A 21st century Jesus

[Nearly Sane]

Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't mean it is so, especially if there is no evidence to substantiate it.

There is evidence in terms of the study of history for the existence of Jesus though, and the GHG isn't arguing the ad populum that you are misrepresenting him as doing.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah - infallibility.

Don't see where GHG says anything that can be characterised as that. It's in this case a perfectly valid appeal to authority by being an appeal to those who are authorities. Does that mean it's absolutely certain? No. But it isn't the case that there is no evidence which is what he was replying to.

[SteveH]

Ah - infallibility.

I said "probably correct" in my original post. Try reading what people have posted carefully before jumping in with smart-arsed comments, if you want to avoid looking foolish.
P.S. - thanks for the support above, NS!

[SteveH]

You can accept the historicity of Jesus while being a thorough-going atheist, you know!

[Roses]

There is evidence in terms of the study of history for the existence of Jesus though, and the GHG isn't arguing the ad populum that you are misrepresenting him as doing.

It is probable a person called Jesus did exist, but I doubt he was anything like the character portrayed by the gospel writers.

[Nearly Sane]

It is probable a person called Jesus did exist, but I doubt he was anything like the character portrayed by the gospel writers.

Do you want to apologize to GHG  for the misrepresentation then?

[Nearly Sane]

I said "probably correct" in my original post. Try reading what people have posted carefully before jumping in with smart-arsed comments, if you want to avoid looking foolish.
P.S. - thanks for the support above, NS!

Not a problem, though I will note that I agree with jeremyp that the position of at least some mythicists isn't on the level of flat earthers. I don't agree with Richard Carrier but he makes a valid case. Also I think that many historians wouldn't take a position on the historicity of Jesus because it's not really a question for them. The idea that there is no evidence though is fatuous.

[Shaker]

Don't see where GHG says anything that can be characterised as that.

Here:

Just because a majority of people believe something to be true, doesn't mean it is so

(#92)

It does when the people are the experts in the field.

(#98).

To me that reads as a sterling example of the ad populum/numerum and appeal to authority fallacies. Tying the two quotes together GHG explicitly states that: "... When the people are experts in the field, it does mean that because a majority of people believe something to be true, it is so."

[Nearly Sane]

Here:

I don't think that reads as infallibility. Rather in the day to day sense of intersubjectivity, we generally accept what authorities in the field say. It's just the same point as Maeght has been making to Spud on evolution.

[Roses]

Do you want to apologize to GHG  for the misrepresentation then?

Steve's posts can be misinterpreted as they aren't easy to follow, so sorry.

[Nearly Sane]

Steve's posts can be misinterpreted as they aren't easy to follow, so sorry.

I find him generally one of our clearest posters even if I rarely agree, but kudos to you for using the s word.

[SteveH]

Here:(#92)(#98).

To me that reads as a sterling example of the ad populum/numerum and appeal to authority fallacies. Tying the two quotes together GHG explicitly states that: "... When the people are experts in the field, it does mean that because a majority of people believe something to be true, it is so."

Slightly careless use of language on my part, I grant you - I should have said "it does make it probable when the people..." - but I did originally say "probably".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You understand that a claim is not necessarily the same thing as the truth, right?

IMHO it is Shaker that has been making the confusion aided a bit by the Stranger, not I.

Claims made are an historical matter whether the claims are true are often a different province.

The Jesus mythers and Jesus never made those claims-ists are making a statement of history.

[Nearly Sane]

IMHO it is Shaker that has been making the confusion aided a bit by the Stranger, not I.

Claims made are an historical matter whether the claims are true are often a different province.

The Jesus mythers and Jesus never made those claims-ists are making a statement of history.

You post is a complete non sequitur, and mostly gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You post is a complete non sequitur, and mostly gibberish.

Do you ever read what you write and wonder how you ended up like this?

[Shaker]

Do you ever read what you write and wonder how you ended up like this?

I for one certainly do that with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I for one certainly do that with you.

You're from Leicester and any escape is understandable.

[Shaker]

Not the escape of trying to tease out some sort of meaning from your posts - that's not an escape, that's masochism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not the escape of tryi…………...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Nearly Sane]

Do you ever read what you write and wonder how you ended up like this?

Vlad, listen to me, Vlad. You are valued, Vlad. Don't worry about it, you can talk to people.