The idea or the person

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You are equating words with ideas I guess?

Words can be used to convey ideas which is what Jesus did and which is what you seem to continue to fail to consider in the context of the Roosevelt quote.[/b]

Why are you writing to me? Are you writing to my ideas or to me as person???

Actually, I see little reason to respond much more here. If you can't recognize the significance of Christ's person then if you are a Christian I have no idea where your theology begins and ends. Remove the Bible and Christ person still stands. Remove Christ's person and the ideas and words mean nothing.

Words convey meaning (Silva cites this in his work Semantics) but they do not outweigh what they express. What you are saying is very close to Platonic Idealism. This is not a Christian concept and I thoroughly dismiss it. Why? The Christian faith is about a God who acts and moves into physical relationship with people. I just translated Deuteronomy 6-7 from the Septuagint and I was amazed to see how often the Greek said, 'the LORD your God'. Israel's faith was not in God as an idea but as a person who was in their midst. Is the Spirit indwelling the body of a Christian an idea or is it a physical reality?

The person of Christ is the beginning and the end of the Christian gospel. We could lose all of the Pauline writings and be left with just the gospels and we would have enough to be saved. Lose the gospels and Paul is meaningless.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually none of that is true, their is virtually no evidence that a historical Jesus actually existed,
and plenty of evidence for Alexander the Great.

Furthermore, Alexander the Great was simply a brilliant general and military leader.
Such people have clearly existed throughout history and it is totally unextraordinary that
such people existed ...[text shortened]... nd
we need considerable evidence to justify believing that such extraordinary claims are true.

Applechess produced a plethora of historical evidence, are you disputing it? On what basis are you disputing it? The earliest written account of Alexander was written five hundred years after his death, the Gospels as has been pointed out were written within 60-90 years of the death of the Christ. You will need to tell us why you are willing to accept the former but not the latter especially when the latter is better attested. So either you have a rational basis or we are free to dismiss your words as empty rhetoric.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Try reading Richard Carrier, http://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=264

A book that is pretty much the only correctly reasoned and peer reviewed treatise on the subject.

I haven't read it, but I suspect it isn't the only correctly reasoned and peer reviewed treatise on the subject. There are many heavy swingers on both sides. I know one side likes to imagine the other side doesn't have any. Richard Carrier appears to be an academic, I may have to read this book and add it to my collection. Won't happen for a couple weeks though.

Originally posted by AppleChess

The person of Christ is the beginning and the end of the Christian gospel. We could lose all of the Pauline writings and be left with just the gospels and we would have enough to be saved. Lose the gospels and Paul is meaningless.

Just the four gospels, or the ones excluded by the early church?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Just the four gospels, or the ones excluded by the early church?

You asking if orthodoxy came out of heresy or if heresy came out of orthodoxy. You have moved right into my masters thesis.

The church did not exclude writings. These writings were later added as an attempt by nefarious authors. The gospel of Thomas being one of them. A source critical textualist will point out the notable errors. Again, the popular culture has not caught up with the academic circles. There are many things that are widely accepted in popular culture that are old news and debunked in academic circles. Dan Brown's Da Vinci code was lies, lies, lies.

The fact is, speaking historically, the early church had a strong consensus as early as 100 A.D. of what was the Bible. It's not just that one side won out at Nicea, rather Nicea confirmed the historic stand of the Church since the time of Christ.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Why are you writing to me? Are you writing to my ideas or to me as person???

Actually, I see little reason to respond much more here. If you can't recognize the significance of Christ's person then if you are a Christian I have no idea where your theology begins and ends. Remove the Bible and Christ person still stands. Remove Christ's person and the ...[text shortened]... just the gospels and we would have enough to be saved. Lose the gospels and Paul is meaningless.

Please reread the entirety of my previous post. I had inadvertently hit 'enter' while trying to compose it and you posted this before I was able to edit in the rest of it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, I do. You used the word "you". Where I come from that means the person you happen to be talking to. If you were idiot-calling the person who wrote the quote, perhaps a better choice would have been "him".

Apparently you don't.

Being an atheist does not stop you from being an idiot [sadly].

Is what I said.

As AppleChess is clearly not an atheist, but is quoting one, it is contextually completely clear that
I am talking about the quote by the atheist and not AppleChess.

Replacing the word 'you' in that sentence with 'him' would make it gibberish.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Funny how instead of taking a notable journalist's words seriously-do you know who Matthew Pariss is-you term him an idiot. You sir, are academically closed minded. You think it is impossible for a rational human to state this. Matthew Pariss is highly regarded-he was sent to study the effect of GMO's for years and this was the conclusion he brought back. But go ahead and dismiss it. That's academically dishonest of you.

I do not give a flying [bleep] who says anything because "Argument from Authority" is a logical fallacy.

I care only about the content.

In this case the content is wrong, and idiotically so.

I have in fact read his [and many similar] arguments and find them all flawed.

Smart people can do/say stupid things and be idiots.
Being smart doesn't stop you forming false beliefs, in fact it tends to make you better at defending them.

Originally posted by AppleChess
I haven't read it, but I suspect it isn't the only correctly reasoned and peer reviewed treatise on the subject. There are many heavy swingers on both sides. I know one side likes to imagine the other side doesn't have any. Richard Carrier appears to be an academic, I may have to read this book and add it to my collection. Won't happen for a couple weeks though.

Richard Carrier is indeed an academic, and his work is pretty much the heaviest hitting
on the 'myth' side of the argument.

As for the 'correctly reasoned', He is the first to formally and properly use Bayesian reasoning
which he lays out and explains in his first book on the subject "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem
and the Quest for the Historical Jesus" in which he explains how to correctly examine and evaluate
historical evidence using Bayes's theorem. In the next book, the one I linked before he then goes on
to build on the methods described in the first book to actually analyse all the available evidence.
"On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt"

You can also find many presentations he has given on the topic at conferences on youtube.

If you are open minded enough to read his work on the topic, then agree or not, I applaud that.

Originally posted by AppleChess
On the contrary-the evidence is overwhelming.

Let's just be clear here-let's have a amiable discussion. I've perused a little through this forum and things get rather messy at times. When you throw mud, all you do is lose ground. Giving and receiving criticism graciously is a mark of academic honesty.

I'm also very much aware that it is a favorite ...[text shortened]... Ibid.
(vi) M. Wilcox, Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt
(vii) Edwin Yamauchi

On point 1 I agree that the gospels are evidence of Christ's historicity. The quote by Pliny is evidence of the existence of Christians, but not of Christ. Incidentally, it mentions the two deaconesses who were tortured as having their bodies torn apart, probably indicating that the Romans used the rack (my interpretation). The other references are too late to be taken seriously as anything more than evidence of the existence of the story rather than the events themselves.

This leaves Tacitus and Josephus. The quotes by Tacitus are problematic. Tacitus would simply not have been incorrect about Pilate being a Procurator. He was not, he was a Prefect. Also the Christian population in Rome at the time he was writing about would have been small to non-existent. What is more the source was doctored, Chrestianos (=useful ones) was replaced by Christianos so there is a history of doctoring the sources.

Then there are the two quotes by Josephus. Sorry, but the voice changes. It does not change just for the words "...if he was a man". I'm claiming that the entire passage is a later addition. The reference to James the Just is more likely to be original, but given the tinkering I do not think that "James the brother of Jesus [who was the Christ]" can be taken as incontroversial evidence that Christ existed. The further identification as the Christ is too easily added by later writers, in a document that has clearly been tinkered with.

I'm sorry the few sources there are have been adulterated too much to provide unchallengeable evidence of the historicity of Christ. Someone already a Christian may choose to believe that they provide evidence, but anyone reading them skeptically will not.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Richard Carrier is indeed an academic, and his work is pretty much the heaviest hitting
on the 'myth' side of the argument.

As for the 'correctly reasoned', He is the first to formally and properly use Bayesian reasoning
which he lays out and explains in his first book on the subject "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem
and the Quest for the Histor ...[text shortened]...
If you are open minded enough to read his work on the topic, then agree or not, I applaud that.

You should watch the debate between Mike Licona and Richard Carrier. I thinkthe subject of Bayes Theorem for evaluating history comes up.

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead
Debate - Richard Carrier verses Mike Licona

(respectful, enlightening, civil)

YouTube

It has been awhile. It could have been this, another debate between the same two historians -

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]YES IT IS

This meme really has to die, it's total bunk.

If you have an absence of evidence for a claim being true then it is more likely that the claim is not true.
Therefore an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It may well not be strong evidence, depending on how much expected evidence their should be and
how hard and effec ...[text shortened]... ither way, an absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

What it is not is PROOF of absence.[/b]

Mmm., you have to be careful about this. There was no evidence for the existence of black swans, at least as far as European science was concerned, until the discovery of Australia (from Europe's point of view) and the thought-to-be-impossible black swan. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if and only if an adequately systematic search can and has been made.

Sadly, in the case of the historicity of Christ, the chances of evidence having been lost, or tinkered with, is so high that it is difficult to draw certain conclusions in either direction. Maybe Christ kept a diary just waiting to be discovered in a cave somewhere.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Mmm., you have to be careful about this. There was no evidence for the existence of black swans, at least as far as European science was concerned, until the discovery of Australia (from Europe's point of view) and the thought-to-be-impossible black swan. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if and only if an adequately systematic search can and ...[text shortened]... either direction. Maybe Christ kept a diary just waiting to be discovered in a cave somewhere.

Sadly, in the case of the historicity of Christ, the chances of evidence having been lost, or tinkered with, is so high that it is difficult to draw certain conclusions in either direction. Maybe Christ kept a diary just waiting to be discovered in a cave somewhere.

Three way conversion on "The Infidel Show"
The Resurrection of Jesus
Mike Licona - Gary Habermas - Richard Carrier
(a packed house)

YouTube

Originally posted by AppleChess
Trying to box me into the argument from authority mindset...eh?

Although, I have to ask-why do you just discount the authority?

Because:
1. We only have your word for it that he said it in the first place.
2. We do not know the context in which he said it, and thus it is actually your interpretation we are getting.
3. He is not here to defend his claim.
4. We have a sound argument contradicting the claim. Sound argument trumps authority.

There are men and women far more learned in this field than you or I, shouldn't we respect their scholarship?
I actually don't know which field you are referring to. Philosophy? Logic? I am not sure you even know which field is relevant.

I'm not arguing from authority...
You did.

... but it is overused to say that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
And I did not make any such claim. I merely stated that if argument from authority is all you know then you may over use it.

I stated my backing after referencing Dr. Rogers citing the historical critical method (I suspect you don't know what that is-read Gerald Bray if you like on the history of New Testament Interpretation).
I think you have totally lost track. The issue was very simple: is absence of evidence, evidence of absence. The fact is that it can be. This has nothing to do with Gerald Bray or 'the historical critical method'.

Maybe you should tell me how such a recognized scholar could be so absolutely wrong?
Most likely, you interpreted it wrong or quoted him out of context, or simply don't understand what Googlefudge said. I suspect the latter.

I'm putting the burden of proof on you here. I'd enjoy hearing it.
Googlefudge said it well enough. I will ask you again: did you understand his explanation or not. If not, then please ask for clarification. If you did, then provide a counter argument. Merely saying: 'but this guy with a PhD says something else, so prove how such a respected scholar could be wrong!' just doesn't cut it.

Absence of evidence is typically evidence of absence: although it may be extremely week evidence as it may be you simply didn't look for the evidence, or evidence is hard to obtain, so it is not the kind of evidence that can well counter strong evidence from other sources.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Richard Carrier is indeed an academic, and his work is pretty much the heaviest hitting
on the 'myth' side of the argument.

As for the 'correctly reasoned', He is the first to formally and properly use Bayesian reasoning
which he lays out and explains in his first book on the subject "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem
and the Quest for the Histor ...[text shortened]...
If you are open minded enough to read his work on the topic, then agree or not, I applaud that.

Bayes' Theorem is hardly accepted by any professional historians. I know Carrier uses it, which makes him an extreme outlying. The theorem is not an accepted approach-if I used it, my advisers would tear me to pieces.