Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

[Bunyip]

No. That is the one where you said evidence comes from scripture not historical evidence. Again... scripture, not historical evidence.

That is clearly not what I said.

You said that you quoted me claiming that scripture was not historical evidence - you have misquoted me, so please retract.

Do you not understand that the structure 'x not y' means x is not identifiable with y?


Go for it.

Sure, it is a common claim. I first identified Ehrman - and as to members here prosecutong this 'outrageous' claim, you have Legion.

I agree with that point. Not most historically evidenced person in ancient history <> weak historical support in any way. Jesus is, again, very well supported in historicity, which you have denied.

Right so you agree with my original stance.
And yes, I deny that the case for a historical Jesus is a strong case.

No it isn't. First, no historian is going to reject four biographies; all ancient history is filled with propaganda. So, just how much of Roman history(not to mention every other country throughout time, even our history right now is filled with propaganda) do you want to throw out? That "step outside the NT" is irrelevant, like saying "step outside the fossil record and evolutionary biology and the case for evolution isn't so hot".

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip,

That quote from Ehrman isn't the outrageous claim you supplied, it just agrees with my claim that Jesus is extremely well documented.

Read it again. It claims that there is more evidence for Jesus than for just about any other figure in that time period - exactly the outrageous claim under question.

Try googling: There is more evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caeser.

You will find hits across hundreds of Christian sites.It is also the claim to which I was originally responding.

This is where we disagree. First, you've gone a bit further than that... what with the "very fragile" characterisation. Second, the confidence in historicity is not misplaced, because history gives us a bit better than best guess. It gives us best explanation of data, the same as any other science. History just uses a different sort of data that is verified through cross-reference instead of repeatable objective observation, isn't necessarily objective in the first place, or always scientifically trustworthy in all cases.

What history does not give you is the very certainty I am questioning. The best explanation of the data IS a best guess. An abduced conclusion is by definition a guess.

History gives us a Jesus crucified in the early first century, we can say that pretty confidently. After that there is a lot of debate about what He said, where He went, and what He did, because history isn't certain at all on those points.

I think if you can agree with those two sentences, or come close we won't have much if any argument.[/QUOTE]

 

[Prophet]

That is clearly not what I said.

You said that you quoted me claiming that scripture was not historical evidence - you have misquoted me, so please retract.

...the bulk of the 'evidence ' for the historicity of Jesus is drawn from textual analysis of scripture - not from historical evidence.

You clearly establish a mutually exclusive nature between textual analysis of scripture and historical evidence here. X not Y, just as Mister Emu has said.

Sure, it is a common claim. I first identified Ehrman - and as to members here prosecutong this 'outrageous' claim, you have Legion.

What does IDENTIFYING EHRMAN have to do with your claim that textual analysis of scripture and historical evidence are mutually exclusive? Red herring. Mister Emu is using LOGIC to draw out the implications of your claim. He is exposing the logical implications of your inability to self-examine.

Right so you agree with my original stance.
And yes, I deny that the case for a historical Jesus is a strong case.

I suspect Mister Emu's agreement with you goes only as deep as your disingenuous words.

REMEMBER. Any time I want you.

 

[Mister Emu]

That is clearly not what I said.

I'll accept that that is not what you intended to say. You just phrased it poorly.

Once again, as an explanation of the miscommunication:
In English the structure:

A comes from X, not from Y.

means X is not identifiably with Y.

So, when you said, as I quoted twice: "the bulk of the 'evidence'(A) is drawn from textual analysis of Scripture(X) - not from historical evidence(Y)" in standard English this means X(Scripture) is not identifiable with Y(historical evidence).

Sure, it is a common claim. I first identified Ehrman - and as to members here prosecutong this 'outrageous' claim, you have Legion.

Considering Ehrman said not the same thing at all... I'd need a citation for anyone else.

Right so you agree with my original stance.

Yes, get the strawman out of the way. Not the most evidenced person in ancient history.

And yes, I deny that the case for a historical Jesus is a strong case.

So here is our disagreement. I will ask for clarification now. Specifics, instead of vague, general, and unfalsifiable ideas about amorphous doubts.

What specifically, leads you to believe that the gospels do not produce a good case for the existence of a historical Jesus at their core?

 

[Bunyip]

You clearly establish a mutually exclusive nature between textual analysis of scripture and historical evidence here. X not Y, just as Mister Emu has said.

Well yes, because there is a difference and it is a relevant difference - given that the context was a discussion over contemporary historical evidence.

He isn't making a claim. YOU made the claim. He is using LOGIC to draw out the implications of your claim. He is exposing the logical implications of your inability to self-examine.



I suspect Mister Emu's agreement with you goes only as deep as your disingenuous words.

REMEMBER. Any time I want you.

 

[Prophet]

Well yes, because there is a difference and it is a relevant difference - given that the context was a discussion over contemporary historical evidence.

We've been well over the inane distinctions made by your unique definition of "contemporary historical evidence" and how it is completely unlike anything historians have used for compiling history EVER. Your ideas evenly applied across all time white out large swathes of ancient history and smaller swathes of contemporary history to no end other than your agenda.

 

[Bunyip]

I'll accept that that is not what you intended to say. You just phrased it poorly.

Once again, as an explanation of the miscommunication:
In English the structure:

A comes from X, not from Y.

means X is not identifiably with Y.

So, when you said, as I quoted twice: "the bulk of the 'evidence'(A) is drawn from textual analysis of Scripture(X) - not from historical evidence(Y)" in standard English this means X(Scripture) is not identifiable with Y(historical evidence).


Considering Ehrman said not the same thing at all... I'd need a citation for anyone else.


Yes, get the strawman out of the way. Not the most evidenced person in ancient history.


So here is our disagreement. I will ask for clarification now. Specifics, instead of vague, general, and unfalsifiable ideas about amorphous doubts.

What specifically, leads you to believe that the gospels do not produce a good case for the existence of a historical Jesus at their core?

Great. Fantastic to move ahead

What makes me doubt the gospels is many things - beginning with the fact that we have no provenance for them. Could we start on that point first?

 

[Mister Emu]

Read it again. It claims that there is more evidence for Jesus than for just about any other figure in that time period - exactly the outrageous claim under question.

No, no it isn't. The claim you created was 'more than anyone else in ancient history', not 'more than almost anyone else from that specific time period'. Massively different claims.

Try googling: There is more evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caeser.

I did, checked three pages: either atheists debunking the argument or Christians responding well duh! Nary a Christian making the argument in three pages, so I didn't go further. Saw one guy use it as a thought experiment about mythicist denialism and historicity, but that isn't actually making the argument... one of those urban legend things I'm wagering(everybody's heard it happens no one's actually seen it).

What history does not give you is the very certainty I am questioning. The best explanation of the data IS a best guess. An abduced conclusion is by definition a guess.

Does it give you the same level of certainty that a physics experiment on the acceleration rate of gravity on falling objects does? No. Does it give a fair level of it? Yes. Especially when at least 5 independent sources corroborate an event.

 

[Mister Emu]

What makes me doubt the gospels is many things - beginning with the fact that we have no provenance for them. Could we start on that point first?

We have a general provenance... we have a pretty good idea of when they were produced and from when I last read a fair idea of where. Do you believe a specific provenance to be necessary?

 

[Bunyip]

No, no it isn't. The claim you created was 'more than anyone else in ancient history', not 'more than almost anyone else from that specific time period'. Massively different claims.


I did, checked three pages: either atheists debunking the argument or Christians responding well duh! Nary a Christian making the argument in three pages, so I didn't go further. Saw one guy use it as a thought experiment about mythicist denialism and historicity, but that isn't actually making the argument... one of those urban legend things I'm wagering(everybody's heard it happens no one's actually seen it).

It is also the claim I was originally responding to and am currently defending on another thread.

Does it give you the same level of certainty that a physics experiment on the acceleration rate of gravity on falling objects does? No. Does it give a fair level of it? Yes. Especially when at least 5 independent sources corroborate an event.

 

[Bunyip]

We have a general provenance... we have a pretty good idea of when they were produced and from when I last read a fair idea of where. Do you believe a specific provenance to be necessary?

It is certainly helpful.

Shall we agree that provenance is important, and certainly desirable - but not critical?

 

[Prophet]

We have a general provenance... we have a pretty good idea of when they were produced and from when I last read a fair idea of where. Do you believe a specific provenance to be necessary?

In the instance of Jesus, yes, Bunyip believes a specific provenance to be necessary. In the instance of the remainder of history where Bunyip's agenda-driven standard makes him look foolish and out of touch with historians, Bunyip will make an excuse which will make the specific provenance unnecessary. Bunyip has applied this double standard to "move the goalposts" further and further back for establishing Jesus' historicity in this manner for some time, whilst simultaneously (NOT contemporaneously) making inane distinctions as excuses for the rest of history getting a more favorable shake.

 

[Bunyip]

In the instance of Jesus, yes, Bunyip believes a specific provenance to be necessary.

No. But it is important.

In the instance of the remainder of history where Bunyip's agenda-driven standard makes him look foolish and out of touch with historians, Bunyip will make an excuse which will make the specific provenance unnecessary. Bunyip has applied this double standard to "move the goalposts" further and further back for establishing Jesus' historicity in this manner for some time, whilst simultaneously (NOT contemporaneously) making inane distinctions as excuses for the rest of history getting a more favorable shake.

 

[Bunyip]

Prophet and Mr Emu

Are either of you denying that provenance is important to establishing historicity?

Yes or no?

 

[Prophet]

No. But it is important.

Oh neat. Important/necessary... yet another inane distinction which you'll predictably use to disguise your unreasonable position.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh neat. Important/necessary... yet another inane distinction.

Yes or no, is provenance important?

You may feel that it is inane, but historians believe that provenance is important. You and Mr Emu may indeed prefer to dismiss provenance as a historical tool of great significance, but that is hardly indicative of bias on my part.

 

[Prophet]

Yes or no, is provenance important?

You may feel that it is inane, but historians believe that provenance is important. You and Mr Emu may indeed prefer to dismiss provenance as a historical tool of great significance, but that is hardly indicative of bias on my part.

You will predictably make provenance more important in the case of Jesus to further your agenda and less important in other cases. You will predictably press for a double standard here, just as you have all along across two debates for many historical criteria.

 

[Bunyip]

You will predictably make provenance more important in the case of Jesus to further your agenda and less important in other cases. You will predictably press for a double standard here, just as you have all along across two debates for many historical criteria.

Other than your predictions, do you have an answer?

Is provenance important yes or no?

I will happily defend the position that it is.

In case you are confused, the question being discussed is whether or not provenance is important - I was asked to give reasons why I did not think that the gospels were reliable, and that was my first point.

I believe that provenance is important - do you disagree?

 

[Bunyip]

Mr Emu

You ask for examples, but when given them tend to dismiss them without any sort of rational pretext. So here are a few other examples;

"I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this assumption at length against people who try from time to time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus' contemporary, was a figment of the imagination than to believe that there never was such a person as Jesus."*N. T. Wright,*Jesus and the Victory of God

"Do you believe in the existence of Socrates? Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? If historicity is established by written records in multiple copies that date originally from near contemporaneous sources, there is far more proof for Christ&#8217;s existence than for any of theirs.&#8221;Dinesh D&#8217;Souza,*What&#8217;s So Great About Christianity, p. 296

I assume you have conceeded that Wright, D'Souza and Ehrman are all making the claim you describe as ludicrous?

 

[Mister Emu]

Are either of you denying that provenance is important to establishing historicity?

I believe it is important in speaking to the credibility of texts.

Are you going to deny the provenance that exists for the Gospels? The times and locations we can place their origination at?