30 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAre you claiming that the "bulk" of Biblical scholars say that Mark and Luke of The Gospels knew Jesus? Are you saying that most don't have severe doubts that the authors of Matthew and John did? Your snotnose remark aside, you know that there is little support for ANY of the Gospels being first hand accounts.
[b]The bulk of Biblical scholars
You're talking about the historico-criticalists, who are by no means the "bulk" of Biblical scholars.
at least some of whom were his contemporaries, is more evidence, not less.
Not necessarily - you need to take into consideration the literary style and conventions of the time. In the case of the 4 ...[text shortened]... ll the evidence we have of Socrates from Plato, and possibly the others, are plays).[/b]
As Vitesd as pointed out many times, the literary style of 1st Century Jews in Palestine wasn't very historically rigorous either. I would submit that there the evidence for either isn't particulary compelling, but to suggest there is more evidence for Jesus' historicity than Socrates is simply wishful thinking ("faith"š on your part (and don't start down the road of Coletti's "everything is faith" BS).
30 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI agree that absence of proof is not proof of absence, however when you're talking about history this becomes more tricky.
[b]I'm saying that finding the myth scenario more plausable than the historical scenario does not make one insane.
Maybe not legally or medically insane. How about just "nutters"?
As for Buddha and Zarathustra, or even Mohammed, I have never looked into their cases. If some one claimed that the historicity of these figures was doubtful ll has to believe in the "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence" principle.[/b]
For instance, if I claim that the stories in the Odyssey are just slight exaggerations of a real Odysseus who used ancient technology to circumnavigate the Earth, how would you prove me wrong?
I can show you a copy of the Odyssey and say, "There! Proof, passed down generation by generation. Any one who doubts the historicity of Odysseus is nutters" All you can do is try to discredit my positive evidence for Odysseus. But then I ask where is your evidence that Odysseus was not real? Remember that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Retreating to the above rejoinder is a weak position. It says, "Fine, so even if I have no good evidence, you still can't prove that he didn't exist so you're nutters not to agree with me."
Comparing the evidence for the historicity of Jesus and Socrates with that of the moon landings and the Holocaust is just absurd. The issue here is not whether there is some piece of information that exists that may be evidence of historicity, but whether the amount and quality of the information is sufficient to make historicity claims believable.
As an example, notice that when a group attempts to refute the moon landing, they usually offer criticisms of the evidence for the moon landings. Now NASA and the rest of us don't just sit back and say, "Bah, all you can do is criticize our evidence. You have no evidence that the astronauts were never on the moon." No. Instead we defend our evidence, pointing out why the detractors criticisms are erroneous. Through this method the vast and solid evidence for both the moon landings and the Holocaust prevail.
There are some that will deny even when they lack any unrefuted criticism. At this point, we may begin to call them 'nutters.' Nevertheless, neither the evidence for Socrates nor that for Jesus comes anywhere close to that of the Holocaust or the moon landings.
01 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by aspviper666Do these "relics" have power ?
It is my oppinion on relics and such "hocus pocus" objects,that if enough people believe in it, it has power. The more that believe ,the more power it actually has.
It's a pricipal of sympathetic magik,and i have seen it work.
Believe it.......or not
:apologies to R.P Ripley
aspviper: "..... and i have seen it work."
Tell us all about it ? What happened ? ... and which "relic" was involved ?
01 Jan 06
3 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeTo be honest about it sir ,I do not openly discuss the occurances during magik rituals.I can, however, speak in general terms and from my own experience. The true power in any religion is in the believer themselves as much as in any God,or "magical things."
Do these "relics" have power ?
aspviper: "..... and i have seen it work."
Tell us all about it ? What happened ? ... and which "relic" was involved ?
If we are truly reflections of the divine."made in HIS image." I can only
assume from what i have seen that we do have some type of power.
The xian belief in the power of prayer.the belief if you give thanks before your prayer is answed is all sympathetic magic.
To put it into more scientific terms,the "need"creates a void or vaccuum,and nature is inclined to fill said void.
A mass recognition of a need makes a heck of a spiritual/physical
void.
:edit: wow i am the 66th post ...lol \m/ rock on ....
01 Jan 06
Originally posted by aspviper666What are these "magic rituals" ?
To be honest about it sir ,I do not openly discuss the occurances during magik rituals.I can, however, speak in general terms and from my own experience. The true power in any religion is in the believer themselves as much as in any God,or "magical things."
If we are truly reflections of the divine."made in HIS image." I can only
assume from what i ...[text shortened]... k of a spiritual/physical
void.
:edit: wow i am the 66th post ...lol \m/ rock on ....
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by telerionFor instance, if I claim that the stories in the Odyssey are just slight exaggerations of a real Odysseus who used ancient technology to circumnavigate the Earth, how would you [b]prove me wrong?[/b]
I agree that absence of proof is not proof of absence, however when you're talking about history this becomes more tricky.
For instance, if I claim that the stories in the Odyssey are just slight exaggerations of a real Odysseus who used ancient technology to circumnavigate the Earth, how would you [b]prove me wrong?
I can show you a copy of t ...[text shortened]... that for Jesus comes anywhere close to that of the Holocaust or the moon landings.[/b]
Apparently, Odysseus was real:
http://maderatribune.1871dev.com/news/newsview.asp?c=167178
(Besides, Odysseus does not circumnavigate the Earth in the Odyssey; his journey does appear to be grounded in some reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey#Geography_in_the_Odyssey )
I can show you a copy of the Odyssey and say, "There! Proof, passed down generation by generation. Any one who doubts the historicity of Odysseus is nutters" All you can do is try to discredit my positive evidence for Odysseus. But then I ask where is your evidence that Odysseus was not real?
I don't assume that Odysseus was not real. I assume that Odysseus was indeed real, but that the mythical elements were incorporated into his story over time. Even Homer's Odyssey (c. 9th cent. BC) indicates that it is a compilation of much older stories.
Retreating to the above rejoinder is a weak position. It says, "Fine, so even if I have no good evidence, you still can't prove that he didn't exist so you're nutters not to agree with me."
No, it just points out the fundamental weakness in the Jesus Myth position. Who says there is no good evidence for Jesus? For starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth#Arguments_against_the_Jesus_myth
The issue here is not whether there is some piece of information that exists that may be evidence of historicity, but whether the amount and quality of the information is sufficient to make historicity claims believable.
Why do you believe this is not the case with Jesus? Please be as specific as possible.
04 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you claiming that the "bulk" of Biblical scholars say that Mark and Luke of The Gospels knew Jesus?
Are you claiming that the "bulk" of Biblical scholars say that Mark and Luke of The Gospels knew Jesus? Are you saying that most don't have severe doubts that the authors of Matthew and John did? Your snotnose remark aside, you know that there is little support for ANY of the Gospels being first hand accounts.
As Vitesd as pointed out many times, ...[text shortened]... on your part (and don't start down the road of Coletti's "everything is faith" BS).
I'm saying the historico-criticalists (a school of thought in Biblical scholarship) do. How do you define "bulk"?
Are you saying that most don't have severe doubts that the authors of Matthew and John did?
What do you mean by "authors" here? This is not a trivial question in this context. If I dictate a letter to my secretary and she types it out, who is the "author" of the letter? If I just tell her what the basic message should be, but give her the freedom to use her own wording?