Determining Reality

[Ana the Ist]

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted. First, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves that the whole cannot be true."

Hmmm. That second part reflects older contract law. If one part is broken, the whole thing is unenforceable. These days, it is standard that if one part is broken, the other parts are still in effect, as much as still can be.

I think this is an instance where our age of reason is better than his; i.e., if one part of a story is false, the whole story is not necessarily false, just that one part.

Wow, you completely misread that. He's not speaking about contract law, hence the word "story". Would you like me to explain?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Right. I'm saying that Poe's law is proven here. Their stance is so preposterous it's impossible to tell if they're serious, or parody. (Nathan Poe actually extended that to essentially anything a Christian might say takes on that character, but Nathan is a bloomin' idiot)

I don't think that applies here since we can ask if they are serious.

 

[Ana the Ist]

After the fall of the Roman Empire, we have a gap of several centuries during which little history was recorded, though we do have a few anti-slavery documents from that period. For example, the writings of Saint Patrick are certainly against slavery. When the historical record resumes around the 600's and 700's, we find many Christian monarchs and leaders, such as Saint Bathilda, working to abolish slavery in Christian territories. Within a few centuries the practice of slavery through most of the parts of Europe where Catholics were dominant was gone, although it was still legal to use prisoners of war for forced labor. Hence western civilization became the first civilization to abolish slavery for moral reasons.

It is, of course, true that after European nations began colonizing the Americas they introduced slavery there and brought millions of slaves from Africa, and that will forever be a stain on history. However, for the purposes of this argument it should be noted that the Catholic Church was always opposed to slavery, as indicated, for instance, by the Papal Bull Sublimus Dei issued in 1537. The Church did not have the power to make laws in the Americas, however. It's also worth noting that slavery persisted in the Arab world and much of Africa long after it was abolished throughout the Americas, and in many places stopped only after European colonialists took over.

Perhaps if we're going to bridge this divide, we first need to agree on what the phrase "human rights" means. To me, it means at a minimum the trio of life, liberty, and property, and an announcement that the government can neither remove these three things from any person extra-legally and also that the government has a positive duty to protect these three things from any threat. Would you agree with that definition?

Under that definition, plainly the code of Hammurabi contains no trace of human rights, since it does not put any limits on what the government can do, but only on what ordinary people can do. I'm not aware of any ancient Middle-Eastern nation where there were limits on what the king/despot/emperor could do. They were absolute rulers, nothing less. As for the ancient Greeks, I'd have to know who you were talking about before I could discuss whether there's any notion of human rights in their writings. The most famous political writing of ancient Greece is Plato's Republic which conceptualizes an ideal nation where the government has absolute power to exterminate those its views as inferior, censor anyone for any reason, and so forth.

" although it was still legal to use prisoners of war for forced labor. Hence western civilization became the first civilization to abolish slavery for moral reasons."
This brought more than a chuckle. How exactly do you think people were made into slaves in the first place? The overwhelming majority of slaves throughout history began as prisoners of war. This "abolishment of slavery" would barely put a dent in the slave population. What a bunch of humanitarians.

" Would you agree with that definition?"
No. I'm perfectly fine with the standard modern dictionary definition everyone else uses.
HUman rights- A right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.
Under that definition (and that is the commonly accepted definition) the examples I gave were fine for the "concept of human rights"

 

[razeontherock]

Wow, you completely misread that. He's not speaking about contract law, hence the word "story". Would you like me to explain?

I know he's not speaking about contract law. I'm using that as a device, to illustrate his flaw. If you choose to defend him, go ahead ..

 

[razeontherock]

I don't think that applies here since we can ask if they are serious.

So now you understand what Poe's law is ... it was invented on CF, so clearly he could ask anybody

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are many problems with your line of argument here. First, I've never claimed that the Bible is 100% accurate. Second is that your logic is highly flawed. Just because there's discussion about a topic doesn't mean that one side of the topic isn't clearly right. There's discussion about whether the Nazi Holocaust ever happened, but it's not legitimate discussion. Those who say that it happened are entirely right and those who say that it didn't happen are entirely wrong.

On the larger issue, I agree with you that there are some who argue against the historical reliability of the Gospels and some who argue for it. I've read some of those who argue against it. I've also read some from the much larger and more credentialed group who argue for it. I find the arguments of those who argue for it to heavily outweigh the arguments of those who argue against it, and I've already explained my reasons for doing so. Have you read any books by those arguing for the historical reliability of the Gospels?

If you want to debate this further, I'll be happy to, but you'll need to make serious posts. Earlier you said this: "Ever read Harry Potter? It takes place in London....which exists! Therefore the quotes, people, and events therein must be true...right?" Harry Potter is a series of fantasy novels written a few years ago, therefore not comparable to the Gospels. When we evaluate the historical reliability of the Gospels, we must do so using the standards that historians use to evaluate the reliability of comparable texts from the ancient world. Do you believe that any texts from the ancient world are historically reliable? If so, what are the titles and authors of the texts that you'd trust, and why do you view them as historically reliable?

I would love it if you could prove that the side arguing for historical reliability is somehow larger and better credentialed. I would be far more impressed if you simply realized that arguments from authority and popularity are not indicative of truth.

The point I was making about the fact that there is a debate over accuracy would be better served with an example.
If I were to say, "On April 7, 2011 there will be a disasterous earthquake in Japan." THat would be a historically accurate statement.
If, on the other hand I were to say, "sometime soon an island will be hit by a wave"
While another authored says, "the ground will move and many are carried out to sea"
And yet someone else says, "many shall perish under a giant wave that covers the shaking land"
The first statement is clear on meaning. There aren't too many ways to interpret this event. The time, the place, and what happened are all clear. In the remaining statements, this isn't the case. Are they all talking about the same event? Why do the details differ? Is one about Japan, one about Haiti? We can have a discussion over what really happened. This isn't accuracy at all. Your holocaust analogy is poor because we can find external evidence aside from the written accounts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are you aware that the "refutation" you linked to is on a page that promotes astrology and suchlike things. It's rather an odd choice for someone who brags about his dedication to "logic, reason, and evidence". Is it logical, reasonable, and evidence-based to believe things solely because an astrologer posts them online?


Really? Can you name any actual scholar who believes that Pliny was not referring to Jesus Christ?

Your understanding of "refutation" seems to be a bit different than everyone else's.

If you would like, I can also produce refutations of the other documents (if you don't feel like searching them out yourself) and we can discuss the merits of each in PM or another thread if you like. EVen if I were to take those documents at face value (and I don't) the most we could discern from them is that early Christians believed in Jesus, a fact I would gladly accept. It's not proof of a resurrection (as you said), only one mentioned the resurrection and that one was written by an early church theologian. Lol is that proof?

"I'm not taking one". I'm not taking any wild guesses either. I only asked because you seem to have mistakenly characterized the question of god's existence as having two options, belief or a "wild guess"

As for Simon Greenleaf, outdated would be an understatement. His blatant bias towards belief wouldn't be so bad if the premises which he bases his entire argument upon weren't faulty to begin with. He is starting from the idea that the bible has not been interpolated and should be taken as true until proven otherwise. Welcome to 2012 Mr. Greenleaf. There are more biblical passages that have been accused of interpolation than I care to list. The evidence for many of these is considerable. Granted, in his time many of the techniques used to detect authentication and falsification today did not exist. YEt, that is the foundation of the point he is trying to make, so its no longer relevant.

WHich reminds me, are you at all familiar with the "documents" that Christians have producedin an effort to "prove" Jesus Christ that have been shown to be undeniable hoaxes?
here's one example...among many...
Exclusive: Early Christian Lead Codices Now Called Fakes | LifesLittleMysteries.com

You're lying once again. Nothing in that article backs up your claim that Christians produced a document in an effort to prove something about Jesus Christ? Honestly, what do you think is going to happen when you tell a lie like that? Do you think that we're not going to bother reading what you link to and that we won't notice that it's a lie? If so, your strategy doesn't seem to be working?[/QUOTE]

ACtually, no, I wasn't aware of anything else on the website. What does that have to do with the points they made? Are those points less valid now? Or are they still true? If you want another explanation of why those documents aren't evidence. On this page it explains how Tacitus reveals he was writing about Christian superstition, not history. Also, josephus was writing about Jewish religion, not history lol.
Jesus Christ Never Existed | Truth-Saves
Honestly, these explanations are all over the net, from amateurs to professionals. If the historical Jesus was ever proven, this debate wouldn't be commonplace. Are there any non-biblical documents you think prove Jesus existed?

You are correct, I was mistaken in thinking David was Christian when I first heard the story. I was thinking of the Acts of Pilate but found that page when I did my search. Did you happen to follow the link on that page that explained how Christians knew the shroud of Turin was a fake? It's really quite easy to find examples of Christian hoaxes created in an attempt to prove their faith valid in almost any time period.

 

[razeontherock]

Honestly, these explanations are all over the net, from amateurs to professionals. If the historical Jesus was ever proven, this debate wouldn't be commonplace.

Scholars don't contest that He lived

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know he's not speaking about contract law. I'm using that as a device, to illustrate his flaw. If you choose to defend him, go ahead ..

Gladly, first part-any story told, no matter by how many people or if all parts of that story are the same, can be found to be incorrect if external evidence proves it so.
SEcond part-any story told, if told by different people and its parts are not the same, cannot be correct without disproving the others telling the story. In other words, only one person telling the story could be correct.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Scholars don't contest that He lived

I already have given evidence they do.

 

[razeontherock]

SEcond part-any story told, if told by different people and its parts are not the same, cannot be correct without disproving the others telling the story. In other words, only one person telling the story could be correct.

This is unbelievably, ridiculously, false. It is proven to be so at most of our better Colleges, and simple powers of observation are more than enough to confirm this to you. I really shouldn't have to walk you through the logic ...

 

[Ana the Ist]

So now you understand what Poe's law is ... it was invented on CF, so clearly he could ask anybody

Then Poe's law doesn't make much sense.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is unbelievably, ridiculously, false. It is proven to be so at most of our better Colleges, and simple powers of observation are more than enough to confirm this to you. I really shouldn't have to walk you through the logic ...

The law of logic at work here is the law of non-contradiction. But please, tell me how you can find a way around it, you'd be the first....

 

[ebia]

I already have given evidence they do.

So how do you explain the fact that when Richard Dawkins was writing The God Delusion and needed a citation from a credible historian to back up his suggestion that Jesus Christ never existed he resorted to citing someone who turns out to be an emeritus professor of German (language), not even an historian let alone one specialising in the first century near-east?

I've come late to the conversation - could you point me to where you have cited credible historians.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So how do you explain the fact that when Richard Dawkins was writing The God Delusion and needed a citation from a credible historian to back up his suggestion that Jesus Christ never existed he resorted to citing someone who turns out to be an emeritus professor of German (language), not even an historian let alone one specialising in the first century near-east?

I've come late to the conversation - could you point me to where you have cited credible historians.

Well for starters, I was asked to provide a "scholar" not a first century historian.

 

[ebia]

Well for starters, I was asked to provide a "scholar" not a first century historian.

Being a "scholar" is meaningless unless it's a scholar in the field under consideration.

So does that mean you can't find a relevant one?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Being a "scholar" is meaningless unless it's a scholar in the field under consideration.

So does that mean you can't find a relevant one?

First century historians who don't believe in a historical Jesus. First of all I can't imagine that the field of professional 1st century historians who've been published is exactly "large". It may take some time. Personally I don't see why someone who studies theology, religion, or history in general wouldn't do. Especially if they were a former member of the church clergy themselves. Having a minority opinion doesn't make you wrong.

 

[ebia]

First century historians who don't believe in a historical Jesus. First of all I can't imagine that the field of professional 1st century historians who've been published is exactly "large".

There are masses of them. It's an important time in history.

It may take some time. Personally I don't see why someone who studies theology, religion, or history in general wouldn't do.

Because most of those are not experts in first century history. So, what do the experts in the actual field think? Is Jesus existence really am open question debated amongst those that actually study the field. There are plenty of them. Can you find one who supports your suggestion. Richard Dawkins couldn't apparently, and he would be both well motivated and in a good position to find such a person.


It's accepted in the field that Jesus existed, that he must have done at least some of the kinds of things the gospels talk about, and that he was almost certainly crucified. After that it gets difficult to establish and/or there's a heavy burden of plausibility, but that much really is not in doubt.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are masses of them. It's an important time in history.


Because most of those are not experts in first century history. So, what do the experts in the actual field think? Is Jesus existence really am open question debated amongst those that actually study the field. There are plenty of them. Can you find one who supports your suggestion. Richard Dawkins couldn't apparently, and he would be both well motivated and in a good position to find such a person.


It's accepted in the field that Jesus existed, that he must have done at least some of the kinds of things the gospels talk about, and that he was almost certainly crucified. After that it gets difficult to establish and/or there's a heavy burden of plausibility, but that much really is not in doubt.

Well a rather cursory and quick search pulled up 2 who should fit your criteria. Richard Carrier, who has a BA in history, MA in Ancient History, MPhil in Ancient History, and a PhD in (you guessed it) Ancient History. He has articles that have been published in books, films, and journals and even appeared in the movie "The God Who Wasn't There". In that very film he expresses his views on the non-historical Jesus.
There is also Earl Doherty who holds degrees in history and has written several books on the non-historicity of Jesus. They would be good examples of modern historians who doubt (with good reason) that Jesus existed.
Constantin Volney would be one of the first historians to doubt Jesus's existence. Along with him Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews are well known. In all, the idea that Jesus didn't really exist is rather young, but understandably so since it seems to coincide with the rise of secularism. So you see, the matter is hardly put to rest.

SInce you showed up late, I'd like to point out that the non-historical Jesus is not a belief of mine, so I feel a bit odd defending it. RAther, this discussion arose out of a dispute as to whether the bible is a reliable historical document or a book of myth. I've been trying to explain to a particular poster that the bible is not universally believed to be an accurate historical document.

 

[ebia]

Well a rather cursory and quick search pulled up 2 who should fit your criteria. Richard Carrier, who has a BA in history, MA in Ancient History, MPhil in Ancient History, and a PhD in (you guessed it) Ancient History. He has articles that have been published in books, films, and journals and even appeared in the movie "The God Who Wasn't There". In that very film he expresses his views on the non-historical Jesus.

There is also Earl Doherty who holds degrees in history and has written several books on the non-historicity of Jesus.

A BA in history doesn't make one an historian. Earl Doherty is a popular writer, not a scholar.
When it comes to history sensational claims sell well in the popular market - hence all the drivel that comes around just before Easter each year.

They would be good examples of modern historians who doubt (with good reason) that Jesus existed.

One historian. Who holds a PhD in history but doesn't seem to work or have worked in an academic post as an historian.

Constantin Volney would be one of the first historians to doubt Jesus's existence. Along with him Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews are well known. In all, the idea that Jesus didn't really exist is rather young, but understandably so since it seems to coincide with the rise of secularism. So you see, the matter is hardly put to rest.

One current author/ filmmaker who has a relevant higher degree. Yes, it is settled.

SInce you showed up late, I'd like to point out that the non-historical Jesus is not a belief of mine, so I feel a bit odd defending it. RAther, this discussion arose out of a dispute as to whether the bible is a reliable historical document or a book of myth. I've been trying to explain to a particular poster that the bible is not universally believed to be an accurate historical document.

Fair enough.