Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Davros of Skaro

Did Jesus Exist Debate: Carrier VS MacDonald

503 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will Do
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

if the record was actually excellent then who needs faith?  

 

Good question.

Based on the accurate record of what was taught about what to have faith in, it's apparently focused on having "faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the will of God - to be like God". 

Which to me, seems like a reasonable thing to attempt to achieve.

 

 

Edited by Will Do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Will there is a huge distinction between know and knowledge. “To know”has a large subjective component to it, where as knowledge is fact based.

With this in mind what did Jesus leave in the way of knowledge? 

 

When I interpret what the answer to your question is (it's one I ask regularly) I usually end up getting closer to realizing that the knowledge Jesus left us to find is something that is gained only through the experiences of following what is leading us from within. 

I probably haven't articulated very well what I'm thinking. 

The facts that the knowledge Jesus is trying to leave us with are those facts that result from the experiences that involve faith in the effectiveness of the desire to be about the business of doing God's will. Something I believe Buddha was engaged in. Among many others.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
11 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Good question.

Based on the accurate record of what was taught about what to have faith in, it's apparently focused on having "faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the will of God - to be like God". 

Fair enough, but I think at this point we are definitely separated from the question of a historical Jesus so if there's more to this it should probably be on its own thread.  You I'm pretty sure have determined the will of God from things that were written about it; I don't see how whatever is contained in 'the will of God' intersects with or is dependent on whether Jesus had a historical existence or not.  The information in the UB I'm pretty sure did not come from the historical Jesus, I assume it came from a supposed revelation by its authors, so different subject.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
12 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Fair enough, but I think at this point we are definitely separated from the question of a historical Jesus so if there's more to this it should probably be on its own thread.  You I'm pretty sure have determined the will of God from things that were written about it; I don't see how whatever is contained in 'the will of God' intersects with or is dependent on whether Jesus had a historical existence or not.  The information in the UB I'm pretty sure did not come from the historical Jesus, I assume it came from a supposed revelation by its authors, so different subject.

 

You're right. It's a different subject. I'll leave it right there. :tu:

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do

 

Herodias is a historical person.

Is John the Baptist a historical person?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, Will Do said:

 

When I interpret what the answer to your question is (it's one I ask regularly) I usually end up getting closer to realizing that the knowledge Jesus left us to find is something that is gained only through the experiences of following what is leading us from within. 

I probably haven't articulated very well what I'm thinking. 

The facts that the knowledge Jesus is trying to leave us with are those facts that result from the experiences that involve faith in the effectiveness of the desire to be about the business of doing God's will. Something I believe Buddha was engaged in. Among many others.

 

 

If you cannot articulate it it simply means you have a sense, but are not sure. It is always a great idea to know what you don’t know and ask questions. 

Great job for having the courage to ask. 

 

What about what Jesus says do you like or want to explore? 
 

For example: I wanted to understand ahimsa which is do no harm, I used being a vegan as the path and along the journey I saw a lot of things about myself that were not so great or errors, or misunderstandings,, for example, I saw in myself that my core purpose was to be better than because I was a vegan, I explored it, meaning I acknowledged it and in doing so accepted that I was capable of being self righteous. I stood corrected and am aware that I amongst many things can be self righteous given the right  circumstances. I accepted my humanness. 

I also hope that Dee, LG, Jay, Third Eye, and Eighty and contribute to this too.

I also hope MW does as he is a wonderful example of how we all have a charlatan that lives within, this is said with the best of intentions too.

 

Also, you always have the final say in how you receive this message of if you do at all. 
 

Over to you, your thoughts matter to me. 
 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 1/12/2021 at 1:00 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

There's quite a bit of difference there obviously, you have evidence for your families that doesn't apply to Christ's situation, and 100 years after Christ died is more like hundreds of years passing now due to all the media we have available to record evidence. 

How about this scenario, something happens in the next 100 years and because of some massive ideological conflict between the US and Australia all posts from anyone from Australia including yours are totally removed from UM and the internet, there is no longer any direct evidence of them.  However, all of the numerous posts here that disagree with the ideas and tales of Mr Walker remain, and 500 years from now that is all that historians have to work with.  They then conclude that Mr Walker did exist as a person but that he was a fabulist, contradictory, and possibly just likes to say things that he doesn't believe to stir people up, as that is what a lot of these critical writings they have to work with say.  Historians go through their methods and have skepticism about individual criticisms but find a lot of the same criticisms by multiple writers about MW, thus they conclude that what your critics think you are has veracity; 'why would all these different people write similar things about a Mr Walker/Jesus if there was no real fabulist/itinerant preacher at its core?'. 

I'm not having a go at you and am not renewing any of those criticisms, but just think of the conclusions that historians would come to about who you are if all they had was the mass of criticisms here of your points; they may indeed conclude you were a real person but you may entirely disagree with the conclusions they would come to as to who you really were, since all they have are what your critics said about you.  You have countless posts that start with a variation of 'you misunderstand me' so you already believe that many of our writings here do not accurately describe you. Wouldn't you then agree that these writings should be discounted as well as the conclusions historians may come to from them? It would be a similar situation to Jesus:  there is a lot of evidence missing and (from your perspective) the people writing about you/Jesus are biased, or at least with you are not accurately stating your positions.  I mean big whoop, we can have some confidence you were both real humans, something more relevant to Jesus obviously, but historically that's pretty empty and does almost nothing to prove the existence of Jesus/MW and who they really were.

(To be clear again this is an analogy, this has nothing to do with the actual situation with you being wrong or right about these criticisms, just that those criticisms exist.  Nor should this be taken as an opportunity to talk about yourself and bring up off-topic stuff from the Walker canon - credit where credit is due, I think you for doing a pretty good job of staying on-topic on this thread. Refreshing.)

You missed the point 

I have evidences 100 years later BECAUSE my family was real 

My point was tha t when peole wrote about Christ 100 years after the event it is both possible and probable that the y ALSO had access to evidences of his existence 

After 2000 years those evidences are gone just as the evidences of my grandfather's existence may well be gone in another 2000 years.

  So we DO have writings from  peole alive when Christ was alive and for 100 years afterwards.  These are similar evidences to my own notes about my grandfather 

Youve made my point for me really 

Suppose I am considered a non-existent fabulist 

THEN some writings about me are discovered 

Suddenly the scenario changes 

 Iam only arguing for my existence not my truthfulness 

This argument is about Christ's existence and his foundation  of the belief we call Christianity (which actually is more Pauls work than Christ's)  NOT whether the stories about him were true 

Faith/beleif is need to establish the nature of Christ or myself (even now) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 1/11/2021 at 6:08 PM, eight bits said:

Every argument has premises, and within the argument, the premises are taken as true. So, there's no real objection to a historian writing a book about, say, "Jesus's attitude toward Roman authority and its Jewish client rulers" and to premise the book on the assumption that Jesus was a real man who actually lived. Also with the further premise that we could have the faintest idea what that real man's attitudes actually were, given the nature of our sources.

And the book might even be read profitably by a Jesus skeptic, because that system of premises is isomorphic (= different way of saying something, but with all the same or parallel consequences as the original) to "What is the storybook character Jesus's attitude toward <whatever> in the canonical story universe?" It'd be the same book. (There's no reason - none - why a premise cannot be flatly contrary to fact, so long as it is consistent ... this convenient opportunity is what pays J.K. Rowling's bills - and IMO the guild's bills as well.)

Outside the academy, however, we get to ask simple questions, and expect to get answers to the questions we ask based on the balance of evidence and inherent plausibility. Not what can be made to work as the premise of an academic book.

Was or was not Jesus a real man who actually lived? The first thing to say about possible answers is that they are all going to be uncertain. Not only scrupulously uncertain, but inevitably less certain than I might be when answering the same question about Julius Caesar, never mind about Napoleon.

Actually, if I could get widespread guild acceptance of those last two paragraphs, I'd be a happy camper. And so would the guild, becuse they could continue cranking out the same books they want to crank out. Meanwhile, the rest of us would have our answer, not the categorical yes of Caesar or Napoleon, but the appropriately hedged more-likely-than-not or thereabouts yes - provided much care is exercised in defining whom we're talking about. Change the definition slightly to become more specific (= more demanding) and the asnwer becomes no, but with the same hedge.

He's not a historian, except in the sense that you and I are: people who write about the human past on the internet.

Well, he includes the word history in the title of his blog. That settles it, then, eh?

 

You missed the point on Tim o Neill  

He is an atheists who  articulates tha t christ was a real peron and that  this can be established using normal historical proofs and evidences.

  He points out that, confusing the NATURE of the man, with  the existence of the man, does not work in historical argument 

 

quote

Tim O’Neill – Blog Author

I am an atheist, sceptic and rationalist who is a subscribing member of the Atheist Foundation of Australia and a former state president of the Australian Skeptics. I have contributed to many atheism and scepticism fora over the years and have a posting record as a rationalist that goes back to at least 1992. I have a Bachelors Degree with Honours in English and History and a research Masters Degree from the University of Tasmania, with a specialisation in historicist analysis of medieval literature.

https://historyforatheists.com/about-the-author-and-a-faq/

Sounds like a legitimate historian to me :) ie he has the qualifications if not the actual life experience

Even though he doesn't see HIMSELF as such  :) 

quote 

“Are you a historian?”

No. At least, not in anything but the broadest sense of the word. I do have training in the historical method, I have studied historiography and I have read widely in the work of leading professional historians on ancient and medieval history, the history of science and the history of Christianity and its theology. But I am generally not presenting original research of my own here or putting my own re-interpretive spin on any historical topic. Instead, I’m drawing on over 35 years of reading on a range of topics relevant to the history of western religion and seek to curate summaries of current expert scholarly positions on those subjects. It’s the qualifications and expertise of the historians and scholars I cite and whose work I draw on that are relevant here.

When you talk about Jesus, do you mean the miraculous figure found in the gospels?”

 

No. When scholars talk about “the historical Jesus” they are referring to the Jewish man on whom the later figure of “Jesus Christ” was based. Of course, the scholars who are conservative Christians also believe that this “historical Jesus” and the Jesus of Christian faith are identical or at least very similar. But I (and many leading scholars) do not. I conclude that the later figure of “Jesus Christ” found in the gospels and worshipped as God by many today evolved out of memories of and beliefs about a Jewish preacher named Yeshua (“Jesus” is the English form) from the village of Nazareth in Galilee. I do not find the miracle stories about “Jesus Christ” any more convincing than any other miracles reported in ancient texts of the period – people then believed in such things but I do not. And I agree with those scholars who think the historical Jesus was most likely an apocalyptic preacher who thought the end times were coming very soon, as I detail here

 

Do you claim you can PROVE a historical Jesus existed?”

No, but only because historians do not deal in “proof”. History is a humanities discipline, not a hard science. So historians cannot “prove” things the way scientists often can – instead they use a structured process of critical analysis of relevant evidence to make an assessment of likelihood. So, like almost all of the scholars in any relevant field, I conclude that a historical Jesus most likely existed and that the alternative Mythicist theories are contrived, confused, often crackpot and totally unconvincing.

 

“Have you read the books of Richard Carrier/Robert Price/David Fitzgerald/Insert-latest-Mythicist-here.”

Yes. In most cases, several times. I agree with the overwhelming majority of qualified scholars who find those books totally unconvincing.

end quote

Not exactly your archetypal "guild member"

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
10 hours ago, Will Do said:

 

Good question.

Based on the accurate record of what was taught about what to have faith in, it's apparently focused on having "faith in the effectiveness of the supreme human desire to do the will of God - to be like God". 

Which to me, seems like a reasonable thing to attempt to achieve.

 

 

Be like God in what sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
17 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Be like God in what sense?

 

I suppose, be like God in the highest sense a person is able to imagine.

 

PS I'm still working on how to respond to your post from this morning. It's been a long day.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, Will Do said:

 

I suppose, be like God in the highest sense a person is able to imagine.

 

PS I'm still working on how to respond to your post from this morning. It's been a long day.

 

 

I look forward to your response, Will:wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
20 hours ago, eight bits said:

What I have a problem with in that is the assumption that "Mark" is a Christian at the time he's writing.

The only evidence that I can see in favor of it is that his work found a Christian audience. I suspect so did some of the work of Josephus and Philo, in the sense of becoming incorporated into unmistakably Christian propaganda like the other three canonical gospels. Nobody thinks Josephus or Philo was a Christian ... and because (unlike "Mark") they didn't write anonymously, we pretty much know that they never were Christians.

Anonymous Mark? Well, we don't know anything about him, therefore he must have been a Christian.

Guild logic.

So, if you ever get a chance (or if you ever launch that thread on Mark), what is it that tells you that Mark, the author(s), was a Christian?

First off my future thread is on Jesus historicity. I can submit my rough draft, but further reading and waiting on inspiration from the spirit is my delay. Also I was thinking of a test audience before dropping it here. There's so much info I have to widdle down while keeping it relevant to potential nubile ears. It will come forth before Jesus arrives unless I meet my demise before then. :blink:

One scenario for Mark not being a Christian is that he was commissioned to do it. But what are the chances of that with all the hidden meaning in the otherwise simple text. All the Pauline theology, and OT midrash must have meant something to the author. In my humble opinion is who was it for is a more pressing inquiry. It may have been a sacred allegory for within the community, but that is not getting out the message per Paul. Jesus is coming soon so a simple myth is better than a verse here, a verse there from an assortment of books is much more convenient. Besides what does it matter how one receives the spirit? Then again Paul warns against other news. Then there's the rub with one receiving the spirit from hearing Mark they can be more accepting to the deeper mysteries of Christ. This speculation is the tip of the iceberg of what we do not know for certain, and Jesus could have been some teacher with photographc memory of scripture that snowballed.

My future thread will have lots of Mark (much has been seen here already) that shows he/she was less likely writing history, ancient biography, or even passing on spiced up oral traditions. Mark being a gentile Christian convert is pretty much guild foundational, and there's little to doubt it from what we do have.

"Back to the quote above, a story set on Earth is also easier to sit through :P - on the off chance that Mark's intended audience wasn't Christian either."

The five books of Moses (along with other scripture, even ones we no longer know about) seen with an eye of Platonism as per Philo (who Paul has a lot in common with as I will show) opens up many possibilities. I'm about to set up a SDR (software defined radio) to my tablet that will receive 150 Khz - 6 Ghz so maybe I will hear Jesus calling from the stick of life out there somewhere?

 

20210113_010440.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

THE EIGHT BEATITUDES OF JESUS

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Gospel of Matthew 5:3-10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
5 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

One scenario for Mark not being a Christian is that he was commissioned to do it. But what are the chances of that with all the hidden meaning in the otherwise simple text.

I'm not a fan of the work-for-hire hypothesis, but I don't see how competent craftsmanship would be evidence against the hypothesis. Besides, the text isn't "otherwise simple." It's a tapestry. Speaking of which, why is La Dame a la Licorne (searchable) so richly constructed for such a simple story (some lady hanging around her tent receives gifts while several animals look on - pfft)? Why are so many prehistoric cave drawings so richly constructed for no story at all?

Rich construction is what many artists do, in a variety of media, and do it sometimes even for the simplest subjects. So, there's nothing distinctive about dramatists or fiction writers in that regard, nor "Mark" in particular.

5 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

within the community

There's no evidence that Mark was part of a Christian community at the time he wrote. Paul wasn't, for example. Paul says he wasn't the only proto-Christian who traveled around, and we have other texts that corroborate him (the Didache, for example, includes advice about how much hospitality to extend to such people, and for how long they ought to stay in any one place). Mark's Jesus personally commissions a solo preacher (the exorcised Gerasene demoniac).

So, what form of Christianity Mark may have practiced requires an additional assumption beyond Mark being a Christian of any kind at the time he wrote.

5 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Then there's the rub with one receiving the spirit from hearing Mark they can be more accepting to the deeper mysteries of Christ.

Yes, it is certainly possible that among the reasons Mark was written was to attract interest in the faith among non-Christians. However, Mark was venerated as a local legendary early-organizer figure in Alexandria, which was later but still early on the site of the Catechetical School (aka the Didascalium, home to such stars as Clement and Origen).

Their curriculum is believed to have included coursework in Christianity for non-Christians with no expectation that students would ever become Christians. The school faculty would probably have welcomed those students moving on to convert, but it would appear that discussing the word was viewed as good in itself.

That doesn't resolve the question of Mark's motives, but it is a foundation for a family of hypotheses in which professional quality presentation of a Christian subject is neither intended to serve the needs of existing Christians nor to recruit converts among "not yet" Christians.

Educated people might enjoy talking about subjects that interest them and about which they know a lot. Could be, eh?

For example, close to home here at UM, what did Copasetic "get" for his master class in evolutionary biology?

5 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Mark being a gentile Christian convert is pretty much guild foundational, and there's little to doubt it from what we do have.

"There's little (reason) to doubt it" is a guildism you've picked up. It's not an argument, it's an argument substitute, a synonym for "could well be," but usually also a denial of the existence of excellent reason for doubt (= consciously apprehended and best to be candidly acknowledged uncertainty).

Lack of evidence + rich array of plausible alternative hypotheses = reason for doubt.

On the specific hypothesis mentioned, Mark could have been a Gentile convert and deconverted by the time he wrote. Pliny attests to the existence of such people within the span of the "Gospel Era" (late century I). In our time, the web is rife with the blogs of former LDS who now write about LDS subjects, former evangelicals who now write about evangelical subjects, former Scientologists who now write ...

Literate people sometimes write reflections upon aspects of their life that they've now left behind.

(Of course, the blogs don't have to be based on a blogger's own experience. Some of these blogs are written by family or other associates of people who've joined this or that sect or cult, and sometimes are written while that other person is still a member. Mark could be a love letter to - or eulogy for - a lost son or daughter.)

Anyway, thank you for your answer. Looking forward to that long-awaited thread, whatever its subject turns out to be.

 

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

He is an atheists who  articulates tha t christ was a real peron and that  this can be established using normal historical proofs and evidences.

Actually, I think Tim articulates that Jesus was a real person. "Christ was a real person" is an affirmation of faith, and most assuredly cannot be established by any form of secular scholarship.

And as is so often pointed out by so many in this and similar webly discussions, how Tim says he answers the Question of God is irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Sounds like a legitimate historian to me

but according to Tim himself

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

“Are you a historian?”

No. At least, not in anything but the broadest sense of the word.

So, let's just add historian to that long list of words that mean one thing to you, and something different to other people.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
14 minutes ago, eight bits said:

So, let's just add historian to that long list of words that mean one thing to you, and something different to other people.

Oh the folks that were burned and skinned for much much less... 

Quote
14 Mar 2010 — Hypatia, Ancient Alexandria's Great Female Scholar ... Hypatia established herself as a philosopher in what is now known  ...

~

Quote

 

[00.05"05]

~

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
26 minutes ago, eight bits said:

 

 

Actually, I think Tim articulates that Jesus was a real person. "Christ was a real person" is an affirmation of faith, and most assuredly cannot be established by any form of secular scholarship.

And as is so often pointed out by so many in this and similar webly discussions, how Tim says he answers the Question of God is irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus was a real man who actually lived.

but according to Tim himself

So, let's just add historian to that long list of words that mean one thing to you, and something different to other people.

The name we call jesus is now conventionally  jesus christ.

  It's pretentious and grandiose (if technically correct)  to  separate the two. it is like Mr Walker title and name define me (on UM)   

"Mr walker was a real person"  is the same as "Walker was  a real person" 

 
One doesn't have to agree that Jesus was christ, to allow him that name and title .

You dont have to accept that I am  a master without the rank of knight hood, to call me MR 

Both are simply conventions forming part of a name and title. 

And its not that i have  a different meaning for historian.

  Tim is just being  a bit humble 

His qualifications make him an accredited historian, even if he  never did research work in the field. Anyone with post graduate/honours qualifications in a field IS  a professional in that field (at least in Australia) 

Would you argue that  a person with an honours degree in mathematics was not a mathematician?  

 

quote

In private industry, mathematicians typically need an advanced degree, either a master's degree or a doctorate. For jobs with the federal government, candidates need at least a bachelor's degree in mathematics or significant coursework in mathematics.

https://www.truity.com/career-profile/mathematician#:~:text=In private industry%2C mathematicians typically,or significant coursework in mathematics.

To become an historian you usually have to study history at university, preferably at honours level. Most historians then undertake a masters or doctoral degree, where they conduct research and, in most instances, write a thesis in their chosen subject area.

https://www.gooduniversitiesguide.com.au/careers-guide/historian#:~:text=To become an historian you,in their chosen subject area.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The name we call jesus is now jesus christ 

Sometimes. At the moment, however, we're discussing whether Jesus was a real person who actually lived. The definition(s) that are  relevant to this discussion are secular, and so none of them includes a commitment to whether or not he was "christ."

Regardless, Tim O'Neill doesn't profess a historical christ. Not on his blog anyway. (As it happens, some folks suspect that Tim is indeed a Christian apologist, but whether or not he is that, many of his posts do read like upmarket CARM.)

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It's pretentious and grandiose (if technically correct)  to  separate the two.

It's also on-topic.

20 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Tim is just being  a bit humble 

You really don't read Tim much, do you? Of course not, he's just another bit of flotsam that turned up in one of your google dragnets.

As to the rest, had Tim claimed to be a historian, then maybe we'd have something to discuss. As you copypasted (you do read that stuff, right?), he doesn't claim to be a historian. End of story.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You dont have to accept that I am  a master without the rank of knight hood, to call me MR 

Hi Walker

A knight is addressed as Sir not Mr.

jmccr8

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Sir Lie'alot

And he ain't even French.. 

~

And since when is knighthood a rank? 

I doubt he's even English at all

~

Edited by third_eye
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You missed the point 

And as I already noted, this comment of yours buttresses mine.

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I have evidences 100 years later BECAUSE my family was real 

Your existence is sufficient to prove your family was real, that's how biology tells us you came into existence. 

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My point was tha t when peole wrote about Christ 100 years after the event it is both possible and probable that the y ALSO had access to evidences of his existence 

You have no idea what was 'probable', sorry.

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

After 2000 years those evidences are gone just as the evidences of my grandfather's existence may well be gone in another 2000 years.

The problem of course being that you then can't differentiate between the evidences not existing because they were lost and the alternative explanation that the evidences don't exist because they, and the subject, never existed.

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So we DO have writings from  peole alive when Christ was alive and for 100 years afterwards.

So what if they were alive when Christ was alive, that has nothing to do with whether they were ever in a position to see Jesus let alone encounter someone who had.  Curious how little we have, if anything, that indicates Christ was alive that was written during the period that Christ was alive.

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Iam only arguing for my existence not my truthfulness 

This argument is about Christ's existence and his foundation  of the belief we call Christianity (which actually is more Pauls work than Christ's)  NOT whether the stories about him were true 

I thought this was obvious enough for me not to need to mention it, but I should have spelled this out more.  It's not exactly about 'truthfulness' per se, it's about differentiating between what a person is claimed/thought to be versus, in this case, what that concept is actually based on.  I think it's mostly pretty meaningless to say someone existed without making further claims as to the qualities and attributes of that someone that make them that someone.  I've used this example before, but the definition of Bigfoot is a tall bipedal hairy ape-like/humanoid creature who lives in forests and is very elusive and purportedly stinky.  It is possible that all sightings of what people think is a Bigfoot are actually mistaken sightings of black bears.  If that is the case, it is not correct to say, 'Bigfoot exists', instead the correct statement is 'Bigfoot doesn't exist, the sightings of him were actually bears that were misperceived'.  Santa Claus is partly based on St Nicholas but is not at all the same entity as St Nicholas. St Nick's main attributes are that he distributed wealth to the poor (including according to legend I think gifts to children) and was a Christian bishop; Santa's is that he distributes gifts to 'nice' children and has a sled pulled by flying reindeer on Xmas, and has been pretty much cleansed of any Christian attachment.

To me to say merely, 'there was a real person from which our concept of Jesus emerged', doesn't say that much.  If Jesus was a mute farmer who never said or wrote a word in his life but was crucified unjustly and this injustice motivated early 'Christians' to write the Jesus tales we now have in honor of him, or if Mary Magdalene actually was the person who said everything Jesus said but because she was a woman the gospels instead used the male Jesus as a stand-in, etc, then it would be highly debatable whether to say 'Jesus existed historically' is accurate. The accurate way to put it is that Jesus never existed but was based on a historical person, much like Santa. There are a certain number of attributes that make a person that person and allow us to differentiate between them and others, whether it's Jesus, Santa, Sasquatch or you, and if the historical being doesn't have enough of those attributes then they can't be said to be that being.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, eight bits said:

Sometimes. At the moment, however, we're discussing whether Jesus was a real person who actually lived. The definition(s) that are  relevant to this discussion are secular, and so none of them includes a commitment to whether or not he was "christ."

Regardless, Tim O'Neill doesn't profess a historical christ. Not on his blog anyway. (As it happens, some folks suspect that Tim is indeed a Christian apologist, but whether or not he is that, many of his posts do read like upmarket CARM.)

It's also on-topic.

You really don't read Tim much, do you? Of course not, he's just another bit of flotsam that turned up in one of your google dragnets.

As to the rest, had Tim claimed to be a historian, then maybe we'd have something to discuss. As you copypasted (you do read that stuff, right?), he doesn't claim to be a historian. End of story.

 

 

Not end of story He IS an historian His failure to claim to be one might have many reasons but    imo was motivated by a caution not to make a claim that others might use to dispute his opinions 

The blokes name is jesus christ If Tim proclaimed an historical jesus then, defacto, he is claiming an historical jess Christ  ( This does NOT mean a belief in the  qualities attached to the title Christ (like i said i am  indisputably mr walker but may not have the qualities of a master  which mr  implies)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

His failure to claim to be one might have many reasons but 

Read your copypasta. He didn't "fail to claim." He answered the direct question directly: No.

That's one of the problems with attempting to discuss anything with you. No point is too peripheral to the topic for you to hammer away at it incessantly.

Tim O'Neill is not the topic. If you want to discuss his blog or his qualifications to run it, then start a thread for that purpose. Preferably on another site.

And when you do that, you can call "the bloke" anything you damned well please. But you don't get to misrepresent Tim O'Neill's position unless you enjoy being called a liar more than you admit.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
54 minutes ago, eight bits said:

But you don't get to misrepresent Tim O'Neill's position unless you enjoy being called a liar more than you admit

Positively relishing it, in fact, to be honest, and essentially the entire truth of it... 

Quote
relish · 1. verb If you relish something, you get a lot of enjoyment from it. I relish the challenge of doing jobs that others turn down

~

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
50 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Read your copypasta. He didn't "fail to claim." He answered the direct question directly: No.

That's one of the problems with attempting to discuss anything with you. No point is too peripheral to the topic for you to hammer away at it incessantly.

Tim O'Neill is not the topic. If you want to discuss his blog or his qualifications to run it, then start a thread for that purpose. Preferably on another site.

And when you do that, you can call "the bloke" anything you damned well please. But you don't get to misrepresent Tim O'Neill's position unless you enjoy being called a liar more than you admit.

 

Same difference 

“Are you a historian?”

No. At least, not in anything but the broadest sense of the word.

 

so in the broad sense of the word he admits he might be an historian

 However  It doesn't  matter what he said about himself.

He is, by standard  Australian qualifications,  an historian.

  Again there are a number of reasons why he might disclaim being one  

I admit to being pedantic.

In part its upbringing i  in part it is the role of a teacher that when the y teach  rather  than encourage investigation the y are right in what they  teach 

I am not miss representing his position. He gave it clearly.

However the bloke's name in current English   is Jesus Christ.

  Including the Christ no more makes him a ,mystical being than calling me mr makes me a master .  It is his historical name/ title.

You are applying an atheist perspective, which tries to separate the two words  Jesus Christ can be "just a man" as readily a s Jesus can be. 

Think Julius Caesar.

Half of this is a title, but this is what his name is, to people today 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

A knight is addressed as Sir not Mr.

jmccr8

That was what i explained. Below the rank of knight, man were addressed as master 

Today, i dont have to BE a master to be called mr.

it has become an almost universal addition to  male names  Bill Smith no longer has to be a smith . Jesus Christ no longer has to be a Christ Its become just a part of his name  

8bits thinking, to me, is like saying that a bloke called Tom Farmer  must be considered a farmer because of his second name 

I dont consider christ to be a christ but that is his name 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.