There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Akheia]

Not a straw man at all. But it's nice to see that you at least do understand the basic terms for logical fallacies, considering how many I've seen from you in this thread. Here is why I think I'm justified in thinking you were claiming that your "expert" could take the place of real live primary sources:

 

A further point to add to that mistake you made, is that for someone like her, within her field of expertise, she can in fact be cited as a primary source. That does not mean she's "right". It means she has the chops to make a qualified opinion.

 

Logical Fallacy #whatever from you is now your attack on me rather than your examination of my claim. I said you had no idea what a primary source is if you think Elaine Pagels is one. Your response was to cut me down for posting a quote about what primary sources is--rather than tackling what I actually said. I really expect more from you, honestly. A far better route would be to correct me by telling me what you imagine Elaine Pagels is a primary source for, but I notice you didn't go that route. Hard to imagine why.

 

Oh, and I didn't get that quote from Wikipedia. I got it from the actual website of the Bowling Green Library System--hence why I LINKED you to the quote, specifically so you'd see it was NOT from Wikipedia. Sorry for being so subtle about it; I see now this is the wrong crowd. BZZZZZT! That's all the time we have for today, kids...

 

@Ouro- interesting idea. I was thinking about Josephus' "the Egyptian" today in relation to the claim mentioned in Contra Celcus regarding Jesus having lived in Egypt.

[Ouroboros]

Honestly I think it's great people can do this without one ending up on a stake.

Except vampires. We do want vampires on the stake.

[Antlerman]

Logical Fallacy #whatever from you is now your attack on me rather than your examination of my claim. I said you had no idea what a primary source is if you think Elaine Pagels is one. Your response was to cut me down for posting a quote about what primary sources is--rather than tackling what I actually said. I really expect more from you, honestly. A far better route would be to correct me by telling me what you imagine Elaine Pagels is a primary source for, but I notice you didn't go that route. Hard to imagine why.

Sorry. Having a "dafuq" thrown at me put me in a bad mood and I let you have it. I should have just calmly corrected you, as I normally do around here. I'll try to be more respectful going forward in correcting your misunderstanding, regardless of how you approach me.

 

As far as what you actually said, you missed what I said. I did not quote her as a source of authority to argue for a historical Jesus, which is what you said I had done. There was nothing to address. I didn't claim that. I tried to clarify why I stated what I did. The entire thing is solely based around those who reject experts and consider themselves equally qualified in their opinions. Do you disagree with me on this?

[Ouroboros]

@Ouro- interesting idea.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. That's really all I wanted to hear that it's not a totally crazy idea. I know it's a little crazy, but still.

 

I was thinking about Josephus' "the Egyptian" today in relation to the claim mentioned in Contra Celcus regarding Jesus having lived in Egypt.

How lovely it would be if someone found Celsus' writings one day. It would be quite valuable in the debate.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry. Having a "dafuq" thrown at me put me in a bad mood and I let you have it. I should have just calmly corrected you, as I normally do around here.

What?! You're admitting to be HUMAN!? That can't be. Can't tolerate that. It's just not true!

[qadeshet]

"The horrors of the war seem to be vivid in the author's memory (v. 19), and the tribulations are probably still ongoing in the aftermath, as the author wishes for an end to them (v. 20). Although the author rejects the claims of others who recently said that the Lord will return during the war (v. 7), he adapts this by saying that the day of the Lord is 'near, even at the door' during this period of tribulation (v. 28-29). He assures his readers that they will see the Parousia before the first Christian generation passes away (v. 30). This indicates that Mark was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem that occured in 70 CE."

 

Gone With the Wind must have been written shortly after the Civil War. The war experiences are just too vivid to have been written half a Century later. Or Homer must have written the Illiad shortly after the Trojan War. If we are going to allow the Gospels themselves to determine the date of their composition, then we have to apply the same standard to all ancient texts.

 

That is not a baseless assumption, is it? It is deductive reasoning based on evidence. I love how you just throw about these terms, which are themselves in fact "baseless assumptions" on your part. You don't appear to actually read these things.

 

Whether or not you agree with that reasoning in dating Mark is a matter of scholarly opinion, were you considered qualified as one to enter that debate. But the point stands, this is not "baseless". There is one basis right there.

 

Arguing from the texts themselves is not persuasive. That is why external controls are needed. Deductive reasoning based on what evidence? That Justin Martyr, around 150 AD, mentioned Memoirs of Peter as told by his companion Mark? I examine both sides of a question before I form an opinion. James Crossley argues 40 AD for Marks Gospel, others argue 70 AD to 80 AD. Historical fiction can be written many years after the events described. Whatever date we prefer doesn't prove an Historical Jesus. Whether or not I prefer around 100 AD shouldn't matter to anyone. No one knows who wrote the Gospels or when they were written.

 

If we don't have a degree in Bible Studies, all we can do is blindly accept the opinions of Bible Scholars? No Bible Scholar without a PhD in 1st Century Roman or Jewish History should be allowed to have an opinion on dating the Gospels. but that's just my opinion.

 

Science requires testing and evidence. I will accept the Big Bang Theory until disproved.

That's wonderful! It's never been proven! It's not a fact of science yet. But yes, I accept it as a good placeholder at this point. Do you disagree and believe its a proven fact?

 

The BBT is the best theory that we have. If Science worked the way Religion does, blind belief without evidence, I would put no faith in Science either. Do I have to be an expert Scientist to accept that BBT and Darwinian Evolution are most probably correct? If Bible Scholars worked with the same respect for actual evidence, I might be more willing to accept their conclusions.

 

You are now saying you can examine the arguments - which would in fact come from qualified researchers - not you or I, and then base your opinions on them. That's nothing different than I do.

 

Honest men can examine the same arguments and come to different conclusions. It really doesn't matter what date I assign to Mark's literary invention. It has nothing to do with an Historical Jesus.

 

I don't see them as simply pulled out of their traditionalist asses as you seem to suggest. I believe they are making educated estimations - not hard facts - based on their insights as qualified scholars. The world is not black and white to me, so try not to project yourself on me.

 

Traditional Scholars make "educated estimations" based on their expertise in Bible Studies. Source Criticism or Textual Criticism can only take us so far. Since Mark alludes to the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple, he must have written shortly after 70 AD. This is an assumption.

 

And what the hell does this have to do with dating Mark? Historical Jesus or not, Mark is Mark. Mark is writing about his world at the time. And how he writes about it, the anxieties present within the texts, lends itself to believe it was in fact written either leading up to and shortly after 70 AD, or shortly after. Certainly, I have no idea how a 90 AD date accounts for these things.

 

Any good Historical novelist does this all the time. Was Margaret Mitchell writing about her world at the time?

 

But again, what does any of them accepting a historical Jesus have anything to do with dating Mark? Those seem entirely independent of each other. Why are you attempting to link them? Red Herring? Though the scent off? "You can't trust them, they're biased!", sort of argument? Please explain.

 

From your post on Sept 30.

Breadcrumb trails. If Mark was written around 70 AD, those traditions it culls together into its Narrative story were around before then. It's a case of unraveling the texts to see lines that relate to the approximate times they would have likely been written.

 

I did not bring up the subject of the dating of Mark's Gospel. Dating Mark to 70 AD or 100 AD makes no difference in whether or not Jesus was Historical. Unraveling the texts gets us nowhere.

[mcdaddy]

Go Akheia!!! Go Qade!!!

 

Represent the mythicist minority baby!!!

 

Woooohoooo!

[Akheia]

Sorry. Having a "dafuq" thrown at me put me in a bad mood and I let you have it. I should have just calmly corrected you, as I normally do around here. I'll try to be more respectful going forward in correcting your misunderstanding, regardless of how you approach me.

 

As far as what you actually said, you missed what I said. I did not quote her as a source of authority to argue for a historical Jesus, which is what you said I had done. There was nothing to address. I didn't claim that. I tried to clarify why I stated what I did. The entire thing is solely based around those who reject experts and consider themselves equally qualified in their opinions. Do you disagree with me on this?

 

And here I thought it was playful to say that rather than my initial impulse! Ugh, the internet... all written cues and all that. Sounds fine, we're cool, no offense taken and hopefully mine smoothed over.

 

It sounded a lot like you were making a claim that within her field of expertise, that she could be cited as a primary source. Do you think this person is a primary source? Or were you accusing someone else of making that signal mistake with terminology? Cuz it really looked like that's what you were doing, saying that's what Pagels is, and whoa nelly and boy-howdy she is about 2000 years too late to be a primary source for her field of expertise.

 

And yes, we can definitely agree that sometimes too much information is a dangerous thing. I've had friends who were Wiki editors--I'm very familiar with the shortcomings of its system and appropriately wary of considering it an end-all be-all source. I don't use it as a definitive source on anything, which would be why I went to the cited source itself in the "primary source" article and linked and quoted *that* and not Wikipedia's possibly dubious reprinting of it. Americans especially have a distrust of experts and education; as homeopathy, creationism, and other homegrown pseudo-scientific movements have shown, we pretty much think we can outdo experts on anything with a training montage. I'm with you there. But nowadays there are experts on both sides of the mythic/non-mythic debate. One can fight it out with sources, Pokemon-style, I guess, but sometimes it can be really hard for someone *not* trained at Harvard to make a meaningful distinction. Since you're not any more expert on this field than, say, I am, about all one can do is keep educated and abreast of new information and be willing to shift course mentally if it becomes necessary.

 

Ouro - god don't I wish. Just one fucking copy, that's all I'd ask. Celsus must have singed the short-and-curlies of every single Church Father in Christendom with his ideas. No, it's not a crazy idea at all. Just not sure how we'd go from either my or your or anybody else's guess to a working hypothesis to a supportable theory. There ain't a lot in either Josephus or the NT that can really be nailed down.

[Antlerman]

"The horrors of the war seem to be vivid in the author's memory (v. 19), and the tribulations are probably still ongoing in the aftermath, as the author wishes for an end to them (v. 20). Although the author rejects the claims of others who recently said that the Lord will return during the war (v. 7), he adapts this by saying that the day of the Lord is 'near, even at the door' during this period of tribulation (v. 28-29). He assures his readers that they will see the Parousia before the first Christian generation passes away (v. 30). This indicates that Mark was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem that occured in 70 CE."

 

Gone With the Wind must have been written shortly after the Civil War. The war experiences are just too vivid to have been written half a Century later. Or Homer must have written the Illiad shortly after the Trojan War. If we are going to allow the Gospels themselves to determine the date of their composition, then we have to apply the same standard to all ancient texts.

I can poke holes all day long in your reasoning here, but I know I'll just get another "answer", that I'll have to poke another hole in, like this example above.

 

What's wrong with your comparison here? Do you think and believe its a good comparison? I do not. Intention. What do you believe the intention of Gone With the Wind was, versus the Gospel of Mark? Do you believe that the intended audience and purpose for the texts might impact how we might assume the writers' intents? Do you believe Mark was written as a novel, and people just mistook it for something else? Considering that Mark was written to a religious community for use in their faith and devotional practices, I think it would in fact reflects the writers world through their eyes at the time they wrote it. How they portray the characters in the text would reflect contemporary sentiments.

 

For instance, Jesus attacking the Pharisees, shows it was a story layered onto Jesus because the Pharisees were hardly a factor in the day when Jesus lived, but at the time of the writing of Matthew, well, that's another story. So you see Jesus on the attack in there. Why would they do that, if it was say, years after the Pharisees were not an issue? They likely wouldn't. It would reflect the current climate. And so with Mark, it's emphasis reflects that world at that time, like Matthew does at his time, like Luke does at his, etc. These are not so difficult to swallow realities.

 

 

 

Anyway... I might choose to pick apart the flaws in the rest of what you are saying here, but I honestly don't believe it matters. I don't hear much of an openness to furthering understanding, just a defense of why you're right. Kind of like how there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible, hold-over mindset.

 

Anyway, take care. Sorry if I came across disrespectfully to you.

[Antlerman]

Sorry. Having a "dafuq" thrown at me put me in a bad mood and I let you have it. I should have just calmly corrected you, as I normally do around here. I'll try to be more respectful going forward in correcting your misunderstanding, regardless of how you approach me.

Cool. I'm sorry I took it that way. Sorry I went off on you.

 

I'm out of time right now, but I'll look over your thoughts below and get back with you.

 

Later....

[Ouroboros]

Just not sure how we'd go from either my or your or anybody else's guess to a working hypothesis to a supportable theory. There ain't a lot in either Josephus or the NT that can really be nailed down.

I'm not sure I even can explain it yet. You know when you have thoughts and you put things together but you haven't figured out how to explain it? Well. That's where I am right now. Maybe I'll figure it out eventually, or maybe I'll just forget it... short attention span... what was the question again?

[Akheia]

Haha, shiny stuff and birds! Quite okay. If you get it worked out, say something, okay? I want to see something solid on this discussion. Or interesting, interesting is good too. It's not like folks like you and I can't add to the ongoing treatment of the subject; hell, Champollion wasn't even an officially educated archaeologist, right? And look what he did. oh wait

[qadeshet]

Continued...

 

Ahh yes, ascribe personal motives so you don't have to pay attention to scholars! Perfect example of anti-intellectualism. "These scientists don't believe in God! How can we trust them?" How is this any different?

 

Everyone has a personal agenda, Scholars are no different. As far as Bible Scholars go, Professor Ehrman is the Gold Standard. But to Professor Ehrman, no one has the qualifications to question the Historical Jesus except for other Bible Scholars. Professor Carrier may have a PhD in 1st Century Roman History, but he's still not qualified to debate the subject.

 

Whether I choose 100 AD for Mark's Gospel or 70 AD makes no difference to anyone but myself.

You chose, based on your research as a qualified scholar? You won't hear me saying "I choose about 85 AD for dating Mark". The reason you won't is because I'm not an expert in dating ancient texts. And neither are you.

 

Since neither of us are "qualified Scholars", we are not allowed to have an opinion? If you said you had examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that 85 AD was the correct date, I might disagree but I wouldn't claim that you weren't qualified to have an opinion. We don't have to be experts to have an opinion.

 

I hear one thing only in this. You do not wish to listen to other scholars that don't reflect your personal biases. I on the other hand am open to the arguments. I just lean towards one (not conclude anything, like you say of yourself), towards what appears the most reasonably researched and qualified opinions. That is not to say my opinions will not change. But that is why I favor dates like these suggested. They seem to be the most reasonable based on the research of experts in the field. Same thing for my opinions about biological evolution. It's no different.

 

Again, though, if they were married to tradition, then they would place Matthew before Mark, making that dated around 50 AD! How come you don't address that?

 

I listen to all kinds of Scholars. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. Arguing from the New Testament writings themselves, using Source Criticism, is a circular argument.

 

Some qualified Scholars do place Matthew first. Markan Priority isn't universally accepted.

 

But since Clement I, third Bisop of Rome in 95 AD, knew of no Gospels and never quoted any words of Jesus, I see no reason to place Mark's Gospel any earlier.

That's your only reason?? No other possible explanations for that? As a scholar you should have tried to suggest a few to consider and weighed the possibilities. What were those that you considered? Any?

 

According to qualified Scholars, Mark wrote for a Roman audience. If the Clementine Letters were written by Clement, 3rd Bishop of Rome, around 95 AD, he either had no knowledge of this Gospel, or considered it of little importance. If he had known of it, he could have quoted the exact words Jesus spoke, rather than simply quote OT passages. The next mention we have of any actual Memoirs written by Peter's associate is from Justin Martyr, around 150 AD. The Gospel of Mark is a work of genius, not something written by some ignorant hack. I doubt that Clement chose not to mention it because he felt it was unworthy.

 

Bible Scholars base their dates on "internal evidence". Dating the Gospels from the Gospels themselves is a circular argument.

What??? How is textual criticism circular reasoning? Good lord, you look at the language used, when it was in use in history, events, tones, etc, all of which can be compared to the world outside itself. You really don't understand these things, do you? Then how can you say you're equally qualified to "do your own research"?

 

Using the Bible to date the Bible is a circular argument. Source Criticism can be helpful when used with outside controls.

 

Since the last event Mark alludes to is the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple, his Gospel must be dated to 70 AD. This is a terrible argument.

And that is the extent of your understanding of the argument. No wonder you end up with such 'far out' ideas.

 

If you know of a really good argument for 70 AD, provide a link. Something a lot better than Source Critisism. You don't have to actually make the case yourself. I would love to read a good argument for early dating Mark. Since we both agree that dating Mark has nothing to do with the issue in question, lets move on.

[asanerman]

Just not sure how we'd go from either my or your or anybody else's guess to a working hypothesis to a supportable theory. There ain't a lot in either Josephus or the NT that can really be nailed down.

I'm not sure I even can explain it yet. You know when you have thoughts and you put things together but you haven't figured out how to explain it? Well. That's where I am right now. Maybe I'll figure it out eventually, or maybe I'll just forget it... short attention span... what was the question again?

 

I don't know for sure if this quote is applicable, but I'll take the chance that it is, just for the hell of it.

 

"Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things." ~Richard Dawkins

[Ouroboros]

"Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things." ~Richard Dawkins

Personally, I don't think it's applicable.

 

Evolution, quantum mechanics, and other fields... no easy for most people to understand probability or underlying statistics. And considering how many books are trying to explain evolution, yet so many don't get it, either it's the lack of ability to explain it simple, or it's just not simple to explain.

[qadeshet]

 

 

"The horrors of the war seem to be vivid in the author's memory (v. 19), and the tribulations are probably still ongoing in the aftermath, as the author wishes for an end to them (v. 20). Although the author rejects the claims of others who recently said that the Lord will return during the war (v. 7), he adapts this by saying that the day of the Lord is 'near, even at the door' during this period of tribulation (v. 28-29). He assures his readers that they will see the Parousia before the first Christian generation passes away (v. 30). This indicates that Mark was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem that occured in 70 CE."

 

Gone With the Wind must have been written shortly after the Civil War. The war experiences are just too vivid to have been written half a Century later. Or Homer must have written the Illiad shortly after the Trojan War. If we are going to allow the Gospels themselves to determine the date of their composition, then we have to apply the same standard to all ancient texts.

I can poke holes all day long in your reasoning here, but I know I'll just get another "answer", that I'll have to poke another hole in, like this example above.

 

What's wrong with your comparison here? Do you think and believe its a good comparison? I do not. Intention. What do you believe the intention of Gone With the Wind was, versus the Gospel of Mark? Do you believe that the intended audience and purpose for the texts might impact how we might assume the writers' intents? Do you believe Mark was written as a novel, and people just mistook it for something else? Considering that Mark was written to a religious community for use in their faith and devotional practices, I think it would in fact reflects the writers world through their eyes at the time they wrote it. How they portray the characters in the text would reflect contemporary sentiments.

 

The Gospels are no more History than Gone With the Wind. Mark's Gospel was a literary creation, but not a novel. Perhaps a better example would be Dianetics or The Book of Mormon. Margaret Mitchells intent was to create a good novel. The intent of the Gospel writers was to put words in the mouth of a supposed Historical Founder and provide Theological teachings for the Church. Later Gospels were written as Church doctrine changed and evolved. The idea of the Trinity wasn't even decided until the Church Councils, hundreds of years later. The Jewish Revolt in 70 AD was the natural stopping point for the story. Jesus was supposed to return soon to bring the World to an end.

[Ouroboros]

The intent of the Gospel writers was to put words in the mouth of a supposed Historical Founder and provide Theological teachings for the Church.

I don't think you can say that you know their intent. We don't know their intent. Their intent might have been to just write down what they've heard from their parents/teachers/leaders to be the "Truth." And as such, they didn't intent to put words in the mouth on anyone, other than just record what they believed to be true. The story could have been invented earlier and/or compiled by others. Just saying. We don't know their true intent and purpose.

[asanerman]

"Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things." ~Richard Dawkins

Personally, I don't think it's applicable.

 

.. either it's the lack of ability to explain it simple, or it's just not simple to explain.

 

I can appreciate that much!

[Ouroboros]

I can appreciate that much!

It's like when I took the calc II class... damn... several things were counter-intuitive. Still hard to accept the convergence of harmonic series. We discussed it, between class mates, still we all had *that* look, the WTH look. Sorry. Diverges. You see? Damn it.

 

Anyway, I know I'm not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source, but here's what it says about harmonic series: http://en.wikipedia....es_(mathematics)#Paradoxes

 

The harmonic series is counterintuitive to students first encountering it, because it is a divergent series though the limit of the nth term as n goes to infinity is zero. The divergence of the harmonic series is also the source of some apparent paradoxes. One example of these is the "worm on the rubber band".[2]

[asanerman]

 

It's like when I took the calc II class... damn... several things were counter-intuitive. ...We discussed it, between class mates, still we all had *that* look, the WTH look. Sorry. Diverges. You see? Damn it.

 

I got all that less the calc II class.

 

I was thinking "inferential," like interpreting the value resulting from the descriptive data and then using them to make decisions.

 

At least you gave my opinion a hearing and rebuttal!

[Ouroboros]

I was thinking "inferential," like interpreting the value resulting from the descriptive data and then using them to make decisions.

Now I can't get that word out of my head... what is it called again? Inferential? No. Damn! Now you planted that meme in my head too.

[Antlerman]

"Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things." ~Richard Dawkins

That's actually something a lot of people don't get about science. They generally only attempt to explain what they feel they can, thus giving the illusion they are the key to explaining things! Wow, I'm thinking of this really old song by Styx, "The Grand Illusion."

[LivingLife]

Why do you think you need my permission?

Because you said this "No one can claim a "win" and suggest their opinion is the most likely."

 

Did you mean that?

 

1. No one can claim a "win" -- I can agree to that

and

2. No one can suggest their opinion is the most likely -- I don't agree to that. That's you saying that "no one can." Why can't they? I think that's what mythologists do when they argue that it's all mythology and nothing substantial, while the middle-ground-myth/history person also argues it's most likely in his/her opinion.

 

So I assume from your response that you didn't mean it exactly like that.

Correct, perhaps it should read no one demand their version/opinion is the most likely

Lets be honest here, everyone departs from the knowledge of the gospels and find other materials and sources. Even so, the gospels on their own are fraught with inconsistencies.

Of course they are. That's why I wasn't even considering the gospels as a source of information or history.

 

But it's a fact of history that those gospels were produced by people... and for some reason... and in some environment... and in a certain condition, society, etc. So we can draw some possible scenarios from the things we do know. For instance, is it up for debate that Christianity started at all at some time? If it did, we can guess on the possible reasons, and we can have opinions about what we think (subjectively, personally) might be the more likely path.

In my mind here there are two possible scenarios and that is based on the information we have that other competing doctrines/accounts were destroyed. Can we really even prove they were destroyed? From 350ish we start to have better records about early christianity, are we to take this at face value too? Perhaps there were records copied and recopied and embellished and would have been deemed as sacred and as we were taught "faithfully" copied w/o error. Well we now know that is not the truth.

 

The one scenario is that these accounts multiplied and by the time of the councils were all collected and collated, redacted and edited. What happened is unknown and we have to take church records on face value. By then the oral tradition would have been very fuzzy and there would have been many versions of the same story. This is what I deem most likely.

 

Would the early xians really have been Hellenists and influenced by the other god tales and slowly they crept into the "true" accounts as time went on?

 

A side note here, the evangelical woo that influenced my conversion said that it takes only 3 generations for a break away church formed to lose the original vision and founding principals before they reverted to the more mainstream beliefs. Whether that is true or not I can't say but that stuck with me. His premise was that the RCC had corrupted the church and introduced pagan stuff contrary to what Jesus and the OT allegedly taught. That much is true to a point. That however still holds true today as churches will adapt to culture and revise doctrine. My church never had issues with gays until they were allowed to marry. I still edited the AoF to exclude gay marriage from the church. The culture changed and now this tidbit had to be introduced as "church doctrine" of course it was watered down with love the sinner not the sin crapola. Can you see the picture I am trying to paint?

 

As the early church spread, it was inevitable that paganism and perhaps even huge embellishments could have crept in to incorporate pagan concepts. I think we can agree that this is more of less what happened.

 

This is the easy part of dissemination and I seriously doubt any of us see it very differently.

 

So did the councils collate all these varying accounts and draw up a master one (or four) and embellish the stories further? Well we do not know for certain other than what was reported is church history which was now starting to take shape. Let us assume that there was say for the Mark account, there were 20 -30 variances. How does one determine what was truth and what was added 300+ years after the fact? Even then they would be no better off than us discussing it today and we have access now to so many other resources and opinions.

 

I was thinking just how easy records are lost is a mere 40-50 years or even less. Recently I have been scanning in all my photographs and there are hordes missing and I only moved from my next door house in the last 26 years, digital stuff is lost due to a crash on a PC that I had saved a lot of info on dedicated to back ups. I once captured all my analogue vids, that is gone and I have to do it all over again. If I battle with my personal records and I have so many mediums like I have to collate them, can we really think in the 1st two centuries it was superior? No it was not.

 

There was a war, the diaspora started and like yeah, the Romans are really gonna let you first collect your "texts" before shipping you off. So if anything survived it would be a miracle.

 

These are the issues you need to add to the mix before making or asserting any claim. See I cannot even articulate my thoughts properly on this as there is just too many incidentals to also consider.

Also we have to overcome the bias of gnostic is bad as to the other accounts not included in the canon. Then you realise just how much extra stuff is out there.

That's also part of the problem, most definitely. So many different versions of the gospels, yet all of them talk about one single person. Even if you look at other religions that have been made up the last 2,000 years, it's not very common to have so many people fantasize about the same person. The only one that comes close is Islam. Most of the quotes of Mohammad was added by people who "remembered" his speeches/visions up to 150 years later. Still... I don't think any serious historian denies Mohammad's existence.

I cannot comment on Mo but from what I have read, the evidence is not damning either.

 

In the end you simply have to weigh up the opinions (not evidence) and make your own damn mind up.

[asanerman]

I was thinking "inferential," like interpreting the value resulting from the descriptive data and then using them to make decisions.

Now I can't get that word out of my head... what is it called again? Inferential? No. Damn! Now you planted that meme in my head too.

 

Holy crap a meme! Now you've been infected by the inferential mental virus! Damn it!

 

Contact MS Essentials pronto!

 

I'll voluntarily quarantine my memes Ouroboros

[asanerman]

"Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things." ~Richard Dawkins

That's actually something a lot of people don't get about science. They generally only attempt to explain what they feel they can, thus giving the illusion they are the key to explaining things! Wow, I'm thinking of this really old song by Styx, "The Grand Illusion."

 

Hell what good is an Illusion if it isn't Grand! All of my illusions are of the grand mal type!