You're viewing part of a thread.
It’s really clear that you aren’t interested in learning. The scholars on JSTOR do not believe that someone named Mark wrote Mark. I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further. I think you are likely to reflexively dismiss any scholarship that isn’t “Christianity is a hoax.” Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis. When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.
“Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.
I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.
. I would suggest getting a nice Oxford annotated Bible to get a good view of the scholarship, but I’m afraid that might upset you further.
Lay off the personal attacks. I own a copy of the Oxford annotated Bible and studied the semetic languages as well as Greek. I planned to be a biblical scholar before I learned that God was a lie. Says so very much that you can't produce evidence of your claim that Jesus was real instead you are reduced to basic logical fallacies and personal attacks while dismissively hinting that I don't know anything. Give me any page of the OT and I can reliably translate about 80% of the words and tell you where it is from. Since we are apparently using knowledge as a weapon instead of evidence I am going to ask you if you can do the same.
See how crap this argument is? Am I right because I know Hebrew and Aramaic and a bit of Greek? Am I wrong because I don't live on JSTOR? Stop with the no True Scotsmen and Argument from Authority. Produce your evidence for your god existing if you can't I can dismiss him. On my side I see absurd claims told by liars that are inconsistent and so far the only fucking evidence you have produced is someone else said 20 centuries later on what they thought.
Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to do any serious critical analysis.
I am happy to do critical analysis. Go right ahead and make your point.
When I took my religious historiography class, it was very clear that starting with any sort of agenda is a bad idea.
I won't apologize for caring about the truth.
Which letters were written by Paul” is a big point of debate, and scholars differ greatly in their opinions. Considering that your views on history tend to not align with mainstream historical consensus, it’s a pretty important thing to establish.
Why? I am sorry but why? If I disagree with scholars on one thing does that mean I must on all things? Do I have to sit here with serial killer obsession levels building up thousands of claims of consensus and rate them on how much I agree with them and why? Tell me the reason. I won't to know the exact reason why I am required to do that. Maybe some biblical scholar can answer it for you.
Christianity has hell which letters of Paul are forgeries and which are not is independent.
I really like Bart Ehrman’s work myself - it’s pretty easy to find online and he writes in a style that is pretty accessible to a casual audience.
He is alright. Listen to his podcast and have almost all of his books. Not sure what name dropping is doing for you but whatever.
Once again, I am not religious.
I suspect that you attended a fundamentalist Bible college and have had little exposure to mainstream academic scholarship. I do find it hard to believe that you are fluent in Greek, because you don’t appear to be fluent in English (forgive me if it is not your first language). I have at multiple points explained that I am not religious for example. I do not believe in God.
We would laugh if a creationist claimed that citing scientific studies was an “argument from authority.” By arguing against mainstream historical consensus, you make it easy for Christians to dismiss everything you say. If you “care about the truth” you should be aware that it is very hard to come to the truth if you have strong emotional biases.
I generally avoid using podcasts for historical research :) Ehrman’s books have awesome footnotes, reading one of his books usually adds ten to my TBR list.
I understand being angry at Christianity. I’m a queer person and live in a very religious place. I can’t use the fucking bathroom legally because of Bible thumpers. But we have to do better than Tony Evans when we study history.
Once again, I am not religious.
Fair.
I suspect that you attended a fundamentalist Bible college and have had little exposure to mainstream academic scholarship.
Wrong again. I gave it up in high school. Went for engineering at a state school.
do find it hard to believe that you are fluent in Greek, because you don’t appear to be fluent in English (forgive me if it is not your first language).
Nice personal attack. At least nice try. I am not fluent in Greek. I was very careful in what I claimed. I sucked at Greek and I am confident I suck even more now. Self-trained so yeah you get what you pay for. Decent at the semitic languages, probably because I studied them first. I had this idea in my head that I was going to learn the Bible in its original starting from page 1. I still remember the point when I could read the Book Of Job with very little struggle and how proud I was. Left Christianity when I was a late teen and was working on Matthew.
We would laugh if a creationist claimed that citing scientific studies was an “argument from authority.
False comparison for two reasons
-
I have as much evidence of evolution as I want and we are constantly discovering more. There hasn't been a new discovery of a major text since the 1940s.
-
Science doesn't depend on arguments from authority. It has data. Claims about the Bible almost always come down to arguments from authority, such as you are using.
you make it easy for Christians to dismiss everything you say.
Don't care.
If you “care about the truth” you should be aware that it is very hard to come to the truth if you have strong emotional biases.
Still waiting on the evidence instead of the debate tips. Let me know when you have some for your son of god.
I understand being angry at Christianity. I’m a queer person and live in a very religious place. I can’t use the fucking bathroom legally because of Bible thumpers. But we have to do better than Tony Evans when we study history.
Right so being mad at that belief system doesn't mean it is true. You can overcompensate as well as compensate. There is no good evidence that Jesus existed and a pile of evidence that he did not.
Muhammad was a historical figure. That does not mean Islam is true. Jesus was also a historical figure, and that does not mean Christianity is true. It’s hard to proof that a random person from any historical time period existed, because most folks couldn’t read or write, but Jesus is independently attested in Josephus. We know that John the Baptist existed, we know that Pontius Pilate existed. I’m not sure how you have a “pile of evidence” that someone did not exist, it tends to be very difficult to prove a negative. :)
If you walk into any mainstream research university, and talk to their religious studies department, the idea that Jesus didn’t exist is very fringe. That’s great the you did some passionate research in high school, but that is not enough to disprove the widely accepted academic consensus. This isn’t “argument from authority” - this is peer review. I don’t have the Greek or access to multiple manuscripts, so I have to rely on what they say - and the fact that academics are always looking to disprove each other and get published. The historiography of early Christianity has undergone massive changes since the 1940s. (This is true for historiography across the board - my interest primarily lies in Ancient China, and the debate there is whether the Xia dynasty existed or not)
If you do want some academic support for a fictional Christ, you can try Richard Carrier or Bob Price (Price has a podcast!) Bob Price is absolutely insane but fun and he’s always very clear when he disagrees with consensus.
Jesus was also a historical figure,
Prove it. Stop telling me what other people on JSTOR think, stop telling what your No True Scotsmen think, stop telling me how dumb I am, stop comparing me to other people. Back up your assertion with evidence.
s hard to proof that a random person from any historical time period existed,
Not my problem. You are making an assertion and it is not my fault that it is hard.
because most folks couldn’t read or write,
And?
but Jesus is independently attested in Josephus
He wrote his book series 40 years after the supposed events and the two passages that refer to Jesus are both forgeries. The first one is talking about a totally different James and the long one was expressing 2nd century Trinity ideas and gushes over Jesus in a way that no Orthodox Jewish person would.
We know that John the Baptist existed, w
Don't care. He isn't Jesus.
we know that Pontius Pilate existed
Don't care. He isn't Jesus. Stay on topic.
m not sure how you have a “pile of evidence” that someone did not exist, it tends to be very difficult to prove a negative. :)
Simple. No one can agree about the basic facts about him which is what you see when people are lying. Additionally even a minimum historical Jesus requires a precise sequence of events that involves multiple people doing unexpected things. On average people are average. Just for starters
- Why didn't Pilat kill the rest of the Ministry?
- Where did the Ministry go after the events?
- How did they end up in Jerusalem somehow thriving and oppressed at the same time?
- Why did the Pharisee break their own rules about reporting Jews for non-violent crimes to the Romans?
- Why did the Pharisees simply use their secret police as documented in the Talmud to deal with James and Jesus and co?
- Why was Paul oppressing them to begin with and what was the nature of it?
- How the hell does a movement, a reformed movement, a counter movement, and a counter-counter movement form in 6months to 3 years?
- Why did Paul not go to the Jerusalem community after his experience?
- How did Jesus, a man with nothing, convince 12 people to give up everything for him?
You need to explain all this if you want your minimum historical Jesus and you can't.
If you walk into any mainstream research university, and talk to their religious studies department, the idea that Jesus didn’t exist is very fringe.
Argument from authority, logical fallacy. Present your evidence.
That’s great the you did some passionate research in high school,
Personal attack. Present your evidence
but that is not enough to disprove the widely accepted academic consensus.
Argument from authority, logical fallacy. Present your evidence.
This isn’t “argument from authority” - this is peer review.
No. Peer review is the process where multiple experts review the work of other experts. What you are doing, dodging all requests for evidence, is argument from authority.
I don’t have the Greek or access to multiple manuscripts, so I have to rely on what they say - a
Sorry? Present your evidence instead of dodging.
and the fact that academics are always looking to disprove each other and get published.
Cool story bro. Present your evidence.
The historiography of early Christianity has undergone massive changes since the 1940s. (This is true for historiography across the board - my interest primarily lies in Ancient China, and the debate there is whether the Xia dynasty existed or not)
Not what I said. I said there hasn't been a major document discovery on this topic since the 40s. Now present your evidence instead of trying to find a gotcha .
If you do want some academic support for a fictional Christ, you can try Richard Carrier or Bob Price (Price has a podcast!) Bob Price is absolutely insane but fun and he’s always very clear when he disagrees with consensus.
Cool story bro, present your evidence.
I don’t think you would be happy with any evidence that isn’t a video recording of Jesus. Your questions are strange and reveal a lot of basic misunderstandings of the text. You haven’t been happy with any of the evidence or text I’ve cited. You misconstrue my points and attack strawmen. At this point I think you are just googling and skimming the wiki page for counter arguments. You’ve misrepresented your Greek skills, I don’t think you’ve done any serious academic study of the Bible. You throw around claims of logical fallacies like someone who skimmed the LessWrong wiki.
I’m not really interested in arguing with you further - it really does remind me of arguing with creationists in the ‘naughts. You don’t have the historical background or reading comprehension, and I think you just want to rant about how bad Christianity is. That’s fine, but perhaps stick to claims about the belief systems of modern Christians, rather than the belief systems of 1st and 2nd century ones.
I feel sorry you had to put up with this person but I found your replies to be quite insightful :)
Hey, nice to meet you. Do you have evidence for your Messiah?
I don't have a Messiah.
Fine whatever title you have for jesus
I don’t think you would be happy with any evidence that isn’t a video recording of Jesus.
You aren't a mind reader and still deflecting. Present your evidence.
Your questions are strange and reveal a lot of basic misunderstandings of the text.
Yeah I suck we have established that. Present your evidence.
You haven’t been happy with any of the evidence or text I’ve cited.
You mentioned a writer who wrote a book series 40 years after the events that has two passages that are relevant and both are forgeries. The rest of your "evidence" has been logical fallact of argument of authority, personal attacks on me, deflections, True Scotsmen fallacy, and complaints about me.
You misconstrue my points and attack strawmen.
Deflecting present your evidence.
At this point I think you are just googling and skimming the wiki page for counter arguments.
Yeah I suck, present your evidence.
You’ve misrepresented your Greek skill
I did not, but again I ask you to present your evidence. Why is that so hard?
don’t think you’ve done any serious academic study of the Bible.
Yeah I suck, present your evidence.
You throw around claims of logical fallacies like someone who skimmed the LessWrong wiki.
I don't know what that is. In either case still deflecting. Present your evidence. What else do you got besides forgery?
m not really interested in arguing with you further - it really does remind me of arguing with creationists in the ‘naughts.
I wouldn't worry. You didn't really do what I would consider argument. Hey, if A is like B in one way is it like B in all ways? No? Oh, is that a false analogy? Naughty naughty.
You don’t have the historical background or reading comprehension,
Yeah I suck, present your evidence.
and I think you just want to rant about how bad Christianity is.
Nah the various genocides it caused did that for me. You going to present your evidence now?
That’s fine, but perhaps stick to claims about the belief systems of modern Christians, rather than the belief systems of 1st and 2nd century ones.
They believed in hell as they documented.
Hey how did it go? Find your evidence yet? Oh wait I forgot, you don't need evidence. You have faith.
Here’s a fun challenge for you - read the comment thread again and count the number of times that I said I was not Christian or religious in any way. I’m not sure what response you want, because you don’t seem to be interested in reading it.
Sounds fun. Here's one for you: explain why no one can even agree on basic biographical details of someone who not only supposedly existed but also had a brother that was around for multiple decades to answer.
-