All arguments the Jesus mythers use are arguments from silence. The idea that there is no proof for Jesus' historicity, therefore we can't believe in it, that is argument from silence (AFS). The opposite is the case, Jesus' historical existence is accepted by historians as a fact, therefore, the myther has the burden to prove he did not exist. History says he did. The mythers have a few arguments that appear on the surface like positive evidence, they assert that they are. It's very important to quash them.
One such argument says that a long string of major writers of Jesus' days did not mention him. I am going to look at the way two different mythers use this argument. These guys are not famous but I have seen both used quoted against me in argument a couple of times.The first one is on the atheist echo chamber "read it" by a guy called Jim Jones who I trade insults with regularly on Secular Out Post. He is a typical mocker, and a Dawkamentalkst.[1].
The argument presents a long string of writers who don't mention Jesus:
The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.(Ibid)
That looks so very impressive. Just a couple of thing before I begin showing how utterly useless this argument is. (1) This argument is clearly AFS. Not that this is a fallacy per se, but it doesn't prove anything. This is especially so when one can show why the silence is there. We can show why these guys would not mention Jesus even if everything in the NT is true. (2) Atheists assume that if Jesus really worked miracles he would be made world famous, in his own day that is a fallacious assumption. Let's look at the way two mythers use this argument, First, nearly everyone beveled in the possibility of miracles in that day. Not that they would not have been amazed to see one but they were not as skeptical as we are. That does not mean they would automatically assume any claim of a miracle but it does mean with a host of other wonder workers being talked about guys in far away Rome would not take notice of a wonder worker in Palestine.
On Tekton apologetic J.P. Holding (our fellow cadrist) discusses why Jesus would not be mentioned by Roman writers. Notice most of the writers on Jone's list are Roman:
As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known.
Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3]Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.).
On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers.To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.esus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also![2]
Jones says of his list: "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ. " [3] Notice he lumps in both Josephus passages as "forgery." This is ludicrous when the less quoted "bother passage" is not even accused of being a forgery. In his debate with me on Josephus's brother passage Bradely Bowen (one of the best thinners at SOP and far better than Jones) could not quote a single scholar who said so, nor did he present any argumnet about forgery,[4]
Not to mention the fact that the assertion of complete forgery for the TF. Josephus' major passage about Jesus is rejected by the consensus in the field of real historical scholarship and the arguments exist to blow the mythers away on it. [5]
Apart from Josephus the major guy in the list is Philo, He was a Jew in the time of Christ.The Romans had no reason to care about Jesus but Philo may have. Yet, there are good reasons why he did not deal with him. Jones asserts that Philo lived in Jerusalem when Jesus was there. "He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem." [6] He is wrong in assuming that Philo was living in Jerusalem and that he was there strait through Jesus whole life. Philo lived in Alexandria and he spent a good deal of his time in Rome. He only visited Jerusalem one time. Moreover he did not live long after the time of Jesus, he died in 40 in AD. [7]
As for the argument on slaughter of the innocents, this event would not have been any more compelling or earth shattering than any of the other slaughters and moral outrages perpetrated by Herod. First of all the number of children killed would have been quite small, on the order of a dozen or two dozen, as recounted by famous historian Paul Maier. [8] Maier gives a long list of Hreod's atrocities. The last was the same year of Jesus' birth 4 BC where he had thousands of Jewish leaders slaughtered. [9] There is no real reason why the incident in Bethlehem should standout in anyone's mind. As for the Triumphal entry there is no way to prove that Philo was in Jerusalem for that.
Kenneth Humphreys also makes the argument that Philo didn't mention Jesus. [10] This is the same genius who founded the Paul myther movement, which I tore apart on [CADRE] blog a year or more ago,.He says:
As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).We know from the Hiller article (op cit) that He did not live in Jerusalem and he only went there once, (EN7) (There is a reason why he;s called "of Alexandria."). He may have heard of Jesus since he clearly craved the company of Roman elites he may have found Jesus embarrassing. There's no way they can prove he was in Jerusalem during times of High Jesus visibility such as the triumphal entry. It is their burden of proof because they seek to eliminate the established fact of history. So the argument from silence about Philo is of no consequence. Now he says Philo had contact with the Royal House of Judea, That is Herod that means he murdered Jesus' cousin and tried to murder Jesus as an infant. Thus discussion of the Nazareth boys would probably be a black card topic at table with Herod. Especially True since Maier says the pattern for Herod was fear of opposite murder of opponent followed by more depression and more fear more murder,,(op cit EN8). Might not be a real good idea to remind him of killing them and John Jesus' cousin. I can just hear the Judea brothers discussion dinner at Herod's "Now brother don't make the homicidal dictator mad." Might be a good reason to leave that scruphy preacher guy Jesus out of the next book.
Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified. Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18). (Ibid)
What Humphreys says about Alexander, Philo's brother, and his wealth as chief tax collector. Not only would he be hated by the people but also would have reason to fear Jesus since he was popular among the rebels, was himself poor, and seemed to say things encouraging to the poor such as that they are blessed.Thus he carried an overtone of class conflict. At least it's a reason why Philo would find him uninteresting. Jesus railed against money changers said a rich man can';t enter heaven any more easily than a camel can traverse the eye of a needle, so there was a lot lot of motivation for Philo to either just not take an interest est or avoid discussion of him.,
At best the philo argumemt is an argument from silence and proves nothing. In the context of the Jesus mytherism issue the Philo argumemt fails to qualify as positive evidence against the existence of Jesus. Jesus' historicity is established historical fact,
Sources
all on line sources accessed 5/6/17
[1] Jim Jones, "The Silence of Comteproary Wrioters," Read it (21 Dec 2014) (archive)
URL:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2pyjqe/jesus_never_existed_the_silence_of_contemporary/ (accessed 5/4/17).
[2] J.P. Holding, "General Thoughts on Jesus Not Existing," Tekton Apologetic, website on line
http://www.tektonics.org/
(accessed 5/4/17)
Meier's Marginal Jew and Harris' Three Crucial Questions About Jesus.
[3] Jones op cit]
[4] Bowen/Hinman Debate: Josephus (the brother passage), on Religious a priori: Jesus and Bible
Debate between Joseph Hinman and Bradley Bowen
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/bowen-hinman-debate-josephus.html
Index for the full debate: Hinman/Bowen Debate om Jesus historicity
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2016/08/hinmanbowen-debate-on-historicity-of.html
[5] Joseph Hinman, "Josephus. Secular and Jewish Historians," Religious a priori website URL:
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/secular-and-jewish-historians-josephus.html
[6] Jones op cit
[7] Marian Hillar, "Philo of Alexandria. 20BCE-40CE" Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (peer reviewed) website URL
http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/Hillar is with the Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies
[8] Paul Maier, quoted in "Did Herod Really Kill Baby Boys?" Ask Pastor John Interview with
Senior writer, desiringGod.org
"Paul Maier, a widely respected historian, in what will be a little longer of an episode than usual. Until his retirement, Maier served as the Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University. And he is the author of many fictional books and many non-fiction books including In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church, as well as several books for children, including, The Very"
[9] Ibid.
[10] Kenneth Humphreys, "Witness to Jesus? Philo of Alexandria." Jesus Never Existed 2006 websiote URL: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html
44 comments:
Argument from silence. Your point is that it proves nothing. Of course it proves nothing. The fact that I have never seen any verified historical documents (just stories and legends) about King Arthur is not proof that he didn't exist. I agree completely. But there's more to it than that. It certainly doesn't lead us to conclude that Arthur must have existed, either. No, we have to put everything we know into context. The lack of historical evidence is certainly part of that context.
Josephus mentions Jesus, but only in passing, as the brother of James, who received some mention in his own right. It would be reasonable to conclude that Josephus regarded James as more historically significant than his brother.
If Jesus really did go around performing miracles and raising people from the dead, you could make the case that Philo wouldn't necessarily need to talk about it, but it is much more difficult to make the case that NOBODY on that long list of writers would have found any reason to even mention it. After all, even if everybody believed in miracles in those days (which isn't really true), it still would have been highly unusual to actually witness them. That would have been newsworthy enough for SOMEBODY to make some mention of it. If we look at it from a probability perspective, the odds that not one single historical writer at the time would have found these remarkable feats worthy of any mention is really pretty small.
Another issue is that Christians love to claim that the stunning rise of Christianity itself is strong evidence of the truth of the gospel stories. If that were the case, then that fact would also be historically significant, and newsworthy. But once again, what we have historical evidence for in the first century is nothing more than some scattered small cult groups, and they had differing Christologies. It wasn't until later that the church became dominant, created its own dogmas, and declared others to be heretical.
the people i bold actually did mention Jesus:
The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus,: Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.(Ibid)
he doesn't give us any reason to think anyone on the list would have a reason to talk about him. He set's up a false criteria, anyone doing miracles would be talked about. would they? with 40 big name miracle workers already running around?
Phlegon,Lucian. forgot they should be i bold,
my list 1ist and 2nd century guys who do mention Jesus
Thallus (c. 50-75AD)
*Phlegon (First century)
* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)
* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)
* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
* Galen (various writings, c.150)
* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)
*Lucian (Second century)
*Numenius (Second cent.)
*Galerius (Second Cent.)
Argument from silence. Your point is that it proves nothing. Of course it proves nothing. The fact that I have never seen any verified historical documents (just stories and legends) about King Arthur is not proof that he didn't exist. I agree completely. But there's more to it than that. It certainly doesn't lead us to conclude that Arthur must have existed, either. No, we have to put everything we know into context. The lack of historical evidence is certainly part of that context.
essentially that's an admission that I'm right
Josephus mentions Jesus, but only in passing, as the brother of James, who received some mention in his own right. It would be reasonable to conclude that Josephus regarded James as more historically significant than his brother.
significant enough to exit, The TF is by Jo the consensus in the field accepts,
If Jesus really did go around performing miracles and raising people from the dead, you could make the case that Philo wouldn't necessarily need to talk about it, but it is much more difficult to make the case that NOBODY on that long list of writers would have found any reason to even mention it.
se the list above, Lourdes is proven scientifically to be inexplicable but no one cares
After all, even if everybody believed in miracles in those days (which isn't really true), it still would have been highly unusual to actually witness them. That would have been newsworthy enough for SOMEBODY to make some mention of it. If we look at it from a probability perspective, the odds that not one single historical writer at the time would have found these remarkable feats worthy of any mention is really pretty small.
that doesn't mean we should expect someone to travel from Rome to Palestine just on the rumor that some unknown Jew works miracles,
all of your arguments are typical Jesus myth nonsense based upon the phoney non-histrionically standards the myths made up, it;s based upon the assumption that they had the 600 news and Jesus wans;t on it,
8:49 AM Delete
Another issue is that Christians love to claim that the stunning rise of Christianity itself is strong evidence of the truth of the gospel stories. If that were the case, then that fact would also be historically significant, and newsworthy. But once again, what we have historical evidence for in the first century is nothing more than some scattered small cult groups, and they had differing Christologies. It wasn't until later that the church became dominant, created its own dogmas, and declared others to be heretical.
would you mind sweeping up the straw from your straw man--I did not argue that you are not quoting anyone who did
He set's up a false criteria, anyone doing miracles would be talked about. would they? with 40 big name miracle workers already running around?
- So your argument is that Jesus was just like the dozens of other charlatans at the time who claimed to be miracle workers, but were actually not worth writing about. OK.
essentially that's an admission that I'm right
- It's a reflection of the reality that Arthur was a LEGEND.
significant enough to exit, The TF is by Jo the consensus in the field accepts,
- Could you translate that to English? I have no idea what you're saying.
se the list above, Lourdes is proven scientifically to be inexplicable but no one cares
- ??? Non sequitur. There are contemporary stories about Lourdes. Not about the miracles of Jesus.
that doesn't mean we should expect someone to travel from Rome to Palestine just on the rumor that some unknown Jew works miracles
- Who said anything about traveling to Rome? I was talking about contemporary accounts of the miraculous works. You can dismiss it if you want, but you are not making a strong case for why they should be absent.
all of your arguments are typical Jesus myth nonsense based upon the phoney non-histrionically standards the myths made up, it;s based upon the assumption that they had the 600 news and Jesus wans;t on it,
- It's just an argument, and you have failed miserably to answer it.
would you mind sweeping up the straw from your straw man--I did not argue that you are not quoting anyone who did
- It's funny. Depending on what point you are trying to make, Jesus is either an obscure nobody, or the greatest human ever to live. Which is it, Joe? If he was so great, I would definitely expect to see much more written about him.
And please don't try to deny that there were competing Christologies that eventually were eliminated as the church became dominant. That is a historical fact.
m-skeptical said...
He set's up a false criteria, anyone doing miracles would be talked about. would they? with 40 big name miracle workers already running around?
- So your argument is that Jesus was just like the dozens of other charlatans at the time who claimed to be miracle workers, but were actually not worth writing about. OK.
to guys in Rime it's all the same,they were atheists
essentially that's an admission that I'm right
- It's a reflection of the reality that Arthur was a LEGEND.
you didn't actually deny the argument
significant enough to exit, The TF is by Jo the consensus in the field accepts,
- Could you translate that to English? I have no idea what you're saying.
Testimonium Flavianum = Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities 18:63-64).
Even the major atheist amature scholar of the secular web, Jeff Lowder, agrees that the passage is genuine, at least in its core."In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. " He quotes Louis Feldman as saying that the authenticity of the James passage in Jospehus "has been almost universally acknowledged."(Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.)
As to the major passage, the "TF," Most scholars agree that it at least has a core of authenticity, but has been reworked. Thus most scholars agree that Jospheus does at least mention someone named Jesus of Nazerath who probably give rise to the Christian movment. According to Louis H. Feldman in "The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question" in Christological Perspectives, Robert F. Berkey and Sarah A. Edwards (New York: Pilgrim, 1982) there are liberal scholars who leave the entire passage intact! (e.g. A.M. Dubarle, the French scholar). Feldman's count: 4 scholars regard as completely genuine, 6 mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.[ Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. P. 684-91]
A List of Scholar who accept at least some core passage.
John P. Meier
Raymond Brown
Graham Stanton
N.T. Wright
Paula Fredrickson
John D. Crossan
E.P. Sanders
Geza Vermes
Louis Feldman
John Thackeray
Andre Pelletier
Paul Winter
A. Dubarle
Ernst Bammel
Otto Betz
Paul Mier
Ben Witherington
F.F. Bruce
Luke T. Johnson
Craig Blomberg
J. Carleton Paget
Alice Whealey
J. Spencer Kennard
R. Eisler
R.T. France
Gary Habermas
Robert Van Voorst
Shlomo Pines
Edwin M. Yamuchi
James Tabor
John O'Connor-Murphy
Mark Goodacre
Paula Frederiksen
David Flusser
Steve Mason
se the list above, Lourdes is proven scientifically to be inexplicable but no one cares
- ??? Non sequitur. There are contemporary stories about Lourdes. Not about the miracles of Jesus.
that's pretty stupid, i don't think you are stupid. you have no answer
that doesn't mean we should expect someone to travel from Rome to Palestine just on the rumor that some unknown Jew works miracles
- Who said anything about traveling to Rome? I was talking about contemporary accounts of the miraculous works. You can dismiss it if you want, but you are not making a strong case for why they should be absent.
you really don;t listen well this article is about Philo, Philo didn't mention Jesus remember? He spot most of his time in Rome.
all of your arguments are typical Jesus myth nonsense based upon the phoney non-histrionically standards the myths made up, it;s based upon the assumption that they had the 600 news and Jesus wans;t on it,
- It's just an argument, and you have failed miserably to answer it.
I just destroyed your major criterion
would you mind sweeping up the straw from your straw man--I did not argue that you are not quoting anyone who did
- It's funny. Depending on what point you are trying to make, Jesus is either an obscure nobody, or the greatest human ever to live. Which is it, Joe? If he was so great, I would definitely expect to see much more written about him.
I just advanced the charge that your argent is straw nan, you don't answer that emotionally based quips,this is why you get your ass kicked all the time because you have no respect for your opponent. you are thinking Christina are so stupid they will be angered by assertions Jesus was not important that will make them blow the argument, It doewn;t work because i;m not stupid,
your argument is the fallacy of straw man,you have to answer that or you lose
And please don't try to deny that there were competing Christologies that eventually were eliminated as the church became dominant. That is a historical fact.
totally irrelevant Jesus can exist with competing christology
Jesus mythers always play this game of answering logical fallacies in their theory by saying there are logical fallacies in Christian doctrine.That is irrelevant because we are only arguing about Jesus existed as a man in history nothing more, Whatever else the man was just existing is all that matters now,
this post never got out of the suckie level of page loads, meaning my readership doe not like biblical topics, but given that I have been not posting for weeks I figure they can put up with one now and then.,
"All arguments the Jesus mythers use are arguments from silence."
This is untrue.
One line of argument reasonably attributable to Richard Carrier seems to me to be an argument from analogy along the following lines:
1. Many descriptions of Jesus echo narratives from the same period that are clearly mythical.
2. Absent any compelling evidence that such descriptions are grounded in fact, it is more reasonable to think they, too are mythical.
3. There is no compelling evidence that such descriptions are grounded in fact.
4. Therefore, it is more reasonable to think that those descriptions of Jesus are mythical than that they are grounded in fact.
The main point of contention is premise 3, I think.
But my point is that Carrier isn't just making an argument from silence. You understate the mythicist's case.
Hi Eric good to see you. Yes I should have said "almost all," Or "many..."
I can argue the historical evidence, i think my debate with Bowen accomplished a lot toward showing the strong nature of the evidence,Erhman says Jesus is the bests attested first century Jew in Palestine.,
to guys in Rime it's all the same,they were atheists
- OK. Your argument is that Jesus was just another huckster.
you didn't actually deny the argument
- It was MY argument (about Arthur), and YOU didn't answer it.
Testimonium Flavianum = ...
- You still didn't translate your earlier statement to English. If you are claiming that the disputed passage in the Testimonium Flavianum is accepted as genuine, you are wrong. IT IS HIGHLY DISPUTED. And as such, it does not help to make your case. I don't care how many believers you name who partially accept it. That is nothing but argument from authority - a logical fallacy. And in truth, most of those you mention don't agree that the passage is the actual unmodified words of Josephus. And there are plenty of good reasons to think that the passage you cite does not reflect what Josephus would actually say. It's worthless as evidence.
that's pretty stupid, i don't think you are stupid. you have no answer
- I'm not sure what your point about Lourdes was, but MY point is that unlike the miracles of Jesus, you CAN find contemporary accounts of the supposed miracles at Lourdes. How does that help your case about Jesus? It doesn't even make sense.
you really don;t listen well this article is about Philo, Philo didn't mention Jesus remember? He spot most of his time in Rome.
- I addressed Philo in my original comment. Did you read it? Do you understand what I am saying?
I just destroyed your major criterion
- You just ignored my argument altogether. I didn't heat any cogent response at all.
your argument is the fallacy of straw man,you have to answer that or you lose
- How is it a strawman? Didn't you just tell me that Jesus was (apparently) just one of many hucksters in the eyes of the people of the time, and that's why his works get little or no mention in historical accounts? And yet like most Christians, you DO believe that he was a truly extraordinary person who really did work miracles, and rose from the dead and all that. And there were plenty of witnesses, according to the bible. Those two things flatly contradict each other, and YOU have offered no response to it. Just claiming that this is a strawman argument doesn't address the issue.
totally irrelevant Jesus can exist with competing christology
- It's relevant because not all of those Christologies claim that Jesus existed as a human person.
o guys in Rome it's all the same,they were atheists
- OK. Your argument is that Jesus was just another huckster.
sorry there are ore logical choices available as a solution than (a) Jesus was a huckster or(b) he didn't exist,
you didn't actually deny the argument
- It was MY argument (about Arthur), and YOU didn't answer it.
I wrote the article answering the Philo argument,I said he spent too much time in Rome to have heard of Jesus or care about writing about him.You have not given a real answer to that,
If you are claiming that the disputed passage in the Testimonium Flavianum is accepted as genuine, you are wrong. IT IS HIGHLY DISPUTED. And as such, it does not help to make your case.
wrong, did you not see that long list of names? that is every major scholar wo studies Josephus and they all accept that he did moment Jesus in the the TF.All you listen to is ignorant at atheists websites, that's why you don't learn, the major scholars in the world today accept that Josephus did write the TF.
I don't care how many believers you name who partially accept it. That is nothing but argument from authority - a logical fallacy.
those are the major scholars most of them are not believers in the fund mental sense,
And in truth, most of those you mention don't agree that the passage is the actual unmodified words of Josephus. And there are plenty of good reasons to think that the passage you cite does not reflect what Josephus would actually say. It's worthless as evidence.
I didn't say it's modified, the version of it I quoted had boding because it shows a core passage and emendations, But there is a core and it proves Jesus existed everyone on that list agrees with hat,
that's pretty stupid, i don't think you are stupid. you have no answer
- I'm not sure what your point about Lourdes was, but MY point is that unlike the miracles of Jesus, you CAN find contemporary accounts of the supposed miracles at Lourdes. How does that help your case about Jesus? It doesn't even make sense.
You have bought into the idiotic atheist argent that if anyone was proven to have experienced a miracle it would be the most famous event in the world and everyone would know.But the miracles at Lourdes have good scientific backing and non one cares,they are not world famous that disproves your basic assumption,
you really don;t listen well this article is about Philo, Philo didn't mention Jesus remember? He spent most of his time in Rome.
- I addressed Philo in my original comment. Did you read it? Do you understand what I am saying?
I answered what you said man you don;t seem to get very basic points,
I just destroyed your major criterion
- You just ignored my argument altogether. I didn't heat any cogent response at all.
your arguments are based upon modern would assumption you are assuming anticline worked knowledge worked like modern knowledge it did not, you are assume criteria not used by real historians but the phony criteria mythers have made up to support their nonsense, it;s based upon the assumption of modern world communication and knowledge flow,
your argument is the fallacy of straw man,you have to answer that or you lose
- How is it a strawman? Didn't you just tell me that Jesus was (apparently) just one of many hucksters in the eyes of the people of the time,
where did I use the word huckster"? you used that our of your ignorance and you finality to understand ideas,
and that's why his works get little or no mention in historical accounts? And yet like most Christians, you DO believe that he was a truly extraordinary person who really did work miracles,
your ignorance is just appalling, you know practically nothing about the stricture of knowledge flow today on the ancient world. you can;t understand the simplest most logical arguments
I argued that the structure of literate knowledge in the ancient world centered on Rome and a few other places where thy Roman elites lived,Jerusalem was not one of them none oh the writers would have cared what Jesus said.
and rose from the dead and all that. And there were plenty of witnesses, according to the bible. Those two things flatly contradict each other, and YOU have offered no response to it. Just claiming that this is a strawman argument doesn't address the issue.
I just explained ow it works why don;t you try actually reading stuff not by atheis and try learning somethig use your brain for once stop regurgitating atheist stupidity,
totally irrelevant Jesus can exist with competing christology
- It's relevant because not all of those Christologies claim that Jesus existed as a human person.
they sure as hell do everyone one of them, use your head,
9:04 AM
A List of Scholar who accept at least some core passage.
John P. Meier
Raymond Brown-- mod
Graham Stanton
N.T. Wright--c
Paula Fredrickson
John D. Crossan--unbelieving super liberal
E.P. Sanders--lib
Geza Vermes--Jewish
Louis Feldman ==Jew
John Thackeray
Andre Pelletier
Paul Winter
A. Dubarle
Ernst Bammel
Otto Betz
Paul Mier
Ben Witherington--mod
F.F. Bruce
Luke T. Johnson--lib
Craig Blomberg
J. Carleton Paget--lib
Alice Whealey
J. Spencer Kennard
R. Eisler
R.T. France--;ub
Gary Habermas
Robert Van Voorst--;ib
Shlomo Pines
Edwin M. Yamuchi
James Tabor--unbelver
John O'Connor-Murphy
Mark Goodacre--bel
Paula Frederiksen
David Flusser
Steve Mason
I can think of some cases where an argument from silence is actually pretty good. Here is a rough version (I'm sure it could be refined, but I just want to get the general idea across):
1. The more extraordinary and the more public an event is, the more likely it is to be widely documented.
2. Many deeds attributed to Jesus are reputed to have been extraordinary and highly public.
3. Therefore, one would expect such deeds to have been widely documented.
4. But they were not widely documented.
5. If an event that one would expect to have been widely documented was not widely documented, then absent any plausible explanation for it's not being widely documented, it is reasonable to infer that the event did not occur.
6. There are no plausible explanations for why many extraordinary and highly public events attributed to Jesus were not widely documented.
7. It is reasonable to infer that such events did not take place.
Now this doesn't get us to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist at all, but it does get us part of the way there; maybe far enough. I think mythicists take on too heavy a burden. It really doesn't matter to the truth of Christianity whether Jesus was sheer myth (never existed at all), or whether his divinity was a myth (based on an existing but ordinary human).
I think your response to mythicism, itself, has a stronger emotional than historical motive. Apparently the story about John Henry entering a duel to the death with a steam drill is fiction. But the story appears to be based on a real person. Nevertheless, I doubt you would be as invested in debunking John Henry mythicists as you are in debunking Jesus mythicists. This suggests to me that the larger part of your stance is not historical. I don't have much of a problem with that, though. I just think it's worth putting out in the open.
to guys in Rime it's all the same,they were atheists
- OK. Your argument is that Jesus was just another huckster.
sorry there are ore logical choices available as a solution than (a) Jesus was a huckster or(b) he didn't exist,
- What argument are you making, Joe? It sounds like Jesus did nothing out of the ordinary.
I wrote the article answering the Philo argument,I said he spent too much time in Rome to have heard of Jesus or care about writing about him.You have not given a real answer to that
- The answer is WHO CARES? NOBODY (including Philo) found the miraculous works of Jesus worth writing about.
wrong, did you not see that long list of names?
- I don't care how many names you give me. This is the same thing evolution deniers say. It is still highly disputed. Show me the original writing of Josephus, and we can talk about what he said.
those are the major scholars most of them are not believers in the fund mental sense
- I don't care. Show me the original.
I didn't say it's modified, the version of it I quoted had boding because it shows a core passage and emendations, But there is a core and it proves Jesus existed everyone on that list agrees with hat
- You don't know what the "core" said, or even if it existed. Show me the original, or shut up.
You have bought into the idiotic atheist argent that if anyone was proven to have experienced a miracle it would be the most famous event in the world and everyone would know.But the miracles at Lourdes have good scientific backing and non one cares,they are not world famous that disproves your basic assumption
- The supposed miracles at Lourdes are widely touted by believers, and much has been written. You yourself never stop talking about them. Your argument that nobody cares is simply not true.
I answered what you said man you don;t seem to get very basic points
- I conceded from the beginning that Philo didn't have to know or care about Jesus. But you don't listen.
your arguments are based upon modern would assumption you are assuming anticline worked knowledge worked like modern knowledge it did not
- I assume only that there should be some historical traces of extraordinary events.
I argued that the structure of literate knowledge in the ancient world centered on Rome and a few other places
- There was plenty written about places other than Rome. Your argument doesn't work.
they sure as hell do everyone one of them, use your head
- Joe, read about it here. There were different ideas about the humanity and the divine nature of Jesus, including doceticism and adoptionism, which were declared heretical by the church.
Arthur as a mythical figure:
The best historical evidence today indicates that the legend of Arthur is based on a soldier in the post-Roman days of England. This soldier was heralded for his acts of valor in fending off foreign invaders. He was not a nobleman. His name was not Arthur. The name Arthur was a corruption of the phrase that referred to the soldier: arth'ur. Over time, this brave soldier became a legendary figure, whose name war Arthur, and he was not only a noblemen, but the king of England.
This is the way legends develop. They are often based on a grain of truth, but the story becomes so distorted that it loses any resemblance to historical reality. Such is undoubtedly the case with Jesus. was there some huckster who went around performing magic tricks. Quite probably. Was there somebody who went around raising people from the dead? NO.
Eric Sotnak said...
I can think of some cases where an argument from silence is actually pretty good. Here is a rough version (I'm sure it could be refined, but I just want to get the general idea across):
1. The more extraordinary and the more public an event is, the more likely it is to be widely documented.
assumes modern forms of knowledge
2. Many deeds attributed to Jesus are reputed to have been extraordinary and highly public.
3. Therefore, one would expect such deeds to have been widely documented.
4. But they were not widely documented.
5. If an event that one would expect to have been widely documented was not widely documented, then absent any plausible explanation for it's not being widely documented, it is reasonable to infer that the event did not occur.
we (Xr Apologists) have given tons of reasons why they would not be widely documented,again you assume modern forms of knowledge
6. There are no plausible explanations for why many extraordinary and highly public events attributed to Jesus were not widely documented.
yes there are they have been discussed a lot, you are not familiar with the literature-- if you read my article you would know this
7. It is reasonable to infer that such events did not take place.
Not given the the things I said above
this is not one
Now this doesn't get us to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist at all, but it does get us part of the way there; maybe far enough. I think mythicists take on too heavy a burden. It really doesn't matter to the truth of Christianity whether Jesus was sheer myth (never existed at all), or whether his divinity was a myth (based on an existing but ordinary human).
I think their psychological motivations for being mythers demand Tahiti they remove all struggle over god;'s nonexistence by eliminating Jesus from history
I think your response to mythicism, itself, has a stronger emotional than historical motive. Apparently the story about John Henry entering a duel to the death with a steam drill is fiction. But the story appears to be based on a real person. Nevertheless, I doubt you would be as invested in debunking John Henry mythicists as you are in debunking Jesus mythicists. This suggests to me that the larger part of your stance is not historical. I don't have much of a problem with that, though. I just think it's worth putting out in the open.
that is a very biased comment,you are clearly not willing to examine the the facts,you really should find an old historian and talk to him/her about his/her ejection of mytherism,you will see I';m being extremely open for an academic historian. The older guys would think of Bigfoot as more legitimate than Jesus mytherism,
7:27 AM
1. In histiry like in policy nakng the status quoe(SQ) has presumption
2. any side hypothesis with presumption is immune to criticism in so far as burden of proof (BOP)is concerned.
3. the hypothesis without presumption must bear BOP
4. presumption comes with hiostiricty
5. Histology says Jesus existed
6. history gives that hypothesis presumption
7/ therefore mythers have the burden of proof,
historians do not have the burdne to prove Jesus existed, mythers must showhedidnot
m-skeptical said...
Arthur as a mythical figure:
The best historical evidence today indicates that the legend of Arthur is based on a soldier in the post-Roman days of England. This soldier was heralded for his acts of valor in fending off foreign invaders. He was not a nobleman. His name was not Arthur. The name Arthur was a corruption of the phrase that referred to the soldier: arth'ur. Over time, this brave soldier became a legendary figure, whose name war Arthur, and he was not only a noblemen, but the king of England.
that is just argument fro analogy, usually fallacious
This is the way legends develop. They are often based on a grain of truth, but the story becomes so distorted that it loses any resemblance to historical reality. Such is undoubtedly the case with Jesus. was there some huckster who went around performing magic tricks. Quite probably. Was there somebody who went around raising people from the dead? NO.
begging question, based upon previous fallacy of argument from analogy
Such is undoubtedly the case with Jesus. was there some huckster who went around performing magic tricks. Quite probably. Was there somebody who went around raising people from the dead? NO.
basing your rejection of Jesus' historicity on your ideological bias against micles,
historians do not think this way
wrong, did you not see that long list of names?
- I don't care how many names you give me. This is the same thing evolution deniers say. It is still highly disputed. Show me the original writing of Josephus, and we can talk about what he said.
the myther I was answering gives a long list of names of Racine writers who don';t mention Jesus,so if you read my Aristotle you would know that,
you brought up Josephus as an negation to my article and I disproved your assertions about him by siting the southerly cone suss,
you must proven not me,
becauseI;m such a great gu yI;ll include Tabors trans of TF with what he thinks are thew tweaks in caps
The TF:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities 18:63-64).
Assuming that this is correct (that Josephus wrote what is in lower case), it is a chronicle of the rise of the Christian cult, and nothing more. Is says nothing of any miracles or extraordinary deeds.
that is just argument fro analogy, usually fallacious
Argument from analogy isn't fallacious per se. You have to establish why the analogy isn't relevant to the particular case to make the case that it's fallacious. Otherwise, you're committing one yourself! ;)
Argument from analogy can be fallacious, particularly if that analogy isn't applicable. It very much depends on the argument. I agree, if Joe thinks my argument is fallacious, he should explain what is wrong with it.
Actually, I wouldn't even call it an analogy. I'd call the legend of Arthur another instance of the same thing. It is the development of a legend, starting with some historical thing that is then distorted and developed into the legend, bearing only the slightest resemblance to that original fact.
im-skeptical said...
Assuming that this is correct (that Josephus wrote what is in lower case), it is a chronicle of the rise of the Christian cult, and nothing more. Is says nothing of any miracles or extraordinary deeds.
True I didn't claim it did, the only way to prove historical miracles is to find the
doctor and go back in time in the TARDIS.
why can't atheists understand the distortion between a man in sophistry and the narrative about him?
th Stooge said...
that is just argument fro analogy, usually fallacious
Argument from analogy isn't fallacious per se. You have to establish why the analogy isn't relevant to the particular case to make the case that it's fallacious. Otherwise, you're committing one yourself! ;)
wrong. the person advancing the argument always has the burden to prove the argument,the fact that the argent turns on drawing an analogy makes it suspect,
I agree Jim that there is a possibility of an argument from analogy that not fallacious but I bet you can't give me an example I can't,
im-skeptical said...
Argument from analogy can be fallacious, particularly if that analogy isn't applicable. It very much depends on the argument. I agree, if Joe thinks my argument is fallacious, he should explain what is wrong with it.
Actually, I wouldn't even call it an analogy. I'd call the legend of Arthur another instance of the same thing. It is the development of a legend, starting with some historical thing that is then distorted and developed into the legend, bearing only the slightest resemblance to that original fact.
you can't demonstrate why it's another entrance of the same thing without begging the question.
analogy is not proof,it can't be proof,to show argument is proof you have to transcend the analogy and show there's a causal connection
Ok here is an analogy. In 1880s a scientist went out i Africa to disprove the existence of a creature the natives had told him about an upright walking hair covered creature that was man-like but not a man. The natives ca;'t be right because they are superstitious.To his Mamet he found the best, brought back it;s head the significant world accepted the discovery, it;s called "Gorilla."
In 1912 the same thing happened again, it proves the existence of a the giant Panda.
Now if I draw analogy to the case of bigfoot does this prove bigfoot exists?
Actually, I wouldn't even call it an analogy. I'd call the legend of Arthur another instance of the same thing. It is the development of a legend, starting with some historical thing that is then distorted and developed into the legend, bearing only the slightest resemblance to that original fact.
first you have to prove that;s what is going on with Jesus, but this is your proof so it;s really begging the question,a form of circular reasoning,
wrong. the person advancing the argument always has the burden to prove the argument,the fact that the argent turns on drawing an analogy makes it suspect
- OK. You brought up the (supposed) miracles at Lourdes in the context of why there are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus' miraculous deeds. Now prove to me how that makes your case for Jesus.
first you have to prove that;s what is going on with Jesus, but this is your proof so it;s really begging the question,a form of circular reasoning
- I raised Arthur as an illustration of how legends develop. I'm not saying that proves that Jesus was merely a legend. If that were the case, it would indeed be begging the question. I'm saying that this is an example of how these things work in reality, where you don't have the baggage of religious ideology standing between you and what you are willing to believe. It tells us that there is a possible, and in fact likely explanation for the stories we see today. And it is FAR MORE believable than your explanation.
m-skeptical said...
wrong. the person advancing the argument always has the burden to prove the argument,the fact that the argent turns on drawing an analogy makes it suspect
- OK. You brought up the (supposed) miracles at Lourdes in the context of why there are no contemporary historical accounts of Jesus' miraculous deeds. Now prove to me how that makes your case for Jesus.
It's so hard for you to follow an argument.I did not say Lourdes proves Jesus. I used it to prove that the appearance of a "true miracle": would not make one world famous or stop the presses around the world, it hasn't happened with Lourdes, the evidence for the is good, It doesn't prove it but it is good,yet they don't have the effect you claim a real miracle would have,
first you have to prove that;s what is going on with Jesus, but this is your proof so it;s really begging the question,a form of circular reasoning
- I raised Arthur as an illustration of how legends develop.
you must assume Jesus is a legend for it to be analogous, then you point to it to prove it's a legond which is circular,
I'm not saying that proves that Jesus was merely a legend. If that were the case, it would indeed be begging the question. I'm saying that this is an example of how these things work in reality, where you don't have the baggage of religious ideology standing between you and what you are willing to believe. It tells us that there is a possible, and in fact likely explanation for the stories we see today. And it is FAR MORE believable than your explanation.
you are still assuming it;snot real which begging the question
It's so hard for you to follow an argument.I did not say Lourdes proves Jesus. I used it to prove that the appearance of a "true miracle": would not make one world famous
- But you're totally wrong about that. Lourdes IS famous, and there HAS BEEN plenty written about it. You say "Nobody cares", but that's not true at all. I really don't see how this makes your point. If I can't follow your argument, it's only because your argument doesn't make sense. There's no logic to it.
you must assume Jesus is a legend for it to be analogous, then you point to it to prove it's a legend which is circular
- I told you I wasn't making an analogy. This is simply an illustration of what happens in reality. There is no assumption involved, except the assumptions YOU make.
you are still assuming it;snot real which begging the question
- Joe, when you read what I say, you hear this: "ATHEIST!!! FALLACIES!!! FALSE ASSUMPTIONS!!! NO LOGIC!!! NO TRUTH!!!" Why don't you try listening to my arguments and respond to them, rather than giving me your standard kneejerk reactions?
m-skeptical said...
It's so hard for you to follow an argument.I did not say Lourdes proves Jesus. I used it to prove that the appearance of a "true miracle": would not make one world famous
- But you're totally wrong about that. Lourdes IS famous, and there HAS BEEN plenty written about it. You say "Nobody cares", but that's not true at all. I really don't see how this makes your point. If I can't follow your argument, it's only because your argument doesn't make sense. There's no logic to it.
People know about Lourdes very few major intellectuals haven written about it they have not talked about it in scientific journal
you are assuming that people in ancient Roe would have heard abouit Jesus a would talk about him, But they did not care what happened in Palestine, they only cared about people who dressed the senate, the intellectuals the people philo hung out with would not care,,
you must assume Jesus is a legend for it to be analogous, then you point to it to prove it's a legend which is circular
- I told you I wasn't making an analogy. This is simply an illustration of what happens in reality. There is no assumption involved, except the assumptions YOU make.
You have no knowledge you are assuming the ancient world worked like the modern world
you are still assuming it;snot real which begging the question
- Joe, when you read what I say, you hear this: "ATHEIST!!! FALLACIES!!! FALSE ASSUMPTIONS!!! NO LOGIC!!! NO TRUTH!!!" Why don't you try listening to my arguments and respond to them, rather than giving me your standard kneejerk reactions?
how can you make a sentence that alludes to "that kind of thing: and claim you are not making assumptions?
Jesus' historicity is established historical fact,
Obviously, that doesn't include many aspects of the Gospel stories like doing miracles, messianic standing, and maybe even Intimations of divinity.
But which and how many facts are widely accepted by the broad base of historians?
Who is the historian-consensual Jesus?
Just wanted you to know I've been sick, but did get a chance to read your article now, Joe. Don't really want to get involved in the argument, but I do agree that the vast majority of historians today, Christian or not, agree that Jesus was almost certainly a real person who lived in Palestine circa 1 C.E. If a person who is accustomed to considering expert consensus refuses to do so in this case, it smacks of ideology.
People know about Lourdes very few major intellectuals haven written about it they have not talked about it in scientific journal
you are assuming that people in ancient Roe would have heard abouit Jesus a would talk about him, But they did not care what happened in Palestine, they only cared about people who dressed the senate, the intellectuals the people philo hung out with would not care
- Listen to what I'm saying, Joe. I didn't say anything about people in Roe, or about scientific journals. What I said is that SOMEBODY would would have written SOMETHING about all those miraculous events, which supposedly go well beyond faith-healing tricks. They include raising people from the dead. There is not one contemporary mention of these things anywhere. And there ARE many stories about supposed miracles at Lourdes, no matter how much you insist that there aren't. I don't expect them to be in scientific journals. But they exist, unlike stories about Jesus' miracles.
You have no knowledge you are assuming the ancient world worked like the modern world
- I am NOT talking about the modern world. I said nothing about modern journals or the Six O'clock News (those are things that YOU brought up). The legend of Arthur arose only a few centuries later.
how can you make a sentence that alludes to "that kind of thing: and claim you are not making assumptions?
- "That kind of thing" is the fact that legends arise. That's not an assumption. It's a fact.
esus' historicity is established historical fact,
Obviously, that doesn't include many aspects of the Gospel stories like doing miracles, messianic standing, and maybe even Intimations of divinity.
But which and how many facts are widely accepted by the broad base of historians?
Who is the historian-consensual Jesus?
5:19 PM
he existed that's the issue
Kristen I;e got people New mexico praying for you
Okay, that would mean there really was some kind of Jewish leader-spiritual teacher-rebel figure around the year 30 who was put to death by crucifixtion?
Granted that Then, does that validate the Synoptics (or some other set of docs) as a good broad view, at least (or at least, in part) of this figure's actual teachings and beliefs in the eyes of most historians?
Kristen I;e got people New mexico praying for you
Thanks Joe! Gradually getting better...
Post a Comment