Jagella wrote:If relevant information is available to me, however, and
that information serves to falsify what those presumed experts are claiming, then I conclude that that information is what is more likely to be true.
I agree that if evidence exists which would falsify what a scholar has claimed then we should go with the evidence. Now where is the evidence that falsifies the widely held position that Jesus was historical?
In the case of New Testament studies, the relevant information regarding the historicity of Jesus is available to laypersons as well as scholars. After reading and considering that information, I've concluded that there is no good evidence for a historical Jesus.
But now you are saying something different. You are not saying youve found evidence that falsifies the claim that Jesus existed. You are simply saying you dont think there is good evidence to support the claim. Thats two different things entirely.
So you'd explain that evolution has happened because the experts say it has occurred.
I wouldnt
explain Darwins idea of evolution as having happened. But I would accept an argument from the majority of experts as a valid form of argumentation in favour of evolution, yes.
I hope not! It makes sense to me that the evidence should come first and then the theory tested to see if that evidence supports it. In the case of Jesus studies, the historicity of Jesus has been assumed from the start as a Christian dogma based on faith. The "evidence" for his historicity came later when skeptics started to question it. For example, 2 Peter 1:16 has the author asserting that Jesus was "no cleverly devised myth" and that he and other Christians were "eyewitnesses of his majesty." So here we have an argument from authority being employed at the very earliest stages of Christianity to "prove" a historical Jesus. So it's: Jesus existed because we said so.
This isnt even a coherent argument. I have no idea what it is your are arguing.
"Experts" might be very helpful in presenting the logic and evidence that supports some proposition.
Right. And if they do you need evidence and counter arguments to overturn it.
But I don't go by their word alone to judge the truth of that proposition.
Thats fine in cases where a single scholar may have done little more than simply assert an opinion with no supporting argumentation or evidence.
It's setting is on an alien planet that harbors life. Humans have not yet been able to travel to such a planet. It is then probably fiction.
But that doesnt follow. Just because we havent yet the technology to travel to distant planets doesnt mean Avatar is fiction. Isnt it possible that there is a planet out there with big blue monkey-like humanoids that have tales?
In much the same way, the gospel tale is based on premises for which we have no evidence.
What on earth? We are talking about the mundane claim of Jesus existing in history. Surely we have ample evidence to support the claim that a person can exist. Geez.
Being consistent, I conclude that the gospel tale--like Avatar--is probably fiction.
But your logic is a mess.
I don't know how old fossils are, and I never said I did know how old they are.
But you implied knowledge of the age of fossils when you said you could see transitional fossils. How can they be claimed to be transitional if you dont have any idea of their age? And you get an idea of their age from experts.
Evolution seems to be part of the world I live in as I see things changing all the time. This empirical evidence is what has led me to conclude that biological evolution has probably occurred.
Sure if you are now simply talking about biological evolution in terms of observable change. But thats something different than what you said earlier when you tried to welcome me to the naturalistic world of Darwinian evolution.
Experts are fine for the job of dating fossils, but they fall short of being able to demonstrate the age of those fossils on their word alone. In a similar fashion, Bible scholars are helpful in providing information about the text of the Bible, but their word alone isn't what suffices as that information.
Thats fine. Again Im not thinking in context to experts who merely assert things without any support whatsoever. Im thinking more along the lines of experts who publish in peer reviewed journals, write academic material, author books which evaluate the evidence, and so on.
I'm not sure how it logically follows that if we don't know the actual name of the soldier who inspired the Cult of John Frum, then he did not exist.
Let me be clearer then. There was no American soldier named John Frum in the region at the time. He doesnt exist and never did.
I have no problem admitting I'm not sure about the existence of Jesus. The reason I'm so unsure about his historicity is because the evidence is so very ambiguous.
Again, always with these statements about your personal doubt. Your personal doubt is irrelevant.
The very same evidence we have for Jesus we could have for a recognized myth. The evidence for Jesus is completely in the form of documents, and documents will stand as still for lies as they will for truths.
There are numerous people from history who have nothing other than documentary evidence to support their existence and also have supernatural claims attributed them. Alexander the Great comes to mind.
The crucifixion of the Jews on the part of the Romans helps to form the basis for my hypothesis that the story of Jesus was based on the "tradition" of Jewish rebels being executed by the Romans.
Which Jewish rebels are you referring to?
No doubt there was much sympathy for and approval of these crucified rebels on the part of Jews, and to create a Jesus based on these rebels would probably appeal to some Jews.
Easily falsified. If Jesus was based on some Jewish rebels who were executed by Rome then we would expect the Jesus of the Gospels to be depicted as having a rebellious attitude toward Roman rule and instigating militant action against Rome. A Jewish military hero of sorts. But we dont see that at all. In fact we see quite the opposite. We see a peaceful and loving teacher who preached that Jews should pay their taxes to Rome. Therefore, Jesus wasnt based on some Jewish rebels.
As we have seen, the Cult of John Frum was affected by Christianity. So we know that emerging religions can get their "facts" from older religions rather than base those facts on real people and events.
But you bear the burden to prove that in the case of Jesus.
That's probably what Christianity did to Judaism--Christianity borrowed ideas out of a "sense of competition."
Nah. Like I said they werent competing with Judaism. They were an extension of it.
Carrier is a very good writer and speaker, and he's not shy about making a case for his ideas. I agree that time will tell if his ideas catch on.
Well dont hold your breath. Carriers ideas arent anything new. The mythical Jesus theory has been widely discredited among scholars.
LOL--I don't need the names of the natives of Tanna who said they saw John Frum to know that they existed.
Why are you laughing? You claimed to know the people who were eyewitnesses for the events that led to the Cult of John Frum. Surely if you
know them, you can at the very least name them. But you cant even do that. So I conclude you dont know them.
I've seen the documentary with footage from WWII that has the natives interacting with the American soldiers and the subsequent emergence of their cult. There is obviously no such evidence for Jesus.
No video footage of Jesus disciples? Yeah. Obviously.
I don't think anybody will ever know if John Frum existed.
I know he didnt exist. So do the scholars who study the cult. If he had existed there would be American military service records supporting his existence. There arent.
The same goes for Jesus: the evidence is too ambiguous to tell if he was real or not.
Again, you mean you personally find it ambiguous. Scholars dont.
You arent addressing the bottom line here. In fact youve ignored it in your last post. The bottom line is that Ive answered your OP question by giving a valid reason to reject the John Frum cult as a superstition - Frum wasnt real. And Ive provided support for the claim he wasnt real. Until you can either prove Frum was real or prove Jesus wasnt, I think we are basically done here with everything else being a diversion.
