Is there any evidence that Jesus Christ existed?
I'm pointing out that established scholarship on the historicity of Jesus has recognized a distinct religious bias as far as ecclesiastical methodology is concerned, meaning that certain religious sources in support of Jesus' historicity are disputed or outright rejected by academics in the field.
""...The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice"
Donald H. Akenson (29 September 2001). Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1.
https://books.google.com/books?id=40E8am9SlwgC
Also, try not to pervert the argument to escape admitting your error here: the dispute is about the methodologies used by some ecclesiastics, and not about a wholesale rejection of the gospels outright. Stay on topic.
P.S. I'm simply amazed that out of the 20 or so individual arguments we've had so far amongst the several threads, you've managed to lose all 20. Pick your battles more carefully in the future to avoid this humiliation.
Never said that a trend is evidence of individual action- that is a straw man. The argument is that religious bias in ecclesiastical historicity arguments is firmly established in scholarship, and that claiming it is an "absolute failure" as to referencing such bias is simply unreasonable. Moreover, no one ever said anything about discounting historians based on their "religion or lack thereof". I'm making a general statement about ecclesiastical bias, and not commenting on particular works or historians.
This isn't a "hypothesis": it is established scholarship that ecclesiastical bias exists. I agree that applying this across the board to any ecclesiastical historicity argument is absurd, but that's not remotely my position here. Rather, it is simply that such bias has been recognized, and that implying that it is an "absolute failure" to consider it is unreasonable.
This isn't a "hypothesis": it is established scholarship that ecclesiastical bias exists. I agree that applying this across the board to any ecclesiastical historicity argument is absurd, but that's not remotely my position here. Rather, it is simply that such bias has been recognized, and that implying that it is an "absolute failure" to consider it is unreasonable.
You do this way too much. You translate people's statements into something very different and then you attack it - and if called out you start to backpeddle before you return to your initial misinterpretation when the debate has moved on.
You seem to think it "wins" you something. I have no idea why, this isn't a presidential election. Try engaging people on what they say, instead of spinning imaginary discussions.
But now you've just moved back to your unfair interpretations. "Rejecting historians just because they are Christians is an abolute failure" (paraphrased) obviously doesn't translate to "Specific historic method by a specific group of Christian scholars is an absolute failure".
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
"Yeah, but all those writings were by *CHRISTIANS* and shouldn't count" argument (which is an absolute failure when it comes to debating the subject)
For example, you erected a straw man about my position here, pretending that I was arguing that Christian historicity arguments should be automatically discounted, and after having that shredded, you now soften your approach by misquoting Aaron W. to allow your critique to stick. As I explained above, it does not stick: Aaron W.'s extreme language belies a distinct and recognized religious bias among ecclesiastical historicity arguments, and there is nothing unreasonable in pointing that out.
Try not to deflect with such puerile projection- when you make an error, own it and move on. Going through this song and dance to save face is unnecessary.
If you need additional elaboration on this, let me know. Keep the sophisms and ego to a minimum, please, and please try not to project your methods and frustrations onto your opponent.
No, i have done no such thing: Aaron W.'s "absolute failure" quote belies a recognized religious bias in Christian (read: ecclesiastical) historicity arguments. The original quote goes as such:
It is precisely being Christian that gives rise to a greater likelihood of the religious bias in question, therefore to claim it is an "absolute failure when it comes to debating the subject" is simply false because it belies the existence and likelihood of such bias. This is wholly distinct from arguing that Christian historicity arguments are automatically invalid, which is the straw man you erected afore.
It is precisely being Christian that gives rise to a greater likelihood of the religious bias in question, therefore to claim it is an "absolute failure when it comes to debating the subject" is simply false because it belies the existence and likelihood of such bias. This is wholly distinct from arguing that Christian historicity arguments are automatically invalid, which is the straw man you erected afore.
Yes or no will suffice.
You're spinning too fast. Cool off for a second.
Seems like it is more plausible that there is an anti-religious bias on the part of skeptics.
Yes, they are. Here is an example:
""...The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice"
Donald H. Akenson (29 September 2001). Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1.
""...The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice"
Donald H. Akenson (29 September 2001). Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-01073-1.
1. What did Yeshua believe about (a) the world and (b) himself?
2. What did he say?
3. What did he do?
4. What did the disciples who encountered him personally believe about him?
5. How did this differ (if at all) from what subsequent generation believed?
6. When did the motifs and symbols that transform Yeshua of Nazareth into Jesus-the-Crhist begin to adhere to the man? At the very beginning or later?
7. How did these ideas evolve within first-century Christian circles?
8. When was the story of Jesus-the-Christ crystallized in written, and therefore, normative - form?
9. And, ultimately, is the history of Yeshua every obtainable, or must one settle for the history of the disciples of Jesus-the-Christ, something very different indeed?
2. What did he say?
3. What did he do?
4. What did the disciples who encountered him personally believe about him?
5. How did this differ (if at all) from what subsequent generation believed?
6. When did the motifs and symbols that transform Yeshua of Nazareth into Jesus-the-Crhist begin to adhere to the man? At the very beginning or later?
7. How did these ideas evolve within first-century Christian circles?
8. When was the story of Jesus-the-Christ crystallized in written, and therefore, normative - form?
9. And, ultimately, is the history of Yeshua every obtainable, or must one settle for the history of the disciples of Jesus-the-Christ, something very different indeed?
P.S. I'm simply amazed that out of the 20 or so individual arguments we've had so far amongst the several threads, you've managed to lose all 20. Pick your battles more carefully in the future to avoid this humiliation.
Based on the time stamps of your posts, it looks like you're spending anywhere between 15-45 minutes per wall-of-text post. I assure you I'm spending considerably less time and getting considerably more amusement.
More wilful misinterpretation of my position to avoid admitting your original mistake. The argument is that a distinct religious bias has been recognized amongst Christian polemicists, and making extreme statements like "absolute failure" belies this recognition. That's the entire argument- it has nothing to do with whether Christians are capable of being decent historians.
You're spinning too fast. Cool off for a second.
You're spinning too fast. Cool off for a second.
It's the errors in works and schools of thought that must be pointed out.
Again, allow me to quote the author of the work:
Originally Posted by Donald H. Akenson
""...The point I shall argue below is that, the agreed evidentiary practices of the historians of Yeshua, despite their best efforts, have not been those of sound historical practice"
https://books.google.com/books?id=40E8am9SlwgC
Fail. Moving on.
Whenever you get the chance, my arguments await your rebuttal. Failure to engage them implies concession. Improve.
But please...tell me more about this "amusement." We're not even close to getting started here =D.
Also agreed. Not sure really what you're even trying to do here anymore, asides from being a contrarian.
I've been saying the same thing the entire time. AaronW's statement is not wrong. Anyone discounting a historian because he is a Christian is committing a failure. It's errors in method, works and schools of thought that must be the grounds for rejection.
And the distinction is important. This forum alone has had hundreds of posters who have wanted to discount sources because they were religious, irreligious, Muslims, Christians, atheists or whatnot. We live in a world where people increasingly just read what they perceive to be "their side" and accuse the other of bias without investigation. It's bad form.
And the distinction is important. This forum alone has had hundreds of posters who have wanted to discount sources because they were religious, irreligious, Muslims, Christians, atheists or whatnot. We live in a world where people increasingly just read what they perceive to be "their side" and accuse the other of bias without investigation. It's bad form.
And the distinction is important. This forum alone has had hundreds of posters who have wanted to discount sources because they were religious, irreligious, Muslims, Christians, atheists or whatnot. We live in a world where people increasingly just read what they perceive to be "their side" and accuse the other of bias without investigation. It's bad form.
Amusingly, that's the true for of ad hominem that Lychon has failed to properly characterize in multiple conversations.
Interesting. For the record, most of my responses to you and your twin on here take about 5 minutes.
Some have taken longer. This one took ~30 seconds. But either way, what does that have to do with the substance of the arguments? I've already made clear that this is entertaining for me, so...yeah...
Not sure where I've failed to "properly characterize" ad hominem. If I recall, I pointed out several of your veiled ad hominem against me, which you denied, and then ignored. On top of that, my argument here has never been that "being Christian" = "bad historicity argument".
you guys need an arbiter
everyone agrees that all people have biases
everyone agrees that regardless of bias, claims need to be evaluated on their merits
move on to discussing claims and evidence
everyone agrees that all people have biases
everyone agrees that regardless of bias, claims need to be evaluated on their merits
move on to discussing claims and evidence
My response (which might have been lost in some other deleted posts) was that mocking your degree because you've failed to make a meaningful argument is not an ad hominem. I was making fun of your degree on the basis of your argument, not rejecting your argument on the basis of your degree.
On top of that, my argument here has never been that "being Christian" = "bad historicity argument".
But I do agree with your points.
You're struggling so hard here. It's adorable.
Sure I have- your "absolute failure" language in that context belies the established existence of religious bias. If this is your way of conceding, I accept. =D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem ... is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Sure I have- your "absolute failure" language in that context belies the established existence of religious bias. If this is your way of conceding, I accept. =D
Originally Posted by me
Those two authors are not the most important for historians in thinking Jesus existed. Even if neither Josephus nor Tacitus mentioned Jesus, there would not be any particular challenge to Jesus' existence. The volume of other evidences is more than sufficient.
The primary reason that those two are brought up is in counter to the "Yeah, but all those writings were by *CHRISTIANS* and shouldn't count" argument (which is an absolute failure when it comes to debating the subject).
The primary reason that those two are brought up is in counter to the "Yeah, but all those writings were by *CHRISTIANS* and shouldn't count" argument (which is an absolute failure when it comes to debating the subject).
Yup. You totally get what an ad hominem is. Ad hominems are totally about things you infer from my statements. 110%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem ... is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Alternatively, consider this more simplistic argument:
Originally Posted by Wiktionary.com
Noun:
ad hominem (plural ad hominems)
1)...
2) A personal attack.
Most of the time I use "ad hominem", I mean a personal insult, i.e., a personal attack (as opposed to the more formal definition you've provided above regarding logical fallacy). Most would agree that your "so proud of you" statement is exactly that, i.e., an insult against me. It's cool, dude- I'm probably guilty of a few ad hominem against you over the past few weeks myself, but I'm not going around denying it.
No quarrels here ;-). Cool neologism (I guess).
And I stand by my retort (quoted below). Guess we'll have to just agree to degeneracy, urgh, disagree.
Originally Posted by Lychon
Christian polemicists have a greater likelihood of engaging in recognized religious bias when arguing for the historicity of Jesus: it is precisely the fact that they are Christian theologians that gives rise to the greater likelihood of this bias, i.e., Christian ideology engenders it. Thus, using the language "absolute failure" relative to Christian polemicists is simply unreasonable because it belies this bias (i.e., misleads the reader by implying that there is no connection between "being Christian" and "unsound methodology", and there definitely is). This has nothing to do with specific arguments or specific historians: it is simply a recognition of the fact that a certain ideology makes a certain error of methodology more likely.
Yes, we know what you mean. You've written the same point 17 times, only pausing to argue that it is not what you meant before you write it again.
Provides a link from Wikipedia, then lambasts me for quoting from Wiktionary, which is part of the same organization (Wikimedia) and subject to the same editing process. And that's not even taking into account that his own argument was refuted on the merits- the Wiktionary definition was simply an alternative polemic, and I purposely chose Wiktionary to parallel your selection of Wikipedia. There are other sources I could have chosen, but why even bother anymore when I'm arguing with people who deny plain English definitions (e.g., 'polemic' = 'an argument' gets a response of "I don't read dictionaries that way.").
QED indeed. =D.
QED indeed. =D.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE