+Sherapy Posted January 19, 2021 #476 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, eight bits said: Oooh ... I think you pretty well covered it It is a bit strange to compare Jesus skepticism with Holocaust or moon landing denial (to stay with historical topics). The essence of Holocaust or lunar denial is to assert that all of that evidence is faked, and to hold that opinion against not only scholarship, but living and recently living eyewitnesses and abundant physical evidence. One of these three things is not like the other. Jesus? Ancient history, not recent. No witnesses' statements recorded, not even back then, no physical evidence noted down, not even back then. But what really sticks out: both "sides" in the question of Jesus largely agree with each other about (1) what the existing evidence is, and (2) what the specific problems with the evidence are The difference between us is almost purely a question of personal opinions: the inherent plausibility of the competing hypotheses of Christian origins and the power of the available evidence to distinguish among the leading contenders. The Holocaust and moon landing events simply cannot be made analogous to this. Indeed, the anti vaxer movement was propagated by a Dr., that lied for profit. A doctor that did not take “Do No Harm” seriously, Geez, this kind of doctor is a doctor that other doctors shun. I think for Walker to even use that in his counter is little more than a reflection of his own lack of ability to critically think or learn to at this point. Your patience is astounding and inspirational though and I am learning from you. Thank you for keeping this subject engaging. The guild sounds interesting, is it fun? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield Edited January 19, 2021 by Sherapy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 19, 2021 #477 Share Posted January 19, 2021 39 minutes ago, Sherapy said: The guild sounds interesting, is it fun? Actually it has been fun. I don't think the New Testament is history, but that's no reason not to enjoy it as mythology and fiction. Either way, it is literature, and on that common ground, there's plenty to be learned from the guild. I soak up what I can. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted January 19, 2021 #478 Share Posted January 19, 2021 15 minutes ago, eight bits said: Actually it has been fun. I don't think the New Testament is history, but that's no reason not to enjoy it as mythology and fiction. Either way, it is literature, and on that common ground, there's plenty to be learned from the guild. I soak up what I can. That is how I think about UM, it is fun and I get to learn. Glad to hear you enjoy yourself. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 19, 2021 #479 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said: Searching for this guy leads to a critical bias that was not mentioned in your text : "John Dickson is an author, speaker, historian, minister and media presenter. He is a public advocate for the Christian faith and is highly regarded for his ability to unpack complex ideas in a straightforward and accessible way for the modern skeptic." ah but as it happens i deliberately included a source outlining his background. It included, either explicitly or implicitly, all this information. I did this to make clear his background, including both qualifications and beliefs So; are you arguing that this disqualifies him from unbiased comment, or negates his academic credentials " ? It is a suspicion that he has a bias. You might be right, or you might be wrong. You can't work back from his credentials/activities to an assumption of bias Ie his academic background may have led him to the position he holds . eg/ie With a first-class honours degree in Theology from Moore Theological College and a PhD in ancient history from Macquarie University, John was a Fellow of Macquarie’s Department of Ancient History (2004-17), and now teaches 'Historical Jesus to Written Gospels' at the University of Sydney (Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies). During 2016-2021 John is a Visiting Academic in the Faculty of Classics at Oxford University, where he is researching Christianity and education in the ancient and early medieval worlds. In 2019 he was appointed the Distinguished Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Public Christianity at Ridley College in Melbourne. The question was about the historicity of Jesus, not his divinity, so faith/ belief is less relevant than academic credentials. John made the point that, almost without exception, academic historians accept the historical existence of christ as the founder of Christianity although most do NOT accept his divinity Edited January 19, 2021 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 19, 2021 #480 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) 23 hours ago, eight bits said: You "hear" text? The guild is the ordinary and usual term for the group. I have a nuanced attitude toward them. It is obvious to anybody who reads my posts that I am a fan of Ian Mills and Laura Robinson, highly respectful of James McGrath (as much as we disagree on some points), and harbor hope that someday Bart Ehrman will come around on the topic of this thread. And as I outed myself the other day, I am a dues paying member of SBL, the guild made flesh here in North America. It could be, whatever kind of critter a Pom is. I cited a poll which I believe was designed and executed well enough to take its results seriously. It also established what, in my opinion, is an especially clear and useful standard for being counted as a Jesus skeptic. Not perfect - I don't count as a Jesus skeptic under that standard, even though I think of myself as one. Surely relatively so among the dues paying members of SBL. The BBC article adds the "don't know" respondents with those who express skepticism to arrive at its 40%. That overstates Jesus skepticism, since some of the don't know's are people who simply haven't formed an opinion or wished not to share it. There was a follow-up question, so that based on the two questions taken together, you could estimate that in round numbers, at least 1 in 3 English adults polled have formed and shared some opinion about a historical Jesus but don't accept "Jesus was a real person who actually lived" as a satisfactory description of their opinion. The 1 in 5 who expressed overt skepticism directly were enough to make the point I had in mind. I settled for them. Why doesn't John Dickson address the question? When scientists confront anti-vaxxers, they present evidence. When historians of science confront moon landing deniers, they present evidence. When John Dickson confronts Jesus sketpics, he calls names. I didn't bother to look him up. Nup he explains his position. it is like that of the other academics ie Using standard academic criteria, the existence of an historical Jesus, who founded the christian church, is an historical given, and only those with a personal bias deny this. I guess he has some frustration with Christ deniers, as others do for flat earthers and anti vaxxers. The y are all arguing from ignorance of academic understandings and accepted evidences The y all refuse to accept the scientific evidences in favour of what they want/need to believe. ie christ mythers DENY the historical evidences, just as anti vaxxers and moon landing deniers deny all the scientific evidences. Ps yes i "hear" text I thought every one did. Not as clearly as I "hear " the thoughts behind the spoken word, but yes. Part of deconstructing and decoding text involves this abilty If i got it wrong in your case fair enough, but i hear disdain for the guilds overall position and rationales on this issue quite strongly in your text . Otherwise you would not oppose it so strongly. Edited January 19, 2021 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 19, 2021 #481 Share Posted January 19, 2021 16 hours ago, Sherapy said: The last paragraph is an astounding way of explaining the value of evidence in the application of critical thinking. Well done. According to my Philosophy professor the way we handle ism’s including Jesusism’s is we use critical thinking. The Guild demonstrates this for me. We look at the whole mess, all of it even the parts we have a hunch that probably won’t make the cut, then we sift through all the crap and bring it down to just the facts and conclude from there. If I missed anything please feel free to refine. Nup basically you and 8 bits deny the evidences, expertise, and consensus of academics, in favour of what you want to believe/ Although i give 8 bits the credit that his opinion is less certain than your own Would you argue with a quantum physicist about the nature of quantum physics? Then why argue with almost every academic historian on this issue ? OF COURSE those historians applied critical thinking. It is part of their training to do so It was the critical thinking, logic and evidences, which created an almost universal certainty on this issue . Or are you saying that 99.9 % of academic historians are NOT critical thinkers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 19, 2021 #482 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: Using standard academic criteria, you show evidence why you disagree with something, you don't call it "nutty." 59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: the existence of an historical Jesus, who founded the christian church, is an historical given I believe I posted earlier that if an aspiring author wishes to premise his or her book on some uncertain proposition being taken as true, then that's fine with me. It is also irrelevant to whether the chosen premise is factually true, or that some particularly high level of confidence in its truth is normative. See a recent nearby thread offered by @Davros of Skaro where part of the OP discussion was premised on the proposition that Paul was not Jewish. That Paul was Jewish is as close to a "historical given" as any proposition about Christian origins. Nevertheless, there is some foundation for questionning it (the discussants mention that ancient Ebionites disbelieved Paul's claims about being Jewish), and a fruitful discussion was based on the premise. Nevertheless, I am more confident that Paul was Jewish than that Jesus was a real person who actually lived. Uncertain proposition about the human past + some plausible evidentiary foundation that it could be true = potentially useful premise for a historical discussion (Thus, Holocaust denial and moon landing denial are not only prohibitively likely to be factually false but also useless as a premise for historical discussion. Yet another way in which Dickson's analogy wannabe fails.) 59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: and only those with a personal bias deny this. Which is ad hominem plain and simple. The guild is very touchy about any suggestion that any of them would have any economic incentive to go along to get along (unlike every other employed person on Earth, including the self-employed). In this context, "suggestion" sometimes includes quoting from some members' teaching contracts. OK. Low blow. If personal bias is fair play, then the guild has more to worry about than the bulk of the 20% of the English adults we've been discussing recently. From the looks of it, Dickson himself has a lot to worry about in the vulnerability to bias department. 59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: I guess he has some frustration with Christ deniers, as others do for flat earthers and anti vaxxers. You mean he's anti-semitic? I didn't get that at all from what you quoted. He just seemed to be on about Jesus skeptics. Of course, you know him better than I do. 59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: The y are all arguing from ignorance of academic understandings and accepted evidences As I've repeatedly pointed out, there's very little disagreement about what evidence is accepted. There's a difference of opinion about "academic understandings," but that such understandings exist is acknowledged by both sides. 59 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: ie christ mythers DENY the historical evidences, just as anti vaxxers and moon landing deniers deny all the scientific evidences. Your reading comprehension is on the fritz again. The typical living Jesus skeptic doesn't deny the evidence, but differs with historicists on the bearing of that evidence on the specific question before us. Edited January 19, 2021 by eight bits 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted January 19, 2021 Author #483 Share Posted January 19, 2021 @eight bits Can we get any details for this outing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted January 19, 2021 #484 Share Posted January 19, 2021 (edited) I'm tempted to say " MW's " gone bananas but that would be extremely insulting to fruits and berries ~ Edited January 19, 2021 by third_eye Post bumped 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 19, 2021 #485 Share Posted January 19, 2021 6 minutes ago, Davros of Skaro said: Can we get any details for this outing? Not sure what you mean. If it's about Dickson, then @onlookerofmayhem was the one who hunted down the info. I did try to locate the "11%" Australian poll, and found out that Dickson had something to do with it. It's pretty clear he's not an "academic," but I didn't spend a lot of time on him. 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: Or are you saying that 99.9 % of academic historians are NOT critical thinkers? Are you saying that 99.9% of academic historians have professionally researched the question of a historical Jesus? Bart Ehrman said he hadn't looked into the case until he himself became a popular figure and people he didn't know would ask him his opinion. Bart Ehrman's background and work history would have given him far more reason to look into the question than most people who write professionally about the human past under the auspices of an educational or research establishment. Google away, buddy, and find the right percentage. I don't what it is, but it isn't going to be 99.9% of academic historians. 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: Ps yes i "hear" text I thought every one did. I guess that says it all. Thank you for answering. 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 20, 2021 #486 Share Posted January 20, 2021 13 hours ago, eight bits said: you show evidence why you disagree with something, you don't call it "nutty." I believe I posted earlier that if an aspiring author wishes to premise his or her book on some uncertain proposition being taken as true, then that's fine with me. It is also irrelevant to whether the chosen premise is factually true, or that some particularly high level of confidence in its truth is normative. See a recent nearby thread offered by @Davros of Skaro where part of the OP discussion was premised on the proposition that Paul was not Jewish. That Paul was Jewish is as close to a "historical given" as any proposition about Christian origins. Nevertheless, there is some foundation for questionning it (the discussants mention that ancient Ebionites disbelieved Paul's claims about being Jewish), and a fruitful discussion was based on the premise. Nevertheless, I am more confident that Paul was Jewish than that Jesus was a real person who actually lived. Uncertain proposition about the human past + some plausible evidentiary foundation that it could be true = potentially useful premise for a historical discussion (Thus, Holocaust denial and moon landing denial are not only prohibitively likely to be factually false but also useless as a premise for historical discussion. Yet another way in which Dickson's analogy wannabe fails.) Which is ad hominem plain and simple. The guild is very touchy about any suggestion that any of them would have any economic incentive to go along to get along (unlike every other employed person on Earth, including the self-employed). In this context, "suggestion" sometimes includes quoting from some members' teaching contracts. OK. Low blow. If personal bias is fair play, then the guild has more to worry about than the bulk of the 20% of the English adults we've been discussing recently. From the looks of it, Dickson himself has a lot to worry about in the vulnerability to bias department. You mean he's anti-semitic? I didn't get that at all from what you quoted. He just seemed to be on about Jesus skeptics. Of course, you know him better than I do. As I've repeatedly pointed out, there's very little disagreement about what evidence is accepted. There's a difference of opinion about "academic understandings," but that such understandings exist is acknowledged by both sides. Your reading comprehension is on the fritz again. The typical living Jesus skeptic doesn't deny the evidence, but differs with historicists on the bearing of that evidence on the specific question before us. If its nutty then it is nutty Again, similar words are used by almost all mainstream historians commentating on mythers/deniers (not skeptics but deniers) Its NOT an "uncertain" proposition in historical terms, only your own . (given tha t history, unlike maths and science , simply doesn't deal in absolute certainties ) The non existence of an historical christ is JUST as prohibitively unlikely as faked moon landings The guild may well be touchy about certain issues where the y are falsely accused . The guilds point was tha t those who deny the existence of christ have to go outside historical methodologies and evidences to sustain that pov (it just cannot be fitted within standard historical methodologies, principles and evidentiary requirements) Some then question WHY anyone would do this I specifically said Christ mythers ie those who claim Christ was a mythological construction, not a real person, around whom myths evolved There are many who have degrees of certainty /uncertainty about his existence and how much of his life is historical but Christ Mythers insist he never existed Christ deniers as in those who deny he ever existed You know that is what his debate is about, not his nature . Christ mythers are the equivalent of atheists. They claim that, like god, Christ is nothing more than a human construct. People like your self are more agnostic on the existence of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 20, 2021 #487 Share Posted January 20, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, eight bits said: Not sure what you mean. If it's about Dickson, then @onlookerofmayhem was the one who hunted down the info. I did try to locate the "11%" Australian poll, and found out that Dickson had something to do with it. It's pretty clear he's not an "academic," but I didn't spend a lot of time on him. Are you saying that 99.9% of academic historians have professionally researched the question of a historical Jesus? Bart Ehrman said he hadn't looked into the case until he himself became a popular figure and people he didn't know would ask him his opinion. Bart Ehrman's background and work history would have given him far more reason to look into the question than most people who write professionally about the human past under the auspices of an educational or research establishment. Google away, buddy, and find the right percentage. I don't what it is, but it isn't going to be 99.9% of academic historians. I guess that says it all. Thank you for answering. academic historians are academic historians. Basically they get similar training and development which does include a lot of skills including critical thinking, how to eliminate bias, and analytical observation. So it doesn't mater if the y are experts in biblical times, or the 20th century. The y will all have the same /similar skills, and lack/existence of bias Sherapy suggested that biblical historians came to the conclusion that christ existed, because the y were not thinking critically. ie any critical thinker would believe he did NOT exist or not be convinced that he did Of course the y are critical thinkers 99% of them accept that Christ existed. So is she arguing that they are NOT critically thinking when arriving at that conclusion? Ps are you saying you can't tell a person's inner opinions, values biases etc based on what the y write, including tone, style, emotive content etc. ? Edited January 20, 2021 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 20, 2021 #488 Share Posted January 20, 2021 13 hours ago, eight bits said: Not sure what you mean. If it's about Dickson, then @onlookerofmayhem was the one who hunted down the info. I did try to locate the "11%" Australian poll, and found out that Dickson had something to do with it. It's pretty clear he's not an "academic," but I didn't spend a lot of time on him. Just to repeat, as you clearly missed it With a first-class honours degree in Theology from Moore Theological College and a PhD in ancient history from Macquarie University, John was a Fellow of Macquarie’s Department of Ancient History (2004-17), and now teaches 'Historical Jesus to Written Gospels' at the University of Sydney (Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies). During 2016-2021 John is a Visiting Academic in the Faculty of Classics at Oxford University, where he is researching Christianity and education in the ancient and early medieval worlds. In 2019 he was appointed the Distinguished Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Public Christianity at Ridley College in Melbourne. what does it take to be an academic in your world 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted January 20, 2021 Author #489 Share Posted January 20, 2021 21 hours ago, eight bits said: Not sure what you mean. If it's about Dickson, then @onlookerofmayhem was the one who hunted down the info. I did try to locate the "11%" Australian poll, and found out that Dickson had something to do with it. It's pretty clear he's not an "academic," but I didn't spend a lot of time on him. For some reason I could have sworn you said that you "outed" yourself to members of the Bible study society you belong to. Am I mistaken on the latter of you belonging to SBL as well? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 20, 2021 #490 Share Posted January 20, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: If its nutty then it is nutty Again, similar words are used by almost all mainstream historians commentating on mythers/deniers (not skeptics but deniers) I suspect you haven't actually surveyed many academic historians. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: Its NOT an "uncertain" proposition in historical terms, only your own . Bart Ehrman, when he was pushed back on his earlier claims of certainty about Jesus's historicity, retreated to "almost certain." Certainty is a categorical condition, like pregancy. If you're "almost," then you aren't. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: The guilds point was tha t those who deny the existence of christ have to go outside historical methodologies and evidences to sustain that pov And as with any other fact claim, the guild members are welcome to present evidence in support of their view. Calling the view nutty isn't evidence. I also renew my observation that in the topic controversy, there is little disagreement about the evidence. Methodological disagreements exist, including complaints that the guild itself tolerates departues from norms prevalent elsewhere in the academy. Regardless, whoever raises a methodological objection thereby invites those with expertise in domain independent normative uncertainty management to evaluate the merits of the contending cases. As our friends in the law have it, difficult cases make bad law. It should be obvious that methods which work well in confidently establishing facts about Julius Caesar might work much less well in confidently establishing facts about Jesus. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: Christ mythers are the equivalent of atheists. They claim that, like god, Christ is nothing more than a human construct. Language is not your firend. While Jesus could have an ontological status independent of people's ideas about him, Christ (the annointed one, the Messiah, ...) is exactly a human construct. You can read the designers' notes in the Bible. The historical question is whether Jesus is like Swedenborg, a charismatic flesh and blood teacher of an already established religion whose surviving admirers launched a new distinct religion. The leading alternative hypothesis is that Jesus is like Gabriel in Islam or Moroni in LDS, a celestial being whom the founders of a new religion looked to for their inspiration. The only Jesus Paul tells us about is a celstial being. There's nothing "nutty" about either possibility. Both models have happened in the human past and both have enjoyed some success in attracting adherents long after the founders' deaths. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: People like your self are more agnostic on the existence of Christ. No. I believe outright that the Jewish Messiah has not appeared. It's Jesus's existence I doubt, based on the relative inherent plausibility of different models for Christian origins and the meager evidence that is available. That's nothing like the Question of God, IMO, and nothing like my reasons for refraining from quoting odds on gods. On Jesus? I'm 60-40. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: So it doesn't mater if the y are experts in biblical times, or the 20th century. You've looked into that, have you? One thing about the guild: they are very sniffy about academic specialties. I think you need to google more before pontificating on the formation of historians. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: Of course the y are critical thinkers They are getting there, one funeral at a time as the proverb goes. Sherapy sets a high standard for critical thinking, and has demonstrated her mastery in demanding academic course work successfully completed. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: Ps are you saying you can't tell a person's inner opinions, values biases etc based on what the y write, including tone, style, emotive content etc. ? I can form an opinion about those things. I can't hear text, however. Also, I have learned from experience that trying to extract a writer's emotional state from tweets, emails. or forum messages is unrelaible. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: Just to repeat, as you clearly missed it I didn't miss it. His day job is Christian ministry. Thanks again to @onlookerofmayhem for digging that out. ETA @Davros of Skaro Oh, I see. No, I meant I'd outed myself here at UM as being an SBL member. At SBL? It's too big for anybody there to care what I think. The few people there who even know that I exist are probably aware that I don't share their confidence in Jesus's historicity. Edited January 20, 2021 by eight bits 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 20, 2021 #491 Share Posted January 20, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, eight bits said: I suspect you haven't actually surveyed many academic historians. Bart Ehrman, when he was pushed back on his earlier claims of certainty about Jesus's historicity, retreated to "almost certain." Certainty is a categorical condition, like pregancy. If you're "almost," then you aren't. And as with any other fact claim, the guild members are welcome to present evidence in support of their view. Calling the view nutty isn't evidence. I also renew my observation that in the topic controversy, there is little disagreement about the evidence. Methodological disagreements exist, including complaints that the guild itself tolerates departues from norms prevalent elsewhere in the academy. Regardless, whoever raises a methodological objection thereby invites those with expertise in domain independent normative uncertainty management to evaluate the merits of the contending cases. As our friends in the law have it, difficult cases make bad law. It should be obvious that methods which work well in confidently establishing facts about Julius Caesar might work much less well in confidently establishing facts about Jesus. Language is not your firend. While Jesus could have an ontological status independent of people's ideas about him, Christ (the annointed one, the Messiah, ...) is exactly a human construct. You can read the designers' notes in the Bible. The historical question is whether Jesus is like Swedenborg, a charismatic flesh and blood teacher of an already established religion whose surviving admirers launched a new distinct religion. The leading alternative hypothesis is that Jesus is like Gabriel in Islam or Moroni in LDS, a celestial being whom the founders of a new religion looked to for their inspiration. The only Jesus Paul tells us about is a celstial being. There's nothing "nutty" about either possibility. Both models have happened in the human past and both have enjoyed some success in attracting adherents long after the founders' deaths. No. I believe outright that the Jewish Messiah has not appeared. It's Jesus's existence I doubt, based on the relative inherent plausibility of different models for Christian origins and the meager evidence that is available. That's nothing like the Question of God, IMO, and nothing like my reasons for refraining from quoting odds on gods. On Jesus? I'm 60-40. You've looked into that, have you? One thing about the guild: they are very sniffy about academic specialties. I think you need to google more before pontificating on the formation of historians. They are getting there, one funeral at a time as the proverb goes. Sherapy sets a high standard for critical thinking, and has demonstrated her mastery in demanding academic course work successfully completed. I can form an opinion about those things. I can't hear text, however. Also, I have learned from experience that trying to extract a writer's emotional state from tweets, emails. or forum messages is unrelaible. I didn't miss it. His day job is Christian ministry. Thanks again to @onlookerofmayhem for digging that out. ETA @Davros of Skaro Oh, I see. No, I meant I'd outed myself here at UM as being an SBL member. At SBL? It's too big for anybody there to care what I think. The few people there who even know that I exist are probably aware that I don't share their confidence in Jesus's historicity. Nup but ive read the comments of many mainstream academic historians Nup you confuse the use of certainty There are degrees of certainty from absolute certainty to hesitant/tentative certainty, Also Its not the equivalent of pregnancy, which is indeed an either or situation, but the equivalent of how certain you are that you are pregnant. Absolutely to tentatively They have presented the evidences It convinces them, but not you yet they are the experts in the field The y call nutty those who despite the evidences, claim Christ did not exist and i know you dont like the name Christ but it is what he is called in all common parlance Jesus Christ Not Jesus THE christ It does NOT go to his divinity. It is just a name just as MR walker is my name not a reflection of my status (This was once different but no longer) The historical question is whether Jesus is like Swedenborg, a charismatic flesh and blood teacher of an already established religion whose surviving admirers launched a new distinct religion. The leading alternative hypothesis is that Jesus is like Gabriel in Islam or Moroni in LDS, a celestial being whom the founders of a new religion looked to for their inspiration. The only Jesus Paul tells us about is a celstial being. Nup IMO that is not an historical question at all History doesn't consider divinity, only humanity. The only historical question is, "Was Christ a real person or not?" The other is a theological or belief question One is not nutty to believe in Christ's divinity but one would be considered a but nutty to try and prove it historically And of course Paul spoke about Christ in heaven. By theology that is where he came from and where he returned to as an advocate for humanity In Pauls exerince that was the version of christ he encountered BUT he spoke to, and with, those who knew Christ and who knew his teachings and knew he had been a real person Using your argument about written sources, there is no evidence that question ever arose in that time. You can only raise it now because you weren't there. Sherapy doesn't really understand or apply critical thinking at all She begins with a bias or closed mind. That means that, however logical or critical her analysis is, it will be incomplete and, quite possibly, flawed Yet she believes tha t applying critical thinking must lead to one fixed and correct answer. It doesn't Critical thinking is only as good as a persons knowledge and understanding. Again i gave the source which outlined his background/ qualifications etc But clearly you are like sherapy and conclude that, being a minister biases his HISTORICAL skills, analysis, and conclusions He makes it quite clear he is speaking about the historical existence of Christ I dont know his opinion on the nature of Christ but it seemed like he saw him as a preacher teacher rather than any divine being perhaps to you, only an atheist can approach the question of christs existence impartially and your bias towards the guild is showing in your language its quite easy to read your stat of mind when you use emotive words I am sure that historians like all academics have clear cut hierarchies fields etc but history is taught from high school through university In both my personal and professional experience the same rigor discipline evidentiary requirements etc are applied across all forms of history. In some ways those studying biblical times have to be MORE precise and careful than those studying a less controversial period Ps i am surprised he has time for a "day job" given his academic record and involvement and indeed, in 2018, he announced he was ceasing his ministry work, which he did in March 2019, so your info was a bit out of date He appears to me to be a classic Anglican preacher of the social gospel Ie like many others in the church he may not even believe in the divinity of Christ or heaven/ hell etc but sees Christianity as a force for social good, and Christ as a model for human living This movement which had its antecedents in the 19thcentury gained a lot of traction in the Anglican church in Australia in the 60 s and he would be of the right age and demographics to have become involved with it. You might find this commentary by him interesting quote Contrary to recent atheist claims, Jesus did live. I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited uni who thinks otherwise, writes John Dickson. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-17/dickson-ill-eat-a-page-from-my-bible-if-jesus-didnt-exist/5820620 I think indeed someone did manage to find ONE academic historian, and i am not sure if he did eat the page or not but the entire article explains his position clearly. (actually apparently not; at least from the time he made the statement in 2014, until 2019, no one found such an expert who denied the existence of Christ ) quote And it’s still the case that you haven’t had to eat a page of the Bible as yet [In 2014, Dickson said he would eat a page of the Bible if just one professor of ancient history, classics or New Testament at a "real university" anywhere in the world could be found who argues Jesus never lived]? “No, I’m hoping the book will make that challenge even wider than it was when I put that challenge on [Australia’s] ABC . No, my Bible is in a perfect state…” https://www.sightmagazine.com.au/features/13427-the-interview-john-dickson-christian-historian-and-author Edited January 20, 2021 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Nuclear Wessel Posted January 20, 2021 #492 Share Posted January 20, 2021 56 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: There are degrees of certainty from absolute certainty to hesitant/tentative certainty, Also Its not the equivalent of pregnancy, which is indeed an either or situation, but the equivalent of how certain you are that you are pregnant. You seem to be confusing certainty with confidence. If you're tentatively/almost certain, then you're uncertain. You are either certain of being pregnant or uncertain of being pregnant. What trimester are you in, Walker? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 20, 2021 #493 Share Posted January 20, 2021 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: There are degrees of certainty from absolute certainty to hesitant/tentative certainty, Careful speakers and writers use the word confidence, which does come in degrees or levels, and reserve certainty for a partiular level of confidence. But fine, I'll just add certainty to that list of English words that mean one thing to you and something else to those around you. 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: The y call nutty They don't as a rule. The one particular Christian minister you googled up from obscurity did. 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: and i know you dont like the name Christ but it is what he is called in all common parlance Jesus Christ Not Jesus THE christ I like the name fine, however the topic concerns Jesus, and focuses on whether he existed. If you say something about Jesus, then I will interpret it as being about a hypothetical person. If you say something about Christ, then I'll interpret that as being about an element of the Jewish religion. 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: Sherapy doesn't really understand or apply critical thinking at all Just when I thought that you might be getting the hang of this reading comprehension thing. Oh well, keep at it. 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: perhaps to you, only an atheist can approach the question of christs existence impartially I don't require anybody to approach any academic question "impartially." What I like to see is high-quality reasoning about uncertainty despite personal biases. That usually begins with acquiring some understanding of what those biases are. As we've discussed, many in the guild are still working on that. Meh. Everything good takes longer than we'd prefer. 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: In both my personal and professional experience Well, that's a topic in itself, but the last one was shut down. So, maybe we just stick with the current topic. 1 hour ago, Mr Walker said: I will eat a page of my Bible if someone can find me just one full Professor of Ancient History, Classics, or New Testament in an accredited uni who thinks otherwise, writes John Dickson. This impresses you as typical academic discourse? Why would anybody care what he eats, and how does his diet provide evidence concerning the historicity of Jesus? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted January 20, 2021 #494 Share Posted January 20, 2021 The faulty powers of the faulty mind... Quote www.whattoexpect.com › pregnancy Phantom Pregnancy: Definition, Symptoms, Causes and Treatment 3 Apr 2020 — Known officially as pseudocyesis, a phantom or false pregnancy is when a woman believes she's pregnant even though she ... ~ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted January 20, 2021 #495 Share Posted January 20, 2021 9 minutes ago, third_eye said: The faulty powers of the faulty mind... ~ Hi Third_eye Lets not forget sympathy morning sickness in males married to pregnant females. jmccr8 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted January 20, 2021 #496 Share Posted January 20, 2021 5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said: Lets not forget sympathy morning sickness in males married to pregnant females. jmccr8 I've been told by a pal who is a ob-gyn that phantom pregnancy can also occur in reverse, when a woman is worried about getting pregnant ... ~ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted January 20, 2021 #497 Share Posted January 20, 2021 (edited) On 1/15/2021 at 9:48 PM, Will Do said: I wouldn't say that it's something random though. Picking cherries just for the sake of picking something without considering their truthfulness. Those teachings that every revelation has, have to be assessed whether or not they should be ignored or be appreciated for their universal truth. Will, the thing about shared truth is that when it is based on/in fact -it is in this- that it then, becomes universal. Accessible to us all. There are “for me” truths this is the distinction that one needs to understand. “For me” is different than “for us.” All the best. Edited January 20, 2021 by Sherapy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted January 20, 2021 #498 Share Posted January 20, 2021 4 minutes ago, Sherapy said: Will, the thing about shared truth is that when it is based on/in fact -it is in this- that it then, becomes universal. Accessible to us all. There are “for me” truths this is the distinction that one needs to understand. For me is different than for us. All the best. Sheri, I understand what you're saying. But I disagree that there are two kinds of Truth. In my opinion, if a person's so-called truth doesn't line up with what's universally true, then it's something other than Truth. It's probably more like an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted January 20, 2021 #499 Share Posted January 20, 2021 15 minutes ago, Will Do said: Sheri, I understand what you're saying. But I disagree that there are two kinds of Truth. In my opinion, if a person's so-called truth doesn't line up with what's universally true, then it's something other than Truth. It's probably more like an opinion. Will, an opinion is a personal level or “for me” truth. How do you line up your “for me” truth with universal truth? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted January 20, 2021 #500 Share Posted January 20, 2021 44 minutes ago, Sherapy said: Will, the thing about shared truth is that when it is based on/in fact -it is in this- that it then, becomes universal. Accessible to us all. There are “for me” truths this is the distinction that one needs to understand. “For me” is different than “for us.” All the best. Hi Sherapy Out of likes jmccr8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now