Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not going to keep discussing this with you. I don't find you academically honest, academically astute, or worthwhile discussing with from your responses-sorry, just is what it is. You don't know how to read carefully.
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.
[b]There are men and women far more ...[text shortened]... ain, so it is not the kind of evidence that can well counter strong evidence from other sources.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI dispute it on the basis that it is not reliable, and in most cases not relevant. He produced a plethora of historical records that there were early Christians (something not in dispute).
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.
I for one, think it more likely Alexander existed, although I am not certain that he did. You are incorrect that the latter is better attested. The number of years that passed is not the only thing relevant.
Originally posted by AppleChessI believe I read more carefully than you do, based on our conversation so far. You are free to end the discussion if you wish, but refrain from false accusations unless you are willing to back them up. What did I not read carefully?
I am not going to keep discussing this with you. I don't find you academically honest, academically astute, or worthwhile discussing with from your responses-sorry, just is what it is. You don't know how to read carefully.
And I am honest. I am not sure what you mean by 'academically honest' in this instance, but if you are calling me a liar, then again, I ask you to please justify such an accusation rather than throwing it out there then running.
Originally posted by AppleChessI'd be interested to know what your sources are for the claim that early Christianity had already reached consensus by 100 A.D. All the scholarly research I've read indicates exactly the opposite, namely that "early Christianities" is the proper term, and that the early Churches (plural) were riven by such diversity of practise and belief that Nicea became necessary to impose a unity of doctrine which did not in fact exist. Look at all the treatises written by bishops in the first four centuries denouncing and refuting heresies (Adoptionism, Apollinarism, Docetism, Pneumatomachianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Nestorianism, Sabellianism, Subordinationism, etc. etc.); why were those 'refutations' needed, if Christianity had already reached consensus?
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 c ...[text shortened]... out at Nicea, rather Nicea confirmed the historic stand of the Church since the time of Christ.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo you are talking nonsense, many of the sources reference Christ directly or indirectly but you would of have to have read the historians to know that. Simply put because you think its unreliable doesn't mean that its actually unreliable, infact i doubt very much if you have even read Josephus, Tacitus or Pliny for that matter. You certainly know next to nothing about the Gospels making what you think on the matter to all intents and purposes, irrelevant. We are not interested in what you think, we are interested in facts. Now if you have any facts let them be known otherwise please spare us your pretensions.
I dispute it on the basis that it is not reliable, and in most cases not relevant. He produced a plethora of historical records that there were early Christians (something not in dispute).
[b]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 t ...[text shortened]... t the latter is better attested. The number of years that passed is not the only thing relevant.
Originally posted by moonbusIf one reads the gospels its a rather simple matter to note that when an issue arose letters were sent to a central body in Jerusalem where a consensus was reached and representatives sent to the congregations with the matter resolved. The issue of circumcision for gentiles was settled in this way, after a consensus was reached.
I'd be interested to know what your sources are for the claim that early Christianity had already reached consensus by 100 A.D. All the scholarly research I've read indicates exactly the opposite, namely that "early Christianities" is the proper term, and that the early Churches (plural) were riven by such diversity of practise and belief that Nicea became n ...[text shortened]... etc. etc.); why were those 'refutations' needed, if Christianity had already reached consensus?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNevertheless, they still rely on the claims of Christians of the time, something that is not in dispute.
No you are talking nonsense, many of the sources reference Christ directly or indirectly but you would of have to have read the historians to know that.
But you would have to have read the historians to know that.
Simply put because you think its unreliable doesn't mean that its actually unreliable,
Of course. But I still think it is unreliable.
infact i doubt very much if you have even read Josephus, Tacitus or Pliny for that matter.
I have, although it has been a few years.
You certainly know next to nothing about the Gospels making what you think on the matter to all intents and purposes, irrelevant.
What I know about the Gospels is irrelevant given that I said nothing about them.
We are not interested in what you think, we are interested in facts.
No, you are interested in trying to hang on to your claims even if you have to embarrass yourself in your attempts.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not going to keep discussing this with you. I don't find you academically honest, academically astute, or worthwhile discussing with from your responses-sorry, just is what it is.
Nevertheless, they still rely on the claims of Christians of the time, something that is not in dispute.
But you would have to have read the historians to know that.
[b]Simply put because you think its unreliable doesn't mean that its actually unreliable,
Of course. But I still think it is unreliable.
infact i doubt very much if you have e ...[text shortened]... ted in trying to hang on to your claims even if you have to embarrass yourself in your attempts.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut consensus was not reached on a number of crucial issues, and even to this day the Filioque still divides Eastern Orthodoxy from the Western Church (God only knows where the Protestants stand on that issue, and I suppose Anglicans waffle on it as they tend to try to please everyone and thereby please no one). This is not trivial; the Nicene Creed is absolutely fundamental and Christians are still divided on it.
If one reads the gospels its a rather simple matter to note that when an issue arose letters were sent to a central body in Jerusalem where a consensus was reached and representatives sent to the congregations with the matter resolved. The issue of circumcision for gentiles was settled in this way, after a consensus was reached.
4 edits
(5) The Talmud (a collection of Jewish writings)Just a few (related) comments limited to the quoted part of your post:
Written around 500 A.D. also incorporates the Mishnah which was compiled around A.D. 200. "Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must be in any case used with caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it asc s that he was a 'heretic' or a 'deceiver'."(vi)
Judaism believes he existed but as a gross heretic.
(1) You need to be careful about phrases such as “Judaism believes”, generally (not that I do not fall into that error myself from time to time). Judaism (even aside from the Orthodox/Conservative/Reform etc. divisions) is multi-vocal with no central doctrinal authority—including with regard to messiah (see below).
You might check out, in the context of the content of this thread, Geza Vermes—Oxford scholar and Jew. In his book Jesus the Jew, he argues that there is, indeed sufficient evidence in the Christian writings to support the existence of the person Jesus. Vermes does not ascribe to him “gross heresy”, however, but places him in a line of Galilean proto-rabbis and hasidim (lower case, not to be confused with the movement beginning in the 18th century). In this, of course, he disputes some later understandings (primarily Christian) of such phrases as “son of man”, which were not necessarily messianic. If this is your area of research, Vermes is certainly worth a look (in fact, if this is your area of research, it would seem remiss not to at least have a look).
The statement that “Judaism believes” that Jesus was a “gross heretic” is, as it stands, wrong. There are certainly Jews who believe that, as well as Jews who believe other things—but, for most Jews, the question of who Jesus was does not even arise.
(2) The Talmud (the Mishnah as well as the Gemara) is essentially a record of opinions of rabbis over a substantial period of time. Those rabbis more often than not disagree. Even where a consensus is reached (which is certainly not always the case), it is not in any way binding on Jews continuing the Oral Torah after the Talmuds were reduced to writing. In addition to rulings on halachah (practice—both ritual and ethical), the Talmud contains a good deal of aggadah (story) as well. No doubt there are layers of history there as well, but that is not why Jews study it. (Note: There may well be some scholarly studies that have examined in detail the corpus of the Mishnah for various historical elements—I am just not aware of them.)
—Just as an example, in my own Talmud class a few weeks ago, the question was raised—about certain events described therein (with regard to Gamliel II): “Are we to understand this as historical or simply as aggadah?” The consensus was that it was probably aggadic, but was aimed at making a particular point within an (unspecified in the text) historical context.
(3) Judaism has no real doctrine of messiah, but, rather, many opinions.* And the Tanach (the Hebrew Scriptures—“Old Testament” ) actually records a number of messiahs. It is recorded in the Bavli (the Babylonian Talmud) that Hillel said: “Israel need no look for the advent of messiah, since Isaiah’s prophecy about him was fulfilled in King Hezekiah.” (Sanhedrin 98a.) I only cite that to show that the Talmud records even a disagreement over whether “the” messiah was to be a future event.
I have not searched out the references to “Yeshu” in the Talmud—the question is not of particular interest to me. My general understanding is that it is likely that at least some of the references refer to the “Jesus of Christianity”, though perhaps not all of them. Even assuming that all such references refer to the “Jesus of Christianity”, that would offer scant evidence of that Jesus’ historicity as such references do not mean that the rabbis had before them anything but claims by Christians—that is, it does not imply that they did any independent historical analysis. Therefore, the Talmud is pretty thin as an independent source on that score.
_____________________________________________________________
* The only thing that might be taken as a “central doctrine” of Judaism is: shema yisrael adonai eloheinu adonai ehad. And even there, there are a number of theological interpretations that would be considered valid.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf you view evidence as a probability modifier to the initial prior probability, then an absence of evidence
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.
always has a value < 1
It might only by an infinitesimal fraction below 1, but it's always > 1
How much less than one is what determines the strength of the 'evidence'.
In the case of black swans, the fact that no black swans had been observed made it more probable that
no black swans existed. It was thus evidence that black swans didn't exist.
Probability is always a gambling game, you never have absolute certainty and thus can be wrong.
You play the odds to be right more often than you are wrong, because that's the best possible strategy
in an imperfect information game. [where there is no bluffing/ect]
The less evidence you have the more often you will be wrong.
You are of course right that it's impossible to be certain whether JC existed [as a historical figure] or not.
But the Richard Carrier is not claiming certainty, but probability.
I recommend his book. It's a good read.
Originally posted by AppleChessExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I suspect there is nothing in terms of evidence that could be laid before you that would appear convincing.
It might seem self-evident to someone who is already committed to Christianity as the true faith that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true, or that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the Bible is the word of God. Every book ever held to be sacred was held to be the word of God; that proves only that people tend to view the matter in a certain way, not that there is any merit in it. Substitute "Upanishads" or "Bagavad Gita" for "Bible" and the claim has exactly the same logical cogency, or lack thereof. Now substitute the phrase "the golden tablets Joe Smith claimed he found under a rock in upstate New York but which later magically disappeared" and you open the flood gates to every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Mary Baker Eddy to invent newer Testaments.
I'm willing to grant that Jesus was probably a historical figure. That Jesus was the Christ is open to interpretation. There is a very interesting interpretation put forward by James D. Tabor, "The Jesus Dynasty", Simon & Schuster, 2006. A solid piece of religious archaeology.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by AppleChessUnfortunately that means that your subject is logically invalid.
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.
All correct reasoning about evidence reduces to Bayes's Theorem [as RC demonstrates in proving history].
Any reasoning that does not reduce to Bayes's Theorem is by definition invalid.
It doesn't matter what subject you are doing, if you are analysing evidence and using it to compare competing
hypothesis then your reasoning will reduce to Bayes's Theorem, or it's invalid reasoning.
If you are not using it, and your subject doesn't use it, then your approach to your subject needs to change.
Read his book to discover why.