Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[Bunyip]

No. "Idle speculation" is someone who claims to be an historian, turns out to (maybe) have some undergrad degree related to history, no knowledge of the relevant languages (either of primary or secondary sources), and know familiarity with the field who then claims based upon an obvious and demonstrated ignorance of fairly basic logic and formal reasoning that whatever they speculate is indeed idle.

You've done that. Congratulations. Would you like to respond with more ad hominem arguments so that you can play the victim and avoid anything remotely related to rational argumentation?

And another ad hominem attack

As I said, I can support any claim I have made or position that I hold.

 

[Sapiens]

For what it's worth, at least in hard science concerning areas of controversy, I'd place more trust in two wiki pages than in a passel of "experts in the field."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And another ad hominem attack

Let's just assume I'm an total ******* who is utterly incapable of debate without inserting insult after insult (despite the fact that you have insulted me and others and cried victim before I did anything other than give you the benefit of the doubt). Who cares? WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT OTHER THAN IGNORANCE?

As I said, I can support any claim I have made or position that I hold.

Then do so. Maybe we can finally get somewhere other than your references to wiki pages, ad hominem attacks while playing the victim, and insulting posts advising me to check out online references while you ignore scholarship.

I think the common phrase is "put up or shut up", but I wouldn't ask you to do either: I just would like you either to engage at the level you are capable of rather than pretend you are doing so at a level you can't.

 

[Bunyip]

For what it's worth, at least in hard science concerning areas of controversy, I'd place more trust in two wiki pages than in a passel of "experts in the field."

FYI The two wiki pages I directed Legion to were both very good, simple explanations of the two concepts he clearly was not familiar with.

I was not relying on them as any form of authority, just as a good introduction to the inference to the best explanation and abductive reasoning in general.

I have also not relied on myself as an authority, or made any great claims on my historical scholarship - Legion asked me if I knew the nature of historical evidence, I said that I did - I have a major in ancient history. The rest of his accusations seem little more than a tantrum.

 

[Bunyip]

Let's just assume I'm an total ******* who is utterly incapable of debate without inserting insult after insult (despite the fact that you have insulted me and others and cried victim before I did anything other than give you the benefit of the doubt). Who cares? WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT OTHER THAN IGNORANCE?



Then do so. Maybe we can finally get somewhere other than your references to wiki pages, ad hominem attacks while playing the victim, and insulting posts advising me to check out online references while you ignore scholarship.

I think the common phrase is "put up or shut up", but I wouldn't ask you to do either: I just would like you either to engage at the level you are capable of rather than pretend you are doing so at a level you can't.

And another tantrum like ad hominem attack.

Take a deep breath, calm down and present the contemporary evidence of Jesus you claim to have.

Alternately if you identify a specific claim you be,ieve I have made, I will happily explain and defend it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For what it's worth, at least in hard science concerning areas of controversy, I'd place more trust in two wiki pages than in a passel of "experts in the field."

Then you clearly don't do much in the way of research. First, wiki pages on any given scientific field are supported at most by a representative sample of studies. Second, when it comes to controversy (whether it concerns embodied cognition vs. classical, interpretations of QM, climate change, etc.) are always the most untrustworthy subjects when it comes to using wiki. Third, any scientist knows that much of peer-reviewed research is subject to pressures (from groupthink & paradigm effects to rivalry) that wiki is even more affected by. Fourth, no serious academic relies on wiki for her or his field unless they just don't know what they are talking about (which is fine; we are all ignorant of infinitely many subjects; this just doesn't excuse covering obvious ignorance and misinformation about some anonymous "historian's" criterion for historicity that is backed by...nothing).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And another tantrum like ad hominem attack.

Who cares? You insulted me over and over again. Are you going to continue to hide behind the ad hominem defense?

present the contemporary evidence of Jesus you claim to have.

Here's a draft of a paper I wrote as an undergrad. You can start with it:
A Quest for the Historical Socrates: The Applicability of Historical Jesus Research in Historiographical Approaches to Socrates

 

[outhouse]

For what it's worth, at least in hard science concerning areas of controversy, I'd place more trust in two wiki pages than in a passel of "experts in the field."

There is nothing like sitting in front of a professor and hearing a lecture, or taking an actual college class on the subjest.

Something our forum mythicist lack.

 

[Bunyip]

Then you clearly don't do much in the way of research. First, wiki pages on any given scientific field are supported at most by a representative sample of studies. Second, when it comes to controversy (whether it concerns embodied cognition vs. classical, interpretations of QM, climate change, etc.) are always the most untrustworthy subjects when it comes to using wiki. Third, any scientist knows that much of peer-reviewed research is subject to pressures (from groupthink & paradigm effects to rivalry) that wiki is even more affected by. Fourth, no serious academic relies on wiki for her or his field unless they just don't know what they are talking about (which is fine; we are all ignorant of infinitely many subjects; this just doesn't excuse covering obvious ignorance and misinformation about some anonymous "historian's" criterion for historicity that is backed by...nothing).

And another ad hominem attack.

 

[Bunyip]

Who cares? You insulted me over and over again. Are you going to continue to hide behind the ad hominem defense?



Here's a draft of a paper I wrote as an undergrad. You can start with it:
A Quest for the Historical Socrates: The Applicability of Historical Jesus Research in Historiographical Approaches to Socrates

I note that you only graduated very recently. I also note that it does not contain any of the evidence I asked for and you claimed to have.

Please just identify an example of the evidence in question. Should only take a few lines.

Alternately identify whatever claim of mine you wish me to support and I will do so.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I note that you only graduated very recently.

I've been in graduate school for over 3 years, I was instrumental in producing the most widely used research tool in the social, cognitive, medical, and behavioral sciences, I consult with both corporate and governmental groups as an expert in research, and unlike you I don't rely on Wikipedia. I'm not an expert or professional historian and don't pretend to be. I just rely on real historical research rather than poor understanding of basic logic and an utter ignorance of relevant research.

I also note that it does not contain any of the evidence I asked for and you claimed to have.

You didn't ask for any evidence, you just asserted nonsense about what methods historians use (which they don't), what historians believe (which was wrong), about inference an logic (which was pitiful), and backed-up your references to your own authority with repetition.

Please just identify an example of the evidence in question.

I did. In this very thread. In fact, you can use the search function and enter my member name and see how many times I've addressed those like you who have no idea what they are talking about but feel free to hide be hide ad hominem defenses they engage in.

 

[Bunyip]

I've been in graduate school for over 3 years.



You didn't ask for any evidence, you just asserted nonsense about what methods historians use (which they don't), what historians believe (which was wrong), about inference an logic (which was pitiful), and backed-up your references to your own authority with repetition.

For goodness sake buddy, cut the ad homs.

You claimed that there was contemporary evidence for Jesus, I have asked several times for you to identify an example. Please do so

I did. In this very thread. In fact, you can use the search function and enter my member name and see how many times I've addressed those like you who have no idea what they are talking about but feel free to hide be hide ad hominem defenses they engage in.

You have not done so to me, and searching your posts could take hours. Please just identify an example of evidence contemporary with Jesus.

Also, please identify whatever specific claim you believe I have made and I will happily support it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For goodness sake buddy, cut the ad homs

Would you like me to quote how many times and in what ways you've insulted me and used ad hominem to deflect?

I have asked several times for you to identify an example. Please do so

Paul, the author of Mark, and Josephus. Would you care to identify the basis for your assertions about what "serious scholars" believe and why when it comes to the historical Jesus? How about your assertions concerning basic formal reasoning?

 

[outhouse]

For what it's worth, at least in hard science concerning areas of controversy, I'd place more trust in two wiki pages than in a passel of "experts in the field."

Why not read from the experts, this will give you the info you desire.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

 

[Bunyip]

Would you like me to quote how many times and in what ways you've insulted me and used ad hominem to deflect?

No. I would like you to identify an example of the evidence contemporary with Jesus that you claimed.

Paul, the author of Mark, and Josephus. Would you care to identify the basis for your assertions about what "serious scholars" believe and why when it comes to the historical Jesus? How about your assertions concerning basic formal reasoning?

Paul never met Jesus, and neither he nor Josephus are contemporary. Paul's encounter was a dream/vision/hallucination ne never met Jesus. I can happily identify the relevant scripture to demonstrate that Paul did not meet Jesus during his life.

As to supporting my assertions, identify a specifc assertion of mine and I will happily do so.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Paul never met Jesus

Do you know what "contemporary" means? I have access to the OED, if for some reason basic dictionaries are beyond your grasp.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

contemporary, adj. and n.

A. adj.
1.




a. Belonging to the same time, age, or period; living, existing, or occurring together in time.



1655 T. Fuller Church-hist. Brit. ii. 83 After King Oswald his Death, four Christian contemporary Kings flourished in England.

1711 J. Addison Spectator No. 101. ¶4 The Passions and Prejudices of a Contemporary Author.

1828 I. D'Israeli Comm. Life Charles I I. Pref. 7 Immense archives of contemporary documents.

1844 J. Ruskin Mod. Painters (ed. 2) I. Pref. p. xviii, He..who would maintain the cause of contemporary excellence against that of elder time.

1874 J. R. Green Short Hist. Eng. People vii. §7. 416 There are allusions in plenty to contemporary events.











b. Const. with.



1631 J. Weever Anc. Funerall Monuments 226 An Author contemporarie with this Archbishop.

1642 J. Howell Instr. Forreine Travell iii. 38 Commines, who was contemporary with Machiavil.

1790 W. Paley Horæ Paulinæ Rom. ii. 16 Either contemporary with that or prior to it.

1845 M. Pattison in Christian Remembrancer Jan. 66 Writers contemporary with the events they write of.










†c. Const. to, unto. Obs.



a1641 R. Montagu Acts & Monuments (1642) 179 Cumæa was contemporary to the warre of Troy.

1646 Sir T. Browne Pseudodoxia Epidemica v. xii. 251 Galen who was contemporary unto Plutarch.

a1727 I. Newton Short. Chron. 1st Memory in Chronol. Anc. Kingdoms Amended (1728) 39 Clisthenes, Alcmæon and Eurolicus..were contemporary to Phidon.

1750 W. Warburton Julian i. iii, He was not only contemporary to the fact, but, etc.

β. cotemporary.
1662 E. Stillingfleet Origines Sacræ i. v. §8 Sesac King of Ægypt, co-temporary with Rhehoboam.

1698 C. Boyle On Bentley's Phalaris 167 Allowing then that Solon and Thespis were Cotemporary.

[1699 R. Bentley Diss. Epist. Phalaris (new ed.) Pref. p. lxxxvi, I would rather use..these [words] than that single word of the Examiner's Cotemporary, which is a downright Barbarism.]

1736 Bp. J. Butler Analogy of Relig. ii. vii. 238 Events subsequent and cotemporary with the Miracles.

1759 W. Robertson Hist. Scotl. (1817) I. 384 Cotemporary writers.

1762 Gentleman's Mag. (1806) Mar. 102/2 We often meet with the word cotemporary... The word should always be spelled contemporary.

1782 C. Burney Gen. Hist. Music II. 8 (note) Prudentius, a Christian poet, cotemporary with Theodosius.

1816 L. Murray Eng. Gram. Illustr. (ed. 3) I. App. iii. ii. 534, I prefer contemporary to cotemporary.

1828 Webster Amer. Dict. Eng. Lang., Contemporary..For the sake of easier pronunciation and a more agreeable sound, the word is often changed to cotemporary..the preferable word.

1861 F. Max Müller Lect. Sci. Lang. (1864) 1st Ser. 138 Supported by cotemporary scholars.











2. Having existed or lived from the same date, equal in age, coeval.



a1667 A. Cowley Claudian's Old Man of V. 22 A neighbouring Wood born with himself he sees, And loves his old contemporary Trees.

1673 R. Leigh Transproser Rehears'd 42 Making Light contemporary with it's Creator.

1794 R. J. Sulivan View of Nature I. 315 The water is as ancient as the earth, and contemporary with it.

β.
1879 M. Pattison Milton 3 John Milton was born, 9th Dec., 1608, being thus exactly cotemporary with Lord Clarendon.











3. Occurring at the same moment of time, or during the same period; occupying the same definite period; contemporaneous, simultaneous.



1656 T. Hobbes Elements Philos. ii. xiii. 110 All the parts of them [i.e. lines] which are contemporary, that is, which are described in the same time.

1666 Philos. Trans. 1665–6 (Royal Soc.) 1 271 Not that by the Moons motion about its Axis the Earth should be carried by a contemporary Period.

1806 C. Hutton Course Math. (ed. 5) II. 290 Contemporary Fluents, or Contemporary Fluxions, are such as flow together, or for the same time.

β.
1794 G. Adams Lect. Nat. & Exper. Philos. III. xxxi. 320 The number of cotemporary turns of a wheel and pinion are reciprocally proportional to their number of teeth.

1799 S. Vince Elem. Astron. (1810) xv. 125 The cotemporary variations of these angles.






4.
a. Modern; of or characteristic of the present period; esp. up-to-date, ultra-modern; spec. designating art of a markedly avant-garde quality, or furniture, building, decoration, etc., having modern characteristics (opp. period n. 10).



1866 (title) The Contemporary Review.

1924 C. Gray (title) A survey of contemporary music.

1925 A. Huxley Those Barren Leaves i. i. 4 A frock that was at once old-fashioned and tremendously contemporary.

1930 London Mercury XXII. 424 These great poetical prizes tend..to become the perquisites of conservative-minded and imperfectly contemporary writers.

1934 B.B.C. Year-bk. 220 Nor can one imagine a devotee of variety or vaudeville finding any good points in a ‘contemporary’ or chamber music recital.

1935 S. Lewis It can't happen Here xiii. 135 The ‘contemporary furniture’ of the 1930's.

1949 Archit. Rev. 106 315 Flats which, especially in London,..are the form in which contemporary design is making the strongest impact on the urban scene.

1954 W. Lewis Demon of Progress i. i. 15 To be musically ‘contemporary’ in England is to be something like Benjamin Britten; unless you wish to ignore entirely the majority trend.

1954 W. Lewis Demon of Progress iii. xviii. 66 What in your view is the most contemporary kind of painting in England at the present moment.

1957 C. MacInnes City of Spades 213 A building..redecorated in a ‘contemporary’ style—light salmon wood, cubistic lanterns, leather cushions of pastel shades.

1958 Times 23 July 6/6 The council have ‘noted with some concern the emergence in certain industries of exaggerated styles and mannerisms that have come to be known as contemporary’.

1959 D. Cooke Lang. Music ii. 55 The contemporary avant-garde composers..all concur in the principle of equating the major triad with pleasure.










b. absol.



1954 W. Lewis Demon of Progress iii. xviii. 67 The ‘contemporary’ is a cultural élite...So the ‘contemporary’ has nothing to do with time, nor with age.

1956 ‘R. Crompton’ Matty & Dearingroydes i. 12 The little sitting-room..with its ‘subtle blending of the contemporary and the period’.

1962 L. Deighton Ipcress File xxx. 190 It was a ‘tasteful’ piece of contemporary; natural wood~finish doors, stainless steel windows and venetian blinds everywhere.






B. n.






a. One who lives at the same time with another or others.
(In this sense Harrison, Descr. Britain, 1577, used ‘Synchroni or time fellows’.)



1646 W. Price Mans Delinquencie 9 Their spirits, contemporaries to S. Austine.

1670 I. Walton Lives iv. 319 Their being contemporaries in Cambridge.

1700 Dryden Fables Pref. sig. *Av, From Chaucer I was led to think on Boccace, who was..his Contemporary.

1751 Johnson Rambler No. 145. ⁋11 More acquainted with his contemporaries than with past generations.

1847 R. W. Emerson Uses Great Men in Wks. (1906) I. 284 Men resemble their contemporaries, even more than their progenitors.

1871 B. Jowett in tr. Plato Dialogues IV. 3 The comic poet Alexis, a younger contemporary of Plato.

β.
1641 Naunton's Fragmenta Regalia sig. D3v, My Lord of Leicester, and Burleigh, both his Cotemporaries [1653, Con-], and familiars.

1657 P. Heylyn Ecclesia Vindicata i. iv. 168 Now Bel and Serug were Cotemporaries.

1667 T. Sprat Hist. Royal-Soc. 81 (T.) Our cotemporaries, who only follow rude and untaught nature.

1678 R. L'Estrange tr. Epistles ix. 72 in Seneca's Morals Abstracted (1679) , He, and I, were Cotemporaries.

1728 J. Morgan Compl. Hist. Algiers I. iii. 247 One of his own Country Princes, and his Cotemporary.

1751 Johnson Rambler No. 167. ⁋8 The hopes and fears of our cotemporaries.

1846 J. S. Mill Syst. Logic (ed. 2) iii. xiii. §7 As novel as the law of gravitation appeared to the cotemporaries of Newton.

1879 M. Pattison Milton 1 A cotemporary of Milton, John Aubrey.










b. Used by a journal or periodical in referring to others published at the same time.



[1837 Dickens Pickwick Papers l. 548 Does our fiendish contemporary wince?]

1869 Spectator 25 Dec. 1517 We quote from our contemporary the Vatican the following remarkable statement.











c. A person of the same age as another.



1742 T. Gray Let. 27 May in Corr. (1971) I. 210, I shall see Mr. ** and his Wife, nay, and his Child too... Is it not odd to consider one's Cotemporaries in the grave light of Husband and Father?

1880 L. B. Walford Troublesome Daughters I. ix. 179 Even Alice and Kate must not look upon him quite as though he were a contemporary.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you know what "contemporary" means? I have access to the OED, if for some reason basic dictionaries are beyond your grasp.

Yes, and obviously neither Paul nor Josephus qualify. The first known examples of Paul and Josephus are later,:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, and obviously neither Paul nor Josephus qualify. The first known examples of Paul and Josephus are later,:

Define "contemporary" (preferably in a way relevant to historical studies, but as you haven't demonstrated any indication that you have such an ability, I'd be happy with a non-technical definition).

 

[s2a]

Would you like me to quote how many times and in what ways you've insulted me and used ad hominem to deflect?

Paul, the author of Mark, and Josephus. Would you care to identify the basis for your assertions about what "serious scholars" believe and why when it comes to the historical Jesus? How about your assertions concerning basic formal reasoning?

Smoke and mirrors. with NO answer.

You wish to debate formal rules of debate, which is fair.

Declining to actually answer a straightforward inquiry does not advance your insistence that the initial question is invalid or unmerited.

Is Jesus an actual historical person?

Yes, or no?

C'mon. WE KNOW who the "authors" of accounted Biblical texts claim to br.... but is their testimony predicated of faith to ever be determined to be reliable or "true"?

Yes, or no?

It is a fair question.