Well, then we are no longer in Kansas.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Well, then we are no longer in Kansas.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
They only have frameworks with methods in Kansas? Interesting.
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 7,172
I would nice if you contributed to the discussion instead of making obtuse one-liners.
I like you dafydd, I frequently find your little jokes amusing. I see you aren't taking this seriously, and why should you? But of course my point was that if we abandon the Historical Method for determining questions of History, we might as well be living in the Merry Old Land Of OZ.
People can claim that Julius Caesar never existed if they want. Those coins? Fake. Statues? Fake. Books, pictures, buildings? All Fake! Because I say so. We all know people can fake things, how do we know they didn't fake Caesar? We don't! So you can't say Caesar existed!!!
Now where's my Nobel Prize?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
How can you use historical evidence to investigate the mythical Jesus? You might as well use historical evidence to investigate Zeus or Gandalf. I am quite prepared to believe that there was a wandering hippie preacher called Jesus who may or may not have upset the Romans but that's as far as I go.
Last edited:
Me too. That's about as far as anyone goes with the HJ. It's not about proving the Theology, it's about answering the question: "What happened?".
Belz...
Fiend God
Belz... said:
Ok so you just reached a conclusion without evidence. How very skeptical of you.
Here's an interesting little read for you: http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/
It really takes off around book 15. There was a fair bit going on.
Are you serious?
I admit I haven't seen any evidence of a historical framework which would make this "Mythical Jesus" idea make sense, but that was the point.
What was your point?
That I need to see this Historical framework before I can say it doesn't exist?
Or that Historical speculations like this don't need to fit into a wider understanding of History?
Or something else?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Genesis is history?
No. Josephus thought it was though. And that part is all over by the time you get to book 15.
Did you have a point?
Silly question I suppose.
Belz...
Fiend God
Ugh... here's my question AGAIN. You said:
I asked you to demonstrate that this is true.
You also said:
And I asked you how you consider this to be "obvious".
Ah, Ok. That is my opinion based on the interactions I have had with people like yourself, IanS, Gawdzilla, Beelzebuddy, tsig.... there may be others.
But it definitely looks to me that you guys find it galling that Historians don't agree with your pseudo-historical speculations. And that those speculations are based on an anti-Theist bias rather than valid Historical research.
If it was based on valid Historical research, you wouldn't be in the position of having every Historian who comes through these threads telling you all how wrong-headed your approach to Ancient History is.
How is it not obvious?
If they had a valid framework to fit a "Mythical Jesus", someone would have presented it by now. Carrier is still trying to get through peer review.
How is this confusing?
Your two links are to two of your own posts, both of which are huge long rants citing biblical writing about the beliefs of people like Paul.
That is not evidence of a living Jesus.
At best, the biblical writing of Paul’s letters and the canonical gospels, is evidence of what fanatical Christians believed in the 1st century.
It’s not evidence that their beliefs about Jesus were ever true.
There is no evidence in any of your bible links that shows Jesus to have been a real person.
So to repeat -
- what are you claiming to be the evidence that shows Jesus was a real living person?
- what are you claiming is shown by your bible scholars to be the evidence which “proves” Jesus was “definitely” a real living person?
That is the only issue that remains in any of these HJ threads - no more waffling around in endless circles - can you cite evidence showing Jesus was a living person or not!
Belz...
Fiend God
Again: why ? Why does it look that way to you, and why do you use this "impression" to dismiss all of your opponents as a single set ?
Because it's only obvious to you. I'm asking you how it's obvious, since it seems like not everyone agrees on this, far from it.
Who said it was confusing ? It's just wrong. But don't let that stop you from continuing to imagine your opponents' thoughts.
Firstly, I think I owe you an apology. You are not one of the people I was talking about re the Mythical Jesus. As far as I can tell you aren't pushing that particular idea. Sorry.
No. The problem is that they aren't doing History. They seem to think that they are doing History, but they aren't. It's Pseudohistory. It apes some of the language, but misses the substance of how to reach reliable conclusions.
OK sorry. It is obvious if you know the methodology used by Ancient Historians to reach their conclusions.
These people use no such methodology. They see something that looks suspicious to them and jump on it as if it is some kind of "gotcha" that Historians have never considered because they are too stupid or something.
Then why do all the Historians that ever show up in these threads get exasperated at the wrong-headed way these people go about Ancient History.
It isn't a fallacy to appeal to experts in a field that requires experts.
No. The problem is that they aren't doing History. They seem to think that they are doing History, but they aren't. It's Pseudohistory. It apes some of the language, but misses the substance of how to reach reliable conclusions.
OK sorry. It is obvious if you know the methodology used by Ancient Historians to reach their conclusions.
These people use no such methodology. They see something that looks suspicious to them and jump on it as if it is some kind of "gotcha" that Historians have never considered because they are too stupid or something.
Then why do all the Historians that ever show up in these threads get exasperated at the wrong-headed way these people go about Ancient History.
It isn't a fallacy to appeal to experts in a field that requires experts.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I just asked for the data. Instead of data I get accused of being anti theist and engaging in anti historical speculations. (also being a truther, a holocaust denier and a creationist)
I honestly don't understand your repeated request for some sort of Mythical Jesus Framework as if I'm supposed to invent some scenario about what the early Christians believed. I don't care what early Christians believed since their beliefs can't change reality.
Last edited:
But aren't you one of the people saying that Jesus never existed?
It is very easy to say that Jesus never existed. It is much more difficult to fit that idea into the rest of what we know about the time and place.
The Jesus Myth idea only works if you ignore the rest of what we know. If you have a good reason why everything we know is wrong, present it.
If you don't have any good reason for thinking that everything we know is wrong, why should anyone listen to you?
Which Jesus existed? Where, when? What historical source of antiquity mentioned this supposed historical character??
Jesus of the Bible could not have existed as described. An "historical" Jesus appears to be an invention-a myth-- without a shred of actual evidence.
Please, state the biography and source of the historical Jesus because Bible Jesus was a myth.
- Status