You've been shown this before, why do you need to see it again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
See that is the Historical Method used by Historians to reach conclusions about history.
What method do you use to determine the evidence?
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed
- Thread starter Kapyong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david fitzgerald
- Status
You've been shown this before, why do you need to see it again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
See that is the Historical Method used by Historians to reach conclusions about history.
What method do you use to determine the evidence?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
No, I haven't. I'm sorry that you can't tell the difference between what I actually said and what you inferred. I truly am. It's just sad.
What I have said is that magical claims can be made about real people. Thus your argument that Jesus can't have existed because people made supernatural claims about him is shown to be so groundless as to be asinine. You have not denied that Joseph Smith was an historical personage, yet you have evaded the implications to your argument of the supernatural events attributed to his life by Mormons.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
The flaw in that comparison is how likely are we to have interacted with Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro or Augusto Pinochet?
Remember if we take the NT as history Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin trial, was defended by Pilate, and personally met Herod Antipas as a part of Pilate's efforts. In essence we have something akin to a military case involving two state governors one of whom also tried to reverse the case in the regular courts...how likely is the record of such a case getting lost?
Who said anything about taking the New Testament as history? I don't buy for a moment the claim that Jesus was defended by Pontius Pilatus. I very much doubt that he would have even seen the man. The independent sources we have regarding Pilatus show him to have been a harsh prefect, even by Roman standards of authoritarianism. I've no reasonable doubt that the stories about him regarding the trial of Jesus were added as a way of appeasing Roman authorities by emphasizing that Christians were good citizens and not a threat to Roman rule.
What?? It is your argument that is hopelessly absurd. Even though Jesus of Nazareth is described as the Son of a Ghost and God Creator who transfigured, walked for miles on sea water, resurrected and ascended in hundreds of manuscripts and Codices and without a shred of history in non-apologetic sources you still argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
You have no basis to argue for an HJ of Nazareth except for your incredulity, personal bias or spite.
Essentially your argument is actually groundless and asinine since your are arguing that your Jesus must have or most likely existed even without evidence while relying on the Bible --a known source of mythology, fiction, implausibility and forgeries.
Last edited:
Your post confirms that you have no basis whatsoever to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Once you reject the NT as history then there is NO other source for an HJ of Nazareth.
Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger wrote NOTHING of a Jesus of Nazareth who was a Messianic ruler and worshiped as a God since the time of Pilate.
Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all attest that the Jews expected and predicted Jewish Messianic rulers at around c 66 CE--not 33 CE.
It is asinine to reject the NT as history and still attempt to maintain an argument for an HJ of Nazareth.
Of course they can. But in the case of Jesus, he was described continuously in terms of the supernatural. If you take out all the supernatural claims from the biblical descriptions of Jesus, then what is left is not a story that anyone would have ever bothered to mention on the first place - the whole point of the biblical description is that Jesus is supernatural in the extreme.
So then you have to ask, "well then, if we left out al the supernatural stuff, what is the actual evidence that this person ever might have lived as a normal human being?". And the answer to that is that nobody can cite even the most microscopic spec of any such evidence. And that is just not any kind of credible basis on which to believe biblical stories which were after all, about an overtly supernatural scion of Yahweh in heaven.
I don't think that is dejudge's argument all. His argument is that the only description you actually have is the biblical description of Jesus. All other descriptions derive entirely from that biblical writing. But as I just explained above - that biblical writing is simply not credible because (a)it describes a figure now known to be physically impossible and quite certainly fiction, and (b)there is zero evidence of any other less supernatural 1st century messiah named Jesus.
Could some other non-biblical non-superhuman Jesus have ever lived? Yes of course. But in view of the obvious & continuous fiction of the biblical writing, you really must produce some genuine independent evidence of anyone claimed to have been a real human Jesus … so what is that genuine independent credible evidence of Jesus? Because the answer appears to be absolutely in the negative … no evidence at all.
Only if you don't know anything about how history is studied.
How have you managed to shield yourself from that information for so long?
David Mo
Philosopher
Maybe an indication or hint? "Evidence" is a very strong word.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
zugzwang
There surely is a serious discussion to be had about evidence. I would imagine that scientists do different things with evidence than literary critics do. However, there is no room for disagreement between scientist and critic over what evidence is: an observation of fact which has the potential to be estimated more likely to be seen under some resolutions of an uncertainty than under others, according to some person who makes the estimates. Another way to say the same thing is that evidence is an observation of fact which has the potential to form or change someone's opinion about the resolution of an uncertainty.
The New Testament is evidence about many uncertainties, any except those where the speaker sees no possibility that any rational person could form or change an opinion about those uncertainties based on the New Testament (alternatively, the New Testament would be just as it is regardless of the true resolution of the uncertainties about which it is not evidence).
Example I believe that the New Testament is not evidence about whether Julius Caesar had a son by Cleopatra, neither for nor against. I believe that the New Testament is evidence about a historical Jesus, because I have encountered rational people who have experienced opinion formation and change about that uncertainty (some for, others against; it's evidence either way).
Ian
As noted, your request for an inventory of the avaialable evidence has been answered countless times already, by many different people. On this matter, the same evidence is available to all, regardless of somebody's opinion about how best to resolve the uncertainty, and regardless of what you think about their honesty.
There surely is a serious discussion to be had about evidence. I would imagine that scientists do different things with evidence than literary critics do. However, there is no room for disagreement between scientist and critic over what evidence is: an observation of fact which has the potential to be estimated more likely to be seen under some resolutions of an uncertainty than under others, according to some person who makes the estimates. Another way to say the same thing is that evidence is an observation of fact which has the potential to form or change someone's opinion about the resolution of an uncertainty.
The New Testament is evidence about many uncertainties, any except those where the speaker sees no possibility that any rational person could form or change an opinion about those uncertainties based on the New Testament (alternatively, the New Testament would be just as it is regardless of the true resolution of the uncertainties about which it is not evidence).
Example I believe that the New Testament is not evidence about whether Julius Caesar had a son by Cleopatra, neither for nor against. I believe that the New Testament is evidence about a historical Jesus, because I have encountered rational people who have experienced opinion formation and change about that uncertainty (some for, others against; it's evidence either way).
Ian
As noted, your request for an inventory of the avaialable evidence has been answered countless times already, by many different people. On this matter, the same evidence is available to all, regardless of somebody's opinion about how best to resolve the uncertainty, and regardless of what you think about their honesty.
eight bits
Yes, I guess it would be another thread - the question of evidence, I mean.
I suppose the point about historical method is that it seems to have extended the notion of evidence beyond the hard stuff, like coins and archaeology, to accounts in documents, stories, letters, and so on. In ancient history, this seems inevitable, since there is so little material - so you might be interested in hearsay, for example.
But even in more recent history, this issue comes up - I am still reading a biography of Napoleon, who is supposed to have said after his honeymoon, 'she asked me to do it again'. I wonder how that remark would be checked? I suppose the butler heard it, who told his son, who told the fishmonger.
These threads are truly surreal, so that is enjoyable really.
Yes, I guess it would be another thread - the question of evidence, I mean.
I suppose the point about historical method is that it seems to have extended the notion of evidence beyond the hard stuff, like coins and archaeology, to accounts in documents, stories, letters, and so on. In ancient history, this seems inevitable, since there is so little material - so you might be interested in hearsay, for example.
But even in more recent history, this issue comes up - I am still reading a biography of Napoleon, who is supposed to have said after his honeymoon, 'she asked me to do it again'. I wonder how that remark would be checked? I suppose the butler heard it, who told his son, who told the fishmonger.
These threads are truly surreal, so that is enjoyable really.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
zugzwang
Although Sagan's phrase XCRXE is often taken as a simple endorsement of elementary "Bayesian" principles, Sagan (who apparently wasn't Bayesian) actually intended it to mean excluson of personal testimony from deciding alien abduction claims affirmatively. The slogan perpetuates the superstition (err, pre-systematic view) that only the hard stuff counts.
As you know, I am not a softie on "historical method," but on this point, we sing in harmony.
Of course. If I can observe it, then it is candidate evidence. Coincidentally, there was another thread recently on the nearby General Skepticism and the Paranormal board about the pre-systematic view that the physcial form of evidence might disqualify it from admissibility in some controversies. The title was something like "The SGU's explanation of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'"
Although Sagan's phrase XCRXE is often taken as a simple endorsement of elementary "Bayesian" principles, Sagan (who apparently wasn't Bayesian) actually intended it to mean excluson of personal testimony from deciding alien abduction claims affirmatively. The slogan perpetuates the superstition (err, pre-systematic view) that only the hard stuff counts.
As you know, I am not a softie on "historical method," but on this point, we sing in harmony.
A "hint" or an "indication"? That's getting very subjective, and open to interpretation and personal belief. Isn't it?
We don't accept that sort of thing as in any way dependable or definitive in any objective academic discipline, do we? Certainly not in science. And afaik, history talks about "evidence" too, not merely what people think might be hints or indications.
What do you think would be a “hint”? perhaps the fact that people wrote about him in a bible? Would that be a “hint”? Because that would be a “hint” which was entirely devoid of any evidence, but absolutely filled with untruths.
Would the bible writing be an “indication”? Because, again, that is writing which is manifestly filled with all manner of fictional beliefs about their expected messiah.
I think we really do need to deal in something that can reasonably be called genuine evidence of that which is claimed (i.e. a living human Jesus, identifiable as the person said to be the messiah in the bible), independent evidence which is not from thoroughly discredited untrue biblical sources, and something which can be cross-checked or verified to at least some extent by additional credible sources of the time (ie not just one author who makes some unverifiable claims).
IOW, the sort of evidence that afaik we do actually have for numerous other historical figures, such as Roman emperors, Egyptian pharaohs, all sorts of Kings and Queens, etc.
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Like they always say: the evidence is somewhere else, in some magic thread, its there really, believe me! Trust me! Its there! I'll spend 500 paragraphs telling you about how it's there, instead of the few words I could actually type as evidence.
Or, people could pick up a book and read.
Why is it anyone else's job to overcome their ignorance? That is their responsibility.
If you have a problem with the idea of a HJ, take it up with Historians. No one here is obliged to provide you with an education.
But don't be surprised if no one agrees with your "idea". Why should we? It is based on a misunderstanding of Historical Methodology.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You'll also get called ignorant and uneducated, a reference will be made to the Historical Consensus and the Historical Method but you will not get one shred of evidence.
The evidence has already been posted. It is simple to use google, but if you want to come to grips with the intricate details of these HJ arguments, it really does behoove you to go to a bit of effort and maybe read a book.
I'm not saying you need three degrees and two doctorates or something, but would reading a book kill you?
If you aren't interested enough in the topic to read a book, then why are you here contradicting experts on History?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
For my argument to be hopelessly absurd, as you say, it would have to be impossible for magical stories to be made up about a real person, and impossible for a person to be so little known in his own generation that he failed to attract the attention of the very tiny percentage of the populace who were educated enough to write at all.
Could you please explain in detail, without resorting to histrionic hyperbole, why each of those prospects is hopelessly absurd?
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
What a simplistic dichotomy: assume either that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God about Jesus the Christ, or assume that it is entirely fictional and that no elements of real events or personages might exist within its texts.
And you assume that they covered every single aspect of the history of the Roman Empire? You assume that they represent a comprehensive record of everything that did happen, and if they didn't mention something, then it can't have existed? Why would they write about a fringe cult of Judaism popular with slaves and women?
Could you provide some evidence for this claim? Apocalyptic Jews had been expecting a messiah, descended of David, since at least a century prior to the reported birth of Jesus. There was a major revolt led by a slave claiming to be just such a messiah right around 1 CE. They even burned down one of Herod's palaces.
I'm glad you like that new word, but it doesn't change the fact that historians regularly examine texts with the aim of distinguishing what could be historical from what is fabricated.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,132
It's important to note that the historical method is also applied to the writings of ancient historians like Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger. They are, after all, reflective of the opinions and biases of their authors, and make claims which are not all attested to by independent witnesses.
- Status