Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 1:01 AM
358 online now:
granpa, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 356 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,955 Year: 25,561/21,208 Month: 1,188/2,338 Week: 309/450 Day: 2/72 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
38Next
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 481 of 560 (620923)
06-21-2011 5:24 PM


Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
:et me start by making clear that I refer only to the Jesus Myther's on this forum. There are some people who make rather more respectable answers (I have hopes for Richard Carrier's so far unpublished argument, but it seems a long time coming)

1) The Jesus Mythers have little knowledge or understanding of the evidence and arguments. Even of the arguments FOR the Jesus Myth position. THere has been no mention of, for instance, Earl Doherty. Pana has only a superficial knowledge of the arguments of Freke and Gandy (and never mentioned their names). And there is no hint of the less well-known names at all. If anything, they seem to be less well-informed than even the typical creationist.

2) The Jesus Myther's place high value on their own opinions without any attempt to research them. Crashfrog is still claiming that his assertion that most founders of religion are fictional is a fact despite not offering a shred of evidence for it. In fact he refuses to admit the evidence against it on the grounds that his (completely unsupported, remember) assertion is true !

3) The Jesus Myther's make irrational arguments. For an especially clear example we can consider Crashfrog's insistence on his "Jesus wasn't called Jesus" argument - supposedly an important difference between the Biblical Jesus and the historical Jesus. In fact it isn't. The transformation of the name is simply a consequence of the differing languages used. In fact the name of the Biblical Jesus and the name proposed for the historical Jesus are the same.

4) Being ignorant of the arguments and therefore being unable to answer expert opinion in a rational way, they resort to unsupported accusations of dishonesty. A tactic which is also applied to opponents.

In my experience all these behaviours are typical of creationists.

If I hadn't already had proof of Crashfrog's nature from recent threads I would be deeply disappointed.


Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 5:36 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 485 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 5:46 PM PaulK has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 482 of 560 (620924)
06-21-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Jon
06-21-2011 5:02 PM


Re: Q
I could give more; or, you could investigate the matter through some Googling.

I'm not required to do your homework or argue with Google. What you've presented isn't a compelling case to exclude Luke plagarism of Matthew. "Artistically inferior"? Maybe Luke was an inferior artist.

And, still - WTF is the "triple tradition"?

. The Q material is the material in common between Matthew and Luke that isn't in Mark; the Q document is one of the things hypothesized to explain these agreements against Mark in Matthew and Luke (see my previous post for the other two hypotheses). By definition, the only thing we can propose to have been in Q is the stuff that Matthew and Luke have in common against Mark.

So then you've torpedoed the notion that Matthew, Luke, and the Q source are all independent sources of information about Jesus that corroborate each other.

In fact, the Matthew-Luke-Q construct is really a single source of claims, and they can't corroborate each other because they are each other.

In other words PaulK was substantially misrepresenting the content and scope of the Q source.

It depends on what you're trying to substantiate.

No, it doesn't. Only substance can substantiate!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 5:02 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 5:53 PM crashfrog has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 483 of 560 (620925)
06-21-2011 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by PaulK
06-21-2011 5:24 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
Pana has only a superficial knowledge of the arguments of Freke and Gandy (and never mentioned their names).

And Freke and Gandy are about as ignorant as grass under a rock.


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2011 5:24 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1001 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 484 of 560 (620926)
06-21-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by caffeine
06-21-2011 9:24 AM


Re: The founders of the world's religions
Gday,

caffeine writes:

Buddhism - The Buddha is generally considered a historical figure

Sure - by Buddhists !
In fact, the evidence is doubtful.

caffeine writes:

Taosim - Dao is generally considered a historical figure

There is no historical figure "Dao".
The founder was a Lao Tzi - probably mythical.

caffeine writes:

Confucianism - Confucius is generally considered a historical figure

There is no hard evidence for Confucius - possibly mythical.

K.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by caffeine, posted 06-21-2011 9:24 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 485 of 560 (620927)
06-21-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by PaulK
06-21-2011 5:24 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
THere has been no mention of, for instance, Earl Doherty.

Is Earl Doherty in this discussion?

Have his arguments been put forward for consideration?

PaulK, where does Earl Doherty present evidence for the existence of Jesus? Please be specific.

Crashfrog is still claiming that his assertion that most founders of religion are fictional is a fact despite not offering a shred of evidence for it.

Er, wait. I've not ever claimed that the founders of most religions are fictional; if they were fictional then how were the religions founded? That makes no sense.

You'll not find a single instance where I've claimed that "the founders of most religions are fictional."

For an especially clear example we can consider Crashfrog's insistence on his "Jesus wasn't called Jesus" argument - supposedly an important difference between the Biblical Jesus and the historical Jesus.

I've never at any time made a "Jesus wasn't called Jesus" argument. That argument has only ever been made by those on the Historical Jesus side.

In response to PaulK's utter misrepresentation of the lines of debate, allow me to demonstrate that he's the creationist:

1) "Reading assignments"

It's very common for creationists, lacking themselves the mental fortitude to address evolutionist arguments, to claim that the evolutionist arguments are invalid because they do not reply to or even mention some presumably-important religious figure. For instance, from one particularly stupid reply to Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion:

quote:
What, one wonders, are Dawkinss views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? - Terry Eagleton, the London Review of Books

Clearly, the intent here is to claim that even though the evolutionist interlocutor has made arguments that the creationist cannot refute, that evolutionist is clearly impotent against the real badasses of creationism, therefore creationism wins! This is clearly the mode of argument PaulK employs in his first point.

2) Assumption of a lack of research

Little more here than an "everyone is like me" blindness. Creationists continually assume that evolutionists have given as little or even less thought to the issue as they have. They assume that an actual qualification in the biological sciences is little more than a theoretical construct, and that it takes hardly any brains at all to think about evolution. The assumption that there's no research done by Mythical Jesus proponents is abundant in PaulK's second point but no effort is made to substantiate it.

3) Premature assumption of victory

How do we know evolutionists are wrong about evolution? Because they're irrational! How do we know they're irrational? Because they believe in evolution, which is wrong!

4) Objections to being called "dishonest"

Despite their blatant and open dishonesty, creationists will object to any attempt to point out dishonesty as a "personal attack", which they will claim is employed by evolutionists to distract from losing the debate.

It's obvious that PaulK is being the creationist, here.

If I hadn't already had proof of Crashfrog's nature from recent threads I would be deeply disappointed.

Unlike you, PaulK, I actually am disappointed. I had reason to believe that you were an honest sort who had given real consideration to this issue.

But immediately you entered the debate with a major chip on your shoulder, already incensed that people could exist who did not accept the "expert consensus" that anybody who questioned the actual existence of Jesus was some kind of dullard. That's simply not typical of your general high level of civility and the high quality of your argumentation.

What the fuck happened to you? You should be very embarrassed of your conduct in this thread. I know I'm not going to read any of your posts the same way from now on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2011 5:24 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 6:08 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 492 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2011 6:17 PM crashfrog has responded

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1001 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 486 of 560 (620928)
06-21-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 3:23 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
Gday,

crashfrog writes:

I've spent more than a hundred posts, here, trying to get at the genuine, real historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and all I've discovered is a thinly-sourced "expert consensus" that survives solely on the basis of directing ridicule at anyone who voices a disagreement.

Yah.
This is happening on several forums lately - a concerted effort to argue that :

* Jesus existed
* because there is a CONSENSUS of "experts"
* based on the Gospels etc. as historical EVIDENCE
* and anyone who disagrees is like a creationist or holocaust denier

I think the HJers are feeling the heat, and are desperately circling the wagons.

K.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 3:23 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 487 of 560 (620929)
06-21-2011 5:50 PM


Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
Watching Brian Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There" (now on Netflix!) Flemming makes a quite interesting claim - he claims that Paul, potentially the earliest source for Jesus's life, doesn't actually seem to believe that Jesus existed. Flemming contends that Paul writes about the life and times of Jesus only as occurring in a spiritual realm - not as though they detail events that really occurred on Earth.

What is the response to this interpretation? Where specifically does Paul claim that Jesus was a real man who really lived?


Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 6:49 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 509 by Theodoric, posted 06-23-2011 10:49 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 488 of 560 (620930)
06-21-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 5:28 PM


Re: Q
I'm not required to do your homework or argue with Google. What you've presented isn't a compelling case to exclude Luke plagarism of Matthew. "Artistically inferior"? Maybe Luke was an inferior artist.

And, still - WTF is the "triple tradition"?

These are staple concepts in the debate on the synoptic problem. I cannot define every term unfamiliar to you; consider this a friendly exception:

quote:
Wikipedia on the Synoptic Gospels:

The triple tradition is the material that is present in all three Synoptic Gospels.


So then you've torpedoed the notion that Matthew, Luke, and the Q source are all independent sources of information about Jesus that corroborate each other.

Actually, I never argued that they were all independent; nor did I argue that they are sources of information about Jesus; nor did I argue that they all corroborate each other.

In other words PaulK was substantially misrepresenting the content and scope of the Q source.

In what way?

No, it doesn't. Only substance can substantiate!

Huh? The Q material is of substance; just pick up your Bible, thumb through Luke and Matthew. That's Q material you're touching, sir.

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 5:28 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 6:01 PM Jon has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 489 of 560 (620931)
06-21-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Jon
06-21-2011 5:53 PM


Re: Q
Actually, I never argued that they were all independent; nor did I argue that they are sources of information about Jesus; nor did I argue that they all corroborate each other.

Well, I didn't specifically claim that you did. But, that was put forward as support for the Historical Jesus by Paul, who you appear to have jumped in to defend.

I don't mean to imply that you must thus be defending all of PaulK's claims. I just meant to indicate that your explanation of the Q source has removed its relevance from the debate altogether.

I get that you're kind of doing your "own thing" when it comes to defending the Historical Jesus, so I recognize that I can't necessarily hold you to a defense of the arguments of the other people on your side. Regardless, I'm certainly going to point out when you put forward a claim that demolishes a claim I'm defending against. Please don't feel like you have to take that as my assertion that you've demolished one of your own claims.

In what way?

In the way that he offered it as an independent source that corroborates the claims of the Gospels and the Pauline epistles.

That's Q material you're touching, sir.

So you assume. But where can I read the Q source itself?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 5:53 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 6:16 PM crashfrog has responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 490 of 560 (620932)
06-21-2011 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 5:46 PM


Grow Up, Crash
PaulK, where does Earl Doherty present evidence for the existence of Jesus? Please be specific.

He doesn't. He's an ahistoricist. Which you'd know if you ever bothered investigating anything before flapping your mouth about it.

Unlike you, PaulK, I actually am disappointed. I had reason to believe that you were an honest sort who had given real consideration to this issue.

The fact that PaulK understands the arguments of the synoptic problem, is familiar with the prominent proponents of ahistoricism, recognizes the difference between the Biblical Jesus and historical Jesusall things you've failed miserably attells me that he has given more real consideration to the issue than you have given, or are likely even capable of giving.

But immediately you entered the debate with a major chip on your shoulder, already incensed that people could exist who did not accept the "expert consensus" that anybody who questioned the actual existence of Jesus was some kind of dullard. That's simply not typical of your general high level of civility and the high quality of your argumentation.

Similar to Mod, Paul's actually been limiting himself mostly to pointing out the errors in your arguments; he's made very few arguments relating his own position on the matter of an historical Jesus. How you get from that to 'major chip on your shoulder' is beyond me. But I assume it has something to do with your tendency to belittle, mock, and misrepresent anyone who dare disagree with your or claim you've made a reasoning error.

I know I'm not going to read any of your posts the same way from now on.

So you're going to consider everything written from now on by PaulK on personal grounds? What a mature mindset to take away from the debate.

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 5:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 6:26 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 491 of 560 (620933)
06-21-2011 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 6:01 PM


Re: Q
So you assume. But where can I read the Q source itself?

There's a difference between Q material and Q source.

I just meant to indicate that your explanation of the Q source has removed its relevance from the debate altogether.

Depends on whose debate you're talking about.

I get that you're kind of doing your "own thing" when it comes to defending the Historical Jesus, so I recognize that I can't necessarily hold you to a defense of the arguments of the other people on your side. Regardless, I'm certainly going to point out when you put forward a claim that demolishes a claim I'm defending against. Please don't feel like you have to take that as my assertion that you've demolished one of your own claims.

I don't think anything I've said 'demolishes' any claims made, other than the ones you've made based on your ignorance of relevant scholarship.

In the way that he offered it as an independent source that corroborates the claims of the Gospels and the Pauline epistles.

It depends on how much corroboration you're talking about. If the minimal corroboration is just the existence of an historical Jesus, then multiple sources with an historical Jesus as one of their common premises certainly meets the criteria of being corroboratory.

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 6:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 6:52 PM Jon has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 13228
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 492 of 560 (620934)
06-21-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 5:46 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
quote:

Is Earl Doherty in this discussion?

Have his arguments been put forward for consideration?

PaulK, where does Earl Doherty present evidence for the existence of Jesus? Please be specific.


And here is a clear example of what I mean. I mention Earl Doherty as a person who is well-known for arguing AGAINST the existence of Jesus. Someone whose arguments I would expect to be cited by Crashfrog or Panda or ScientificBob. And this is the response I get.

Crashfrog is too desperate to gainsay my points to even read them. Mindless aggression used as a substitute for reason.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 5:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 6:49 PM PaulK has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 493 of 560 (620936)
06-21-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Jon
06-21-2011 6:08 PM


Re: Grow Up, Jon
Which you'd know if you ever bothered investigating anything before flapping your mouth about it.

Then who cares about Earl Doherty?

I'm not interested in having you or PaulK or Modulous respond to Earl Doherty's arguments about the ahistoricity of Jesus; if I were, I would have presented them.

I'm interested in having you respond to my arguments. So what's the relevance of Earl Doherty or anyone else to that? I'm asking what the available evidence is that supports the genuine physical historical existence of Jesus. Of what relevance to that is Earl Doherty?

The fact that PaulK understands the arguments of the synoptic problem, is familiar with the prominent proponents of ahistoricism, recognizes the difference between the Biblical Jesus and historical Jesusall things you've failed miserably attells me that he has given more real consideration to the issue than you have given, or are likely even capable of giving.

I believed that PaulK had given consideration to the issue, as well. Believe it or not, there was a time when I believed in the historical Jesus just because PaulK did. As I said to Modulous in your other idiotic thread:

quote:
I do remember what caused me to say that six years ago - the utter conviction of all the people I thought were reasonable that they had evidence that there was a real historical Jesus. People like you. I assumed that there was no way they'd believe that on the basis of no evidence, and they said, like you've been saying, that there was evidence.

Eventually I got around to asking them what the evidence was and that's when I discovered the very curious phenomenon I've been referring to - the widespread conviction that there's all this evidence for a historical Jesus, but nobody is able to actually communicate it. When I say that people believe there's evidence for a historical Jesus despite not knowing about any of it, that's not a cheap rhetorical trick or a joke. I'm relating my own personal experience of actually being someone who thought there was all this evidence for a historical Jesus, but didn't actually know any of it. It happened to me! That's why I believe it's happening to you, and to everyone else who says there's abundant evidence for the existence of Jesus, but aren't able to actually recount any of the evidence.


I've seen absolutely nothing that would indicate that you, Mod, and PaulK (and others) don't suffer from the same precise mental lacuna that I did. Sure, PaulK's given consideration to something but as I've abundantly demonstrated, he's given consideration to the wrong things. Like Terry Eagleton, he's spent far too much time pondering "Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace, or Moltmann on hope", so to speak, instead of actually considering what the evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is.

Similar to Mod, Paul's actually been limiting himself mostly to pointing out the errors in your arguments

But I'm not making any arguments. I'm asking what the available evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus is, and all I'm getting is personal invective and shadowy attempts to wave hands at untrustworthy or even non-existent sources.

If an evolutionist showed up here and attempted to defend evolution by gesturing at Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould ("they believe it; are you smarter than they are?") and simply telling creationists they hadn't done their homework, we'd be on his ass. That's just not good enough. There really is proof that laypeople can understand, without recourse to scientific jargon or appeals to authority, and it's our obligation to provide it when someone claims to come asking. Someone who just trashes creationists without really making an attempt to satisfy the request for evidence doesn't make the cut around here.

So why should people be allowed to make the same kind of case for the historicity of Jesus?

But I assume it has something to do with your tendency to belittle, mock, and misrepresent anyone who dare disagree with your or claim you've made a reasoning error.

Yeah, like that time I opened a thread to talk about how people were mentally ill for denying that there was sufficient evidence of the historicity of Jesus.

Oh, wait, that was you!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 6:08 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7446
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 494 of 560 (620937)
06-21-2011 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by crashfrog
06-21-2011 4:42 PM


Re: foundations
When did we establish that? Out of the cherry-picked five you presented, two-and-a-half were based on fictional characters. To that I add the cargo cults of John Frum and the narcotics cult of Jesus Malverde, and that's 4.5 to 2.5 out of all the religions put forth for consideration. Religions based on real figures are a minority, not a majority.

If we include the ones by caffiene (Message 448) the score is a little different. Feel free to examine the major world religions that propose a historical founder, and tally up the score yourself. John Frum and Jesus Malverde are hardly major world religions. But ....

No, I would disagree. I would say that it is an extraordinary claim, based on the characteristics and qualities of religion.

To continue to claim that it is extraodinary for a person to be at the centre of a religion about a person pretty much ends the discussion I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 4:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2011 7:09 PM Modulous has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 495 of 560 (620939)
06-21-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by PaulK
06-21-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
I mention Earl Doherty as a person who is well-known for arguing AGAINST the existence of Jesus.

I don't recall you mentioning Earl Doherty except as someone related to the debate, and you mentioned him in the context of Mythical Jesus proponents not knowing anything about the arguments in favor of the Historical Jesus.

If you now admit that you were using that context to mislead people as to which position it is that Earl Doherty - whoever that is - actually argues in support of, that's just another example of the great dishonesty with which you've prosecuted this debate.

And note - you didn't answer any of my questions. Is Earl Doherty in this discussion? Have his arguments been put forward for consideration?

Yes or no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2011 6:17 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2011 1:54 AM crashfrog has responded

RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
38Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017