Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2016, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 05:31 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 11:10 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
Quote: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

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.


No. You don't understand the difference between questioning a person's credentials, which you do ad nauseam, and questioning the substance of an argument, which you only do very occasionally. Here is wiki's definition of an ad hominem...

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 05:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 05:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 04:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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 consider all the evidence, and I come to my own conclusions.

And that's exactly your problem. YOU consider the evidence and then YOU come to your OWN conclusions.

I consider the evidence, then test my conclusions against the consensus to see how they stack up. Sometimes the consensus helps me to see things that I have missed, and then I correct my position.

I rarely come to my own conclusions because whenever all evidence and qualified opinions are taken into context, the conclusion I almost always come to is a conclusion that was already in existence by the consensus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 05:17 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

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

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans").
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 05:11 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 05:02 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I consider all the evidence, and I come to my own conclusions.

And that's exactly your problem. YOU consider the evidence and then YOU come to your OWN conclusions.

I consider the evidence, then test my conclusions against the consensus to see how they stack up. Sometimes the consensus helps me to see things that I have missed, and then I correct my position.

I rarely come to my own conclusions because whenever all evidence and qualified opinions are taken into context, the conclusion I almost always come to is a conclusion that was already in existence by the consensus.

"I rarely come to my own conclusions"


Herein lies one of the roots of your obnoxious on line personality.

Most people here like to think for themselves...yet you become rude and abusive and repetitive, and you don't listen, when we do.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 05:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 10:27 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 10:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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

Tell us about this going up thing. Presumably you are referring to going up to Heaven, right? What direction is up for you? Up from Australia would not get you the same destination as up from Europe, nor from the USA, only 2 examples, so where are you heading up from and where do you expect to arrive? It reminds me of when I was a young man and my brothers and I were building our first house. We rented a backhoe and I was sitting on it digging and a kid of maybe 6 or 7 years walked up to me and wanted to talk. He lived next door and his daddy was a preacher. He was worried that if I dug too deep I would arrive in Hell. I assured him that I wouldn't dig that deep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 05:26 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 05:17 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 04:30 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  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

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

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans").

Except that doesn't apply here, since this is not an "appeal to the people." You cannot compare a consensus of professionals to the general population of the people.

You can't even claim my position to be an argument to authority, for the simple reason that the consensus is more than a non relevant singular authority (who is not an expert in the subject), and it represents a panel of experts.

A consensus of experts does not mean they are guaranteed to be correct, it only means that the probability that their position approximates the truth is far greater than yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 05:29 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 05:25 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 10:27 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  If I reach the same conclusion based upon the evidence as the consensus does, how could it not comport with my opinion?

Consider

Tell us about this going up thing. Presumably you are referring to going up to Heaven, right?

Nope. Family business. Elevator/escalator maintenance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GoingUp's post
06-08-2016, 05:32 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 05:29 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 05:25 PM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  Tell us about this going up thing. Presumably you are referring to going up to Heaven, right?

Nope. Family business. Elevator/escalator maintenance.

THanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Born Again Pagan's post
06-08-2016, 05:41 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 05:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 05:17 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  My "belief system" is verifiable history, supported by tangible evidence, and agreed upon by a consensus of qualified professional historians.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans").

Except that doesn't apply here, since this is not an "appeal to the people." You cannot compare a consensus of professionals to the general population of the people.

You can't even claim my position to be an argument to authority, for the simple reason that the consensus is more than a non relevant singular authority (who is not an expert in the subject), and it represents a panel of experts.

A consensus of experts does not mean they are guaranteed to be correct, it only means that the probability that their position approximates the truth is far greater than yours.

"A consensus of experts does not mean they are guaranteed to be correct,"

AH HA!

That being the case, please raise the level of discussion here, and stop pretending it is so.

Please look at the title of this forum....

" The....thinking....atheist's....forum"

It is NOT

" The... consensus... of... historians, most... of... whom... are... Christians.... in.... Christian ....universities, forum"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2016, 05:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(06-08-2016 05:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 05:26 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Except that doesn't apply here, since this is not an "appeal to the people." You cannot compare a consensus of professionals to the general population of the people.

You can't even claim my position to be an argument to authority, for the simple reason that the consensus is more than a non relevant singular authority (who is not an expert in the subject), and it represents a panel of experts.

A consensus of experts does not mean they are guaranteed to be correct, it only means that the probability that their position approximates the truth is far greater than yours.

"A consensus of experts does not mean they are guaranteed to be correct,"

AH HA!

That being the case, please raise the level of discussion here, and stop pretending it is so.

Please look at the title of this forum....

" The....thinking....atheist's....forum"

It is NOT

" The... consensus... of... historians, most... of... whom... are... Christians.... in.... Christian ....universities, forum"

The name of this forum is irrelevant to the topic we are discussing on this form.

Unless of course you think that all subjects that have nothing to do with pure atheism should be removed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: