Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2016, 10:27 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 10:46 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 10:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 09:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  History doesn't make outlandish claims, but instead it works with the evidence and a collective of intelligence to arrive at the best approximation of whatever the truth may be.

And it does not favor the idea that the Jesus whom the Christians follow was a complete myth. Instead, it merely points to a crucified man who's life was embellished by his followers after the fact.

In other words, it comports precisely and exactly with each and every one of your opinions.

If I reach the same conclusion based upon the evidence as the consensus does, how could it not comport with my opinion?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 11:31 AM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:
Quote:"Jakob Burckhardt"

Great ... an art historian specializing in the Renaissance with absolutely no experience in religious history whatsoever. Been dead now for about 120 years.

Poor attempt at an ad hominem there GU.

An ad hominem is when an attack is made upon the person. But I am questiong his credentials and qualifications. That is not an ad hominem.

Quote:"Carl Jacob Christoph Burckhardt (May 25, 1818 – August 8, 1897) was a Swiss historian of art and culture and an influential figure in the historiography of both fields. He is known as one of the major progenitors of cultural history.[1] Sigfried Giedion described Burckhardt's achievement in the following terms: "The great discoverer of the age of the Renaissance, he first showed how a period should be treated in its entirety, with regard not only for its painting, sculpture and architecture, but for the social institutions of its daily life as well."[2] Burckhardt's best known work is The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860).

The son of a Protestant clergyman, Burckhardt was born and died in Basel, where he studied theology in the hope of taking holy orders; however, under the influence of Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, he chose not to become a clergyman. He finished his degree in 1839 and went to the University of Berlin to study history,[3] especially art history, then a new field. At Berlin, he attended lectures by Leopold von Ranke, the founder of history as a respectable academic discipline based on sources and records rather than personal opinions. He spent part of 1841 at the University of Bonn, studying under the art historian Franz Theodor Kugler, to whom he dedicated his first book, Die Kunstwerke der belgischen Städte (1842). He taught at the University of Basel from 1843 to 1855, then at the Federal Polytechnic School. In 1858, he returned to Basel to assume the professorship he held until his 1893 retirement. He started to teach only art history in 1886. He twice declined offers of professorial chairs at German universities, at the University of Tübingen in 1867 and Ranke's chair at the University of Berlin in 1872."

As I stated, he is an art historian. You using him is a true argument from authority, since he may be a historian, but is neither a religious nor ancient history historian.

That is not unlike consulting a dentist regarding some brain surgery. Both are doctors, and both do their surgical procedures in the head, but the work that both do is completely different and unrelated.

Therefore art historian Jakob Burckhardt's opinion on ancient religious history is as unqualified as religious historian Bart Ehrman's opinion is on 16th century art.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 01:52 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
You keep beating on an incomplete citation and characterization of Burckhardt. Why is that?
Quote:Burckhardt's historical writings did much to establish the importance of art in the study of history; indeed, he was one of the "founding fathers of art history" but also one of the original creators of cultural history. According to John Lukacs, he was the first master of cultural history, which seeks to describe the spirit and the forms of expression of a particular age, a particular people, or a particular place. His innovative approach to historical research stressed the importance of art and its inestimable value as a primary source for the study of history.
Quote:Burckhardt was born and died in Basel, where he studied theology in the hope of taking holy orders; however, under the influence of Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, he chose not to become a clergyman.
Quote:Burckhardt considered the study of ancient history an intellectual necessity and was a highly respected scholar of Greek civilization. "The Greeks and Greek Civilization" sums up the relevant lectures, "Griechische Kulturgeschichte", which Burckhardt first gave in 1872 and which he repeated until 1885. At his death, he was working on a four-volume survey of Greek civilization.
It is the same dishonest method that you are accusing others of.
I have no horse in this race, but your insistence on Burckhardt's lack of competency or relevance on the topic sent me looking.
He studied theology, and was also considered one of the original creators of cultural history.
To simplify all that to "art historian" is rather ignorant and smells like fear and not reason at work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
06-08-2016, 02:18 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 04:23 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 01:52 PM)skyking Wrote:  You keep beating on an incomplete citation and characterization of Burckhardt. Why is that?
Quote:Burckhardt's historical writings did much to establish the importance of art in the study of history; indeed, he was one of the "founding fathers of art history" but also one of the original creators of cultural history. According to John Lukacs, he was the first master of cultural history, which seeks to describe the spirit and the forms of expression of a particular age, a particular people, or a particular place. His innovative approach to historical research stressed the importance of art and its inestimable value as a primary source for the study of history.
Quote:Burckhardt was born and died in Basel, where he studied theology in the hope of taking holy orders; however, under the influence of Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, he chose not to become a clergyman.
Quote:Burckhardt considered the study of ancient history an intellectual necessity and was a highly respected scholar of Greek civilization. "The Greeks and Greek Civilization" sums up the relevant lectures, "Griechische Kulturgeschichte", which Burckhardt first gave in 1872 and which he repeated until 1885. At his death, he was working on a four-volume survey of Greek civilization.
It is the same dishonest method that you are accusing others of.
I have no horse in this race, but your insistence on Burckhardt's lack of competency or relevance on the topic sent me looking.
He studied theology, and was also considered one of the original creators of cultural history.
To simplify all that to "art historian" is rather ignorant and smells like fear and not reason at work.

Firstly, his primary occupation was, in fact, art history. That is what his "profession" was. Sure, he was a historian. Sure, he was versed in ancient Greek history like virtually all historians. But aside from his early work The Age of Constantine the Great, he did not seek to make his mark on ancient history with anything but art. His chosen profession had nothing to do with ancient religious history. He specialized in art history only.

Secondly, he was also immersed in Greek culture, but not much at all in ancient Christian beliefs, because he was not a religious historian. His focus was prmarily on art history, with a secondary focus on ancient Greek culture. Sure, religion factors in, but religion was not his focus. He did not focus on the origins of Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, etc.

Thirdly, he is best known for ''The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy," which deals precisely with art history, which is natural because he was an art historian, although he did write The Age of Constantine the Great, which details how the Christian religion negatively influenced the Greek culture, and how Constantine utilized Christianity to further his own agenda.

Finally, he was not a religious historian whatsoever. If he was, then he would have written books focusing on it, but he didn't.

He wrote almost nothing on the subject of ancient Christian beliefs whatsoever, aside from just a few paragraphs here and there. Although he does discuss the Christian's influence at great length in his other book The Age of Constantine the Great. He viewed and reviewed Eusebius as being more of a historian than a Christian, albeit, a horrible historian.

But the point here is that Burckhardt says absolutely nothing about the quote of Eusebius that we are arguing here about. Sure, Burckhardt has a negative opinion about Eusebius, and so do I, but his negative opinion does not, in any way, address the accusation that the sentiments of Eusebius were represented in that quote.

And that is the real point here.


Burckhardt's negative opinion regarding Eusebius is completely irrelevant, and does not apply to the context of this accusation against Eusebius. It's non sequitur.

Analogy:

1. John is accused of forgery.
2. Jack does not like John.
3. Joe sees that Jack doesn't like John.
4. Therefore, because Jack doesn't like John, Joe believes John is guilty of forgery.

Question: Is John guilty of forgery just because Jack doesn't like him?


How the fuck does that work? Can anybody make this work?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 08:35 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote:...when in reality all it does is poison the minds of our young, and entraps them into another belief system... Huh

" and.... entraps.... them.... into..... another.... belief.... system."

Oops. Another slip of the pen? What is this "belief system," to which there is "another" you refer to?

What makes you think I, or people like me, have a "belief system" we promote to kids?

Regardless whether people have extremely strong beliefs or extremely strong disbeliefs, both sides to this coin can have a propensity to create extremists. In this sense, the atheist can be subjected to extremism virtually the same way as a religionist.

We see all kinds of zealous religious freaks coming here who will absolutely deny all the evidence for evolution, Big Bang, and other scientific discoveries. They will maintain that the earth is 6000 years old, and nothing we say to them can make one single dent. Despite us providing a massive consensus of the world's best scientific minds, they will find a couple of religiously bias scientists who believe in intelligent design.

Yet we all know they are full of shit. How do we know? We know because we have learned from this massive consensus of scientists that evolution is virtually a slam dunk, and the Big Bang model is what best explains the nature oif existence according to the available evidence. We also know because they cannot provide good evidence for any of their claims including the existence of God, or the 6000 year old earth.

1. They deny ignore the consensus of the experts.
2. They either deny and ignore the evidence, or attempt to contest it with exceptionally improbable and improvable arguments.
3. They constantly use logical fallacies, and then deny it even when it's conclusively proven.
4. They claim victory for their arguments in the face of utter defeat, denying that their positions have been defeated.
5. Based upon their own conjecture, they manufacture evidence that doesn't actually exist in reality.

They are virtually hopelessly trapped into a belief system because they believe they have a credible support system for it.

Now people who do what you do with history are doing exactly the same thing as those religious zealots.

1. You deny and/or ignore the consensus of the experts.
2. You deny and/or ignore the evidence, or attempt to contest it with exceptionally improbable and improvable arguments.
3. You constantly use logical fallacies, and then deny it even when it's conclusively proven.
4. You claim victory for your arguments in the face of utter and obvious defeat, denying that your positions have been defeated.
5. Based upon your own conjecture, you manufacture evidence that doesn't actually exist in reality.

Like the religionist, you are so trapped into what you believe that nothing gets through to you. You will even deny everything I posted here, because your beliefs in what you think you know are so strong that you are incapable of even considering the possibility that everything you believe regarding Christian history could possibly be wrong.

You see people like me as an affront to your position, so you then accuse me of being a theist (exactly the same way a theist says, "You can't understand because you are an atheist"), because you are not capable of understanding why I disagree with your position, and that I can disagree from the position of a human secularist. Therefore you falsely conclude, "He must be a theist."

And then you go on your merry way writing your version of history and influencing the young minds who's happenstance brought them to your writings, and your "belief system" spreads to them and believe it or not, you gain a following ... just like a Christian church.

When I say you are absolutely no different than the likes of Rene Salm, Kenneth Humphreys and Earl Doherty- all proponents of conspiracy theories regarding Jesus and the Christian religion- it is said because you are attempting to do the exact same thing as they are doing. Not one of them is a professional in the field of history, yet they all- including you- attempt to pass themselves off as some kind of an authority when the truth is they have 0% formal education.

If you want to create a belief system regarding history, the least you could do is go get a formal education so that you can understand why your current position is so off-the-wall as to be regulated to the abyss of ridiculous conspiracy theories already in existence, and poisoning the minds of the young and and easy influenced. At least when you understand your error, perhaps then you can actually contribute something to history that can actually be supported with evidence as opposed to the outlandish conjecture built upon a foundation of even more outlandish conjecture.

But I already know that everything I said here is a waste of time with you. I simply hold out for a glimmer of hope that one small thing I said here might make you stop and think by planting a seed of reason which can grow into a crop of real provable knowledge.

But I already sense all hope is lost. You are in too deep to back out now. You are ensnared by your own belief system.

Consider

In most of this rambling, you are describing yourself, not me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 04:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 02:18 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 01:52 PM)skyking Wrote:  You keep beating on an incomplete citation and characterization of Burckhardt. Why is that?
It is the same dishonest method that you are accusing others of.
I have no horse in this race, but your insistence on Burckhardt's lack of competency or relevance on the topic sent me looking.
He studied theology, and was also considered one of the original creators of cultural history.
To simplify all that to "art historian" is rather ignorant and smells like fear and not reason at work.

Firstly, his primary occupation was, in fact, art history. That is what his "profession" was. Sure, he was a historian. Sure, he was versed in ancient Greek history like virtually all historians. But aside from his early work The Age of Constantine the Great, he did not seek to make his mark on ancient history with anything but art. His chosen profession had nothing to do with ancient religious history. He specialized in art history only.

Secondly, he was also immersed in Greek culture, but not much at all in ancient Christian beliefs, because he was not a religious historian. His focus was prmarily on art history, with a secondary focus on ancient Greek culture. Sure, religion factors in, but religion was not his focus. He did not focus on the origins of Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, etc.

Thirdly, he is best known for ''The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy," which deals precisely with art history, which is natural because he was an art historian, although he did write The Age of Constantine the Great, which details how the Christian religion negatively influenced the Greek culture, and how Constantine utilized Christianity to further his own agenda.

Finally, he was not a religious historian whatsoever. If he was, then he would have written books focusing on it, but he didn't.

He wrote almost nothing on the subject of ancient Christian beliefs whatsoever, aside from just a few paragraphs here and there. Although he does discuss the Christian's influence at great length in his other book The Age of Constantine the Great. He viewed and reviewed Eusebius as being more of a historian than a Christian, albeit, a horrible historian.

But the point here is that Burckhardt says absolutely nothing about the quote of Eusebius that we are arguing here about. Sure, Burckhardt has a negative opinion about Eusebius, and so do I, but his negative opinion does not, in any way, address the accusation that the sentiments of Eusebius were represented in that quote.

And that is the real point here.


Burckhardt's negative opinion regarding Eusebius is completely irrelevant, and does not apply to the context of this accusation against Eusebius. It's non sequitur.

Analogy:

1. John is accused of forgery.
2. Jack does not like John.
3. Joe sees that Jack doesn't like John.
4. Therefore, because Jack doesn't like John, Joe believes John is guilty of forgery.

Question: Is John guilty of forgery just because Jack doesn't like him?


How the fuck does that work? Can anybody make this work?

Consider

Are you aware that we have quite good treatments for OCD?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 04:43 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 04:26 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In most of this rambling, you are describing yourself, not me.

My "belief system" is verifiable history, supported by tangible evidence, and agreed upon by a consensus of qualified professional historians.

Describe yours ... if you can.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 04:53 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 09:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 04:09 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I would like to raise the standard of the discussion.

Does anyone out there agree or disagree with me about the so called "church fathers" and other early Christians?

Have I got things wrong? Were they
- intellectually honest?
- devoted to improving the lives of the people?
- peace loving, open minded humanitarians?

All opinions are valued...if they are backed up by some evidence.

Mark, even if all that was true about them, it is what it is. But what it isn't is evidence that they all conspired a total fabrication. They were extremely religious, more so than modern religionists.

They would defend their beliefs with far greater zeal than any modern young earther could ever hope to accomplish. We are talking about a period of time in which rational skepticism and sound reasoning were quickly kicked to the curb in favor of religious beliefs. To them, "doubt" was a death sentence.

But none of their "beliefs" regarding Jesus can, in any way, fully mask the realistic portrait that history can paint. History doesn't make outlandish claims, but instead it works with the evidence and a collective of intelligence to arrive at the best approximation of whatever the truth may be.

And it does not favor the idea that the Jesus whom the Christians follow was a complete myth. Instead, it merely points to a crucified man who's life was embellished by his followers after the fact.

Historicity is by and large the best explanation. The concept of total fabrication is utterly destroyed not only by all the available evidence that has been previously discussed, but also by a consensus of experts all in agreement on what that evidence indicates.

Consider

You are rambling...again.

I asked about the church fathers, you are on about Jesus' existence, and the "consensus of experts," again.

I'll remind you (again) that I don't think Jesus didn't exist, although I'm a lot less sure of my opinion than you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 05:06 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 04:53 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 09:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Mark, even if all that was true about them, it is what it is. But what it isn't is evidence that they all conspired a total fabrication. They were extremely religious, more so than modern religionists.

They would defend their beliefs with far greater zeal than any modern young earther could ever hope to accomplish. We are talking about a period of time in which rational skepticism and sound reasoning were quickly kicked to the curb in favor of religious beliefs. To them, "doubt" was a death sentence.

But none of their "beliefs" regarding Jesus can, in any way, fully mask the realistic portrait that history can paint. History doesn't make outlandish claims, but instead it works with the evidence and a collective of intelligence to arrive at the best approximation of whatever the truth may be.

And it does not favor the idea that the Jesus whom the Christians follow was a complete myth. Instead, it merely points to a crucified man who's life was embellished by his followers after the fact.

Historicity is by and large the best explanation. The concept of total fabrication is utterly destroyed not only by all the available evidence that has been previously discussed, but also by a consensus of experts all in agreement on what that evidence indicates.

Consider

You are rambling...again.

I asked about the church fathers, you are on about Jesus' existence, and the "consensus of experts," again.

I'll remind you (again) that I don't think Jesus didn't exist, although I'm a lot less sure of my opinion than you.

Nope, my response was on point to your general position. You asked if they were intellectually honest, devoted to improving the lives of the people, peace loving, open minded humanitarians.

I responded by demonstrating that they put their religion first, and that honest skepticism, reasoning, and rational though got kicked to the curb because they were extremely religious.

This means and explains that if they were not intellectually honest, devoted to improving the lives of the people, peace loving, open minded humanitarians it was because their extreme religious beliefs disabled their abilities to be that way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 04:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 04:26 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In most of this rambling, you are describing yourself, not me.

My "belief system" is verifiable history, supported by tangible evidence, and agreed upon by a consensus of qualified professional historians.

Describe yours ... if you can.

Big Grin

I do not have a "belief system"

I am aware of my own limitations, and am flexible.

I value the opinions of others, particularly when they are discussing the evidence.

I consider all the evidence, and I come to my own conclusions.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: