jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 6, 2017 17:38:05 GMT
I'm not a lawyer either, but there have been a couple fairly high-profile cases recently in the news which were more egregious than anything Ehrman said about Murdock and they were dismissed as not qualifying. Other jurisdictions (notably the UK) have lower thresholds, but I have to believe that "scholarly disagreement" almost never makes it to the level of libel. Oh sure--I don't doubt that there are worse cases of libel than Ehrman's. It wasn't merely "scholarly disagreement," though. Ehrman wrote an outright falsehood in his book. What I find especially troubling is that he lied right in the middle of his claiming that DM Murdock makes things up. It's important to understand how this libel case relates to the topic of this thread. Proponents of a historical Jesus love to argue from authority. Their authorities are people like Ehrman. If those authorities demonstrate dishonesty especially in the debate over the reality of a historical Jesus, then it's wise to be slow to believe what authorities like Ehrman say. Ehrman's documented dishonesty serves to undercut any argument from authority made for a historical Jesus. My evidence for sexist attitudes on the part of the men who attack Acharya is admittedly weak. When I see a pack of men going after a woman who disagrees with their theory, I must wonder if I'm witnessing some misogyny. See the attachment. I don't like your definition of "scholar" because it's too inclusive. Anybody who has read parts of the New Testament would be a New-Testament scholar under that definition. The title "New Testament scholar" should say something special about the person. Having earned a degree in some area of New Testament studies I think is a good criterion for such a scholar. I don't refer to myself as a New-Testament scholar for that reason. I like to think of myself as a "knowledgeable layman." I agree that scholars often fall short of the mark of accuracy. That's why I don't make arguments from authority in this debate or any debate. Scholarly work, like anything else, needs to be judged for its credibility. That's an interesting analogy. I would never argue that physical laws are true because most physicists believe those laws are true. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been proved experimentally, so we need not rely on arguing from authority to know it is correct. So no matter how many physicists agree or disagree with it, those opinions are essentially irrelevant to its truth. So your opinion on The Second Law of Thermodynamics is still your opinion. We need to go further than mere consensus in judging the truth of physics or the history of early Christianity. I have read the entire essay. How do you know he has degrees in history? Are you taking his word for it? Keep in mind that this is an online forum in which anybody can make any claim. I'd recommend caution in being too quick to believe what's posted here. I never dismissed anything he said. I already posted a critique of his essay. For your convenience I will post it again here: My logic is straight-forward: Claiming that the evidence for other presumably historical figures is even weaker than the evidence for Jesus does not make the evidence for Jesus any better. If the evidence is as weak or weaker for the historicity of some other person, then I doubt that person's existence too. I admit that I am still trying to resolve these issues, and I tend to waver a bit as I try to come to a conclusion as to how to separate some "historical" Jesus from Jesus--the god of Christianity. The central question is this: Does it make sense to consider a "real" Jesus sifted from the fanciful Jesus of the New Testament? If we take away his magical properties and powers, do we even have the same Jesus? Or do we just have another Jewish rebel who was executed by the Romans? These are important questions that I have yet to answer to my satisfaction. Yes, it does seem that those who insist on a real Jesus have an emotional investment in his historicity. If you've read this whole thread, you can see it for yourself. People tend to fall in love with ideas and may react to scrutiny as a threat to the beloved ideas. Ideas and their truth are very important to us if we base our thinking on them. Any falsification of a cherished notion can be very stressful indeed leaving us wondering where to turn for a substitute. Erich von Däniken argued for the reality of "ancient astronauts." The "chariots of the gods," according to Erich, were no mere inventions on the part of imaginative religious people but are a historical reality. Those who do not accept the historical reality of ancient astronauts do so out of ignorance. Now, who is making such an argument? Is mythicism wrong because you say so? Again, I do not insist that the Jesus of the New Testament never lived. I'm willing to accept or reject the notion of his existence based on whatever evidence is available to me. I'm still in the process of investigating the issue. I may never know, and I try not to pretend that I do know. You are correct, and this is a point that historicists get wrong. They claim the idea of a Jesus-fable only goes back to the 19th century, but that's demonstrably false. They apparently never read 2 Peter 1:16: So the question of Jesus' existence goes all the way back to the invention of the New Testament. This statement is a popular way to explain away the dearth of evidence for Jesus in the first century. Jesus, according to the New Testament, was a very famous person, though. (See Matthew 4:24) Bart Ehrman, in an effort to salvage the historicity of Jesus, strips him of this notoriety claiming that's why people like Philo missed Jesus--Jesus was just not well known then!. To maintain a "historical Jesus" evidently requires taking away from him many of the claims made by the gospel writers all the while sticking with the gospels as evidence for his existence. I'd add that the advancement of knowledge often requires us to risk being seen as "Bozos." Personally, I am not so afraid of being wrong that I miss being right. Attachments:
|
|
kj
Clerk
Posts: 9
|
Post by kj on Nov 6, 2017 22:34:33 GMT
I'd add that the advancement of knowledge often requires us to risk being seen as "Bozos." Personally, I am not so afraid of being wrong that I miss being right. What I said was stronger than that- the more egregious cases have been ruled by courts to not meet the standards of libel (in the US). So it isn't libel, which has a legal definition. You may mean "calumny." Others have disputed that there was any dishonesty. The statue in question has no connection to Peter whatsoever. Murdock seemed to make the claim that it did. Ehrman (perhaps inarticulately) challenged the existence of a statue of that sort related to Peter- now you and Fortigurn are disagreeing about what he meant. Pretty weak evidence for a claim of reputation-smearing, in my opinion. I don't usually question the motives of people unless I have actual evidence for it. In this case, there seems to be no less aggressive attack on Carrier, for instance, which makes me believe it's not sexism. The whole "Acharya S" persona also seems to be a magnet for dispute, but based on general disagreement with New Age belief structures, and not sex. Anyone who studies- seeking additional sources, trying to understand the meaning and context of the New Testament- is a New Testament scholar. Not just reading the New Testament, but devoting effort to understanding where it comes from, what it means, how it applies to the modern world. There is a difference between reading and studying (as many college freshmen learn the hard way). But there are, to me, very good reasons to be more inclusive in my definition of "scholar"- there can be no gatekeeper to the interchange of ideas. That said, scholars distinguish themselves by applying (or developing) accepted methods of scholarship. I have degrees in chemistry and mathematics, but not physics, computer science, or engineering. I have published results in chemistry and physics, and developed instrumentation applicable in both fields. Of what do I qualify as a scholar? Degrees are credentials- they look nice on the wall (as the velvet on my gown and the long hood look nice at graduation), but they don't really tell you that I am competent at anything specific beyond passing my oral exams (which doesn't mean I understood anything, just that I could solve a certain class of problem) or the narrow topic of my thesis. But the consensus has meaning in this case. By our agreed-upon standards of evidence, we have both experimental and theoretical reasons for the Second Law to hold. The consensus arises because when we- individual scientists- evaluate the evidence before us, we come (almost unanimously) to that conclusion. So while it's not held to be true because we "took a vote," the consensus is still support for the validity of the Second Law. Similarly, by the standards of historians, the evidence for the historical Jesus is such that most historians believe that such a person existed. What you are essentially arguing is that those standards are not valid. Since they have developed over time as suiting the needs of historical research (i.e. they are not arbitrary), you need a more compelling argument that they are not valid than "I don't believe them" to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you fall into the trap of the "free energy" crowd: rejecting the evidence with no support, and claiming that "science is wrong." The Second Law could be wrong- Newton's Laws are (in some cases), and they were held as exact for a longer period of time than the Second Law currently has (but not by much). But I'd need to see something pretty compelling to make me discard the Second Law. More or less. I'm sure somewhere I could find a reference to the years, and I could probably check up on that. But I try to argue in good faith, and I assume good faith on the part of other participants in the discussion. I see no reason to doubt Tim's claimed degrees. In a broader view, it wouldn't make much difference- Tim documents his claims well, so I give them credence. You dispute his arguments: Do either Josephus or Tacitus claim that Zeus or Osiris was crucified by the Romans? That they were views as troublemakers by local authorities? In any way that would suggest an actual physical presence? If not, you're discussing apples and oranges. And from here it's turtles all the way down. What sources did their sources have? What about those sources? Ultimately, it comes to a set of people to whom Jesus said "Sir, I exist!" But can we believe him on that? You're trying to raise the bar for standard of proof until it's something that isn't met. Consistently applying that logic, while we are pretty sure people existed back then, we can't tell you who they were. That's a possible standard of evidence, but not a particularly useful one. Clearly, historians have developed (evolved) a better set of criteria. Tim explained in his essay what those criteria are, and how, when applied, they lead to the conclusion that the person Jesus probably existed. You want to dispute the criteria, but fail to have any set of criteria that lead to a useful understanding of history- if no individual can be shown to exist, what happened and why? I've explained to you why I think it makes sense. The belief in Jesus has shaped the world for 2000 years. Whether you believe in him as God or prophet or anything else, it is of real interest to understand how that influence came about- and that, in part, is shaped by whether there is a person (or an amalgam of persons) behind the stories. Even if he was ultimately just a Joseph Smith-like character, his followers grew in number and influence, and contributed a significant fraction of the shape of the world for the next two millenia. Most of them have an intellectual investment in his historicity. It's not a "falsification of a cherished notion," but a rejection of the evidence and reason on which that notion is based. von Daniken spent a lot of time telling us how historians would be upset by his ideas. Look at his use of punctuation- an awful lot of question marks and exclamation points relative to the number of periods at the ends of sentences. In the end, he has no real evidence for his statements, but he claims to be "raising questions" which trouble the establishment. The establishment is not troubled. I didn't say that mythicism was wrong. Read what I wrote again. I said the notion that people are upset because mythicism challenges their beliefs is wrong. The point is that people whose religious faith requires the existence of a historical Jesus are unchallenged by the purported lack of evidence for such a person. There is no evidence for most of the people living at that time. To them, this is an academic debate that doesn't challenge their faith at all. Mythicism really doesn't challenge anybody's faith in Jesus- as God or man. It might challenge one's faith in historians. Sort of. Advancing knowledge requires us to risk being wrong. It seldom requires us to overthrow the framework in which knowledge is sought. Those frameworks tend to evolve slowly. There are cases of real paradigm shifts in understanding, but they did not generally require a change of standards of evidence. Continental drift was disputed until the data supported it and a model for it was created. Then it was accepted quickly. The major changes of modern physics- quantum theory and special relativity- also were accepted as the data supported it. They were debated vigorously, but the standards for supporting data were not changed. I claim something similar applies in history- there are well-developed standards of evidence. Challenging them because you don't like the conclusions is bordering on Bozo-land. Understand what those standards are, and how they came to be. If you think they are too lax, then follow up on what the consequences of your proposed standards are. Make sure that they don't lead to a trivial view of history as entirely myth. Then present your proposed standards with a demonstration of what exactly the consequences for our understanding of history are.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 7, 2017 0:58:47 GMT
Firstly you can't have done much research. I'm very busy reading books about the Jesus myth both pro and con. I will be very careful to quote them accurately and cite my sources. I can't just deny all she has to say especially when it agrees with what so many other people who have investigated the historicity of Jesus have to say. Wow, sounds like you're appealing to numbers here; "All these people agree with her, so she can't be wrong". I thought you said this was the wrong way to argue? I didn't word that sentence correctly. I meant to say that I cannot be quick to deny all the evidence she and others have dug up about Jesus. Lots of authorities mean little while lots of evidence might mean a lot assuming the evidence is of good quality. In any case, I just want to understand both sides of this debate and let others understand the issues as well. I will let them make up their own minds. I think you contradicted yourself here. You said you don't need the New Testament, and then you say historians do need the New Testament to know something about Jesus. Are you saying you're not a trained historian? That's great! I'm always seeking new knowledge. Please share your knowledge with the rest of us. If that's what you have concluded, then go ahead and believe it. All of us need to take care to judge the characters of other people especially people online whom we may know nothing about. I'm not sure where the deception is. You copied and pasted some Greek text into this thread, and I used an online translator to see what it might say in English. I divulged all that I was doing and made no effort to fool anybody or hide anything. If I am dishonest, then yes, you should call me out on it. Will it do me any good to deny this charge? Now that you beat me up, can we please get back to the issue? You say you know more than I do. Tell me what you know that might demonstrate that Jesus was a real person.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 7, 2017 15:32:00 GMT
So it isn't libel, which has a legal definition. You may mean "calumny." Well, whatever you want to call it, it was deceit on the part of Bart Ehrman. If that's the kind of tactics that people will use to make a case for a historical Jesus or anything else, then I'd be a fool to be quick to believe them. Frankly, I think that's foolish. Do you need “actual evidence” to question the motives of somebody who sends you an email asking you to pay a fee up front for your winning a Nigerian lottery? I posted the evidence documenting Ehrman's twisting the truth. That evidence was rejected. Let's move on. That's an impressive resume! I've studied physics and mathematics including advanced calculus and linear algebra. I used to tutor college students in algebra and trigonometry. These studies have helped me learn to think critically and analytically. I'm trying to apply this kind of thinking to my studying the New Testament. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a consensus is worthless. It might be something to go on if it's all that's available. That said, in my opinion it's not good form to go on wasting time and effort harping about a consensus when you could be presenting good evidence and sound logic that relates that evidence to a conclusion. Those who try to make a case for a historical Jesus either don't understand this fact, or if they do understand it, they use a consensus anyway perhaps to obfuscate the dearth of good evidence for a historical Jesus. Have you been reading anything I've said on this thread? I have repeatedly posted in detail why I am not convinced by the claims for a historical Jesus. Besides, I'm not out to be “taken seriously.” I'm out to discover if Jesus was a real person. I'm not trying to win a popularity contest. If I wanted to garner people's approval, then the last thing I would do is scrutinize one of their favorite ideas. That's fine with me. Believe what seems right to you. If you're interested in what Carrier has to say, you can read his critique of O'neil's work. My answers to these questions are that as far as I know neither Zeus nor Osiris were crucified by the Romans, I don't know if they were ever seen as troublemakers by “local authorities, and I don't see how stories of their crucifixions means they ever had “actual physical presence.” What you're doing is you are arbitrarily creating criteria to fit the story of Jesus but that do not fit the story of Zeus. I could play that same game by insisting that we need the testimony of a famous philosopher to know if a person existed. That way I could make out Zeus to be historical but not Jesus! (Plato mentioned Zeus but no famous philosophers mentioned Jesus while Jesus is supposed to have lived or even much later.) It's not “turtles all the way down.” Our sources should start at the time and place Jesus is supposed to have lived. If we had such a source that is untainted by Christian bias, then we'd have good evidence for a historical Jesus. Of course we don't have that kind of a source, and that's essentially why the sources for Jesus cited by some people do not constitute good evidence in my opinion. I hope you didn't miss my point about Erich von Däniken. He was trying to tell us that the gods of old were real; they just weren't gods but extraterrestrials. Those who espouse a historical Jesus are saying that the god of Christianity was real; he just wasn't a god with magical powers but an obscure peasant preacher who started the world's largest religion. Do you see the similarity in the historical claims of Erich von Däniken and the Jesus-history crowd? Do you know this claim to be a fact, or are you just assuming it to be true? I know that many Christians are delighted with the idea of “secular” scholars maintaining that Jesus was historical. Just check what Christian apologists like William Lane Craig have to say about it. We need not go to “Bozo-land” to see if any “well-developed standards of evidence” support the claim of a historical Jesus. Just post some of these standards, and we'll go over them.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Nov 7, 2017 16:23:54 GMT
That's fine with me. Believe what seems right to you. If you're interested in what Carrier has to say, you can read his critique of O'neil's work. Speaking of deceit and calumny, be warned that Carrier persistently misspells Tim O'Neill's name.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 7, 2017 19:46:30 GMT
Quite a few posts ago this "jagella" person asked me why I was bothering with someone like him. That was a fair question, so I stopped bothering. Though others seem to have more patience with someone whose self-assurance far outruns either his knowledge or, to be blunt, their capacity for coherent and rational argument, and it's been amusing to watch him flounder around. This bit caught my eye though: More or less. I'm sure somewhere I could find a reference to the years, and I could probably check up on that. But I try to argue in good faith, and I assume good faith on the part of other participants in the discussion. I see no reason to doubt Tim's claimed degrees. In a broader view, it wouldn't make much difference- Tim documents his claims well, so I give them credence. In case anyone thinks I'm lying about my qualifications, here are some snapshots taken of my office wall:
Then we get this: And if you're interested in what Carrier gets completely wrong, you can read my detailed response: "Richard Carrier is Displeased". So, let's get back to the spectacular display of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action ...
|
|
kj
Clerk
Posts: 9
|
Post by kj on Nov 7, 2017 21:52:42 GMT
Even that statement doesn't seem to be true, as Fortigurn has so patiently pointed out.
That's quite a leap. You made the accusation that criticism of Murdock/Acharya S was based on sexism with your only evidence being her sex. In an academic debate, I don't assume evil motives on the part of those with whom I disagree. Even in a political debate, I only question motives when given reason. There seems to me to be a clear difference between such a discussion and somebody randomly asking me for access to my bank account. If you assume everyone out there is running a Nigerian prince scam (and the motives of such a person, even if we didn't assume outright theft, are normally explicitly bad: hence the need to smuggle the money out of the country in the first place), it makes you seem weirdly paranoid.
That's on odd response considering your skepticism about Tim's degrees. You have no actual evidence that I am who I say I am- indeed you have no actual evidence that I'm not an AI machine sitting in a cupboard at the University of the Withingyersrand using this discussion to enrich my deep neural net.
I've read it. There's a reason for my opinion of Carrier's statements, and a reason for my opinion of Tim O'Neill's. It is exactly the use of my critical and analytical reasoning skills that leads to them.
Well, that makes it clear that you are basically a troll. If you are not trying to be taken seriously, then why bother talking about writing a book? You have posted nothing meaningful about why you are not convinced. You assert the evidence is not sufficient. But the standard you seem to want to apply isn't practicable. You seem to have no interest in actually examining what a practicable standard for belief that a particular individual is historical might be. Which leads to the apparent conclusion that you will find problems with every such standard that doesn't satisfy what you have decided by "common sense" to be the answer.
And again you make the claim that the reason you don't get people to agree with you is that you are "scrutiniz[ing] one of their favorite ideas." You are doing nothing of the sort. You are making a fairly weak historical claim in the end. Only believing Christians would have any deep-seated interested in exactly whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, and that would only be changed if you found Ludlum's Petrine Denials. Maybe you should start searching the Italian Alps. Otherwise, while it is historically interesting whether the person of Jesus was real, or derived from real people, the nature of scholarship into the development of Christianity as a motive force in the world is unchanged.
No, I'm stating that Josephus and Tacitus (as I understand it) explicitly mention that a figure named Jesus was crucified. You state that they also mention Zeus, and therefore, if I believe that they suggest Jesus was real, I should also believe they suggest Zeus was real. That's not a critical or an analytical thought, but a complete non-sequitur (bordering on complete nonsense). I can read a biography of Mel Blanc which makes lots of mention of Yosemite Sam- do I have to conclude that, if I think the biographer is claiming that Mel Blanc existed, then he is also claiming a true existence of Yosemite Sam? Context matters- is there any suggestion in the references to Zeus that he was a real, physical being? If not, then you have no comparison to make here.
What are you hoping for? A birth announcement in the December 25, 0 AD Bethlehem Star? Transcripts of trials and appeals briefs? After how many complete changes of nations in the area, you expect all the government records to be preserved? If you had a good collection of records of people- as we do for much later periods with exactly such data: baptismal records, marriage records, census records- and Jesus did not show up, you'd have an argument for nonexistence. But insisting that documents which exist for nobody must exist before we can conclude a historical Jesus existed is inane.
No. I see similarity between you and the people who think that von Daniken was challenging some sort of orthodoxy. He was merely spouting uninformed opinion. His arguments all boil down to "we don't understand how this was done, so it must have been advanced beings from outer space who did it." Which is a special case of proof by lack of imagination.
Do you truly not see the difference between welcoming "secular scholars'" support and requiring it? Christians- apologists or not- presume the existence of a historical Jesus. If there is external support for such existence, it serves to affirm their belief. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say: the fact that you don't have a birth certificate for him does not mean that Jesus wasn't born in a manger in Bethlehem. And all you can possibly find with your "investigation" is that you don't find enough evidence to convince you that he existed. Big Deal. For people who already believe that he existed, that's a rather unimpressive nonaccomplishment. You will not find actual evidence that the person of Jesus was a fictional creation by some guy in first-century Judea, which is what it would take to actually challenge them.
In fact, evidence for a historical Jesus would likely cause more tumult than a lack thereof- see, for instance, the Jesus Tomb kerfuffle of a few years ago. Catholic orthodoxy maintains the perpetual virginity of Mary, so that Jesus could have had no siblings. Evidence of a tomb which tied Jesus to a family, or evidence of Jesus actually being married, would collide with those beliefs in a way that your skepticism of the historical Jesus will never be able to.
They've been posted here. You choose to discard them because you don't like the conclusions. You decided further, while decrying "deceit" from Ehrman, to make the risible assertion that we didn't really know if Tim O'Neill has the degrees he claims on his blog site. Presumably because Tim has some fascinating plan to get rich by claiming a masters' degree he never earned, then writing a specialist blog on history, and then, well, I'm not sure, but it either gives him control over some Nigerian prince's bank accounts or sets him up for total world domination. I've known for several years that Tim and Fortigurn and several others are much more knowledgeable about history than I am- it's why I come here, to learn. I also realize that Tim is much wiser than I am- he had the good sense to avoid this conversation until you decided to go from decrying calumny to actively practicing it.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 7, 2017 22:24:16 GMT
Quite a few posts ago this "jagella" person asked me why I was bothering with someone like him. That was a fair question, so I stopped bothering. Well, it was a rather nice reprieve, but as they say, "all good things must come to an end." Laugh it up, Tim! There's more to come. I see you graduated with honors. While that's very commendable, please check my diploma. As you can see I graduated in 1996 with a bachelor of science degree. I graduated summa cum laude. That's Latin for "with highest honors." I had a perfect GPA of 4.0. I beat you there! I know you love to troll insulting people. No doubt you'll go on the attack screaming that I have no formal education in the New Testament. (Always stick your enemy where you think he's weakest.) While it is true that my education in the issue of the historicity of Jesus is from self-study, I proved at the Pennsylvania College of Technology that when it comes to learning, you cannot get better than I. And after seeing your diploma, I can see that my learning abilities are superior to your own. In closing, I recommend you take care who you pick fights with. You just might get your butt whooped (again). Attachments:
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 7, 2017 22:38:43 GMT
That's fine with me. Believe what seems right to you. If you're interested in what Carrier has to say, you can read his critique of O'neil's work. Speaking of deceit and calumny, be warned that Carrier persistently misspells Tim O'Neill's name. So I see. Carrier's misspelling of Tim's name probably results from O'Neill being a rather obscure figure in New Testament studies. I never heard of O'Neill before. I couldn't remember how to spell his name either until you corrected Carrier. Speaking of Carrier, he has this to say: While I don't know for sure if this charge is justified, it does seem grounded in my experiences here in this forum. In conclusion, I should point out that while attacking people might help us work out our frustrations, it is important to stick with the issue. The issue on this thread is the historicity of Jesus. People's characters only come into play when we look to them as authorities on this issue. I do hope that anybody who does appeal to authority makes sure that that authority has integrity.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 7, 2017 23:13:54 GMT
Laugh it up, Tim! There's more to come. So it seems. You're a comedy gift that keeps on giving. I think even people with no Latin at all would be clear on what summa cum laude means, but thank you so much for your helpful translation. Though it seems we will have to add the Commonwealth university system to the list of things you don't understand. In Britain and Australia "with Honours" means someone achieved very high marks in their undergraduate degree (that's equivalent to your summa cum laude) and were then invited to undertake an extra year of study. In my case I finished that year with what is called "a First" or "First Class Honours". So I'm afraid while comparisons between the US system and the Commonwealth one is diificult because they are so different, I suspect that, even before I did my research Masters, I was well ahead of you. A whole year of post-graduate study ahead, in fact. Then I did a Master's. See above. And I don't have a mere "diploma", I have an Honours Degree and a Master's Degree. And that's just hilarious. Then we get this: It isn't. Why don't you actually read my detailed response to Carrier if you're going to wave his weak attacks around? I suggest others put this clown on ignore - this guy is a troll.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 8, 2017 2:32:44 GMT
I see you graduated with honors. While that's very commendable, please check my diploma. As you can see I graduated in 1996 with a bachelor of science degree. I graduated summa cum laude. That's Latin for "with highest honors." I had a perfect GPA of 4.0. I beat you there! You have a single undergraduate degree from one of the lowest ranked colleges in the US. Tim has an undergraduate degree with honors, plus a Masters degree, from an internationally recognized university. Since you want to talk in these terms, even his undergraduate degree outranks yours. The fact that he also has a Masters degree means his education is superior to yours by several orders of magnitude. This helps explain why his arguments demonstrate evidence and critical reasoning, while your arguments demonstrate logical fallacies, "feelings", and "imagination".
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 8, 2017 3:01:12 GMT
I'm very busy reading books about the Jesus myth both pro and con. I will be very careful to quote them accurately and cite my sources. But you claimed that when you read Murdock's work you checked out her sources and found they were valid. This is obviously untrue. You've been bouncing around the internet discussing this topic for several years, and you still haven't even learned basic facts, and you still haven't even checked Murdock's claims, you just repeat them blindly because she said them. But you haven't even assessed the evidence she claims to have dug up. All you do is accept it without scrutiny. Then when other people point out the problems with her claims, you accuse them of being sexist. This shows absolutely no critical thinking skills at all, and just blind devotion to a preconceived idea. The fact that you still don't even understand the value of consensus (as people have told you several times, it's about how the consensus is formed, not about the numbers), demonstrates that you are ignorant of even basic facts relevant to the topic. No. I said I don't need to "rely on the word of fanatical and anonymous religious cultists to base a belief in the “historical” Jesus", and that's not what historians do either. They don't base their belief in a real Jesus just by reading the New Testament. That's what I said, and it's not a contradiction. Of course I'm not. I've already done so several times. So far, these have been your responses. 1. Try to deceive people into thinking you know a language of which you are ignorant. 2. Rant and rave when you were publicly humiliated by your attempt at deception being exposed. 3. Ignore a list of specific facts I presented. 4. Repeatedly reword my statements to make them say something I didn't say (straw man fallacy). 5. Repeatedly fail to present evidence for your claims even after being asked to do so by several people. 6. Claim that you can arrive at accurate historical conclusions about original source language texts, simply by reading them in an English translation written by someone you don't know, even when you don't know how accurate the translation is. This all shows gross incompetence. That is completely false. 1. When I offered to show you some passages from Josephus you were delighted, boasting "The Lord has delivered him into my hands!". 2. When I showed you texts in Greek, you deliberately concealed the fact that you did not understand them at all. Instead you simply punched them into an online translator (apparently a translator of modern Greek!), and tried to understand the results. You did not reveal this until I had exposed your attempt at deception. 3. Due to your incompetence, you completely misidentified the passages. You even claimed that the words for "Jesus Christ" were used, when it didn't appear in any of the passages at all. You also completely misidentified one of the passages as the Testimonium Flavianum. You did not reveal this until I had exposed your attempt at deception. 4. You ended your post with a sentence in Greek saying "Don't try to fool me!", to deliberately give the false impression that you understood Greek. This was particularly hilarious since your next post complained that I had in fact fooled you. All through this process you were deliberately deceptive, trying to give the impression that you knew Greek, when you were completely ignorant of it. It was a great example of just how incompetent you are at understanding this topic, and a great demonstration of just one of the basic skills necessary to research the topic in any depth. You could start by reading what I've written previously instead of ignoring it. As I and others have shown you, the evidence consists of multiple independent textual witnesses, from the end of the first century (one less than 30 years after he died), to the end of the second century, of the standard which professional historians judge is more than sufficient for establishing historicity. The fact that you don't accept them is irrelevant. Remember, you still think the early Christians believed Jesus was a god, when in fact that is completely untrue; the earliest Christians believed he was a man.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Nov 8, 2017 4:13:56 GMT
So it seems. You're a comedy gift that keeps on giving. Does calling me names mean that Jesus existed? Seriously, your rude behavior and anger towards those who disagree with you won't help your cause much. These kinds of insults are uncalled for. If you want to boast of your intelligence, then why not demonstrate it with discussing the issue sensibly? When you studied in college, did you take any ethics courses? I did. Having good integrity is important in building trust with those you wish to convince. That's great. I'd suggest you conduct yourself in this forum as if your school's faculty and administration were reading everything you are posting. I already know what you're going to say. You're going to deny everything Carrier said about you, then you'll insult him. For the record, I do not approve of Carrier insulting you or his use of profanity. I am fair. I don't know how much it matters at this point. I've learned that the stance that Jesus existed is not based in good evidence or logic. It's based more in emotion. I will definitely discuss this issue in my book.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 8, 2017 4:36:42 GMT
Does calling me names mean that Jesus existed? Seriously, your rude behavior and anger towards those who disagree with you won't help your cause much. This is all highly ironic given that you have consistently demonstrated poor ethics, made repeated personal attacks on people, made false accusations about motive, and been persistently rude. Clearly you did not read what Tim wrote, and you do not even want to. What complete nonsense. You've been talking about your alleged book for several years, and it remains completely fictional.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Nov 8, 2017 8:43:12 GMT
.You've been talking about your alleged book for several years, and it remains completely fictional. I think that "mythical" may be a better description.
|
|