What's This ? No Historical Jesus ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

You are entitled to your opinion and I mine and, until I am shown some viable evidence to the contrary, I shall continue to see Christianinty as a a faith not a fact...

Surely "Christianity" - ie, the religion and it's associated practices – is a fact isn't it? Sure it's claims of the supernatural doings of a "God" are articles of faith, albeit that some Christians seem determined to assert them into investigable facts (generally by relying on very bad arguments) but the religion itself clearly exists.   

...and the evidence that I have been provided with suggests the that Christ is a construct and not a fact.

Christ the man god, or Jesus the man? For the former, that seems pretty likely yes; for the latter though an itinerant street preacher whose story caught the wind doesn't seem particularly far-fetched as a factual explanation to me. 

PS I know all about paganism by the way. You twitch you nose and magic stuff happens right?

Oh hang on... that was "Bewitched".

Sorry   

[Nearly Sane]

Owls,

Surely "Christianity" - ie, the religion and it's associated practices – is a fact isn't it? Sure it's claims of the supernatural doings of a "God" are articles of faith, albeit that some Christians seem determined to assert them into investigable facts (generally by relying on very bad arguments) but the religion itself clearly exists.   

Christ the man god, or Jesus the man? For the former, that seems pretty likely yes; for the latter though an itinerant street preacher whose story caught the wind doesn't seem particularly far-fetched as a factual explanation to me.

Worse surely for the mythicists position is that that seems incredibly unlikely. Who is going to day in 1st century CE, 'Let's invent a preacher with family that we claim are still living, instead of talking about an actual existing preacher who we think did exist'?

To be fair to Owlswing I think that he meant that Christian beliefs taken to be facts not doubting the existence of the religion.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator  A number of off topic posts have been removed, new topics have been set up for some posts , links below. Please stay on topic with the OP.

Pagan beliefs

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14110.0


Embarrassing your children

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14111.0

[Rhiannon]

Sorry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Sorry.

Off topic 

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

Off topic 

Oh lord. Sorry. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Oh lord. Sorry. 

Oh for...now poor NS is going to have to start a new thread on apologies. Give the guy a break willya!

For what it's worth, I quite like the odd bits of chat, jokes etc that pepper discussions from time-to-time - it makes the place a bit jollier. Buy hey, that's why I'm not a Mod I guess.

Jesus.

(See what I did there?  )

[Rhiannon]

Yeah, meandering chat is like that thing, what's it called, real life, that's it.

This is a good game though.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Yeah, meandering chat is like that thing, what's it called, real life, that's it.

This is a good game though.   

Ooh, don't let Nearly catch you doing it though will you. He'll be chewing the rug in incandescent rage I expect even as we speak...

Christianity.

 

[Rhiannon]

Yes, that's why I said, Oh lord. That's on topic, right?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Yes, that's why I said, Oh lord. That's on topic, right?

I missed that - very clever 

[jeremyp]

Before I get into this debate, I should say that my opinion is that Christianity had a founder who lived in the early 1st century and the Jesus character talked about in the Bible is an extrapolation of that founder. I don't know where the boundary between truth and myth lies although obviously, as a person who attempts to be rational, I reject the supernatural magic crap.

Worse surely for the mythicists position is that that seems incredibly unlikely. Who is going to day in 1st century CE, 'Let's invent a preacher with family that we claim are still living, instead of talking about an actual existing preacher who we think did exist'?

Unfortunately, your logic doesn't work - it's backwards. It works if Jesus actually did exist i.e. they had a choice of using historical Jesus or making somebody up, but if he didn't exist, they would obviously have had to make somebody up.

[floo]

I suspect the real Jesus wouldn't recognise the Biblical Jesus and all that was claimed for him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The biblical Jesus is rejected on grounds which are other than historical namely against the maxim that history is whatever happened. Appeals to the materialistic approach of modern historical study are circular arguments and end in an unspoken ''History study wouldn't detect it happening or it having happened and therefore it didn't happen.''

[Shaker]

The biblical Jesus is rejected on grounds which are other than historical namely against the maxim that history is whatever happened. Appeals to the materialistic approach of modern historical study are circular arguments and end in an unspoken ''History study wouldn't detect it happening or it having happened and therefore it didn't happen.''

One of the best worst manglings of methodological naturalism I've seen, I have to say.

[Nearly Sane]

The biblical Jesus is rejected on grounds which are other than historical namely against the maxim that history is whatever happened. Appeals to the materialistic approach of modern historical study are circular arguments and end in an unspoken ''History study wouldn't detect it happening or it having happened and therefore it didn't happen.''

Stop lying.

[wigginhall]

Historical method is naturalistic for one simple reason - that there is no method of assessing the supernatural.    It is quite noticeable that historians are prepared to discuss the bare bones of the life of Jesus, but not the resurrection nor other miracles.

But I think the mythers have gone to the opposite extreme, and suggest that it's all legendary.   Well, it might be, but a historic figure who is a Jewish preacher, sans miracles, is a parsimonious explanation.    Also, some of the mythicist explanations are really florid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Historical method is naturalistic for one simple reason - that there is no method of assessing the supernatural.    It is quite noticeable that historians are prepared to discuss the bare bones of the life of Jesus, but not the resurrection nor other miracles.

But I think the mythers have gone to the opposite extreme, and suggest that it's all legendary.   Well, it might be, but a historic figure who is a Jewish preacher, sans miracles, is a parsimonious explanation.    Also, some of the mythicist explanations are really florid.

I'm sorry but as soon as history becomes methodological naturalism it becomes a case of what can be rather than what has happened.

At the moment I'm still getting shades of Methodological naturalism doesn't do God or miracles, history is methodological naturalism therefore God and miracles are not history.

That's just clever shuffling and category shafting.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but as soon as history becomes methodological naturalism it becomes a case of what can be rather than what has happened.

At the moment I'm still getting shades of Methodological naturalism doesn't do God or miracles, history is methodological naturalism therefore God and miracles are not history.

That's just clever shuffling and category shafting.

Stop lying

[Shaker]

I'm sorry but as soon as history becomes methodological naturalism it becomes a case of what can be rather than what has happened.

On a 1-10 scale of wrongness I'm recording an 11 here.

At the moment I'm still getting shades of Methodological naturalism doesn't do God or miracles, history is methodological naturalism therefore God and miracles are not history.

Exactly - they're not history.

That's just clever shuffling and category shafting.

And still, as it happens, correct.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry but as soon as history becomes methodological naturalism it becomes a case of what can be rather than what has happened.

At the moment I'm still getting shades of Methodological naturalism doesn't do God or miracles, history is methodological naturalism therefore God and miracles are not history.

That's just clever shuffling and category shafting.

No it isn't. It's just an explanation of what academic history actually entails, which is why it's indifferent to claims of resurrections and the like.

If you think "God or miracles" are real nonetheless then it's for you to find a method to demonstrate these claims...

...which is the point at which you always either:

A. Deploy a logical fallacy; or

B. Disappear. 

 

[Nearly Sane]

On a 1-10 scale of wrongness I'm recording an 11 here.
Exactly - they're not history.
And still, as it happens, correct.

I think you have to be careful here because Vlad uses history in 2 senses here interchangeably to lie about what people are saying. The first is that history is simply all that has happened. That could be all caused by magic or not but if JC could do magic stuff with bread, then whatever he did was bread magic.

That it has been pointed out that the study of history is methodologically naturalistic, and which he appears to accept, then allows him to use people talking about the limits of history, when they are talking about the method of studying history, to misrepresent them as if they are using history in the first sense.

Note despite this having been pointed out multiple times, he continues to lie about it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think you have to be careful here because Vlad uses history in 2 senses here interchangeably to lie about what people are saying. The first is that history is simply all that has happened. That could be all caused by magic or not but if JC could do magic stuff with bread, then whatever he did was bread magic.

That it has been pointed out that the study of history is methodologically naturalistic, and which he appears to accept, then allows him to use people talking about the limits of history, when they are talking about the method of studying history, to misrepresent them as if they are using history in the first sense.

Note despite this having been pointed out multiple times, he continues to lie about it.

Quite. Perhaps Jakswan should write a little algorithm that replies "Stop lying" whenever Vlad posts something, thereby saving the rest of us the trouble.

His other tactic by the way when his attempts at reasoning are falsified is to claim that it's all a big "antitheist" conspiracy in any case. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Vlad,

No it isn't. It's just an explanation of what academic history actually entails, which is why it's indifferent to claims of resurrections and the like.

I believe Nero was supposed to have said shortly before his death "I feel myself becoming a god". No doubt the historical method would be able to determine the likelihood of his having said that. I suspect it might have problems in determining whether he actually became a god.

[Nearly Sane]

I believe Nero was supposed to have said shortly before his death "I feel myself becoming a god". No doubt the historical method would be able to determine the likelihood of his having said that. I suspect it might have problems in determining whether he actually became a god.

off top of head, isn't that Vespasian?