ant wrote:The basic point is that anyone who says there is proof that Jesus really lived has no rigor and deserves no credibility
I have never stated "jesus really lived."
And nor did I accuse you of such apologetics. But the fact remains, there are people in this universe who believe in their heart of hearts that Jesus did actually live. The point at issue was DWill’s wild calumny that calling such people apologists constitutes an ad hominem fallacy. It does not.
I've said that based on the evidence available, historians have concluded that it is highly probable Christ existed and that is the general consensus among scholars. If you disagree, show that it is NOT the general consensus.
Fun as it may be to acquire continually greater precision about our respective views on the same matters, some may wonder if this retraces some ground. I thought we had agreed at some length that the existence of Jesus is a consensus view. Everyone knows that. The question is whether the consensus is historically accurate or whether it is delusory.
If you are going to claim that it is all based on hearsay than [sic] you can pretty much throw out all of history as well.
Ant, I think you lost on this point, so I am surprised to see you back for more punishment. Some facts are attested by multiple independent sources of contemporary evidence, such as the existence of Plato, or Socrates. Sadly, with our friend JC, all the evidence comes from people with a cultic interest, and there is nothing archaeological or contemporary, unless you count the fragments of the true cross that I helpfully suggested we consider. Books containing multiple impossible feats that were not written for at least fifty years after the events they describe, by authors who readily confess that their sole purpose is propaganda, are not history. But that is all we have for our dear Lord and Savior. Unless you want to count Paul, who passes up every chance he has to show how his ideas are based on the ideas of said JC, except for a few ambiguous scraps. For real people, there is real evidence, or at least when the evidence is ambiguous people admit it. Not so Jesus H. Christ. Historians see the ambiguity, but knowing the power of the church, dating back to the inquisition and various forms of social persecution and exclusion, they consider it the better part of valor to remain discreet, and pay obeisance to the dominant view.
You've continually glossed over why it is that historians are near unanimous by claiming (in so many words) that the field is tainted. You've offered no proof whatsoever to back your claim. You've been mostly conspiratorial about the entire matter.
Yes, the field is tainted. I was recently reading about the Albigensian Crusade. While it is a very long time ago, the scale of genocide directed purely at destruction of unwelcome beliefs about Jesus Christ illustrates a mentality that still exists, even in these post-Christendom days. You seem unacquainted with the fervor attached to belief in Jesus. The tainting of enquiry about Jesus is obvious. Perhaps people are no longer imprisoned and sacked for scholarly research on this sensitive topic, as happened repeatedly in the nineteenth century, but there is still a culture of vilification and intimidation dished out under the guise of evangelical preaching. I checked out a fundamentalist academic blog on this topic and was astounded at the level of slanderous idiocy they allowed.
You've essentially downplayed historians credentials, all while comparing Doherty to the likes of Darwin and Galileo. When asked details about Doherty's credentials ( like where is his BA from?) you've been unresponsive. If I missed it, show me.
Quite right, I don’t think that credentials are relevant to this debate because universities have a repressive culture. People who disagree with the prevailing mainstream are not welcome in academia. Universities don’t even organize conferences where they invite their opponents to speak, they are so cowed by the censorship. The shift in Christian theology involved in admitting that Jesus was made up is just as big as the shift in admitting the earth is round and old. People simply cannot cope with the admission that the early church was so heavily based on fantasy and delusion.
Also, you've failed to effectively demonstrate why you believe the simplest conclusion IS not the most highly probable one (remember Occams Razor) without relying on conspiracy theories to keep your argument upright. Rather, you chose instead to promote a convoluted explanation by an author who must be considered an amateur because he has not paid his dues. You'd like us to allow the apprentice to construct our house instead of the carpenter.
The Historical Jesus is only simple for simpletons. If you actually look at the evidence, most of the Jesus story is ridiculous. Nazareth did not exist. Bethany, home of the Lazarus story, is pure Egyptian myth, dating back thousands of years. With so much obvious fantasy, the possible bits come under severe doubt. On the conspiracy question, it is more that a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest, as that famous theologian Paul Simon once said. The germ of the demiurge in Philo met a desire for a messiah, which steadily expanded into a full blown historical fantasy. The simplest story is that the Gospel writers had means, motive and opportunity for their fabrication.
You support peer review - except in this instance, it has no relevance ( a kind of intellectual dishonesty I'd say)
Where are the peers who want to review Doherty? As I explained earlier, there are none, except for those who preach the pathetic false lines about how mythicism has been disproved before so can be ignored. That is not peer review.
Lastly, you've accused me of committing ad hominem attacks, all while ignoring your own.
You seem not to understand what an ad hominem attack is. It is where you say ‘Person X believes A and B. B is false therefore A is false. That is a logical fallacy. Credentialism falls into this category, with the ‘B’ being ‘Truth of a claim is independent of who makes it’. You infer from this B that A: “Jesus did not exist” is necessarily false. That is ad hominem, playing the man. Tell me how I have made similar mistakes, and please speak in syllogisms, as your illogical assertions make little sense.
There is a misconception on your part here, Robert. And that misconception is called "The Third Person Effect".That is my honest take on it. I am sorry if it might offend you. Despite my stance on this, you've peeked my curiosity. I will need to look into this in greater detail.
First it was the compositional fallacy, now it is the
Third Person Effect. I am learning a lot from you ant. But I don’t see why this effect is at all relevant here unless you are just trying to patronise me again. You will have to explain yourself. And was that
‘piqued’ your curiosity?
Bart Ehrman has a book due out in a few months that will address this issue in detail. I invite you to purchase it and lead a book discussion. I'd be happy to participate. You are an excellent book discussion leader.
Quite a few of my friends have been shaking their heads about
Backsliding Bart. For someone who has led the debate on fraud and deceit in the early church it is sad to see him apparently going to water. Let’s see if he has the balls to publish.
