logician
Well-Known Member
It seems to be important enough for people to insist that historisty doesnt need to be concurrent, but can depend upon hearsay, i.e. you can change the rules of the game if you have an axe to grind.
Nuff said.
-
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?
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
It seems to be important enough for people to insist that historisty doesnt need to be concurrent, but can depend upon hearsay, i.e. you can change the rules of the game if you have an axe to grind.
Nuff said.
Apparently you don't even understand the rules of the game (or discipline). Historical studies have always made use of reports from other people. Eyewitness reports aren't the only type of evidence. Even in court.
logician
Well-Known Member
Maybe you've never been in a court. Hearsay evidence cannot be used to convict a person, because by definition it is not reliable. It is illogical to think it BECOMES MORE reliable when you go back in time 2000 years, and records become even more shrouded in their source, and who might have had access to them as far as forgeries are concerned.
Hearsay in United States law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nice try though. Even your bad analogy fails you.
Courts aren't just about finding out what most likely happened. They are about making sure as much as possible the innocent don't get convicted. History isn't. It is ONLY about what most likely happened, and therefore any evidence can be judged on those grounds alone. Hearsay evidence is not as great as first hand evidence. My grandfather was in wwII. I've heard lots of information from him about his experiences. If I were to relate this information to a historian or journalist, who was interested in my now deceased grandfather's experiences, they could use it. Why? Because hearsay contains a great deal of good information.
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
How many times do you want to repeat this fallacious statement? I've explained more than once that hearsay is allowed in court. Also, we are not talking about a court of law. Apples and oranges. Hell, by what you're saying, much of what we know about any historical figure then is not reliable.
None. Why? Because history isn't about determing whether or not someone is guilty. I wouldn't apply confidentiality policies to history either. Eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable and hearsay testimony can be very reliable. The gospels are clearly not reliable in many ways. But again, even someone like bultmann who determined that virtually none of it could be said to go back to the historical jesus recognized that you can't explain the movement without Jesus. Which is why mythicists are relegated to doing things like claiming mark invented a new genre, Paul was referring to some imaginary title when he was talking about James, Josephus' passage must be an interpolation because otherwise we have a problem with the mythicists explanation, and so on.
Of course, Bultmann was wrong. The gospels are more reliable than he believed, because for one thing you can't apply folkloric transmission to the oral Jesus tradition. It really doesn't matter as far as the historical Jesus is concerned.
Still waiting on your analysis of Paul's reference to James and your explanation on why using kurios rather than adelphos is significant.
Oberon says, "Courts aren't just about finding out what most likely happened. They are about making sure as much as possible the innocent don't get convicted."
The only way to make sure as much as possible the innocent don't get convicted is by finding out what happened.
No it isn't. It's to bias the system in favor of letting the guilty go rather than convicting the innocent. Which is exactly what happens. Take, for example, not only the standard of evidence which must be presented, but what it must amount to in the end: beyond any reasonable doubt. Not "he most likely killed her" but "there is no reasonable person who could think otherwise."
Courts are not designed just to find out what most likely happened. They have a jury of peers rather than people trained in the law and police procedures. They will deliberately exclude evidence which makes it clear the person is guilty if the evidence was obtained improperly. If some historian came across an ancient manuscript by some historian which was previously unknown, s/he wouldn't not use it if it had been stolen.
Courts are not designed around the same principles or with the same purpose as historical studies. It would seem this would be obvious, but apparently when your one has to contend with actual historians about history, virtually all of whom disagree with one's conclusion, the only recourse is to bring in methods from things like the legal system and pretend they are historical methods.
Still waiting on your analysis of Paul's statement about James. Or for you to admit your conclusion isn't based on any real knowledge at all, but on your assumption that Jesus was a myth.
Last edited:
1) Reference?
2) United states has one of the most diverse populations of countries which keep track of such statistics
3) What I said was true of the entire west, not just the US. The legal system simply isn't after "what happened." When you can explain why evidence in historical studes which is definite is thrown out because it was not obtained according to certain standards, or when it histoircal data must be interpreted by peers, or when the only important conclusion is one which is beyond any reasonable doubt, then by all means make comparisons between the two.
Still waiting on your analysis of Paul's statement about James. Or for you to admit your conclusion isn't based on any real knowledge at all, but on your assumption that Jesus was a myth.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'm blue.
outhouse
Atheistically
and 12 blue jurors or the majority of blue jurors might see things blue in a close case. by courts standards.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I should hope so.
mjgpgh
Member
The answer to this question is a yes, Jesus existed, but only as a man, he was a rabbi, and was married to Mary Magdeline, they had children, this was the start of the Merovingian Bloodline, the same bloodline that is in power behind the curtains today. You don't really believe Obama runs the country do you?
The bible was altered to make it seem that Christ was a man, which is so wrong, the Christ or Kristos refers to Pineal Gland Activation, (you know, that thing in the center of our brain that they told us they have no idea what it's for) Jesus, "the man" was persecuted, and crucified, for teaching his fellow man this knowledge. OUT OF BODY
Jesus wanted man to know how to connect with the creator, the creator source, because we our also part of that source, we are the creator, and the created. And you my brothers and sisters, are all one with me, as I am one with you, we are one conciousness divided, and we are infinite.
The bible was altered to make it seem that Christ was a man, which is so wrong, the Christ or Kristos refers to Pineal Gland Activation, (you know, that thing in the center of our brain that they told us they have no idea what it's for) Jesus, "the man" was persecuted, and crucified, for teaching his fellow man this knowledge. OUT OF BODY
Jesus wanted man to know how to connect with the creator, the creator source, because we our also part of that source, we are the creator, and the created. And you my brothers and sisters, are all one with me, as I am one with you, we are one conciousness divided, and we are infinite.