Guest Al Klein Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:33:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:1pte23dfplppk24shj876ivgiu4f1sftgu@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:30:29 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >> wrote: >> >>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:hgld239n87sn95hqggoiahlut9njq3nm4n@4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>It is not shifting anything .. you claimed to have evidence Jesus did >>>>>not >>>>>exist .. and you've not provided any. >>>>>Only evidence that certain events or anecdotes about him are not >>>>>correct. >>>> >>>> Evidence that ALL the assertions about him that can be verified turn >>>> out to be false. >>> >>>Although that does make a case for Jesus not existing >> >> Shifting the burden again. The only case that needs to be made for >> "no Jesus" is "there's no evidence for the case of "yes Jesus". > >I'm not shifting anythings "a case for Jesus not existing" is shifting the burden. The burden is to prove that he DID exist. >> And that's all I'm doing - rejecting your claim > >What claim? That there may be a real person on whom the stories were based. >> because you can't back >> it up with actual evidence. The fact that there's so much evidence >> against any real Jesus is just another reason I'm rejecting it. >There is NO evidence against a real Jesus. Except for all the claims that we know are false. >There is lack of good evidence FOR a real jesus There's not even enough evidence to consider that the stories may have been based on a real Jesus. There's no actual evidence at all, except that the name was a common one, meaning that they didn't invent a new name for their character. >So .. it is imposibble for a jew to come up with any ideas that are >different to what Judaism was currently believed to be. It would not make sense for a Jew to come up with ideas that totally repudiate Judaism. It would be like a Christian preaching that he's still a Christian but he believes that there never was a Jesus, disciples, a crucifixion or a resurrection. It's a contradiction in terms. "I still believe in X but I believe that X never existed". People who are even marginally sane don't do things like that. >This sounds like you're using a 'no true scotsman' fallacy here. If a jew >(lets call him Jesus for sake of argument) comes up with something that is >different to jewish doctrine, he cannot then be a true jew and so that means >he does not exist. If a Jew claims to be a Jew but not believe in the basics of Judaism, he's contradicting himself. >That is the essence of your argument there .. and that is not valid Only if you think that, while claiming that the entire NT is false makes a person claiming to be Christian not a Christian, claiming that the entire OT is false still allows a person claiming to be a Jew to be a Jew. >>> .. can you cite the biblical verse that suport that >>>view? If not then it is irrelevant. >> How can a tenet of Christianity be irrelevant to Christianity? >Strawman attack .. I did not say that First, whether it's relevant or not has nothing to do with whether I can cite anything. Second, it's not Biblical, it's Christian. You're going to have to decide whether we're discussing the Bible or Christianity - you keep bouncing back and forth between them and between evidence and accepted "wisdom". Pick a position and stay there. >So .. I take it that means you cannot cite a biblical verse where Jesus says >that the OT teachings no longer apply. I can, but that's not relevant to the people basing the stories about a fictional Jesus on a real Jesus who never said anything we have any record of. >If not, the your argument is irrelevant, as what Christians may have later >believed has no bearing on what Jesus himself said And, according to your argument of the fictional Jesus being based on him, we have absolutely no record of. >You seem to confuse the biblical embellishments and fictions, and later >theological beliefs with the notion of a real human person that was a basis >for the gospel stories I'm not confusing anything - you're bouncing back and forth to whatever seems to back up your claims. I'm just trying to follow you. >(just like galilee and jerusalem were real places >that were the settings for the stories) They still exist - there's no evidence that a "real Jesus" ever did. >>>> That's the whole point - the only "evidence" that they were based on >>>> an actual first century man is the need people have for the stories to >>>> be true. >>>We have the stories of his teachings and of his disciples. Of course, >>>they >>>are not very reliabl evidence .. but there is more "evidence' than wishful >>>thinking. >> The stories are evidence that the stories are true? > >I did not say that. I said the stories are very unreliable evidence for the >existence of a Jesus. The stories are evidence that part of the stories are true. Not so. >I did not claim they were evidence for themselves. You're claiming that they're evidence that part of them - the parts claiming a Jesus - are. >> "claims that he doesn't [exist" is shifting the burden. The burden >> being to prove that he (the Biblical Jesus or the real Jesus the Bible >> stories were based on) existed. >I'm not shifting the burden Saying "claims that he doesn't exist" IS shifting the burden. You're saying "I'm standing on 1 foot, but I'm not standing". The burden is to prove that he DOES exist. Talking about proving that he doesn't exist is what "shifting the burden" means. > .. I am saying that we cannot know. If he exists, not "if he doesn't exist" - that's shifting the burden. >I am saying that it is a possible explanation So is "Zeus drove Odin off Mt. St. Helens", but there's no actual evidence to lead us to think about Zeus or about a real Jesus. >>> .. as there is no good evidence either way >> >> Shifting the burden again. > >you really have this thing about burden shifting, when I am not shifting it. Talking about evidence for an existentially negative assertion is called "shifting the burden". And it's a fallacy in logic. >>> there is nothing provable. >> About their existence, so there's no reason to believe that they >> existed. Lack of evidence of an existentially negative assertion is >> the expected state. >Yes.. one can assume or presume lack of existence One does nothing, it's the default. > .. but it is not proof .. No, it's just the default position. One doesn't speak about the existence of something, or the possibility of the existence of something, without some objective reason to do so. In the case of a real Jesus, there is none. >it is just an assumption for practical purposes. There's nothing practical about assuming that the stories of Jesus were based on a real person - they're stories, period. >> But at least two of the Gospels are out of the running as far as being >> evidence of anything goes. "What we believe" is renouncing any claim >> to being evidence. >No .. it is not .. belief does not mean there is no evidence Saying "this book is what we believe" means that it can't be used as evidence of anything other than the existence of the beliefs expressed in it. > .. it means >that the statements are held to be true. Indeed belief often implies that >there is strong evidence to support it. As far as evidence goes, belief is merely opinion, it's NOT evidence. (which is why it's inadmissible as evidence in a court of law or in science). >You're playing word games here .. and that is not proof I'm not the one claiming that opinion is evidence. >You cannot use a no-later-than date in an argument where what you need is a >no-earlier-than date There's no earlier confirmed mention-of-Jesus-as-a-man date than around 170 AD. >its not a logical argument It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact. If you have an earlier confirmed date, post it. >>>But if YOU thought it was important enough, you would. >> >> If I were a first century tradesman? Probably not. Writing things >> down wasn't for the common person. If you thought it was important, >> would you have a large stone monument erected to mark some event? > >Only if you could afford one, and had a place to put it. Which is why no one recorded any contemporaneous reports of Jesus - no one thought the subject was important enough to spend the money on paper. No one thought that a real man named Yeshua did anything important enough to record for posterity. Yet 140 years later, they remembered him? Do you come from this planet? You don't seem to have a very good understanding of how human beings work. >> We're talking about evidence. No reason to think there might have >> been earlier writings about Jesus other than the need for there to >> have been. >No reaons to assume there were not It's the default position if there's no evidence that there were. > and then base your arguments on that. it >is not logical No, shifting the burden (which is what you DID at that point) is the illogical (actually "logically fallacious") stance. Barring evidence, the logical stance on the existence of something is "it {doesn't|didn't} exist". There's no logical reason to assume that something does (or might) exist when there's not a scrap of actual evidence of it. >> No evidence that anyone heard of him until 140 >> years after he supposedly died. >Exactly .. NO evidence. So the logical stance is "didn't exist". It's the logically default state. >>>[snip same assumptions that are contrary to accepted datings] >> Are we talking about evidence or "accepted datings"? If the latter, >> there was a supernatural Jesus who performed miracles, was killed and >> rose on the third day. >Strawman argument. Using accepted datings does NOT imply believing >christian myths. The SOLE reason to even have dates is the Christian myth. There's no actual evidence. >> You can't have it both ways. "Accepted datings" or evidence? >Yes .. You can have accepted datings and evidence. You can argue that way but you can't consistently (or rationally) argue that way. >> What you call "generally accepted" is only generally accepted by >> Christians >No Non-Christians don't "generally accept" the Jesus myth at all, so the only people who accept this part of it or that part of it are Christians. >> so either we're talking about the "Facts" that are >> generally accepted or >Yes.. that's what I'm talking about. Although in this case it is the >educated opinions of historians and scholars, not definitely proven facts. Christians. Non-Christian scholars don't accept the Jesus myth. >The only facts we have is a latest possible date for the writing that comes >from the physical evidence of actual texts And the earliest known dates. All else is guesses and hopes. >> we're talking about evidence. There's no >> evidence of a human Jesus prior to 170, and it's generally accepted, >> by those who generally accept that any Jesus existed - Christians - >> that Jesus was a supernatural being. >Just because someone claims something else about jesus does not invalidate >my claims. Your claim - one - that the mythical Jesus may be based on a real Jesus, has no basis. There's as much reason for it as "the Jesus myth is based on an Egyptian with a different name". >>> .. so that is not a valid argument >> It's your choice - either "generally accepted" - by Christians >No .. i am not saying to accept what christains say about Jesus. Then we ignore everything except the actual evidence, since the rest is the myth "generally accepted" by Christians. >I am saying that we cannot make an exact dating based only on a >no-later-than date. If we're only looking at the evidence, we look at the earliest actually dated evidence. If we're looking at the myth, we're looking at claimed dates, not evidence, since there's NO evidence to back up the myths. > And especially when the accepted dating by historians >is earlier (note christian do not accept the "generally accepted" dates >either, they insist they are much earlier .. I am not suggesting we accept >the dates claimed by Christians) The "historians" are Christians. Non-Christian historians don't credit the myth at all. >> We know that every single assertion that matters that we can verify is >> false. >I didn't say otherwise .. but that does not mean then that everything is >false .. only that the things proven false are false. No - only that everything that CAN BE verified has been proved false. EVERY SINGLE claim that's verifiable, one way or the other, has been found to be a lie. In historical scholarship, that brings the value of the entire piece into deep question. It's not simply "the verifiable claims are lies, but the ones that can't be verified may be true", it's "since ALL the verifiable claims are lies, the piece as a whole is useless". >You're really not very good at logical argument Logical argument, yes - biased argument, no. I don't come to the table with the viewpoint that there may be some evidence to support my view. I start with the evidence and see where it leads. And there's no evidence, so it doesn't lead to any possibility. >>>Unless we ever do get any solid evidence that the >>>gospel stories were completly works of fiction with no basis on fact >> Shifting the burden again. > >you keep saying that Because you keep doing it. Speaking of evidence of non-existence is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden, since the burden is proving the existence - proving the non-existence, evidence of non-existence, etc., is shifting the burden from existentially positive to existentially negative, where no such burden exists. >> The burden of proof is on those who claim >> there's something other than make-believe there. >I am not claiming it .. I am saying there is no evidence that shows it is >incorrect there needn't be. Barring evidence that shows it's CORRECT, the default position is that it's not. >and it is a posisbility that is not contrary to the known >evidence That's religion, not logic. >and that it is a possible scenario that does neatly explain what >we do know. Evidence explains what we don't know, make-believe doesn't 'explain' anything. >I am not saying Jesus definitely existed. >I am not saying that Jesus existence can be proved. >I am not saying that lack of evidence means Jesus must exist. >I am saying that many of the events in the gospels andother jesus stories >are ficticious. >I am saying that there is no good contemporary evidence for Jesus >I am saying that the lack of evidence does not rule out Jesus existing. That's shifting the burden. The default logical position is that, barring evidence that Jesus existed, we don't address the possibility of his existence. there's no logical reason to. Stop confusing the logical position with your desire that some reality attached to Jesus is possible. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:36:06 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:sn4g239q57d3sr83q0fp99sdqs7ij92j6u@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:34:46 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >> wrote: >> >>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:4nte235s8ue5mmlqaktgjc4d4im9am0je2@4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:02:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other >>>>>>>> "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that >>>>>>>> isn't false. Not one. >>>>>>>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. >>>>>> Christianity invented Jesus >>>>>unfounded assertion >>>> It's the only actual evidence we have so far. >>>Its not evidence, its an assertion. >> A document is evidence. There's nothing earlier. > >A document is evidence only that it was not written later than the document. > >It says nothing about the document being the original version. > >As if it is not the original version, then the original version must be >older. It says that it's the earliest evidence we have. Anything else is assumption, not science. >Your mind being closed to even considering alternative explanations There's no evidence that there's anything TO explain. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:39:47 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:7r4g23h4lt00kk51n05vq6fqohub1a9324@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:30:07 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >> wrote: >> >>>"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message >>>news:462783A6.7764@armory.com... >>>> Jeckyl wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com... >>>>> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> >>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... >>>>> >>> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't >>>>> >>> have >>>>> >>> existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other >>>>> >>> "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that >>>>> >>> isn't false. Not one. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. >>>>> > Christianity invented Jesus >>>>> unfounded assertion >>>> ------------------------ >>>> No, it's MUCH more founded than the invented Jesus. >>> >>>It is certainly possible Jesus is purely fictional. >>> >>>But oscam's razor rejects >> >> Occam's Razor rejects the whole Jesus story - especially the parts we >> KNOW are false. > >No .. it shaves off the bits that are known to be false. And it can shave >off quite a bit more. What is left What YOU left, IT also shaves off. The explanation that doesn't add anything not necessary - Occam's Razor - is that someone made up a story. Period. that's how Occam's Razor works, Don't invent bits that aren't needed to completely explain. >though, is plausible But not the minimum needed. (That Jesus was a space alien, and that we know nothing about them or their abilities, is also 'plausible'.) >>> it as it results in too many 'conspiracy theories' >> One man writes about a 'Jesus'. No conspiracy. We've even seen it >> happen - how many tens of thousands believe in Dianetics and >> Scientology? Something we KNOW was wholly invented. >More than one person wrote abut Jesus More than one person wrote about Scientology, but it only needed one man to invent it. There's no need to invent anything - "someone wrote a story" suffices to explain the actual evidence, and it's VERY plausible and HIGHLY likely. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 20, 2007 Posted April 20, 2007 On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:21:48 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:9g5g2312q17huama0mcrln0qoshbkeqirk@4ax.com... >> The story of Jesus telling his followers that there's a new covenant >> with God is clearly made up >So you mean the story in that forged Josephus section. yes No, I mean the Christian story of Christianity. >> because no Jew of the time would have said >> that, any more than a fundamentalist Christian today would be >> pro-choice. >Yes .. the story in Josephus would not have been written by him. No, Jesus wouldn't have said that he had made a new covenant with God. >So .. we've not typed a lot more andgotten no further than agreeing with >what we had both agreed on sseveral posts ago. Evidently not. You go so widely afield that you misconstrue anything I say as referring to something I wasn't addressing at that point. >>>And there are other text that mention a Christos (which many assume if >>>Jesus) >> The Chreestos cult was totally Jewish >(On the assumption that he existsed for the momet) Jesus was jewish ,the >followers of Jesus were jewish, Jesus taught jews. The Chreestos cult was Jews who believed that THEY were the anointed ones, not that some savior was the anointed one. One (the Chreestos cult) had nothing to do with the other (the rabbi/savior). >What evidenec do you ahve that the Christos cult was not about a savior? It would be difficult to believe that they thought all the members of the cult were the savior (saviors?). >> Christianity merely took the name as theirs, like they took >> the name Oestre as theirs. >Yes.. The gospel writers used a lot of rehashing of old testament stories The Chreestos cult wasn't an OT story, it was an existing (in the first century) cult. >However, whether those myths and fictions were imposed on a story of an >actual purely human Jesus or not is something we cannot prove or disprove >currently. No need to disprove it - the logical default is to not accept unevidenced assertions. Since there's no evidence that any actual Jesus ever existed, the default is that it was a made-up story, the same as all the other religious made-up stories throughout the ages. >> We have NO contemporaneous records that mention such mundane things >> as the dead rising from their graves, a preacher who could raise the >> dead, someone being crucified and coming back to life - all those >> normal things that happen every day. >That is true .. we have no such records ..which is strongly suggest that the >events described did not happen. But that is irrelevant to the question of >wheterh there was a real historic Jesus EVERYTHING is irrelevant to that assertion, because that's all it is - your assertion. >> Not ONE SINGLE BIT that makes any difference, and can be verified, >> can be trusted, since it's all known to be false. >It is not all known to be false. EVERY SINGLE relevant bit that's testable IS. And that's how the value of documents is determined, by the portion of what's relevant that can be verified. If 100% of that is false, the document isn't considered to be worth much. Except the Bible by those who need it to be true. >Some things (like the existence of >Jerusalem, there being a roman called Pilate, crucificiotns being common Not of common thieves. >etc etc are not proven false). And are not relevant, so they don't count. >There is still a very large amount that is not verifiable and is not proven false. Which also don't count. >> The ONLY parts that >> aren't known false are those parts that are inconsequential >You mean like whether there was a person called Jesus .. that is not >inconcequatntial Or verifiable, so it doesn't count. The fact that the document is internally inconsistent DOES count, however - against its worth. >> or those >> that can't be verified. >> >>>There are ceratinly lots of elements that we KNOW are ficticious >> EVERY relevant one that can be verified. > >No Cite a relevant, verifiable claim that we know to be true. >Irrelevant. All we know is that latest possible date. All we know is the earliest verified date of any evidence. > We only know that >they must have been written no later than the earliest manuscript we have. We only know that the earliest manuscript we have was written no later than the earliest manuscript we have? The Bible itself, having been edited over and over (we have no way of knowing how many times by how many people) can have been written, in the earliest form we know of, much later than the earliest manuscript we have that mentions Jesus as a man. >That cannot be used as a basis for an arugment that relies on the dates >being no earlier than that date It's the basis of the argument that the earliest evidence we have of Jesus being referred to as a man was 170. (Guesses and wishes are totally irrelevant.) >> How can you trust something you don't have? >I did not say to trust them .. I said we do not have them, and so we cannot >test them. Nor can we assume that they exist or ever existed. the earliest document mentioning Jesus as a man we have dates to 170. The earliest document that even seems to be part of a Gospel dates to 120. That's all we know. Were there earlier documents? Who knows? There's nothing to discuss along that line. >> If all you're claiming is that the reason the stories use the name >> Yeshua is that there was a Yeshua in the early first century, who >> cares? >Obviously you do, as you have wasted so much time on it Obviously that's not all you're claiming. >> If you're claiming that the stories were based on actual events, >> there's no evidence to back it up. >And none to discredit it Which is shifting the burden again, not a logical argument. > .. It is still possible. In the vein of "anything's possible", yes. In the vein of "we're discussing logical possibilities", there's nothing to discuss, since there's no evidence OF it, and bringing up "evidence against it" is a logical fallacy. >So .. why don't you just go away and leave it as a conjecture. One that we >can neither prove nor disprove Shifting the burden again. You don't seem to understand how logic works. >If an when new evidence It's not as if we had old evidence. > emerges, then it can be re-evaluated. Evaluated. There's nothing to evaluate yet, unless we take the religious viewpoint, which you claim you're not. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.