Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2015, 12:32 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 11:00 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 11:20 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'll largely skip the parts about Josephus and Tacitus since Tonechaser did such a good job on those, but let's see what else the site has to say.

It starts with the following:


.... so, wait, how on Earth could the authors be saying that there is overwhelming evidence -- or ANY evidence -- that the NT is accurate, trustworthy, and historical WITHOUT some independent, non-biblical corroboration? I mean we can't just look at some narrative, say "sounds true to me!", and count that as overwhelming evidence, can we? Don't we have to look at SOME facts outside of the narrative itself in order to verify it? My takeaway from this passage is that, right from the start, the site's authors have no clue what the word "evidence" even means, and can't tell the difference between overwhelming, underwhelming, and non-existent.

From the section on Tacitus (again, leaving the historicity issues to Tonechaser and just addressing the logical fails):


In the same way we can explain the rise of Islam around genocidal warmongering maniac and pedophile Muhammed, Mormonism around convicted fraudster Joseph Smith, Scientology around Ron Hubbard who EXPLICITLY said he was going to start a religion to evade taxes, and a host of others.

The long and short of the explanation is: Religious people are gullible, trusting idiots who don't have a shred of healthy incredulity and sometimes follow the worst people imaginable. Or sometimes not so bad. Because they don't ever stop to check.

Moving on to the part about Pliny, the passages cited, even taken on face value, only describe the practice and beliefs of the Christians Pliny encountered. This is not evidence in any sense that the New Testament is true. It is evidence that people believed it true. I LIVE IN FUCKING AMERICA! I ALREADY KNEW THAT!

Again, this person does not know what the word "evidence" means.

I'll leave Josephus to Tonechaser, and Aliza's already hammered the section on the Talmud.

Next up, Lucian. The site's author acknowledges that Lucian is a satirist and yet still thinks something reliable might be extracted from this, much as a reliable picture of American politics might be extracted from The Colbert Report. In particular, the author gives significant credit to the rites being introduced into Christianity by Jesus, when the cited passage is quite readable as a belief of the Christians of Lucian's era rather than Lucian verifying the belief.

Pretty much the entirety of the "evidence" and "corroboration" on this site boils down to this: EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVED IT, CONTEMPORARIES RECORDED WHAT THEY BELIEVED, AND THEREFORE IT IS TRUE.

Bull. Shit.

Amen! *claps hands* Testify! *waves arms in the air*

Jazz hands! You have to do the jazz hands, too.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
04-11-2015, 12:42 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 11:35 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 07:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  If it could be proved that the main character of the story is entirely fictional, it would be useful. Drinking Beverage

Adding one more turd to the pile of horseshit won't make it stink any more than it already does. [Image: 2rfca47.jpg]

It makes it imaginary horseshit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 09:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  We don't find what we'd expect to find if the Jesus described in the Bible existed.

Assuming an entirely naturalistic accounts of the 1st century Jerusalem, in which a historical Yeshua, lacking any particular magical or supernatural qualities existed, who was a jewish teacher, and a messiah claimant who developed a following, had a brother named James, and disciples, who told a variety of parables, and sayings, and was eventually crucified by the Romans, would the accounts we of his life, the references, and material we have for him, fall inline with our expectations? If such a historical Yeshua existed, would we expect to find something different, that what we currently have?

Would we expect to find accounts of him by his followers, attributing a variety of supernatural elements to him? Of course we would, in fact it’s more surprising to find accounts of a revered religious cult figures, by their followers absent of these features, even in regards to more recent ones like L. Ron. Hubbard, and Joseph Smith. We have a variety of fantastical attributes associated with him. Even highly regarded political figures at the time, get virgin births, and claims of divinity attached to them, like Ceaser, and Alexander.

The fact that we have first hand accounts of an individual meeting his brother, and his disciples, in that particular time frame, we have historians like Josephus writing of his brother’s death, does this fall better in line with our expectations of a historical Yeshua, or mythicist account?

Of course you don’t appear to actually think along these lines of these considerations at all, it appears you avoid doing so when possible.

Quote:No one else here thinks I am making a 'grammatical argument'. You might think about that.

I am not a mythicist. Get it through your head - I observe that neither side has compelling evidence

No, it’s a blatant grammatical argument. I’ve offered a variety of definitions of evidence justifying the use of it. Your appeal to some other definition, to argue that my use of the term “evidence” is inappropriate. Your entire contribution on the question of historicity, is almost exclusively reducible to a quibble over terminology: the appropriate use of the word evidence, the appropriate use of the word conclusion, explanations, as opposed to opinions, etc…

Your entire argument is dictating terminology, which is a frequent pattern for you.

Quote:I am not a mythicist. Get it through your head - I observe that neither side has compelling evidence

And for those us trying to gauge which conclusions stretch credulity, which conclusions are more reasonable inferences based on the source materials, whether or not certain historical conclusions offer better predicate models, or mythicists one are more up the task, etc…, your above point doesn’t amount to anything, other than complaining about the terms being used, and our supposed stubbornness in refusing to accept your inane and perhaps contradictory definitions of evidence, and opinions.

Quote:No, mine is seeing that there is insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion.
Yours is to form an opinion. Fine, have an opinion but realize that is what it is.

Again a grammatical argument about the appropriate use of the term opinion, as opposed to an explanation with the greater explanatorily scope. You want the dictate the terms, and have trouble accepting you inefficacy in doing so. Either way, it’s just a word game with you, not a substantive dispute.

Quote:The intellectually honest thing to do in the face of insufficient or inconclusive evidence is to reserve judgment.

There’s nothing intellectually dishonest about the approach and take on the subject of historicity, offered by folks like Ehrman, and I’m content to take on that same approach. You think your approach is more honest, I don’t think so. Your approach appears to involve the least amount of considerations, the least amount of depth and substance. While it might not be dishonest, it is lazy.

All of that adds up to you being like a petulant five year-old demanding answers while the adults point out that the answer isn't known.

You continue to claim that insufficient evidence isn't enough reason to not take a position.

You continue to claim that what you have is sufficient evidence. It is not, it is hearsay and your conclusions are opinions, not facts.

And stop with the ad hominem bullshit; you sound like an utter ass.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-11-2015, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 04:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Assuming an entirely naturalistic accounts of the 1st century Jerusalem, in which a historical Yeshua, lacking any particular magical or supernatural qualities existed, who was a jewish teacher, and a messiah claimant who developed a following, had a brother named James, and disciples, who told a variety of parables, and sayings, and was eventually crucified by the Romans, would the accounts we of his life, the references, and material we have for him, fall inline with our expectations? If such a historical Yeshua existed, would we expect to find something different, that what we currently have?

Absolutely. Jebus didn't get the job of a messiah done. We would expect to see the "annointed one" tossing out the Romans, and reestablishing the Kingdom of Israel. None of that got done.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-11-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Tenuous links. They mention a man, clearly they are talking about jesus!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 01:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Absolutely. Jebus didn't get the job of a messiah done. We would expect to see the "annointed one" tossing out the Romans, and reestablishing the Kingdom of Israel. None of that got done.

Isn't that true for every historical messiah claimant? That none of them got the job done, that they were all failures?

The failed messiah claim makes sense in regards to a historical messiah claimant, not sure how that works in regards to a mythicist version of the messiah.

I mean if there was an early jewish sect, who interpreted messianic prophecies and expectations, to be of a spiritual, mythicist version of the messiah, their mythical Yeshua would have been one that got the job done, one formed by those very expectations, as opposed to having to read him back into scripture, the way historical claimants have to be. Would this early mythicist sect have expected their messiah to have physically overthrown Rome? I'd assume it would have been in some nebulous spiritual sense?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 05:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 01:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Absolutely. Jebus didn't get the job of a messiah done. We would expect to see the "annointed one" tossing out the Romans, and reestablishing the Kingdom of Israel. None of that got done.

Isn't that true for every historical messiah claimant? That none of them got the job done, that they were all failures?

The failed messiah claim makes sense in regards to a historical messiah claimant, not sure how that works in regards to a mythicist version of the messiah.

I mean if there was an early jewish sect, who interpreted messianic prophecies and expectations, to be of a spiritual, mythicist version of the messiah, their mythical Yeshua would have been one that got the job done, one formed by those very expectations, as opposed to having to read him back into scripture, the way historical claimants have to be. Would this early mythicist sect have expected their messiah to have physically overthrown Rome? I'd assume it would have been in some nebulous spiritual sense?

hmmmm.... What criteria are you suggesting was in place for identifying a mythical messiah, and in what way did Jesus accomplish the job? Aside from being Jewish, I'm not aware that Jesus fulfilled any traditional Jewish expectations for Messiah.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
04-11-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 05:47 PM)Aliza Wrote:  hmmmm.... What criteria are you suggesting was in place for identifying a mythical messiah, and in what way did Jesus accomplish the job? Aside from being Jewish, I'm not aware that Jesus fulfilled any traditional Jewish expectations for Messiah.

I don't really know how familiar you are with mythicist arguments, those folks who don't believe that Jesus was based on a historical person, like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, etc..., who believed there was an early 1st century, perhaps much earlier jewish sect that believed in a non-material/spiritual messiah who was crucified in some spiritual realm, spiritually defeated the dark powers that be, etc....

If such a group did exist then it would go without saying, that their expectations of what the Messiah would be, and their interpretations of OT messianic prophecies would be radically different than the predominant Jewish expectations at the time.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 06:21 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 06:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If such a group did exist then it would go without saying, that their expectations of what the Messiah would be, and their interpretations of OT messianic prophecies would be radically different than the predominant Jewish expectations at the time.

Like getting the alma/betulah interpretation wrong, in an attempt to force the "Immanuel" narrative in Isaiah to fit their leader?

Like failing completely on understanding the Hebrew system of inheritance, to try to squeeze him into the "House of David" lineage?

Like the half-dozen or so other things Aliza has already listed which show that this Jesus cat doesn't in any way fit the "predominant Jewish expectations at the time"?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
04-11-2015, 06:28 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 05:47 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I'm not aware that Jesus fulfilled any traditional Jewish expectations for Messiah.

Tell me what these are. Girly'll give 'em a go.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: