yeah, i'd say this thread is starting to get a little comical.

using the technique of modern law (made to examine modern events) to examine the validity of historical events.... well you can prove or disprove anything you want (whether you know your motives or not)

If this is the case then all worshipped gods are likely to be historical figures.

We're a few hundred posts in and the best evidence that's been offered is that texts of Josephus found in the 12th Century mentioned his name... and those are believe to have been manipulated. You'd think if there was some strong evidence for a historical Jesus we'd have seen something by now.

No, the best evidence we have are these eyewitness accounts by these people that you reject out of hand out of ignorance (Hoffman's word).

Edit: Also, you're trying to play the game by a set of ad hoc rules that you have made up, not the actual rules of the game. I've explained this and demonstrated it multiple times.

I can even demonstrate why this standard is ad hoc. When historians go and interview people about stuff, they ask questions like "Tell me about so-and-so (or such-and-such)." Now these persons may not be alive (when you ask an adult about his grandparents) or events are not necessarily actively happening (tell me what your grandparents told you about the Nazi invasion). It is simply false that you reject those statements simply because it happened then and isn't happening right now.

You speak as if you actually know something about this. But given your current position, it seems highly probable that your position is merely a recitation of some website you read somewhere.

Regardless, you're still applying the same ad hoc rule as the Jewish grandparents above.

As for the rest of your ramble, I need only say LOL. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Aaron - just to save you time I'm not really interested in having a conversation with someone who thinks that we can't be any more sure of Abraham Lincoln's existence then Jesus. I'm interested in having conversations with people a little more intellectually grounded.

LOL. I never once said that.

It's like you're not even reading what I write.

Edit: Here is the link

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=108

That theory is fine except that it is more unacceptable to most theists than to most atheists. And both theists and atheists agree that parts of that theory is logically impossible. For instance Jesus either was or was not ressurected. Some religions say he was and some say he wasn't. The religions that have it wrong are just plain incorrect religions.

Aaron:

When you interview old people who spoke to folks who lived during the civil war, yes you may get some useful information. But you'll also get a lot of hearsay, legends, lore, etc. Ever heard of the prison telephone game.

But again, that's with living people. You don't even know if ancient historians did that, or if they transcribed things they heard accurately. So there's several ADDITIONAL layers of hearsay here.

As for who wrote the gospels, you are, quite simply, FOS. You have no evidence of who wrote them except what you choose to believe.

Again, what's wrong with just saying "I have religious faith, I know I can't prove it, but I believe it"? Why pretend you know things you don't?

and it goes with out saying that its a horrible analogy. Any (US) educated child is going to have been exposed to plethora of evidence that Abraham Lincoln existed. A scholar doesn't really have to lift a finger to say with relative confidence to a high degree of certainty that Lincoln existed.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no comparable evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. While you may think his name being mentioned in a questionable 12th century reference to a Josephus writing that scholars believe has been tampered with... its easy for most of to see that its in NO WAY comparable to the evidence that could establish Lincoln's existence.

Instead of going down laughable diversions that just diminish your argument, why don't you present the evidence you keep alluding to. Surely you have something in mind that we can all agree is reasonable proof that he was real?

You present evidence that martyrdom does not prove the beliefs of the martyr. Then, out of the blue, you conclude that martyrdom does not prove anything. Non sequitur.

Concerto, you might want to learn how to read in context. "Anything" has a referent in that passage.

What martyrdom does "prove" is that the martyr believes what they are dying for. Of course it does not prove the actual content of those beliefs. This is obvious, or should be, just by noting the mutual incompatibility of the causes to which people sacrifice themselves in the news daily.

I'm just happy to see someone who (unless I'm getting him confused with someone else) is a theist who readily agrees that dying for your beliefs has no bearing on the validity of your beliefs. This definitely is a reoccuring statement on these forums by some theists and I don't recall seeing a lot of theists countering it when the argument has been made.

The evidence HAS BEEN PRESENTED. It's just that you're playing intellectual Calvinball.

So my answer is NO I CANNOT. There isn't actually anything that "we all can agree is reasonable" because I don't believe you know what it means to be reasonable.

What's wrong with you admitting that you don't know anything about how historians work?

I know quite a lot about how modern historians work, and the limits of the enterprise. The problem is that you keep on wanting to assume that because we can estimate the reliability of the conclusions of modern historians whose work is reasonably transparent and subject to criticism and debate, that says something about the reliability of the alleged conclusions of ANCIENT historians.

They are two different things, no different than concluding that because a trained psychiatrist can offer reasonably (BUT NOT COMPLETELY!) reliable conclusions about your personality, thoughts, and anxieties, that a streetcorner palm-reader's conclusions must also be reasonably reliable.

It sure doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you know how a subclass of modern historians work.

*Yawn*

Find me an historian who believes that Josephus' writings should be removed from the realm of reliable information regarding the first century Middle East (more precisley, the Jewish history of the time), and then I'll care what you have to say.

Edit: Make that an historian with some level of academic prominence in the field, studying the era. The internet is full of crazies, like yourself, who take positions that no historians in their right mind would take.

Just so I'm clear, the reasonable evidence was the mention of Jesus by Josephus? Something that scholars apparently have been debating the authenticity of since the 17th century?

Aaron, "reliable" information is not an on-off switch. Information has indicia of reliability, based not only on its internal consistency and likelihood to be authentic, but how it fits with other information. Based on those sorts of factors, one may reach a conclusion that a particular text, or even particular portions of a text, are more or less reliable.

The question isn't whether Josephus' writings should be ignored, but how persuasive any particular historical thesis is and how much credit a disputed Josephus text that, even if taken as authentic, was written years after the fact should be given. And to determine that, modern historians don't just take Josephus at his (supposed) word-- they try to piece it together with other evidence to make tentative hypotheses, and even then they don't overclaim. A lot of vocal Christians, on the other hand, routinely overclaim.

Your arguments as to how one can verify the veracity of MODERN historians' accounts of the past are irrelevant to verifying the veracity of an ancient historian's account.

* The gospels stand as evidence (but you reject it and Hoffman calls you ignorant for doing so)
* Jospehus is evidence (but you think that the "debate" implies something that it really doesn't since the debate is RESOLVED in favor of historical Jesus)
* The collective agreement among scholars is evidence (but you keep claiming that there's some sort of broad belief in the Jesus myth -- DESPITE your inability to provide credible support to the myth)

This argument that we're having is no different from basically every other conspiracy theory debate. The evidence has been presented, but you reject it.

You say this, but at the same time you're using it precisely as an off-switch. So once again, you're sinking your own ship.

What's your answer? And on what do you base your answer? Most importantly, what would a modern scholar of 1st century Jerusalem say?

Let me phrase it this way. Let's say you take away the knowledge of the gospels and the writings of Josephus. How much can you say about 1st century Jerusalem? How many other resources are there that are "reliable" (whatever that means) speak to that time period in history? And how much detail can be derived from them?

Aaron:

1. There is very little "knowledge" in the gospels. Just as much as there is in The Book of Mormon or Dianetics. ANY argument based on "well it says it in the gospels" is circular.

2. Good historians will certainly use Josephus' authentic writings (and again, I must stress, there's an argument about authenticity here) as one piece of evidence to piece together what MAY have happened int he First Century. But again, they WON'T OVERCLAIM. All you can do is present hypotheses that are more or less corroborated.

This approach is completely incompatible with the claims of believers.

LOL. Go do some research.

Edit: It's painfully obvious that you have done basically no background reading for this conversation, and you're merely speaking off the top of your head.

I'm just trying to get you to admit the historicity of Jesus. What strawman are you arguing against?

LOL goalpost move.

Edit: I think it's obvious why you haven't answered any of my direct questions.

Aaron, I admitted that I BELIEVE that Jesus was a historical figure well upthread. I don't think it's a CERTAINTY that he was one, but as I said, the activity that we do know about during the First Century and the expansion of "Jesus cults", or proto-Christianity, throughout the region with competing writings and interpretations does suggest a real person.

But I'm sorry, but "LOL. Go do some research" is nothing more than you resenting that someone would equate YOUR invisible man in the sky with Elohim or Xenu.

If you take texts as self-authenticating, the Book of Mormon and Dianetics are both evidence of the claims set forth therein. If you require evidence for claims and extraordinary evidence for supernatural claims, then all of these texts should basically be treated as works of fiction.

Translation: You reject the position of scholars, but present no particular reason for doing so.

The historicity of Jesus has been established by the evidence. But you want to leave space for things that historians don't leave space for. Why do you want to do this? And why won't you give a rationale for holding this view that is contrary to the scholars?

I've been criticizing your so-called "consistent" position. You've failed to demonstrate the consistency, and most of your posts are rambles that have very little bearing on the reality of the conversation.

The culture that it presents is entirely consistent with the extra-Biblical presentations of the culture. The geography presented in the Bible is consistent with the geography of the region as established by archaeology.

That you want to take this utterly ignorant position about invisible men in the sky clearly shows that you have a strongly biased understanding of the gospels as literature and the gospels as ancient artifacts. In particular, you have NO CLUE what you're talking about. It's clearly evident.

To claim that the Bible contains "very little knowledge" is outright absurd.

Edit: And I won't even start on the LOL-bad comparison with the Book of Mormon.