The Historical Jesus vs. the historical...?

[Prophet]

Maybe read and understand Legion's posts before you attempt to blindly plagiarize him in an argument against someone else who did understand.

 

[Bunyip]

As is science you goddamned imbecile.

No it isn't I'm afraid. Science is not limited to abduction as is the case for inferences to the best explanation.

 

[godnotgod]

Pulp fiction.

You dont't know that.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, and historicity of Jesus was also demonstrated long ago, without regard to Bunyip's denialist platform which actively seeks to disqualify evidence ("Paul wasn't contemporary!") rather than supply a coherent story that explains all of it, much like evolution deniers who actively seek to disqualify fossils ("God put em there to test our faith!"), carbon dating ("You can't PROVE that it works!"), etc.

No it was not. Once again let's say it as clearly as possible, the historicity of Jesus requires a number of special dispensations and arguments from ignorance in order to get from here to there. That is why, as far as I can tell, biblical "scholarship" isn't, it's more rice bowl protection than anything else.

This has no allegorical relationship to evolution, fossils or carbon dating, all three of which have withstood hotter fires of controversy than was actually required for reasonable demonstration of correctness.

Yes, much of science is inference. inference of many. many strands that integrate into a coherent whole. Jesus only has a few strands and even those are controversial.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

the historicity of Jesus requires a number of special dispensations and arguments from ignorance in order to get from here to there. That is why, as far as I can tell, biblical "scholarship" isn't, it's more rice bowl protection than anything else.

1) "Biblical 'scholarship'" and historical Jesus research may intersect, but they are so vastly distinct that to equate them is to equate e.g., arithmetic with functional analysis or matrix algebra.
2) Upon what do you base your conclusions such that your assertion that the "historicity of Jesus requires a number of special" anything? That is, what do you know of historical Jesus scholarship vs. scholarship of ancient history and ancient historical figures such that the scholarship behind the historical Jesus requires the special treatment you allude to? What scholarship on other historical figures (such as Antiphon, Apollonius of Tyana, Divitiacus, Simon the shoemaker, or even Euclid or Pythatoras) are you familiar with such that you can compare the "special" historical methods/tricks/techniques/etc. when it comes to Jesus vs. other figures?

I guarantee you that you will not find special anything, other than a relatively extreme skepticism when it comes to the historical Jesus vs. everybody else, or a religious and equally extreme acceptance. By and large, historical Jesus studies are more skeptical than in ancient history in general.

This has no allegorical relationship to evolution, fossils or carbon dating, all three of which have withstood hotter fires of controversy than was actually required for reasonable demonstration of correctness.

1) Evolution has a very real analogue in the ways in which different paradigms have emerged within evolutionary theory since Darwin. However, as you are comparing the sciences to history, you may as well say that the historical Jesus has not analogue (allegorical?) relationship with number theory or group theory.
2) The entirety of classical mechanics failed. There is vastly more evidence to support it than exists for the historical Jesus, but it is wrong. It would be nice if we could test hypotheses in historiography the way we can in the sciences. We can't. Ergo, your comparison is flawed from the beginning. It is far more established that "if the moon is made of green cheese, then Jesus is our Lord and Savior" than is the entirety of evolutionary theory. This is merely because the basis for formal analysis (or for logic) existed as a closed universe of discourse with axioms that allow deductive reasoning, while in the real world we require inferential reasoning (whether Bayesian, frequentist, etc.).
3) Upon what do you base your view of the "fires of controversy" that the historical Jesus has "withstood"?

 

[oldbadger]

As is science you goddamned imbecile.

........ prophet is warming up....... goddamned imbecile! Imbecile for the third time in this thread...... he is a joy to read....
And what has the evolution/creation debate got to do with the HJ debate, exactly? The balance of probabilities is a weak stage for a clear demonstration, surely?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

In what way do you imagine that the entirety of classical mechanics failed? That is an extraordinary claim, especially given that classical mechanics functions as well:today as it ever did.
Classical mechanics, also known as newtonian physics is as accurate and useful as it ever was - what changed was only that we now know that it does not apply at the quantum scale.

It has never been shown to be a failure, we just established its limits.

 

[Prophet]

........ prophet is warming up....... goddamned imbecile! Imbecile for the third time in this thread...... he is a joy to read....
And what has the evolution/creation debate got to do with the HJ debate, exactly? The balance of probabilities is a weak stage for a clear demonstration, surely?

It shows that every single argument made by Jesus deniers has been made before by all manner of denialist platform. Some are forced into such a corner by their beliefs that they must intentionally intellectually stunt themselves intellectually in order to perpetuate a belief they are much too fond of. This is true of evolution deniers, Holocaust deniers, and historical Jesus deniers.

 

[Sapiens]

...
2) The entirety of classical mechanics failed. There is vastly more evidence to support it than exists for the historical Jesus, but it is wrong. It would be nice if we could test hypotheses in historiography the way we can in the sciences. We can't. Ergo, your comparison is flawed from the beginning.

No, that is precisely my point. My comparison is not flawed, putting the stamp of historicity on Jesus with only minimal supporting data (and much of that questionable) is what is flawed. I've said it before, my work was much more difficult, much more uncomfortable, much more dangerous than that of most scientists. My major professor even named a unit of measure after me, it was described as the maximum amount of energy that could be expended by a single human to obtain a single data point. But no one gave me a break, no one said, "oh that's too hard, you only need enough data to make it to 0.85." That didn't happen. What I see with respect to Jesus is basically lowering the bar, because if the bar was kept at its normal height, the field would disappear.

It is far more established that "if the moon is made of green cheese, then Jesus is our Lord and Savior" than is the entirety of evolutionary theory. This is merely because the basis for formal analysis (or for logic) existed as a closed universe of discourse with axioms that allow deductive reasoning, while in the real world we require inferential reasoning (whether Bayesian, frequentist, etc.).

Better to do your research in the real world, IMHO.

3) Upon what do you base your view of the "fires of controversy" that the historical Jesus has "withstood"?

Not enough kindling to get the blase going, no contemporaneous cross references, even what there is from a couple of generations after his alleged is open to question and has authentication issues, etc. Just not enough surviving information that can be stretched to appear to refer to a Jesus figure.
And then there's the asinine statement that I've seen in this forum that Jesus must be an historical figure because there is more data to support that than to deny it!

 

[Sapiens]

It shows that every single argument made by Jesus deniers has been made before by all manner of denialist platform. Some are forced into such a corner by their beliefs that they must intentionally intellectually stunt themselves intellectually in order to perpetuate a belief they are much too fond of. This is true of evolution deniers, Holocaust deniers, and historical Jesus deniers.

Horse puckey! I do not say that it was impossible that there was a Jesus. I do not even say that a Jesus did not exist. What I do say is that there is not enough proof to make this empiricist comfortable with the idea that it is reasonable to have 95% confidence that there was an Historical Jesus. The basic issue here, and let's get at it up front, is if no Jesus, then no NT, and no Christianity, So it is a little question with a huge result.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion
In what way do you imagine that the entirety of classical mechanics failed?

Well, for starters there's the fact that we don't call it "physics." We don't even call it "mechanics". Why? Because it is wrong, we know it is wrong, and we know that if it were correct electrons would plummet into every single nuclei of every atom in less than a nanosecond, demolishing the entirety of every physical system in existence.

That is an extraordinary claim, especially given that classical mechanics functions as well:today as it ever did.

This is pathetically incorrect. Were it true, we'd have "mechanics", not classical vs. quantum. Classical mechanics spectacularly fails both when it comes to the very small and the very large, and is at best what is "approximately" true for most of the world we experience (i.e., scales well-beyond the sub-atomic and much smaller than those for which relativistic physics is required.

Classical mechanics, also known as newtonian physics is as accurate and useful as it ever was

Defining pi as 3.141 is as useful as it ever was. It's still wrong.

It has never been shown to be a failure, we just established its limits.

It has been. Classical mechanics describes force such that if that actually were force, electrons wouldn't exist as they would have all been forced into the nuclei of every atom in existence, and fails again in that the two fundamental systems (particle and wave) don't exist.

 

[Bunyip]

It shows that every single argument made by Jesus deniers has been made before by all manner of denialist platform. Some are forced into such a corner by their beliefs that they must intentionally intellectually stunt themselves intellectually in order to perpetuate a belief they are much too fond of. This is true of evolution deniers, Holocaust deniers, and historical Jesus deniers.

Wow! They have to intentionally intellectually stunt themselves intellectually do they? Gosh, that sounds painful.

 

[Sapiens]

...


Defining pi as 3.141 is as useful as it ever was. It's still wrong.

That's why I usually use 355/113, but even that is technically wrong.

Wow! They have to intentionally intellectually stunt themselves intellectually do they? Gosh, that sounds painful.

A procedure done only in the Department Of Redundancy Department.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, for starters there's the fact that we don't call it "physics." We don't even call it "mechanics". Why? Because it is wrong, we know it is wrong, and we know that if it were correct electrons would plummet into every single nuclei of every atom in less than a nanosecond, demolishing the entirety of every physical system in existence.

Newtonian physics, or classical mechanics is taught in every engineering school on the planet to this day, it is as true and as useful as it ever was. It just fails to describe the quantum world.

My BMW E30 mechanics manual fails to explain how to make cheese, but that does not make it a failure as a mechanical manual.

Newtonian mechanics fails to explain the quantum world, but that does not make it a failure in terms of its real world applications.

This is pathetically incorrect. Were it true, we'd have "mechanics", not classical vs. quantum. Classical mechanics spectacularly fails both when it comes to the very small and the very large, and is at best what is "approximately" true for most of the world we experience (i.e., scales well-beyond the sub-atomic and much smaller than those for which relativistic physics is required.


Defining pi as 3.141 is as useful as it ever was. It's still wrong.

No, it is correct. Pi equals 3 to one decimal point, pi equals 3.1 to two decimal points, pi equals 3.141 to three decimal points - all are correct.

It has been. Classical mechanics describes force such that if that actually were force, electrons wouldn't exist as they would have all been forced into the nuclei of every atom in existence, and fails again in that the two fundamental systems (particle and wave) don't exist.

You are confusing classical physics for quantum physics. Both are useful and accurate.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Still waiting for you to identify any member making the argument you describe in the OP.
Take your time.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Newtonian physics, or classical mechanics is taught in every engineering school on the planet to this day, it is as true and as useful as it ever was.

It isn't true, and never was. It can be useful.

It just fails to describe the quantum world.

It fails to describe everything and anything. It approximates descriptions of much.

Newtonian mechanics fails to explain the quantum world

...and relativity. More importantly, as every system is a quantum system according to modern physics, the above state that Newtonian mechanics fails to explain everything. In fact, it does.

No, it is correct. Pi equals 3 to one decimal point, pi equals 3.1 to two decimal points, pi equals 3.141 to three decimal points - all are correct.

I didn't say pi equals 3.141 to any number of decimal places, I sad "equal to". Do you understand what "equal" means? Does pi= 3.141 or not? No. It doesn't. It's an approximation, and it is not correct: pi does not equal 3 or 3.1 or 3.141592653589726532384626433832789 (I'm using memory here so that may be off a bit).

You are confusing classical physics for quantum physics. Both are useful and accurate.

One makes the fundamental descriptions and notions of the other false. The other fails doubly: on small scales and on large.

 

[Sapiens]

And I ask again what your basis for understanding the evidence is, and what you base your understanding of that which is the evidence upon?


My doctoral work was on the relative utility of quantum physics to neurobiology as it (neurobiology) pertains to consciousness. This involved no small amount of difficulty. It is, however, so stupendously irrelevant here that one wonders why you would make such a comparison. It's very dangerous to spar using live blades or to engage in urban warfare, and very difficult to solve systems of differential equations that e.g., are necessary for climate models. Who the hell gives a ****? This isn't urban warfare nor is it climate science, so you assertion is simply that you don't study this subject and nothing more.


And as historical Jesus research began well over a century before your field and continues today, the relevancy here mystifies me.


...is based upon what? What have you actually read of historical scholarship such that "what you see" has any merit whatsoever?

How many contemporaneous sources you got? Zero.

How many subsequent sources within, say a lifetime have you got? Arguably four at most, Josephus, Tacitus, Paul and the Synoptic Gospels (that appear to be Mark or plagiarisms of Mark). None met Jesus, none knew Jesus, none would have recognized them if they'd tripped over him.

Not the kind of pond I'd go skating on.

Insufficient interlocking and mutually supporting strands to create a solid inference.

 

[Bunyip]

That's why I usually use 355/113, but even that is technically wrong.

Giving pi as 22/7 is not wrong, it is correct - but only to a certain degree of accuracy.

 

[Sapiens]

Giving pi as 22/7 is not wrong, it is correct - but only to a certain degree of accuracy.

Proof that 22/7 exceeds π - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Still waiting for you to identify any member making the argument you describe in the OP.
Take your time.

Every post you have made has been of this sort. You have indicated so complete a lack of ancient history you couldn't tell the difference between a translator's collected works of Tacitus and something Tacitus actually wrote, and you quoted the translator thinking you had quoted Tacitus. You've repeatedly compared evidence that you don't understand and revealed over and over again that you have no clue how evidence is understood by real historians as opposed to those who first claim to be historians, then to have majored in history, than experts in espionage, than to have nothing more than a political science degree (as you have). I'm not interested in your contributions here (or really anywhere) and thus intend to ignore you responses to a thread I want real answers to, not your obvious biases, lies, and so forth. Go continue to complain about moderators whose treatment of your posts are far more decent than deserved.