-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus
- Thread starter GDon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus jesus
SpuriusMaximus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 25,699
@Craig B
Because "harder to believe" is a textbook fallacy, and frankly I don't need to humour every attempt at illogical arguing by playing on its terms. Occam is a valid criterion, personal incredulity is not.
Basically it's really the same reason why I don't address which tradition is more valid to appeal to, nor which ridicule is more valid to appeal to, nor need to address the premises of an undistributed middle fallacy. I can't stop anyone from thinking any of those are valid arguments either, but they're not, and nothing would be gained by countering a fallacy with an equal and opposing fallacy of the same kind. Essentially opposite fallacies don't counter each other, it just doubles the amount of fallacious nonsense floating around.
As for evidence, well, I'm ok with that. But have you actually read what he says? I mean, we just spent like two pages with you just stating you don't agree that he even claims the things he very explicitly claims. It's not even some implicit claim. It's as explicit and point blank as it gets. Doherty even goes on about how the whole second heaven sphere counts as the domain of flesh, but nope, you can just flat out postulate that nah, you don't believe he actually means a flesh Jesus there.
So, honestly, what's even the point? If you're going to just flat out insist that you only believe your personal strawman, what's the point? Of course the evidence that addresses his ACTUAL point isn't also going to fit your strawman. It's the very nature of the beast.
But really, at the point where you insist that he wrote something different, because you read a summary phrase out of context in his biography, I'm not convinced that you've read the evidence he presents for it either. So on what basis do you judge it as enough or not enough? Seriously.
Because "harder to believe" is a textbook fallacy, and frankly I don't need to humour every attempt at illogical arguing by playing on its terms. Occam is a valid criterion, personal incredulity is not.
Basically it's really the same reason why I don't address which tradition is more valid to appeal to, nor which ridicule is more valid to appeal to, nor need to address the premises of an undistributed middle fallacy. I can't stop anyone from thinking any of those are valid arguments either, but they're not, and nothing would be gained by countering a fallacy with an equal and opposing fallacy of the same kind. Essentially opposite fallacies don't counter each other, it just doubles the amount of fallacious nonsense floating around.
As for evidence, well, I'm ok with that. But have you actually read what he says? I mean, we just spent like two pages with you just stating you don't agree that he even claims the things he very explicitly claims. It's not even some implicit claim. It's as explicit and point blank as it gets. Doherty even goes on about how the whole second heaven sphere counts as the domain of flesh, but nope, you can just flat out postulate that nah, you don't believe he actually means a flesh Jesus there.
So, honestly, what's even the point? If you're going to just flat out insist that you only believe your personal strawman, what's the point? Of course the evidence that addresses his ACTUAL point isn't also going to fit your strawman. It's the very nature of the beast.
But really, at the point where you insist that he wrote something different, because you read a summary phrase out of context in his biography, I'm not convinced that you've read the evidence he presents for it either. So on what basis do you judge it as enough or not enough? Seriously.
I don't think it's possible to respond to that. I think Doherty is talking rubbish, because I don't think any definition of "flesh" corresponds to his ideas. Nor do I think this unsubstantiated use of "straw man" is a helpful contribution from you. If you don't think I've read the evidence and thus think I have no grounds for judging it, then there is nothing more to be said. "What's even the point"? Indeed.
SpuriusMaximus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 25,699
@Craig B
Well, because you keep claiming something that's flat out wrong as beintg what they claim. It's the very definition of a strawman, no matter how you want to slice it. Whether intentionally or not, it's still a strawman. And ok, let me present some evidence that it IS a strawman, and that keeping postulating it again and again doesn't make it true. In fact, what it reminds me of is:
Except we're not in the The Hunting Of The Snark, and you're not the bellman.
So let's go with just a random lecture of his, for the sole reason that you don't even need to buy a book or anything.
Already by the 7:00 mark, he has it in bold letters that Jesus BECAME INCARNATE in that theory. So, wth, what kind of confusion gets you to repeat that, nah, you don't agree that that's what he says? WTH kind of nonsense it is to look at someone saying again and again that he does mean incarnate, but think you can just postulate that, nah, you know he means an ethereal Jesus?
By the 22 minutes mark he actually quotes Philippians 2:5-11 as supporting his theory, and explicitly mentions Jesus being descended and incarnated. In fact, it's apparently worthy of writing on the slide. But nah, apparently you can just postulate that he doesn't ACTUALLY mean incarnated :/
(Incidentally he continues on with it being incarnated just below the moon.)
By 23:30 or so, he actually goes on about how those spheres of heavens were material. He says that they believed there was dirt up there, gardens, castles, etc. But nah, you apparently can just postulate that he means spiritual and immaterial up there :/
And that's literally just one random lecture I clicked on. There are better ones, but just to show how easy it is to get actual info, instead of just postulating out of the ass that he means something else.
So how is calling that strawman a strawman "unsubstantiated"?
Well, because you keep claiming something that's flat out wrong as beintg what they claim. It's the very definition of a strawman, no matter how you want to slice it. Whether intentionally or not, it's still a strawman. And ok, let me present some evidence that it IS a strawman, and that keeping postulating it again and again doesn't make it true. In fact, what it reminds me of is:
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
Except we're not in the The Hunting Of The Snark, and you're not the bellman.
So let's go with just a random lecture of his, for the sole reason that you don't even need to buy a book or anything.
Already by the 7:00 mark, he has it in bold letters that Jesus BECAME INCARNATE in that theory. So, wth, what kind of confusion gets you to repeat that, nah, you don't agree that that's what he says? WTH kind of nonsense it is to look at someone saying again and again that he does mean incarnate, but think you can just postulate that, nah, you know he means an ethereal Jesus?
By the 22 minutes mark he actually quotes Philippians 2:5-11 as supporting his theory, and explicitly mentions Jesus being descended and incarnated. In fact, it's apparently worthy of writing on the slide. But nah, apparently you can just postulate that he doesn't ACTUALLY mean incarnated :/
(Incidentally he continues on with it being incarnated just below the moon.)
By 23:30 or so, he actually goes on about how those spheres of heavens were material. He says that they believed there was dirt up there, gardens, castles, etc. But nah, you apparently can just postulate that he means spiritual and immaterial up there :/
And that's literally just one random lecture I clicked on. There are better ones, but just to show how easy it is to get actual info, instead of just postulating out of the ass that he means something else.
So how is calling that strawman a strawman "unsubstantiated"?
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
I'd go beyond that: Dr Carrier is simply wrong on key points. I've looked into the references he's given on those points, and found that Carrier misreads the content very badly.
For those interested, I posted a review of Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" on my website last year here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html
Part of the confusion is that Carrier says, from 6:50, & wrote
"Christianity began when this "being" revealed that he had
tricked the Devil by becoming Incarnate and being
crucified by the Devil (in the regions of heavens ruled by the Devil).
Carrier reads that, then says "all this going on in a mythical realm, a celestial realm, not on earth"
Of course the celestial being's revelation would be one that was either described or discussed by real people, not a real revelation to the masses.tricked the Devil by becoming Incarnate and being
crucified by the Devil (in the regions of heavens ruled by the Devil).
Carrier reads that, then says "all this going on in a mythical realm, a celestial realm, not on earth"
The implication of Carrier (and of Earl Doherty) that it was the 'celestial being' doing this (or driving this) is confusing.
Last edited:
Please give a précis here.
@HansMustermann
I'm not watching videos of gurus for upwards of 22 minutes. If you have understood the televised wisdom of Carrier, set down its substantive contents here. If you are unable to do that, why is it worth watching anyway?
I'm not watching videos of gurus for upwards of 22 minutes. If you have understood the televised wisdom of Carrier, set down its substantive contents here. If you are unable to do that, why is it worth watching anyway?
Or to put it another way:
See post #487 above (a few posts up from this one).
SpuriusMaximus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 25,699
You know that you can click at the exact time points I have given, right?
Or that I have been trying to tell you what his point is for several pages now -- INCLUDING in the message with the linked video -- only to have you proclaim that you know better what he actually claims? Apparently without being interested in actually watching or reading anything to base those stupid strawmen on, I gather. Your being unwilling or unable to read doesn't mean _I_ failed to present it. It's just you who fail basic reading.
Or for that matter, you realize, I hope, that while nobody's forcing you to do any research if you want to take the null hypothesis, it does become YOUR burden of proof when you make positive claims about anything. Including what someone's claims are. Right?
Basically if you don't want to do any research, sure, don't. But then have the basic human DECENCY to not just pull claims out of the ass. If you don't know, and you have no interest in knowing, then it only means just that: you don't know. It doesn't mean you can just invent your own strawmen instead.
The whole act you've been doing is just reminding me of what the fundies do in the shroud threads. And in the end, the same kind of act. Guy discovers he has no actual arguments, he falls back on trolling as if pretending to be unable and unwilling to have a normal conversation is some kind of winning the argument. Whop-de-do. You're so original, dude.
Last edited:
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
Okay. If you want to argue any points in my precis, please read my full review first:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html
In OHJ, Carrier looks through the evidence in early sources and evaluates them for their value in adding towards historicity or ahistoricity. As he analyses each section, he provides a figure in the form of odds for 'Best Case' and 'Worst Case' to be plugged into Bayes's Theorem.
On the positive side, Carrier outlines his case carefully, and generally backs each part up with references to primary sources. It gives readers an opportunity to inspect each element that Carrier uses to generate his probabilities for his final Bayes Theorem calculation. Carrier invites discussion on these points, encouraging readers to go over his evidence and calculate their own probabilities.
The sections where Carrier provides 'Background Information' on early Christianity and the pagan world is comprehensive, and Carrier refers back to these sections often throughout his book.
On the negative side, Carrier is wrong on some key points and seems to be drawing a stretch on others. Some of these errors significantly undermine his case. For example:
- There are many questions around the suitability of using Bayes's Theorem for historical questions generally, and Carrier's use of it specifically. I give links to reviews of Carrier's use of BT in his books and on-line by mathematicians and others. These reviews -- even by those sympathetic to Carrier's views -- are overwhelmingly negative. I also provide examples of where I see problems in his use of BT in OHJ. (See Section 2 in my review.)
. - Carrier sees significance in the silence about a historical Jesus in Paul and other early writings. But he hasn't examined the wider range of literature of the time. Though that silence in Paul may seem bizarre to us today, it can be seen in many early texts in the first couple of centuries, including those thought to be by 'historicist' Christians. (See Section 3)
. - I don't see any evidence in Paul or other early writings, either Christian or pagan, for the idea of a celestial being getting incarnated ('into flesh') and killed above the earth. Carrier does see such evidence in the Ascension of Isaiah, the Book of Hebrews and in Plutarch's 'Isis and Osiris', but as I explain in my review, Carrier is simply wrong. (See Section 4)
This doesn't make the case for historicity a slam-dunk, since that case still needs to be established. Even if 'minimal historicity' is more likely than Carrier's 'minimal mythicism', it may be that the evidence for 'minimal historicity' is still not enough to make it a likely proposition. There are other mythicist theories that don't rely on a celestial Jesus element, e.g. GA Wells' as mentioned above. Also, many of the elements that Carrier raises as problems for historicity may still be relevant for other versions of mythicisms.
Last edited:
Hi GDon. Thank you.
You said "many early texts". Do you mean many early-Christian texts?
So the silence about a historical Jesus is a feature of many texts in the first couple of centuries?
You said "many early texts". Do you mean many early-Christian texts?
Last edited:
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
Yes, as listed in my review: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/Carrier_OHJ_Review.html#Section3
Let me respond with a passage from GDon's interesting linked material.
... I would think that the idea of Satan and demons going into the celestial temple in the upper heavens to kill Jesus goes against everything I understand about the thinking of the time. Carrier simply can't be right about that.
That seems entirely obvious to me. The idea of such a proceeding is too incongruous, not to say bizarre, to be entertained even for a moment.Regarding "the thinking of the time" - what time? The first century?
SpuriusMaximus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 25,699
Well, I wouldn't say the first couple of centuries, but essentially there aren't ANY before the gospels and Tacitus's mention of what the Xians believed. That said, Tacitus DOES repeat the Xian claim that Jesus was nailed in Judaea during Pilate's reign, which does indicate that some Xians were already believing in an Earthly Jesus.
Well, at least in Rome. The gospel of Mark is already generally believed to have been written in Rome, and Tacitus was also writing in Rome shortly afterwards (c.116 CE), so essentially what we have a view into is really just the church in Rome. And while Tacitus isn't really a source for Jesus himself, it IS a primary source for what Xians in Rome were believing at the time.
So essentially we actually have extra-biblical confirmation of SOMETHING that's actually useful here: that by the end of the 1st century CE, beginning of the 2nd, an Earthly Jesus really was what Xians in Rome believed in.
It also comes as, well, not very much of a surprise. The church in Rome is one of the 4 major churches that Irenaeus convinced to unite into what would become the Roman Catholic Church. It's not much of a surprise, really, that they believed the kind of stuff that they'd agree upon in that act. Essentially that belief didn't start with Irenaeus.
Well, at least in Rome. The gospel of Mark is already generally believed to have been written in Rome, and Tacitus was also writing in Rome shortly afterwards (c.116 CE), so essentially what we have a view into is really just the church in Rome. And while Tacitus isn't really a source for Jesus himself, it IS a primary source for what Xians in Rome were believing at the time.
So essentially we actually have extra-biblical confirmation of SOMETHING that's actually useful here: that by the end of the 1st century CE, beginning of the 2nd, an Earthly Jesus really was what Xians in Rome believed in.
It also comes as, well, not very much of a surprise. The church in Rome is one of the 4 major churches that Irenaeus convinced to unite into what would become the Roman Catholic Church. It's not much of a surprise, really, that they believed the kind of stuff that they'd agree upon in that act. Essentially that belief didn't start with Irenaeus.
SpuriusMaximus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 25,699
Well, again, that's not what Carrier claims. You're STILL just postulating, basically, the existence of a single heavens, where God's throne is. And ignoring not only MY saying so, but also the discussion that GDon already was in. Including the part where he knew very well about the multiple heavens in middle-platonism. So basically you don't seem to actually read or comprehend anything from him or any other member either.
And it seems disingenuous to pretend there's some common front, based on just ignoring everything that was discussed for the last several pages, in a kindergarten act of "la-la-la, I'm not hearing anything that disagrees with my beliefs."
But, anyway, a single heaven was NOT the Judaism belief at the time, or really of anything based on middle-platonism. They believed there were no less than 7 spheres of heavens, and God's throne and temple were in the 7'th. The 2nd heaven (you know, that sphere up to the orbit of the moon) was not even close to "breaking into God's temple". Between the 1st and 2nd sphere it was basically just the old Sheol, moved upwards: a bleak godless place, filled with the lost souls of everyone who ever lived.
It was also one of the heavier domains. It was sorted by density, so to speak. As you moved upwards, you got more air and fire as a composition, while the first domain above Earth was where you got the most Earth and Water in the mix.
And, again, even the most cursory googling or hitting wikipedia would have given you some information to base it all on, rather than just personal beliefs and incredulity. Here, wikipedia, not even hard to search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Heavens
Or just ask if you want someone else to provide a link, really.
But basically, hell, don't trust me if you don't want to. Ask GDon how it worked, before pretending you have a common front.
Last edited: