|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Reliable history in the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
No, but it sure does prove that shortly after Christ died (2 generations at most), people already had beliefs that seemed to indicate the events happened(though it isnt overwhelming evidence alone).Were 2 generations at most (and infact Josephus would have access to people who lived while Christ did)enough time for myths to be created over a man?
This is essentially the point made by G. A. Wells. It just becomes more evidence that nay-saying people must make excuses about in-order to maintain thir ability to ignore..... I would be FAR more concerned with what L. Feldman has to say on the issue. Brill has a commentary series on Josephus, and books 1-4 are commented on by from Feldman,and perhaps more(I dont know, I only have the paperback of the Book 1-4 commentary,all are under single cover). Feldman is the top of his field.And he isnt a Christian(not that I would discriminate against a scholar for their views,its their skills that I appreciate). Next issue.... Does it prove the NT Gospels? No, but it sure does prove that shortly after Christ died (2 generations at most), people already had beliefs that seemed to indicate the events happened(though it isnt overwhelming evidence alone).Were 2 generations at most (and infact Josephus would have access to people who lived while Christ did)enough time for myths to be created over a man? It just becomes more evidence that nay-saying people must make excuses about in-order to maintain thir ability to ignore. Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
arachnophilia writes:
Because you've bastardized Ockham - otherwise "miracle" would always be the "simplest explanation", thereby rendering Occam's Razor worthless. Early history is grounded, not on some farcical application of some naive caricature of Occam's Razor, but on a reiterative process of abduction, i.e., Inference to Best Explanation. wow. i like this argument. allow me to attempt to destroy it, just to see what it's worth.let's suppose for a second that we're not talking about jesus, but one particular instance of jesus's renown. say, raising lazarus, or some other miracle. now, we have no evidence (outside of the gospel) that such a miracle ever happened. but we have even less that it did not happen. so, the simplest explanation (as per ockham) is that a successful miracle won sufficient renown to be recorded. why does this argument not work? because "that jesus existed" is a reasonable assumption, but "that jesus performed miracles" is not? the evidence is exactly the same, however. we have only the gospel for "yes" and nothing for "no." if the reliability of the gospel is to be suspect, why only partially? We have zero evidence for the purposeful abrogation of natural law. We have abundant evidence of myth and legend creation. If we assume an historical core to the references to the Jerusalem sect, it seems to me that the least artificially recalcitrant position would be to allow for an early sect leader that served as the center of legend accretion. And this seems reinforced by what little is know about the Ebionites. Can we know this for sure? No, of course not; the historicist position is but tentatively accepted until such time as evidence warrants its rejection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
arachnophilia writes:
Because the alternative is to presume a complex Pauline/Lucan fabrication, it is to presume, contra Schnelle and others, a late date for the Sayings tradition, it is to presume an unevidenced causal link the Gospel of Thomas to the purported fabrications of Paul, it is to presume that the Ebionites are a complete fiction, and it is to presume that the total absence of any challenge to the historicity of Jesus in early Jewish tradition is somehow reasonable. ConsequentAtheist writes: why should we? If we assume an historical core to the references to the Jerusalem sect, ... The mythicist likes to pretend that he or she is making no affirmative claim and therefore shares no burden of proof. Such a stance is as disingenuous as it is naive. Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Some of which seems to be from the Essenes, others from the Hillel school of pharisaic thought. What "seems to be from the Essenes", and on what evidence do you claim the historicity of Hillel?
There are so many contradictory beliefs about Jesus, and then there was the 'filter' of convention that the writings went through (via the Council of Nicea.
what writing was filtered "via the Council of Nicea"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
ramoss writes:
Outstanding evidence, no doubt. Hillel was recored in not only the talmud, but was extensively quoted in the Pirqe Avot. He is the founder of the 'house of hillel' Josephus talks about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I being Hillel's great grandson. By the way, what might be the date of the Talmud and the Pirqe Aboth, how much of its content would you claim as historically accurate, and on what grounds would you assert these texts serve as better evidence for the historicity of Hillel than do the writings of the early Christians serve as evidence for the historicity of Yeshua? And why is Josephus to be taken at face value when talking about Gamliel's relationship to Hillel but not when talking about James' relationship to Jesus? Parenthetically, you might wish to read up on the Council of Nicea ... Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given. Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
Circa 1550 "Israelites Nomads" is little more than symantic sleight-of-hand.
The Israelites Nomads were a major (maybe even the majority?) entity in the highland regions of Palestine around the time the cities were destroyed (1550).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
Then Silberman either misunderstands Finkelstein or renders his views poorly or - far more likely - is being read through a distorted lens and rendered with self-serving sloppiness. To say that the Israelites emerged from the hill country populations is a far cry from pretending a coherent culture that could reasonably be labeled "Israelite Nomads". And to use this pretense as the foundation for asserting that Ill try and grab the book and give a fuller quote later. Silberman clearly described Finkelsteins views that the pastoralist peoples that emerged 1550 were what would later be Israelites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
But you dished out this nonsense, not as your "interpretation", but as Finkelstein's position. That isn't "silly" - it's dishonest, and it typifies the word salad of cherry-picked references, baseless assertions, and equally vapid inference that you pawn off as archaeological argument. My interpretation isnt silly. Finkelstein DOES view the Israelites as emerging much later. So, you abused Finkelstein. The best thay one can say for you is that you were equally disingenuous when dealing with his oft time opponent, Dever. And what does Dever say about all this:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
This type of argument by rhetorical innuendo is pathetic garbage and deserves zero respect. Far better that you focus on why. "in a single year (1550)archaeologically" an unevidenced God would lead an unevidenced Exodus on a route that avoided an unevidenced Philistine threat. ....were many of the most important Conquest cities destroyed in a single year (1550)archaeologically and why did the population drop 95% in the EXACT place where the Israelites conquered? Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
Anyone who believes that they can "assure" an audience that "the most important Conquest cities [were] destroyed in a single year (1550)" is delusional. ConsequentAtheist writes:
I can assure you that the major Conquest cities named (in the Bible) [were] destroyed (in the archaeological record), ... MightyPlaceNimrod writes:
This type of argument by rhetorical innuendo is pathetic garbage and deserves zero respect. ....were many of the most important Conquest cities destroyed in a single year (1550)archaeologically and why did the population drop 95% in the EXACT place where the Israelites conquered? More impotantly, note the difference between:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
the most important Conquest cities destroyed in a single year ...
The Bible may not be describing a sigle year but ...
What a pathetic fraud ... Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Biblical-Conquest critics?
Yes. You babble incessantly and verbosely and seem inordinantly fond of your arguments - yet you've proved absolutely nothing. It's becoming tiresome.
Are you there? Listening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Did Josephus mention any of the apostles whom he could have known? Seems to me that if Josephus were really wanting to write about Jesus, he would have sought these guys out and asked them...unless, of course, there were no such men. That was a remarkably inane sentence ...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024