|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote:The fact that you make unreasonable demands for evidence doesn’t make you right. quote: At least here, Jesus Mythicism is asserted without evidence. You can work out the rest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It’s asking for evidence that is likely to be absent (regardless of the truth) as an excuse for rejecting the evidence we do have. Like a creationist insisting on having a complete set of transitional fossils before accepting an evolutionary relationship. Edited by PaulK, : Fixed auto-“correct”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You think that we don’t come to conclusions regarding phylogenies just because the evidence is incomplete? Look up “ghost lineages” some time. No, the people who use incomplete evidence as an excuse for rejecting evidence they don’t like are the creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: But it isn’t asking for evidence. It’s just an excuse for rejecting evidence.
quote: There’s a lot I could say about that, but the important thing is that the argument doesn’t rely on even the Gospels being witness evidence for Jesus. And even though Josephus is a secondary source - the correct term in a historical context - he’s a pretty good one for that period. Our best source for Alexander is a secondary source - Arrian - and no historian considers that a problem (even if Christian apologists have been known to disagree).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, it obviously is not.
quote: That’s already been shown to be wrong. That’s why you started adding qualifiers so you could discount the evidence that we do have.
quote: Yes, you can’t manage anything better than pretending that the evidence doesn’t exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Literally, none of them are apocryphal :-)
quote: Historians pretty much have to - though they make the effort to sift the truth from the falsehoods. Ancient documents are often biased, exaggerated or credulous (and the Gospels and Acts are all three). But, while we should certainly not accept that Ananias and Sapphira were literally struck down by God why should we balk at the idea that Peter was living as a cult leader sponging off his followers? And getting very angry if they failed to deliver all he wanted? (Acts 5).
quote: Evidence is defined very loosely. Anything that makes a conclusion more likely is evidence for that conclusion. That leads to some uncomfortable edge-cases but that’s the way it is defined. The fact that 1st Century Christians were claiming that their religion was founded by a Galilean called Jesus who was crucified by the Romans is evidence that such is the case. And since that much is a plausible story we should accept it as a likely possibility unless there is a better explanation of why they are telling that story. (There is more, of course, but that is the basic thinking here).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Obviously better than yours.
quote: I don’t ignore it, so far as it is true. That’s just something you made up (and really why are you calling books in the canonical Bible “apocryphal”?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
And the first sentence of that article says:
Apocrypha are biblical or related writings not forming part of the accepted canon of Scripture
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The two things are from the SAME STORY. Which really demonstrates your attitude to the evidence. Not that your response would be sensible anyway. Sorry, but historical analysis is not searching for excuses to throw out evidence you don’t like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It seems that you are the one cherry-picking and expecting others to agree with your choices. Wikipedia expands in the definition you offer:
In this broader metaphorical sense, the word suggests a claim that is in the nature of folklore, factoid or urban legend.
Which is more in line with the way I’ve seen it used. Check out the examples offered by Merriam Webster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I’m pretty sure that unthinking denialism is not accepted as a valid method of historical research.
quote: That’s where he got his teachings. It’s certainly not where he gets his ideas about the things he personally did. But you’re throwing those out, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It certainly is.
quote: I don’t think that pretending that the evidence doesn’t exist counts as looking at it.
quote: Who says that he needs to? I mean I invoked Paul’s Epistles as evidence that Christianity preceded Paul’s conversion - and that he identified James as Jesus’ brother. Neither of these require him to have much knowledge of Jesus, nor would they be counted in the teachings he got from revelation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: More mindless denialism. If that’s your idea of “historical enquiry” you have a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I’d suggest that you try it, but you’re obviously not ready for college. But carry on with this joke all you like, I’m still laughing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Christian apologists spout outrageous falsehoods. Hardly a surprise.
The evidence for the Resurrection is incredibly weak and no rational court should accept it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024