• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

did jesus exist?

dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
outhouse said:
ONLY for certain context, this does not apply for all work and scholars as stated are not the definitive answer.

Theres still allot of gray areas, scholars are not filling these in ATM and until further material is found if ever you still have a mystery that leans according to the bandwagon at a historicle jesus of which we know nothing about.

the fact the material we have is religious in nature and copys many parts of other religions. This makes the material much less credibal as a whole.

what you want to argue theres gray areas?
Click to expand...
A (historical) Jesus of the gaps.
 
Last edited:
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
outhouse said:
ONLY for certain context, this does not apply for all work and scholars as stated are not the definitive answer.
Click to expand...

No, apparently for you the definitive answer is to find websites full of errors and ignore the work of the people who know what they are talking about.

Theres still allot of gray areas
Click to expand...

Of course there are. Jesus' historicity isn't one of the. Why do you think it is that, after 2 centuries, all the experts thousands of experts in ancient history (NT studies, classics, near eastern studies, jewish studies, etc) think that there is enough evidence to say with historical certainty that Jesus existed (save maybe a half dozen)? Why do you think that all those who are publishing, online or in sensationalist books, theories backing the Jesus is a myth hypothesis are either not experts in any field at all or are specialists in unrelated fields?
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
Why do you think it is that, after 2 centuries, all the experts thousands of experts in ancient history (NT studies, classics, near eastern studies, jewish studies, etc) think that there is enough evidence to say with historical certainty that Jesus existed (save maybe a half dozen)? Why do you think that all those who are publishing, online or in sensationalist books, theories backing the Jesus is a myth hypothesis are either not experts in any field at all or are specialists in unrelated fields?
Click to expand...



images



Get Aboard the Bandwagon
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
About 9 point nine tenths of all the so called experts are believers in a Judaic-Christian faith. No bias there.
 
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
dogsgod said:
Get Aboard the Bandwagon
Click to expand...

You realize you are misusing this fallacy right? Appealing to scholarly consensus (rather than just the popular view or a public consensus) is not the bandwagon fallacy. Because you aren't simply appealing to views of people but to scholarly arguments.



Oberon said:
For some time now, I have seen many posters respond to particular points by citing classical logical fallacies like the argument from authority or bandwagon fallacy (argumentum ad polulum). The problem is, these appeals to logical fallacies are frequently misused. Most frequently, I have seen these fallacies appealled to when scholarly consensus or unanimity is cited in support for an argument.

For example, the question on whether Jesus existed or not has come up again and again on this forum. In every thread, at least once, someone (myself included) notes that virtually all experts agree that Jesus existed. The response is often for someone to shout "argument from authority!!!" or "bandwagon theory!!!"

Both of these are incorrect appeals.

The argument from authority and the bandwagon fallacy are sometimes both referred to as argumentum ad populum, although there are differences. The argument from authority basically says just because an authority says X doesn't make X true. The bandwagon fallacy simply means just because a lot of people believe X doesn't make X true.

Now, it is certainly true that citing scholarly consensus doesn't make one correct, as the consensus can (and has been) wrong.

However, there is an important difference between the above fallacies and citing scholarly consensus.

Consensus is not just a lot of people (or even a lot of experts) saying X is true. It is built on accumulated knowledge and arguments which go through an extensive testing process:

1) Professor Y researches X topic in great detail and determines A, B, & C.
2) Professor Y submits his work to a peer-reviewed journal or academic press.
3) His work is reviewed by other people who are experts in that field.
4) If it is up to snuff, it becomes part of scholarly literature.

However, the process only begins there. Once published, experts from all over review the work and come up with counter arguments or supporting arguments (or both, e.g. supporting A & B but not C). These arguments also go through the above 4 steps in order to become part of scholarly literature.

A consensus not simply from a general agreement among experts but agreement based on these accumulated and intensely reviewed arguments.

In other words, appealing to consensus is NOT appealing to either an authority or many authorities, but an appeal to the accumulated arguments made to form the consensus.

This is a HUGE difference bewteen appealing to consensus and simply saying "X is true because professors A, B, & C say so or "most people believe it to be true (the bandwagon fallacy or the argument from authority).
Click to expand...
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
its funny all this arguement is :bow:

this gray area leans this way

No! this gray area leans this way.

since material at hand is religion based, and no religion has ever been honest and never has anything more then a myth to base there beliefs off of.

There is no credibility in historical jesus, the scholars in general believe something existed of which very little can be said.

Like it or not that does sum it all up.
 
Last edited:
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
You realize you are misusing this fallacy right? Appealing to scholarly consensus (rather than just the popular view or a public consensus) is not the bandwagon fallacy. Because you aren't simply appealing to views of people but to scholarly arguments.
Click to expand...
But your not appealing to scholarly arguments, you are appealing to authority and to popularity. Two fallacies in one. Not to mention ad nauseum.
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
The following is a textbook case for the bandwagon fallacy and the appeal to authority fallacy because no other argument is being made. It is correct to appeal to the proper authority in that one would be wise to consult with a an auto mechanic rather than a dentist if one had car trouble, but that's as far as it goes. The same applies to scholarship. They're are authorities as it pertains to scholarship, but their respective arguments must be brought to light before such broad claims of the historicity of this Jesus character can be supported.


Oberon said:
Why do you think it is that, after 2 centuries, all the experts thousands of experts in ancient history (NT studies, classics, near eastern studies, jewish studies, etc) think that there is enough evidence to say with historical certainty that Jesus existed (save maybe a half dozen)? Why do you think that all those who are publishing, online or in sensationalist books, theories backing the Jesus is a myth hypothesis are either not experts in any field at all or are specialists in unrelated fields?
Click to expand...
 
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
dogsgod said:
They're are authorities as it pertains to scholarship, but their respective arguments must be brought to light before such broad claims of the historicity of this Jesus character can be supported.
Click to expand...


They aren't hidden away in a cave. You just haven't bothered to read them. There is a massive amount of scholarship out there on the subject, yet rather than attempted a balanced investigation of it the bulk of your reading isn't scholarship at all or even written by experts. The only experts you have mentioned are all pretty extreme in there views.
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
They aren't hidden away in a cave. You just haven't bothered to read them. There is a massive amount of scholarship out there on the subject, yet rather than attempted a balanced investigation of it the bulk of your reading isn't scholarship at all or even written by experts. The only experts you have mentioned are all pretty extreme in there views.
Click to expand...
They may as well as be hidden away in a cave as long as you make appeals to authority and popularity ad nauseum.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Oberon said:
1) Angellous can read greek. So he can actually follow arguments based on analysis of the greek
2) There is a difference between reading any book which happens to summarize info on Q, even if it was written by an expert like Crossan or Mack, and reading a book (in any language) which is intended to explain in detail the arguments for Q and/or Markan priority. You haven't read these, nor have you read the works expressing the minority view, so you aren't even familiar with the detailed arguments for or against, let alone able to evaluate them
3) You accept Q and Markan priority not out of some critical investigation but because a few books told you that it is widely accepted by experts, and as it doesn't go against your preconceived views, you were more than happy to jump on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...

To be clear, "The Critical Edition of Q" is the reconstruction of Q itself from the Synoptics and the Gospel of Thomas (and perhaps the Ergeton Gospel). So we have a text of Q for the first time with critical notes and translation.
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
The oldest Buddhist writings reveal one with a scientific outlook, centuries ahead of his time, but the religion that follows is, well, religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top