How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The dismissal of the counter-argument is "any history book...", an appeal to authority of the type that is actually fallacious (it appeals not to any actual authority nor to anything nor demonstrates that there is any such authority

I was making no appeal to authority that I would need to cite references for.

That's what makes it fallacious. When one appeals to scholarship one is implicitly appealing to the arguments not only made by an expert but to the community of experts who (once the piece has passed review) are then able to really review it. It is an appeal to the arguments, not some nebulous collection of "any history book" or "historian" but specific sources making specific arguments based on specific evidence & logic and which are evaluated by similar experts making similar arguments and counter arguments.

You mistake the fallacy for valid argumentation and substitute it for the actual fallacy.

Ironically, I can't demonstrate this as (having already cited sources on argumentation, logic, and fallacies by experts) I can't refer to real arguments by experts without being dismissed with your "appeal to authority" nonsense while you can make whatever claim you like an appeal to "any history book", "historians" (whom you refuse to name), and any other claim you wish because you base these on nothing. Given your understanding of what constitutes an "appeal to authority", one could simply say "studies show" and follow this by any claim wished so long as one didn't actually have to cite any studies.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Yet again you repeat yourself lke a demented parrot.

Have a go at attacking the TOPIC, you appear to be incapable of doing so.

The TOPIC Legion

But of course the point I was making about Wallace you are not even challenging - in fact you have supported it. So you repeat these silly attacks because you can not refute a point that you are not contesting because you have confirmed it to be correct. Better to repeat whatever worthless accusations you have posted 50 times before I guess - given that the point under contention you do not dispute.

Perhaps another long, long lecture about my education? Or you could repeat the 'appeal to authority' rant for the umpteenth time?

Oh I know.....why not pretend that I am defining a word wrong?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Have a go at attacking the TOPIC, you appear to be incapable of doing so.

I have. Repeatedly. It is impossible, though, to address any topic when the other side refuses to play even by his or her own rules (as you've aptly demonstrated). It thus boils down not to addressing the topic when one already has but the ways in which counter-arguments are flawed in essence and by nature, regardless of their particular applicability to Jesus.

I've offered you arguments and allowed you opportunity to you have thus far failed to tack advantage of to support your claims.

So when you offer a goldmine like your claims about William Wallace, this is MORE than addressing the topic. It addresses historical methods, our sources, and your utter inability to honestly represent anything remotely resembling a knowledge of either.

Otherwise, you'd have offered some comparison for our sources for Wallace relative to Jesus when first the opportunity presented itself.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Have a go at attacking the TOPIC, you appear to be incapable of doing so.

The TOPIC Legion

I have. When you address the arguments I've presented which are VERY specific and VERY SPECIFIC TO this topic, then talk to me about addressing it. If you'd like me to refer you to the numerous posts I dedicated to this topic alone (including those which required several posts due to your dismissal of any argument which refers to scholarship despite, apparently, your opinion that nebulous references to unnamed historians or "any history books" aren't fallacious), I'll do so. I'll even refer back to those before you joined this forum. Hell, I nearly started with an extensive paper that, albeit one I wrote as an undergrad, addressed virtually everything you've ever raised and you dismissed it in a sentence without reference to anything in it (as you have all arguments).

 

[Shuttlecraft]

And AGAIN you are wrong! I already explained Zechariah a couple of posts back..

DUCK! here comes shot number 6..
The Old Testament prophesies the Messiah would be preceded by a messenger-
(Isaiah 40:3) says:
"A voice of one calling In the desert 'prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God"

Fulfilled in New Testament (Matthew 3:1-2)-
"In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea, and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near"

6-0, he shoots, he scores!..

 

[Bunyip]

I have. Repeatedly. It is impossible, though, to address any topic when the other side refuses to play even by his or her own rules (as you've aptly demonstrated). It thus boils down not to addressing the topic when one already has but the ways in which counter-arguments are flawed in essence and by nature, regardless of their particular applicability to Jesus.

I've offered you arguments and allowed you opportunity to you have thus far failed to tack advantage of to support your claims.

So when you offer a goldmine like your claims about William Wallace, this is MORE than addressing the topic. It addresses historical methods, our sources, and your utter inability to honestly represent anything remotely resembling a knowledge of either.

Otherwise, you'd have offered some comparison for our sources for Wallace relative to Jesus when first the opportunity presented itself.

You mean the claim I made about Wallace that you have confirmed and are not disputing? You are attacking my authority for making that that claim, not the claim. The claim you do not contest. The rest is blow.

I am not about to offer a comparison for our sources for Wallace relative to Jesus BECAUSE I MADE NO SUCH COMPARISON. That was not my argument.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Did somebody mention Wallace? Ask any English man in the street and he'll tell you Wallace was a troublemaker who should have just sat with his feet up in Scotland instead of invading England.
He asked for trouble and he got it at the hands of Edward I "The Hammer of the Scots" (below)..

 

[Bunyip]

I have. When you address the arguments I've presented which are VERY specific and VERY SPECIFIC TO this topic, then talk to me about addressing it. If you'd like me to refer you to the numerous posts I dedicated to this topic alone (including those which required several posts due to your dismissal of any argument which refers to scholarship despite, apparently, your opinion that nebulous references to unnamed historians or "any history books" aren't fallacious), I'll do so. I'll even refer back to those before you joined this forum. Hell, I nearly started with an extensive paper that, albeit one I wrote as an undergrad, addressed virtually everything you've ever raised and you dismissed it in a sentence without reference to anything in it (as you have all arguments).

Your arguments are worse than your insults.

Your endless citations and arguments attack claims that you invented, not that I ever made. Reading endless dissertations where you bombastically ridicule me over a claim you have invented on my behalf is not a convincing demonstration of your claimed expertise.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You mean the claim I made about Wallace that you have confirmed and are not disputing?

No. I mean its relation to having "a go at attacking the TOPIC". What about our evidence for Wallace warrants your claims relative to our evidence for Jesus? Here's your attitude when it comes to Wallace:

What I said about Walllace is well understood in Scotland, go read a book and stop being rude. Look up Wallace and find out yourself instead of insulting me out of your ignorance. Wallace is a historical figure about whom many myths are attached. Any history book on him will confirm for you what I said.

You suggest that those who don't accept Wallace's historicity are so ignorant that all which need be said to address such assertions is ""go read a book". Yet you start an entire thread about our evidence for Jesus historicity (or certainty thereof) and have elsewhere spoken repeatedly about our reasons to doubt and have never once indicated in any sense at any time that you think of our evidence for Jesus as anything but trivial compared to Wallace. How assuredly you insult one who questions Wallace's historicity, yet you started an entire thread when it comes to Jesus? Are capable of comparing our evidence for them or not?

 

[Bunyip]

No. I mean its relation to having "a go at attacking the TOPIC". What about our evidence for Wallace warrants your claims relative to our evidence for Jesus? Here's your attitude when it comes to Wallace:

You suggest that those who don't accept Wallace's historicity are so ignorant that all which need be said to address such assertions is ""go read a book".

Legion, you are just inventing increasingly silly and dishonest strawmen. The conversation you are referring to was one in which the other person was not even questioning Wallace's historicity. They were questioning the mythical aspect NOT Wallace's historicity.

Yet you start an entire thread about our evidence for Jesus historicity (or certainty thereof) and have elsewhere spoken repeatedly about our reasons to doubt and have never once indicated in any sense at any time that you think of our evidence for Jesus as anything but trivial compared to Wallace. How assuredly you insult one who questions Wallace's historicity, yet you started an entire thread when it comes to Jesus? Are capable of comparing our evidence for them or not?

Nobody here actually challenged the historicity of Wallace Legion. You are the world expert in going off half cocked. I didn't insult anyone who questioned Wallace's historicity - BECAUSE NOBOBY HERE HAS DONE SO..

 

[Ingledsva]

Here's a 5th OT prophecy that was fulfilled, this one refers to the betrayal money thrown in the temple by Judas and used for a potters field-
Old Testament (Zechariah 11:13) says:
"And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter", the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter"

New Testament (Matthew 27:5-7) fulfils it-
"Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners"

That makes the score 5-0 to me so far!
Wait, I feel a catchphrase coming on-

Shuttlecraft: he shoots, he scores!..

Since you just keep posting the same crap that has already been proven FALSE - I decided to repost the answer from several pages back - that prove you wrong.

NOTE IT IS FIRST PERSON, - NO FUTURE Prophecy!

Again - Zechariah is not about Jesus!


Zec 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.

Zec 11:11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of YHVH.

Zec 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Zec 11:13 And YHVH said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: the goodly price that I was apprised at by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.


*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, you are just inventing increasingly silly and dishonest strawmen. The conversation you are referring to was one in which the other person was not even questioning Wallace's historicity.

Which is utterly irrelevant to my point, which was you surety when it comes Wallace despite an utter lack of evidence and the creation of a thread about our evidence for the historical Jesus (about which you are likewise ignorant).

I don't care if someone else claimed William Wallace was JFK reborn as The Highlander. I'm addressing the topic. Your assertions about our reason to think of Wallace in the ways that you do contradict the entirety of your purpose here. They make your thread not only irrelevant, but dismissed if you would only pick up "any history book".

They were questioning the mythical aspect NOT Wallace's historicity.

I'M addressing the TOPIC, and your argument (or lack thereof).

Can you substantiate your claims about Wallace such that you can defend not only what you've said of our evidence for Jesus but this entire thread or can't you?

Nobody here actually challenged the historicity of Wallace Legion.

THAT'S THE POINT. I tried to make it to you before, when I made mock arguments to show that you had to rely on historians for evidence that Caesar existed, but you've provided something far superior.

Rather than an emperor, you've insulted the idea that we need but pick up "any history book" to learn that Wallace is an historical figure. You've picked a legend about whom entire works are devoted to showing how he is but myth and for which we have nothing comparable to the evidence we have for Jesus.

So, address your own topic. Why should we think Wallace historical but wonder about Jesus? Why the reason for your insulting surety in the former case but the need for an entire thread for the latter?

I didn't insult anyone who questioned Wallace's historicity - BECAUSE NOBOBY HERE HAS DONE SO..

Let me clarify: you insulted someone AND made claims about Wallace's historicity indirect conflict with your entire approach to the historical Jesus that motivated this thread:

What I said about Walllace is well understood in Scotland, go read a book and stop being rude. Look up Wallace and find out yourself instead of insulting me out of your ignorance. Wallace is a historical figure about whom many myths are attached. Any history book on him will confirm for you what I said.

You suggest that those who don't accept Wallace's historicity are so ignorant that all which need be said to address such assertions is ""go read a book".

"You suggest". You do in fact suggest that anybody who questions the view that Wallace was historical but about whom legends grew need but "read a book". You would do well to take your own advice.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

"You suggest". You do in fact suggest that anybody who questions the view that Wallace was historical but about whom legends grew need but "read a book". You would do well to take your own advice.

Which is a repeat of an error I have already addressed. No Legion, I did not say or suggest anythingmof the sort. The question of the historicity of Wallace was never raised until you invented it and pretended that I had.

__________________

Rather than an emperor, you've insulted the idea that we need but pick up "any history book" to learn that Wallace is an historical figure.

And again, you repeat the same false accusation. No Legion, the conversation you were responding to does not at any point raise the issue of Wallace's historicity.

You made a mistake Legion. What I said about Wallace was that he was a historical figure upon whom layers of myth attached - the person I was speaking to was objecting to my claim that there was a MYTHICAL COMPONANT, not that he was historical.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

So, address your own topic. Why should we think Wallace historical but wonder about Jesus? Why the reason for your insulting surety in the former case but the need for an entire thread for the latter?

Why indeed Legion? My position is that we can and should question the historicity of both of them. There is no surety for the historicity of Wallace either. My 'insulting surety' is your invention Legion - I have no surety in this case, nor did I claim to have.

I identified Wallace specifically BECAUSE his historicity is not well established - there is evidence for it, but it is uncertain, and upon whose legend many later embellishments were added. Not as an unquestioned example of proven historicity as you appear to have deluded yourself into imagining. But as another example of a figure in history likely to have been based upon a real person - but upon whom are layers of myth.

Just as Jesus is a figure in history likely to be based upon a real person (or several) and upon whom are layers of myth.

 

[Ingledsva]

DUCK! here comes shot number 6..
The Old Testament prophesies the Messiah would be preceded by a messenger-
(Isaiah 40:3) says:
"A voice of one calling In the desert 'prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God"

Fulfilled in New Testament (Matthew 3:1-2)-
"In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea, and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near"

6-0, he shoots, he scores!..

AGAIN BULL! It actually says -


Isa 40:1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.


Isa 40:2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of YHVH's hand double for all her sins.


Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of YHVH, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.


Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:


Isa 40:5 And the glory of YHVH shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of YHVH hath spoken it.


As you can see - this is about YHVH, not some future Jesus! But they sure try to fudge it - by putting "Lord" instead of YHVH!


*

 

[Sonofason]

You can take his word for it, that's pretty common knowledge possessed by most High School students.

I don't think so. Prove it.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..you just keep posting the same crap that has already been proven FALSE..

I've told you before honeybun, your words would carry more weight if you'd tell us who and what you are instead of hiding under the bed like a little girly-wirly..
Until then, people will suspect you're just a commie or muslim or satanist etc kneejerkingly spouting the usual run-of-the-mill anti-christian propaganda..

 

[Ingledsva]

..you just keep posting the same crap that has already been proven FALSE..

I've told you before honeybun, your words would carry more weight if you'd tell us who and what you are instead of hiding under the bed like a little girly-wirly..
Until then, people will suspect you're just a commie or muslim or satanist etc kneejerkingly spouting the usual run-of-the-mill anti-christian propaganda..

LOL! More CRAP!


Obviously not a follower of the religions of Abraham, Not a commie, and why in the world would I follow Satan, whom is an evil deity in the Christian pantheon.


It is quite interesting that when you cannot rebut the rebuttal, you start making slapstick comments, and posting huge pictures, and trying to imply that you have to know who a person is, for their rebuttal to hold weight. Not so. - The rebuttal just has to be correct.


it is hilarious that you are on a debate site, - calling logical, - and CORRECT, - rebuttal, - propaganda.


However, - the truth is -


that I have been posting the actual texts - in context - to PROVE that you are wrong.


You on the other hand, - are just grabbing a mistranslated/misunderstood verse OUT OF CONTEXT, - and then adding the Christian verses, written after the SUPPOSED Jesus events (let alone the Tanakh events,) by people that were not there, and were searching for anything to make Jesus look like the legitimate "Jewish" Messiah.



*

 

[`mud]

hey Ingledsva,
I don't know what version of the Old Testament Shuttlebarge is reading,
but he somehow is getting Matthew's poor memory of Isaiah confused with real myths of that time.
Further argument with this person seems to be fruitless, like his version of scripture.
~
Any....I'd give more frags but they won't let me at this time....
:clap
~
'mud

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've told you before honeybun, your words would carry more weight if you'd tell us who and what you are instead of hiding under the bed like a little girly-wirly..
Until then, people will suspect you're just a commie or muslim or satanist etc kneejerkingly spouting the usual run-of-the-mill anti-christian propaganda..

That was simply repulsive.