Originally posted by no1marauderNo, there is still a difference. Starting a calendar from the date of Jesus's birth is not simply an acceptance of the occurrence of the event -- but also points out when it occurred; i.e. it places it in history. That July 4 is the Independence Day of the US does not place it in history on its own.
This is a distinction without a difference. To honor Thor is to accept his existence. To start a calender from the date of Jesus' birth is to accept that such an event occurred. The analogy holds as to the point being discussed i.e. the using of either as "proof" of the existence of the being.
(Of course, AD doesn't even start from Jesus' birth due to computational errors).
Of course, the mere fact of AD cannot be used to prove Jesus's birth; and there was no need for a false analogy for it. If Bishop Ussher had had his way, we would've been living in the year 5506 AG (After Genesis) or something.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnalogies can't be "false" either.
No, there is still a difference. Starting a calendar from the date of Jesus's birth is not simply an acceptance of the occurrence of the event -- but also points out when it occurred; i.e. it places it in history. That July 4 is the Independence Day of the US does not place it in history on its own.
Of course, the mere fact of AD cannot be er had had his way, we would've been living in the year 5506 AG (After Genesis) or something.
The analogy used was a perfectly appropriate one to show the fallaciousness of dj2becker's argument. The exact date was irrelevant to his claim that using the term AD is some sort of proof of Jesus' existence.
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
Analogies can't be "false" either.
The analogy used was a perfectly appropriate one to show the fallaciousness of dj2becker's argument. The exact date was irrelevant to his claim that using the term AD is some sort of proof of Jesus' existence.
That there is an exact date is relevant to his claim.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd what date is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
That there is an exact date is relevant to his claim.
EDIT: I'm unimpressed with wikipedia.
This is a very common fallacy, but "False Analogy", its common name, is very misleading. Analogies are neither true nor false, instead they come in degrees from near identity to extreme dissimilarity.
www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere isnt an exact date. By this I mean that 1AD is just an approximation of the date of the supposed birth of Jesus. It does not provide evidence for the historical occurence of said birth. (neither does christmas)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
That there is an exact date is relevant to his claim.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you one of those people that says there never was a Jesus-bar-Joseph from Nazareth who went around preaching, gathering disciples and was crucified for his troubles?
There isnt an exact date. By this I mean that 1AD is just an approximation of the date of the supposed birth of Jesus. It does not provide evidence for the historical occurence of said birth. (neither does christmas)
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I just dont think there is sufficient evidence to claim that it is fact.
Are you one of those people that says there never was a Jesus-bar-Joseph from Nazareth who went around preaching, gathering disciples and was crucified for his troubles?
My own observations of the new Testament gospels make it very clear that a large proportion of thier contents could not be based on eyewitness accounts or even gossip but are made up to suit the authors intentions. I think this would be obvious to anyone with an unbiased viewpoint.
Considering the lack of any supporting evidence from sources outside the Bible, if such a man did exist, his significance to anyone other than is followers must have been significantly less than is suggested in the NT.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I just dont think there is sufficient evidence to claim that it is fact.
No, I just dont think there is sufficient evidence to claim that it is fact.
My own observations of the new Testament gospels make it very clear that a large proportion of thier contents could not be based on eyewitness accounts or even gossip but are made up to suit the authors intentions. I think this would be obvious to anyone with an unbiased viewpoi ...[text shortened]... to anyone other than is followers must have been significantly less than is suggested in the NT.
Then there's insufficient evidence for half the famous persons of ancient history (e.g. Socrates).
Considering the lack of any supporting evidence from sources outside the Bible, if such a man did exist, his significance to anyone other than is followers must have been significantly less than is suggested in the NT.
I don't necessarily disagree. But the idea that a bunch of Jews sat around a campfire, made up this fictional preacher from a real town (btw, do you have any evidence that Jesus was completely made up?), then went around preaching about him and eventually going to their deaths for that message (unless you want to claim that they weren't really martyred at all and that too was made up -- how big do you want this conspiracy theory to be??) is simply too farfetched to be viable unless you are approaching it from a biased viewpoint.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen there's insufficient evidence for half the famous persons of ancient history (e.g. Socrates).
Then there's insufficient evidence for half the famous persons of ancient history (e.g. Socrates).
I know very little about Socrates but many other famous people even more recent (King Arthur, Robin Hood anyone?) have been shown to have very little basis in fact.
I don't necessarily disagree. But the idea that a bunch of Jews sat around a campfire, made up this fictional preacher from a real town (btw, do you have any evidence that Jesus was completely made up?), then went around preaching about him and eventually going to their deaths for that message (unless you want to claim that they weren't really martyred at all and that too was made up -- how big do you want this conspiracy theory to be??) is simply too farfetched to be viable unless you are approaching it from a biased viewpoint.
I have just been reading through
http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id14.html
and although I have not checked its validity in any way, it claims that paul (is this the oldest know writtings about Jesus) never mentions nazareth and is very vague about Jesus' life and any dates etc involved.
Your implication in the campfire reference is that it was a single planned event which is clearly not the case (four gospels etc). However, as I said, since a significant proportion of the gospels are clearly made up (if you are non-christian) or 'inspired writting' the only bit that would need campfire work is the name and crucifixion story given by paul (which as I said is very vague)
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know very little about Socrates but many other famous people even more recent (King Arthur, Robin Hood anyone?) have been shown to have very little basis in fact.
[b]Then there's insufficient evidence for half the famous persons of ancient history (e.g. Socrates).
I know very little about Socrates but many other famous people even more recent (King Arthur, Robin Hood anyone?) have been shown to have very little basis in fact.
I don't necessarily disagree. But the idea that a bunch of Jews sat around a ca ...[text shortened]... pfire work is the name and crucifixion story given by paul (which as I said is very vague)[/b]
It's good you brought up Arthur and Robin Hood because one can easily compare the literature about these two legendary characters with the ones that came up regarding Jesus.
With both Arthur and Robin Hood, the earliest references to them (6th and 13th centuries respectively) already mention them as popular metaphors; i.e. they have already become legendary/mythical. Further, one can examine the development of their respective stories in various literary genres over time.
(Incidentally, one of the major schools of Arthurian thought is that he was a real figure, possibly a Roman centurion.)
Contrast this with Jesus where the early literature already focuses on the historicity of Jesus and leaves no doubt as to no more than one degree of separation between author and Jesus himself.
it claims that paul (is this the oldest know writtings about Jesus) never mentions nazareth and is very vague about Jesus' life and any dates etc involved.
Since Paul wasn't setting out to write a biography of Jesus, it shouldn't surprise anyone that he wasn't creating an encyclopedia entry; any more than I should be expected to provide detailed birthplace, marriage and family footnotes about William Shakespeare in a paper on Romeo and Juliet.
EDIT: One very striking biographical event that Paul does write about is the Last Supper.
Mark's Gospel was written not long after Paul's epistles -- and there is no shortage of biographical details there.
However, as I said, since a significant proportion of the gospels are clearly made up (if you are non-christian) or 'inspired writting' the only bit that would need campfire work is the name and crucifixion story given by paul (which as I said is very vague)
Then you are one of those who hold to a campfire-conspiracy theory?
Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks. From the link you gave:
Not quite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Josephus
However, John Dominic Crossan and K. H. Rengstorff have noted that the passage has many internal indicators that seem to be inconsistent with the rest of Josephus' writing and with what is known about Josephus, leading them to think that part or all of the passage may have been an interpolation. Michael L. White argued: "The parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War make no mention of Jesus, and Christian writers as late as the third century CE who made extensive use of Josephus's Antiquities show no awareness of it. Had it been there, they would have gladly used it for proof of Christian claims.
So, are you agreeing with me?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI've said before that I believe that the evidence makes it more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus (or perhaps more precisely a Jesus-like figure) who existed in the 1st Century AD-CE. But the fact that someone many years later decided to start a calender from the supposed approximate year that he was born is only proof that the person who made the calender believed in his existence and that date of his birth (and he was plainly wrong on the latter if the Gospels accounts can be believed - if they can be reconciled).
Maybe not an exact date.
Originally posted by David CNot really. Read the next four sentences.
Thanks. From the link you gave:However, John Dominic Crossan and K. H. Rengstorff have noted that the passage has many internal indicators that seem to be inconsistent with the rest of Josephus' writing and with what is known about Josephus, leading them to think that part or all of the passage may have been an interpolation. Michael L. White a ...[text shortened]... e gladly used it for proof of Christian claims.
So, are you agreeing with me?