than the Beatles, and I believe the Beatles analogy is a good one: we even have a nice parallel between the story of Jesus' lecture from a ship at Galilee, and the Beatles famous 'rooftop' audition, where they were forced to play an impromptu concert on a rooftop, lest the crowds that would rush to see them cause a riot. In both cases, the crowds had reached, hysterical, historically noteworthy, proportions. Yet, John E. Remsberg, in 'The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence' (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25) makes the curious observation that no one from this era wrote a single word about the Jesus Hysteria. Remsberg notes: "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

2)

How to make an Argument from Silence

According to Gilbert Garraghan (A Guide to Historical Method, 1946, p. 149)

To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked would certainly have known about it; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty.

It ought to be clear to even the casual reader that the men I have cited meet both criteria.

In addition, the historian Richard Carrier suggests two additional criteria to strengthen an argument from silence:

1) Whether or not it is common for men to create similar myths.

It is prima facie true that this is the case. History is replete not only with 'god' claims, but with claims for messiah status.

2) The claim is of an extraordinary nature, it violates what we already know of nature.

The miracle claims in the book of Mark violate what we know of nature.

The argument presented here meets the two additional criteria.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  Yes, the

AL500 wrote:
 Yes, the followers of Koresh died for his teaching, and you know what? David Koresh existed. He was a historical person. People don't die for unhistorical fabrications.

What about the UFO the Heavens Gate cultists died to get to?

Hindu Fundamentalists who die for their gods (vs Buddhists in Sri Lanka or Moslems in India/Pakistan.)

Other Bizzarre cults?

 

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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Oh, and by

AL500 wrote:
Oh, and by the way, your a priori rejection of the miraculous aspects of the NT are not based on historical methodology and evidence,

Yes it is. Read Richard Carrier on this. Historical methodology is a naturalistic enterprise. Miracle claims violate the law of parsimony. To make an extraordinary claim, one requires extraordinary evidence.

 

Here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/analogyreply.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/

 

 

Quote:

You assume beforehand that nature is a closed system (naturalism), then proceed to dismiss all claims of the miraculous based on that presuppostion

Wrong again. While history is a natural enterprise, and it chooses a naturalistic explanation over a supernatural one as the more parsimonious one, it does not rule out miracle claims a priori. Provide extraordinary evidence, and you may make an extraordinary claim.

 

To learn more about the difference between an ordinary and extraordinary claim, try this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/rubicon.html 

Quote:

History does not work that way.

You don't have the slightest clue as to how history works, you didn't even know about the existence of valid arguments from silence until you began this thread.

Learn something about the very basics of historiography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography#Defining_historiography

 

 

By the way, funny that YOU are allowed to bring up more than one topic...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Yes it is.

todangst wrote:

Yes it is. Read Richard Carrier on this. Historical methodology is a naturalistic enterprise. Miracle claims violate the law of parsimony. To make an extraordinary claim, one requires extraordinary evidence.

  That statement is purely an ideological opinion that depends more upon metaphysical assumptions to rule out the supernatural elements rather than any real historical evidence that would rule it out. Historians do not dismiss the historicity of a figure just because supernatural claims are involved. They dismiss claims of the supernatural as a matter of ideological bias. But they do not dismiss out of hand the existence of any particular individual just because he is tied to supernatural claims. Most ancient world figures were bound up with such claims. Gilgamish is one example with his ancient flood story which history takes to be mythical. But they see Gilgamesh is an historical person, probably king of ancient Sumer.The law of parsimony (Occam's Razor)  is not a law of logic, and it has been criticized by logicians. The criteria for Occam's razor requires that "All things are equal." If all things are not equal, then the razor cannot be used. With regards to the life of Christ, things are obviously not equal. Second, I've noticed that this website depends alot on Richard Carrier. He is not a careful or accurate historian (if he is even an historian at all). So I think you have engaged in the argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy (appeal to authority). 

todangst wrote:
Wrong again. While history is a natural enterprise, and it chooses a naturalistic explanation over a supernatural one as the more parsimonious one, it does not rule out miracle claims a priori. Provide extraordinary evidence, and you may make an extraordinary claim. 

The very nature of Christianity is based on that extraordinary evidence. This is the nature of the beast. You, however, do rule out the supernatural as your other post clearly demonstrated when you asserted that supernaturalism goes against everyday experience or something to that affect. This assumption is your starting point and your metaphysical presupposition.

todangst wrote:
You don't have the slightest clue as to how history works, you didn't even know about the existence of valid arguments from silence until you began this thread.

That's not correct. As I said before some arguments from silence are not illogical. But your's were. But the fact still remains that an argument from silence is NEVER proof of anything. Even if it is not invalid, it still proves nothing. So you have just basically waisted your time even trying to use it.

I want to add something else to this discussion. It is important for people to know that the "Jesus was myth" theory was never  held in history untill the 19th century. The greatest enemies of ancient Christianity never claimed that Jesus did not exist. If there was sufficient evidence that Jesus was non-historical, his enemies would have most certainly used this argument against the Christians. Celsus was perhaps the greatest ancient enemy to the faith. He attacked Christ and Christianity, but he never once, not once, ever claimed that Jesus was non-historical. Celsus charged that his (Jesus) own people killed him, and that the resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned Jesus' historicity. Origen wrote an extensive apologetic against Celsus (Contra Celsus).

 

The Babylonian Talmud blasphemes Christ in the highest degree, but it asserts He was a real person.

 

Lucian of Samosata was another enemy to the faith that never questioned Jesus' historical reality. He even admitted to Jesus crucifiction.

 

Porphyry of Tyre, is another example. 

 

The Encyclopedia Britanica affirms this fact:

 

"....these independent accounts (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.) prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th century, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (Article on Jesus, 1990).

 

Jesus was considered a bastard and a fool, but never a myth or a legend. (Crossan).

 

As I mentioned above, it was not untill the 19th century when a German rationalist by the name of Rudolph Bultmann suggested the "Jesus myth" hypothesis. But his thesis was critisized by contemporary scholars, and Bultmann himself later changed his position.

 

"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community" (Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p.13).

 

The modern Father of the "Jesus is myth" theory is G.A. Wells who himself was not an NT scholar. But he also came to his senses and changed his position.

 

"G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis and has accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document" (The Jesus Myth, 1999).

 

Words from other historians and scholars:

 

Van Voorst: "Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been pursuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question" (Jesus Outside the New Testament,, p.14).

 

F.F. Bruce: "The historicity of Christ is axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the "Christ-myth' theories"(The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable", 1972).

 

Otto Betz: "No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" (What do We Know about Jesus," p.9).

 

E.P. Sanders: "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place" (The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993).

 

A.E. Harvey: It would be no exaggeration to say that this event [the Crucifixtion] is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world" (Jesus and the Constraints of History,"1982).

 

Morton Smith: "I don't think the arguments from in (Wells) book deserve detailed refutation.....he argues mostly from silence...many of his arguments are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space".

 

R.J. Hoffmann: "Wells presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels," (Jesus in History and Myth), pp.47-48).

 

Werner Kummel: "The denial of the existence of Jesus. [is] arbitrary and ill-founded" (The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, p.447, n. 367).

 

Gunter Bornkamm: "To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all, was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here" (Jesus of Nazareth, p.28).

 

Van Voorst (referring to the mythicists) states: "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely" (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.6).

 

James Charlesworth: "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." (Jesus Within Judaism, pp.168-169).

 

Dominic Crossan: "That Jesus was crucified, is as historically certain as anything could ever be" (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p.149?)

 

Note: Crossan is considered by the liberal school of scholars to be the greatest Jesus historian in the world.

 

In Conclusion, I can continue to cite scholar after scholar but time and interest do not permit me.

 

As for the erroneous claim that Jesus must have a contemporary writer about him in order to be real, that claim is so bogus and not even a historical criteria that historians use. Atheists have made that rule up themselves with absolute no authority to do so. At any rate, there are many ancient personages that we accept as historical who did not have contemporary writers. But Jesus did have contemporary writers anyway (the apostles) who were eyewitnesses, so the atheist challenge is rediculous however you look at it.

 

Lastly, I find it very interesting that evolutionists assert, so they believe, that evolution must be true because allegedly most scientists believe in it. But when it comes to Jesus, and the fact that most scholars and historians believe Jesus existed, the atheists refuse to be consistent with their own criteria. I find this to be a very important contradiction.

However, there are many atheists who do accept the historicity of Jesus.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: What

MattShizzle wrote:

What about the UFO the Heavens Gate cultists died to get to?

Heavens Gate had two historical founders, Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Lastly, I find

AL500 wrote:
Lastly, I find it very interesting that evolutionists assert, so they believe, that evolution must be true because allegedly most scientists believe in it. But when it comes to Jesus, and the fact that most scholars and historians believe Jesus existed, the atheists refuse to be consistent with their own criteria. I find this to be a very important contradiction.

 


*sound of can of worms being opened*


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

AL500 wrote:

todangst wrote:

Yes it is. Read Richard Carrier on this. Historical methodology is a naturalistic enterprise. Miracle claims violate the law of parsimony. To make an extraordinary claim, one requires extraordinary evidence.

That statement is purely an ideological opinion that depends more upon metaphysical assumptions to rule out the supernatural elements rather than any real historical evidence that would rule it out.

What nonsense. It does not rule them out a priori, it merely holds that they require extraordinary evidence.

You're just spouting whatever bullshit you can find to just naysay things away.

 

Quote:

Historians do not dismiss the historicity of a figure just because supernatural claims are involved.

Neither does Carrier. You're comments are simply obtuse.

todangst wrote:
Wrong again. While history is a natural enterprise, and it chooses a naturalistic explanation over a supernatural one as the more parsimonious one, it does not rule out miracle claims a priori. Provide extraordinary evidence, and you may make an extraordinary claim.

Quote:

The very nature of Christianity is based on that extraordinary evidence.

No, it's based on extraordinary claims without any evidence.

 

todangst wrote:
You don't have the slightest clue as to how history works, you didn't even know about the existence of valid arguments from silence until you began this thread.

 

Quote:

That's not correct. As I said before some arguments from silence are not illogical.

You are a liar. You ruled them all out.

STOP. YOUR LYING.


Wait a second... I warned you about repeating this lie already!

AL500 wrote:

I am well aware that some arguments from silence are valid.

Please stop lying. You wrote this in the other thread:

Quote:

CONCLUSION Your arguments are based on silence. Arguments from silence are never valid.

You declared that arguments from silence are NEVER valid.

You've been exposed as a liar.

Quote:

My point is that yours are not.

No, your point was that arguments from silence are always invalid. Stop lying. You never even attempted to demonstrate how my 'arguments from silence were invalid. Never. You just argued that 1) my arguments were arguments from silence, and then declared them necessarily invalid.

And you did this because you didn't even know that there were valid arguments from silence.

Please don't lie. If you lie about this again, I'll lock this thread. We don't have time or space for people who will simply lie when refuted.

 

 

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Paranoia21
Paranoia21's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
AL500, your arguements are

AL500, your arguements are completely invalid, but instead of accepting that, you turn it back on rook and todangst and say their arguements are worthless.  You need to find hard evidence that anyone will hold as fact, not just the irrational bullshit you've been spurting. 

I think you think that what you have been posting is actual fact, but then again, you have quite the disillusioned point-of-view.  You need to look from our perspective, but you won't, because in your fairytale religion, you would go to hell for even thinking about the non-existence of God.  And this is why it is almost impossible to have a good arguement with a Christian. 

VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Excuse me, but I have

 Excuse me, but I have systematically shreded Rook's arguments here and in the other thread "A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus." It was anything but thorough. You see what you want to see because the atheist mind is biased. If you examine the evidence objectively, you will see, as all Jesus historians have admitted, the "Jesus is myth" hypothesis is utterly groundless.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
AL500 has clearly made up

AL500 has clearly made up his mind, before the discussion even began, as most theists have. I don't even know why they even try to discuss these issues in the first place. It's not like he's even trying present an argument whilst also showing what is wrong with his opponents, which is what he should be doing if his disagreement was based on anything. He knows he can't, so all he can do is ignore.

AL500:

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10146
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:  Excuse me,

AL500 wrote:
 Excuse me, but I have systematically shreded Rook's arguments here and in the other thread "A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus." It was anything but thorough. You see what you want to see because the atheist mind is biased. If you examine the evidence objectively, you will see, as all Jesus historians have admitted, the "Jesus is myth" hypothesis is utterly groundless.

The only thing you've systematically shredded is yourself and your own credibility. You haven't presented a single fact or piece of evidence to refute anyone. You make a fool of yourself by suggesting otherwise.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: AL500

Vastet wrote:
AL500 wrote:
Excuse me, but I have systematically shreded Rook's arguments here and in the other thread "A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus." It was anything but thorough. You see what you want to see because the atheist mind is biased. If you examine the evidence objectively, you will see, as all Jesus historians have admitted, the "Jesus is myth" hypothesis is utterly groundless.
The only thing you've systematically shredded is yourself and your own credibility. You haven't presented a single fact or piece of evidence to refute anyone. You make a fool of yourself by suggesting otherwise.

In AL500's world...

Rook: <lengthy examination of evidence>

AL500: ROOK'S WRONG!! GOD IS REAL! THERE IS A HISTORICAL JESUS AND HE'S JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS! CRAIG AND BAHNSEN ARE MY HEROES AND THEY SAID SO!

Others: Where is your evidence for this AL? Do you have anything besides Craig and Bahnsen's opinions?

AL500: <crickets chirping>

Later...

AL500: "Excuse me, but I have systematically shredded Rook's arguments..."

"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


ELECTROGOD (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
It appears that his shredder

It appears that his shredder exists as his god does...only in his imagination.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: AL500

Vastet wrote:
AL500 wrote:
 Excuse me, but I have systematically shreded Rook's arguments here and in the other thread "A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus." It was anything but thorough. You see what you want to see because the atheist mind is biased. If you examine the evidence objectively, you will see, as all Jesus historians have admitted, the "Jesus is myth" hypothesis is utterly groundless.
The only thing you've systematically shredded is yourself and your own credibility. You haven't presented a single fact or piece of evidence to refute anyone. You make a fool of yourself by suggesting otherwise.

 

I think he did a great job by demonstrating what the sources and scholars are saying.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: I think he

Apotheon wrote:

I think he did a great job by demonstrating what the sources and scholars are saying.

Why am I not surprised that you would say that?  AL500 hasn't given any evidence, only quotes from others saying there is evidence, and a lot of stammering that Rook was wrong.  Not much else. 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 He pulverized Rook in the

 He pulverized Rook in the thread "A Thorough Examination of the Evidence for Jesus." Stick around, I plan to do some pulverizing myself in the near future.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: I plan to

Apotheon wrote:
I plan to do some pulverizing myself in the near future.

 Is this before or after you learn what a Lexicon is?