-
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!
How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
- Thread starter Bunyip
- Start date
- Status
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
I knew somebody would say that!
Rest assured I get plenty of hate mail such as this..
-Faeshadow to me -"there are no words for the depth of ignorance and depravity that your mindset displays"
PeterM quote - "Mick, your posts are so full of BS I await to here you mooing. You are obviously one paranoid individual who has delusions of grandeur, and these are the least of your problems.....You do realise you're a ****?"
Veritasbellum to me - "..inane drivel, as the majority of your posts are......I pity you but I don't hate you......You put me off Christianity and you are definately a phoney Christian"
Steve H - "Micks a narrow-minded unchristian unqualified know-nothing silly little man and work-shy racist layabout"
Cymba - "Micks an unchristian aggressive liar showing no fruits of the spirit"
Zeke - "Micks wrong wrong wrong and denies Gods word"
Christian Trucker Pat - "Micks proud,arrogant,self-glorifying, uncharitable,offensive,lacking understanding and talking drivel"
Linda -"Mick's a silly little Brit"
Gloryboundd - "Mick's a senile liar and fool"
Elbown - "Mick you put me off Christianity and i'm a Christian"
SheriNuwine - "Mick you come across as a pervert,do you like cheeky little minxes who play with dollies?"
Sunami -"Mick...the lazy workshy parasite that you are"
Rev Eric Potts- "You disgust me Mick"
Papdotcom to me - "You are one crazy sob"
Toolate quote to me - "Everybody thinks you are an idiot.....atheists don't hate you, just find you laughable........What crimes are you planning now? More race hate?"
RomanticHorror to me - "you sick *******"
CreationFallacy quote to me - "Your posts remind me of local radio stations. Same old boring **** over and over again"
ZenAgain to me -"you wander off into drug induced metaphore.......I could tell by your posts that dementia was setting in"
PaganSunflower to me -"you have not fooled those on this board with even a shred of intelligence"
LanceT quote - "Mick try not to be a **** all your life, eh?"
ZaZen quote - "Mick is like horse manure. You either stand in it or are sensible and avoid it."
OldyOneCanardly to me - "you are just an ignorant, bigotted, anti- semite with fascist and racist tendencies .....nothing of intelligence to contribute to anything or anybody ...........you big loser in life"
Dm2473 quote to me - "The fact that I'm Jewish and you're a Christian has nothing to do with the fact that you are a boorish, small minded, shallow, nincompoop"
Junoth quote to me - "What a sick and twisted mind you have! In fact the word "evil" springs to mind when I read your demented claptrap!"
Nanacad - "Mick is a long time AOL message board ******"..
Donbain - "I've got Mick on filter for one very good reason, his intelligence is too low beneath mine to dignify his lewdness with an answer"
Krpzd1 to me - "You really are a prize *** aren't you?"
Sandragoggins (witch) -"I'm sure God has a special seat in hell for you Mick,.feel free to go ********* yourself"
Johnfb- "Waymarker is a racist, bigot, sexist, liar nut job"
Angelakarma- "Mick the *****"
Junoth quote-"Senile and paranoid Mick the compulsive liar"
Neo (Jehovah's Witness) to me- "you're ignorant, a fable-spinner, talks drivel, a deceiver, a racist, self-deluded"
Rev. Eric Potts-" Mick you disgust me"
A phoney 'Christian' Forum to me - "Your account has been disabled,
Please do not make any attempt to participate further in any of our Communities"
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
...... speak for yourself! :biglaugh:
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Funny you should say that mate, as a kid I overheard my dad saying to my mam about me - "He's nutty! No don't laugh, I really do mean it, he wastes all his pocket money on silly plastic model aeroplanes then hangs 'em on string from his bedroom ceiling in full view of the street, I dread to think what the neighbours are saying about him.when's he going to start saving his money instead?"
I got my own back though, I filled his radio with sand from a builders yard down the road and enjoyed his bewildered expression when he tried to tune in the Clay-Liston fight but all he got were electrical crackles and splutters. He he
Then the sand began pouring out in torrents like an Indiana Jones temple and he freaked, "I don't believe it!" he yelled, "its full of bleddy sand, how the hell did that get in there?"
He was far nuttier than me anyway, I once seen him peeing up the side of next doors house after dark, and the whole neighbourhood knew he was a few sausages short of a full barbecue!
He's been dead now 30 years but I wonder what he'd say if he knew I still buy models, I got Amelia Earharts red Lockheed Vega last year and have currently got my eye on a cool B-25 Doolittle Raider down the model shop..
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I knew somebody would say that!
Rest assured I get plenty of hate mail such as this..
....................
I'm not a Christian, more of a pagan barbarian Deist, but I'll say this for you:
You're an open book.
You can't be put down... you just bounce back.
I always read all of all your posts. (unlike some other posts
)I like your pics.
You're entertaining.
I should imagine that you find it very hard to hate folks.
Debating with you is fun.
So you hang about....... OK?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Snap. My models were really cr-ppy though, glue everywhere......
You South African? Rhodesian?I got my own back though, I filled his radio with sand from a builders yard down the road and enjoyed his bewildered expression when he tried to tune in the Clay-Liston fight but all he got were electrical crackles and splutters. He he
Then the sand began pouring out in torrents like an Indiana Jones temple and he freaked, "I don't believe it!" he yelled, "its full of bleddy sand, how the hell did that get in there?"
Better than hanging around street corners and mugging ol' ladies. :yes:He was far nuttier than me anyway, I once seen him peeing up the side of next doors house after dark, and the whole neighbourhood knew he was a few sausages short of a full barbecue!
He's been dead now 30 years but I wonder what he'd say if he knew I still buy models, I got Amelia Earharts red Lockheed Vega last year and have currently got my eye on a cool B-25 Doolittle Raider down the model shop..
I still make free-running high-speed catamarans .... make my own outboards for 'em. There's me legging it round the pond (and not going to make it) and kids of 7 shouting ''E ain't got no radio!!'
We ought to ask the bosses if we can have a Dafties' DIR!
Nada
#
You sounded like Yoda at the very end.
So you are "Waymarker" Here is a post from you from years back.1- I've already grown tremendously..
Spannerose- "Mick, I would like you to know that the result of reading your posts I am left with the desire to pick up my bible for the first time in years"
ChildofLight- "So good to read your responses Mick, some are quite witty and made LOL"
Happysandyh - "welcome Mick, welcome welcome!"
HenryS - "You are brilliant Mick in finding appropriate phrases. Another one of your superb emails to store"
Firebrand - "Amen and welcome Mick"
Coconut - "Whew! Thanks for sharing Mick"
Sarah4Jesus - "Listen to Mick in Plymouth, he is a great teacher"
Cathie - "Very wise advice Mick, thanks"
Kierri - "That was one of the best explanations I've ever heard! Yay for Mick in Plymouth"
Haimehenmmli - "I LOVE IT MATE!!! I'm going to put it into my files, with some of my other favorites, from you"
Evachrst3 - "Right on, Mick, I couldn't agree more.Thank you for defending the faith so eloquently".
Devilmademedoit2 - "I love this! Thanks, Mick!"
SweetSummer96 - "Wow. That's a cool story Mick."
Vespasian052 - "Wow! Mick,what an awesome tale.."
Beekpr9 - "Amen to all you have said, Mick!"
Saipan1777 - "Spot on Mick bravo"
Duke Tinn - "Thanks again Mick. Great Stuff"
Tahella - "Welcome Mick!"
Ainglkiss - "Mick what a wonderful story. You write so well. Keep up the great work"
BlessedOne - "Glad to have you here Mick! Jesus is the way!"
MonkGirl - "Wow, thank you Mick! That is really comforting...and all I really needed to hear!"
WOFman - "Welcome Mick!"
JeffC - "HELL YEAH! PREACH IT BROTHER, THE REALITY WAY! (LUV YUR STYLE....)
Nottonguetied - "I loved those stories from Mick"
Honeybearx - "This was very good reading thank you Mick"
Megan - "Mick, I just wanted to tell you that I loved this story, it was very touching"
Benjoman - "Your one of the only ones from the singles board that I still love Mick"
Allisoneness -"You are the one true Christian on here, keep up the good work and praise the Lord"
Sherry Anne - "Mick i love your posts"
Antipas - "Brilliant yet again Mick"
Easynote - "ROFL Mick you are pure class, another of your timeless classics!"
Kermit - "I love Mick. He is so, how shall I say it, RIGHT ON THE MONEY AND FUNNY, TOO"
Kermmiekr - "How uplifting Mick, and so very true"
Chrysalis55- "Just want to say, I love your posts and your messages not only insprire me, sometimes they make me laugh
because you are able to get your point across in such a great way. WAY TO GO waymarker!!!"
Evenflow- I just LOVE this post You have made me smile BIG TIME this morning. Good for you and what a great attitude you have to life xx
Apple Pie - "Really good to see you, Mick. Come on over to 4church, we could do with your input and your humour"
Lillian - "Mick please come back..it's nice having you on the board"
Luismtzzz- "I like how you reason religion. I am enjoying your answers"
Justforme- "I am so happy to meet a sensible Christian"
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1528633-post72.html
And I believe before that you had an account here under the name "Mick in England". And now you are back for the third time. You may have "grown", but you haven't changed much buddy.Drat, now you've forced some of my fan mail out of me from around assorted net forums..
Spannerose - "Mick, I would like you to know that the result of reading your posts I am left with the desire to pick up my bible for the first time in years"
ChildofLight - "So good to read your responses Mick, some are quite witty and made LOL"
Happysandyh - "welcome Mick, welcome welcome!"
HenryS - "You are brilliant Mick in finding appropriate phrases. Another one of your superb emails to store"
Firebrand - "Amen and welcome Mick"
Coconut - "Whew! Thanks for sharing Mick"
Sarah4Jesus - "Listen to Mick in Plymouth, he is a great teacher"
Cathie - "Very wise advice Mick, thanks"
Kierri - "That was one of the best explanations I've ever heard! Yay for Mick in Plymouth"
Haimehenmmli - "I LOVE IT MATE!!! I'm going to put it into my files, with some of my other favorites, from you"
Evachrst3 - "Right on, Mick, I couldn't agree more.Thank you for defending the faith so eloquently".
Devilmademedoit2 - "I love this! Thanks, Mick!"
SweetSummer96 - "Wow. That's a cool story Mick."
Vespasian052 - "Wow! Mick,what an awesome tale.."
Beekpr9 - "Amen to all you have said, Mick!"
Saipan1777 - "Spot on Mick bravo"
Duke Tinn - "Thanks again Mick. Great Stuff"
Apple Pie - "Really good to see you, Mick. Come on over to 4church, we could do with your input and your humour"
Tahella - "Welcome Mick!"
Ainglkiss - "Mick what a wonderful story. You write so well. Keep up the great work"
BlessedOne - "Glad to have you here Mick! Jesus is the way!"
MonkGirl - "Wow, thank you Mick! That is really comforting...and all I really needed to hear!"
WOFman - "Welcome Mick!"
JeffC - "HELL YEAH! PREACH IT BROTHER, THE REALITY WAY! (LUV YUR STYLE....)
Nottonguetied - "I loved those stories from Mick"
Honeybearx - "This was very good reading thank you Mick"
Megan - "Mick, I just wanted to tell you that I loved this story, it was very touching"
Benjoman - "Your one of the only ones from the singles board that I still love Mick"
Allisoneness -"You are the one true Christian on here, keep up the good work and praise the Lord"
Sherry Anne - "Mick i love your posts"
Antipas - "Brilliant yet again Mick"
Easynote - "ROFL Mick you are pure class, another of your timeless classics!"
Kermit - "I love Mick. He is so, how shall I say it, RIGHT ON THE MONEY AND FUNNY, TOO"
Lillian - "Mick please come back..it's nice having you on the board"
Kermmiekr - "How uplifting Mick, and so very true"
Last edited:
As I look at it certainty resides on a scale from 0% to 100%. Absolutely untrue to absolutely true. Nothing is ever at 0 or 100%. Something you absolutely have no information is neutral so at 50%.
So starting at 50% neither true or untrue. You weigh the available evidence and see where certainty falls.
Even if you weigh each bit of evidence at 1% what we have makes it more likely that there was a historical Jesus. Especially since there is nothing being brought forth to tilt the scale the other way.
Therefore a historical Jesus is a reasonable conclusion. The argument for a mystical Jesus is not a reasonable one. At this point anyway.
Guess I should have come along sooner.
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm weighing the arguments. Personally I don't care, I'm just curious. Also I'm not asking for proof of the absence of a historical Jesus. I'm asking for an alternative explanation for Christianity.
Which of the follow do you consider speculation?
That Christianity exists.
That the gospels exist.
That Josephus wrote about Jesus.
That Paul wrote about Jesus.
It's not a special case. It is a case. I really don't know who or what was the source for these other beliefs. I really don't think that a reasoned explanation for any one is going to provide a reasoned explanation for any of the others. You can make a case for any you like but current the discussion is about Jesus.
This is about a historical Jesus, not about the truth of Christianity. As far as that goes, Paul is the source of Christian theology. The question there would be whether Paul believed Jesus was an actual person. If he did then what evidence is there to counter that?
Your counter argument? Not yet, but I'm hoping. Anything with regard to Paul writings which might imply he didn't accept Jesus as a historical figure?
Not if no one can bring a reasonable counter argument to the table I'm afraid.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I guess.
OK
That Christianity exists. - Sure, so what? As I demonstrated earlier, so do many, many faiths ... why do you think that the mere existence of Christianity argues for the historicity of Jesus?
That the gospels exist. - There are documents referred to as the gospels, what they actually represent is open to serious question, they are not, shall we say, dependable history, there are any number of issues including what is know as the "Synoptic Problem." They were written many decades or even a century after his estimated year of Jesus' death, by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown scribes with their own agendas. The four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. Christopher Hitchens observed that there is "little or no evidence for the life of Jesus," arguing "the gospels are most certainly not literal truth," its multiple authors "cannot agree on anything of importance," and the "contradictions and illiteracies of the New Testament have filled up many books by eminent scholars."
That Josephus wrote about Jesus. - That is also open to question. At least one Christian scribe tampered with his text and made it appear that Josephus considered Jesus, the savior or Christ. In his only other possible reference to Jesus (via reference to the "brother," unclear as to kin or brotherhood type of brother) is described by some as an "accidental interpolation" or "scribal emendation." They suggest that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians, but, rather referred to James, the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.
That Paul wrote about Jesus. Maybe, maybe not. I have always been suspicious of Paul's alleged letters and the "fact" they survived. Face it, they are often downright nasty, the sort of thing that the receiver would ball up and chuck into whatever served as a circular file in that day. They were not the sort of thing that one would have kept and copied for almost two hundred years. Face it, they don't show up, were not even acknowledged or quoted, until Marcion, the Heretic pushed them to the fore.
You don't see that all the stories are linked by a common thread? You don't see that all the tales are similar enough to demand equal treatment? That's what I'd call asking for a "special case."
If nothing else the serious questions concerning who Paul was, what he did and what he wrote.
I don't need to posit a counter argument, you are trying to establish Jesus as an historical figure and I'm suggesting that you don't have the evidence to make the case. I have described some acknowledged serious problems with the foundation of your case. That's all I am required to do. Paul's "writings" are open to question and even if they were to be authenticated, that does not speak to their usefulness in establishing a historical Jesus since Paul only "me" Jesus in a hallucination that if it occurred was more likely caused by moldy loaf of rye bread, or dehydration or heat stroke than by a revenant son of a god desirous of conversation.
There's a whole passel of reasonable counter arguments for you, and from what I see the arguments against are a hydra, you cut one off and two grow back in it's place. Like the godhood of Jesus (or son of godhood if you prefer) the historicity of Jesus is more a matter of belief than demonstrable probability.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
My planes were krap too at first, it was because my dad wouldn't help me choose the right type of glue and paint, but I soon learned fast and eventually won a competition sponsored by a local model shop ha ha..
I think he hated me because he and my mother had to have a shotgun wedding because I was on the way, and in his twisted way he blamed me, you couldn't make it up!
He probably wanted to have me aborted but my mam went ahead and had me, so he vented his spite on me, he once kicked me like a dog because I'd thrown some orange peel down the toilet and it was too buoyant to flush away..
Gosh I wish I'd had a normal dad like everybody else, it was like living in a nuthouse with him!
I later started building radio-control models including this 42" wingspan job-
Last edited:
Wrong.
Certainly not if you ignore historical research, the philosophy of historiography & history, and historical methods. Otherwise, the changes are incredibly drastic.
1) A Jesus who just died but was historical was so offensive that the Jesus Seminar became something of a public spectacle. Not for suggesting that Jesus was not historical. Paul wrote that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead Christianity was pointless and "in vain".
2) There is no Christianity with an historical Jesus as most historians have interpreted our evidence: a 1st century Jew who garnered followers and began a movement only to be executed. No resurrection, no trinity, no holy spirit, no anything other than another executed Jew.
Because most doctorates can get "real jobs" outside of academia? Please.
Let's examine various claims:
So Bunyip's field is history, because one of his majors was history. Or, according to him, he majored in ancient history. And his "field" is espionage" because he actually double-majored in history and politics, making the entirety of his expertise an undergrad's knowledge and thus expertise in nothing. More importantly, we have on the one hand the claim to a major in ancient history and a claim to have majored in history; a claim to be an expert in espionage vs. a claim to have double majored in "history and politics" & "counter-terrorism", which means that there was no major in ancient history (or there was, and some other claim was a lie). Basic logic dictates that not all of these claims can be true.
Please feel free to explain how somebody can double major in counter-terrorism & "history and politics", have majored in ancient history, and also be an expert in espionage with one undergraduate degree.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
The only thing I question is really the name of Christ. Other than that I find the notion of
questioning 2000 years worth of bloodshed nearly uncontainable; nor do I question the integrity
of Rome. Even though it seems to be a lone Caesar that chose to pioneer the religion and dogma.
Even with the choice of one lone Caesar Rome would not have peacefully accepted his desire; god
rest Julius Caesar.
What could have taken place was conversation over bloodshep. Charlemagna seems to have
willingly chose battle and ruthless enforcement over trying to perpetuate the belief by
acceptance.
I mean you can give it a benefit of a doubt you would have to deal with marauding barbarians,
which makes me accept the fact in a way they chose battle over trying to negotiate with a
greatly illiterate peoples.
They say that the barbarians did not know how to read or write; that is not true, but, they
had reading and writing systems that were taught; but the commoner usually did not know.
The spread of Catholicism and the executed Son of God did bring education to our Barbarian
ancestors ruthlessly.
What is on your conscience isn't always the truth; you can convert a nation to a belief
that would weigh on their conscience.
I accept Jesus as an executed God; a son of a God. But, my reasoning is purely in conscience;
only what I am told on conscience and feel in conscience. What I believe is extremely outside of
dogma and even the church went through arguments refuting polytheism and annihilating
polytheism.
In short questioning it to me seem absurd, yet reasonable.
These arguments are majorely becoming what people want; not what is tangible to the argument.
"De Martyr"
Soon I am just going to present the jeweled corpses of the saints in argument.
Numerous remains of the Saints were burned and given proper funeral rites, what
you see is in fact an abomination.
Like St.Michaels, I believe.
This is greatly common knowledge to Europeans, though.
They're the one's you should seek argument with.
questioning 2000 years worth of bloodshed nearly uncontainable; nor do I question the integrity
of Rome. Even though it seems to be a lone Caesar that chose to pioneer the religion and dogma.
Even with the choice of one lone Caesar Rome would not have peacefully accepted his desire; god
rest Julius Caesar.
What could have taken place was conversation over bloodshep. Charlemagna seems to have
willingly chose battle and ruthless enforcement over trying to perpetuate the belief by
acceptance.
I mean you can give it a benefit of a doubt you would have to deal with marauding barbarians,
which makes me accept the fact in a way they chose battle over trying to negotiate with a
greatly illiterate peoples.
They say that the barbarians did not know how to read or write; that is not true, but, they
had reading and writing systems that were taught; but the commoner usually did not know.
The spread of Catholicism and the executed Son of God did bring education to our Barbarian
ancestors ruthlessly.
What is on your conscience isn't always the truth; you can convert a nation to a belief
that would weigh on their conscience.
I accept Jesus as an executed God; a son of a God. But, my reasoning is purely in conscience;
only what I am told on conscience and feel in conscience. What I believe is extremely outside of
dogma and even the church went through arguments refuting polytheism and annihilating
polytheism.
In short questioning it to me seem absurd, yet reasonable.
These arguments are majorely becoming what people want; not what is tangible to the argument.
"De Martyr"
Soon I am just going to present the jeweled corpses of the saints in argument.
Numerous remains of the Saints were burned and given proper funeral rites, what
you see is in fact an abomination.
Like St.Michaels, I believe.
This is greatly common knowledge to Europeans, though.
They're the one's you should seek argument with.
Last edited:
I should elaborate on this. It's not just that scholarship like Our Knowledge of the Past by Tucker as in :
"The first application of critical cognitive values in conjunction with new theories and methods to generate knew knowledge of the past from present evidence was in biblical criticism...Theories and methods that were developed in biblical criticism were exported next to the analysis of ancient Greek and Latin texts" Tucker, A. (2004). Our Knowledge of the Past. Cambridge University Press.
It's not even who essential biblical studies were to developing fields:
"Where does lexical semantics find its materials?...One source of examples is philological research into older texts, specifically, classical and biblical philology. Because the interpretation of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew texts is often not immediately obvious, classical scholars naturally came across many intriguing instances of polysemy and semantic change." Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford University Press.
It's the fundamental incapacity, inability, and unfamiliarity with the history/methods/philosophy of historiography and the more importantly that historical Jesus studies began with attempts to undermine Christianity. The very phrase "quest for the historical Jesus" comes from the English translation of Schweitzer's von Reimarus zu Wrede which, in the English translation, was entitled The Quest for the Historical Jesus: From Reimarus to Wrede. Reimarus is most often credited with beginning the "quest" for the historical Jesus and did so to undermine the entirety of Christianity.
To assert that historical Jesus studies can be in any sense equated with Christianity is nonsense. Sure, there are historians who are Christian apologists. However, the only reason for a quest for the historical Jesus was situated in secular academia and began by anti-Christian sentiments.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I think it is quite correct. An example of the effect of this is the "inside job" that turns secondary and tertiary sources into primary sources when Jesus is involved. Do you know what a primary source is?
Wiki: Primary sources are original materials that have not been altered or distorted in any way.[1] Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the absence of a primary source. In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions.[2] In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight are secondary.[3] A secondary source may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.[4] For example a memoir would be considered a primary source in research concerning its author or about his or her friends characterized within it, but the same memoir would be a secondary source if it were used to examine the culture in which its author lived.[5] "Primary" and "secondary" should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.[6]:118–246[7]
Can you honestly classify as primary sources Josephus, Tacitus or any of the gospels considering what they are, when they were actually written, and how much of them are considered to be forged? I most assuredly can not.
I'd suggest that from the perspective of a reasonably educated observer on the sidelines, the lack of rigor shown by such shenanigans as the primary sources fiasco are damning enough.
I suspect that Christianity "pointless and "in vain, but that's a different discussion. All I'm saying here is that I find the level of academic rigor displayed within the field dismaying and that makes me doubt the demonstration of historicity.
I have no problem with that either, in theory, I just don't believe that the paucity of hard data supports it.
Most of the PhDs I've worked with over the years have kept a healthy consulting business going on the side that paid more than their academic wages, I've done the same with the same result. I don't know that the religious establishment would fare as well if their rice bowl broke, perhaps I'm wrong and they could all find honest work as con men and grifters?
You are, however, quite incapable of citing anything indicating you know anything about the development of biblical scholarship or modern critical historical methods, modern comparative linguistics, or really anything relevant. You are capable of mentioning some "friend" or other whom you claim has expertise here and whom you therefore trust (despite not enough to cite said expert).
Yes. I've repeatedly cited references by historians for historians. Which one's did you find inadequate and why? Would you care for more references that don't depend upon Wikipedia? Are you aware that the source you cite renders virtually all ancient sources secondary? Are you aware how?
I cited general reference material for historians of antiquity saying just this. If you, with all your Wikipedia expertise, can't believe this, then go back to trusting your anonymous friend(s).
That may have something to do with an inability to substantiate any claims you make and a general ignorance of this and related fields. It is probably related to your sole other reference: another member as incapable as you are to rely on actual historians and actual scholarship.
Many of those I have worked with have as well, and that's my main source of income. That's because my main field is mathematics, physics, and the neurosciences. These are fields that one can get paid for outside of academia. Had I continued (officially) my other major (classical languages) I'd have no possibility for consultant work.
Because there's a huge market for doctorates in philosophy, history, women's studies, English literature, classical studies, philology, sociology, and virtually every single field for which one can obtain a PhD. Right. Virtually all doctorates have no chance of using their specialty outside academia. If you aren't aware of this, you are simply too unacquainted with fields outside of your own (granting that you have one). Take a look at the number of doctorates offered by mainstream universities and then tell me how there could be consult work or other relatively major revenue sources for PhDs in most fields.
Last edited:
- Status