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

Sherapy
4 hours ago, eight bits said:

Oooh ... I think you pretty well covered it :su

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 by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
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.:wub:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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 by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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 by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
16 hours ago, Sherapy said:

:nw::clap: 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? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
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 by eight bits
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

@eight bits

Can we get any details for this outing?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I'm tempted to say " MW's " gone bananas but that would be extremely insulting to fruits and berries 

~

Edited by third_eye
Post bumped
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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 by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
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?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
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 by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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 by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
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?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
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?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

The faulty powers of the faulty mind... 

Quote
phantom pregnancy meaning from www.whattoexpect.com
 
3 Apr 2020 — Known officially as pseudocyesis, a phantom or false pregnancy is when a woman believes she's pregnant even though she ...

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
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

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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 ...

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
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 by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
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? 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
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 :tu:

jmccr8

  • Thanks 1

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.