Detering, etc.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Peter Kirby »

Duvduv wrote:Peter, there is a tremendous flaw in the theory of critical analysis that ignores the context and relies on claims that cannot be empirically proven. We both knowthat, so why pretend otherwise? Regarding Huller, he is extremely intolerant in his advocacy of censorship. He should have worked for Pravda.
Nobody's ignoring the context here (at least, I'm certainly not), and nothing about the first four centuries AD can at this remove be "empirically proven" without a time machine or remarkable telescope pointed through a serendipitous wormhole. We are left with interpreting the remains of the past as best as we are able. There is no possibility of the simple, humble empirical historian who can peer into the ancient past while being simultaneously removed from the problems of interpreting the literary and material artifacts as best as humanly possible.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
avi
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by avi »

stephan happy huller wrote:Some of what was said about Marcion must be true.
Why? "must" ?

Is some of what was "said" [sic, WRITTEN] about zarathustra, or buddha, or ganesha, "true", absolutely, without qualification?

The great 17th century scientist, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, despite having impressive accomplishments (discovery of spermatozoa, for example) using his famous, hand made microscopes, nevertheless, firmly believed
Wikipedia wrote:that his amazing discoveries were merely further proof of the great wonder of God's creation. Leeuwenhoek's discovery that smaller organisms procreate similarly to larger organisms challenged the contemporary belief, generally held by the 17th-century scientific community, that such organisms generated spontaneously.
Is it proper then, to write, here, on the forum: "some of what Leeuwenhoek wrote (in his letters, about God's creativity), must be true"?

Why should "some" of anyone's text, or rumored text, be considered valid, simply because its contents, or assertions, are repeated by many folks?

Duvduv's skepticism is to be applauded, and those who write disparagingly about him, ought to be more careful in their own submissions to the forum, in my opinion.

Avicenna
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Peter Kirby »

avi wrote:Duvduv's skepticism is to be applauded
It's not quite skepticism worthy of our applause if it's not motivated by skepticism as a value and an ideal. And, quite simply, it is not.

Exhibit A.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=185
At least in the case of Jewish history there can be anecdotal references among mutually antagonistic sources about the existence of a particular individual. In the case of Moses, his existence is upheld by Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Roman and Greek sources. This does not exist in the case of Paul.
But ultimately there is no empirical proof there is only FAITH
You, sir, are applauding an idiot in his idiocy, not a skeptic in his skepticism.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
avi
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by avi »

Peter, maybe there is something wrong with me, I cannot understand why you think the quote you provided, demonstrates anyone's "idiocy". The quote you provided looks quite reasonable to me, well, maybe I am an idiot too, then!!! haha...
At least in the case of Jewish history there can be anecdotal references among mutually antagonistic sources about the existence of a particular individual. In the case of Moses, his existence is upheld by Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Roman and Greek sources. This does not exist in the case of Paul.
But ultimately there is no empirical proof there is only FAITH
I agree with this quote. What do you find "idiotic" about it? How is Duvduv's sentiment at odds with the thrust of this thread?

More to the point, why do you focus on my accolade directed toward a fellow forum member's contribution, and ignore the criticism offered to refute the childish comment by huller?

Cheers,

avi
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Peter Kirby »

avi wrote:Peter, maybe there is something wrong with me
Seems that way.
avi wrote:What do you find "idiotic" about it?
The argument for a historical Moses and the idea that faith must be used to reach any conclusions regarding ancient Judaism or Christianity.
avi wrote:why do you focus on my accolade directed toward a fellow forum member's contribution
This so-called contribution is the same old same old thing that invades any thread that Duvduv is in. This similarly applies to you and Pete. That annoys me.
avi wrote:ignore the criticism offered to refute the childish comment by huller?
I'm not ignoring it. It's directed to Mr. Huller. Neither the childish comment nor its criticism provoked me.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by stephan happy huller »

I will try to explain this again - perhaps for the hundredth time - to my colleague

At the outset you have to establish whether or not the study of history is possible. Perhaps one might argue that the universe is completely chaotic. But there is a semblance of order. The earth revolves around the sun in a predictable pattern. Summer follows spring at basically set times during the year. There are laws in mathematics etc.

So the question becomes whether or not recorded information about the history of civilization should be accepted or rejected. I propose a most controversial hypothesis - namely that the history of Christianity can be developed from the surviving sources. I think to some degree mainstream scholarship has erred on the side of caution - namely that the identities of Paul and Peter are developed from the Acts of the Apostles and what Church Fathers who used these sources say about them. But that is a hundred times better than what Pete and his disciples do, and that is shit on the evidence.
Everyone loves the happy times
avi
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by avi »

Peter Kirby wrote:The argument for a historical Moses and the idea that faith must be used to reach any conclusions regarding ancient Judaism or Christianity.
Thank you, Peter, for clarifying your stance on DuvDuv's quote, above.
At the risk of further annoying you, (sorry, if so--not intentional), allow me to elaborate a bit.
First of all, I do not claim any spiritual, emotional, or physical kinship with any other member of this forum. I know no one, except as internet contributors, and that includes you, Peter.
Secondly, if some idea, upon which I have elaborated a couple of sentences, happens to correspond with the thoughts expressed by another forum member, that should be taken as merely indicating a temporary alignment of the sun, moon, and stars, and not some sort of minuscule conspiracy to thwart Peter Kirby.
Finally, the word "idiocy", in my view, is unreasonable, when applied to the honest expression of a sentiment at variance with one or more prominent forum members.

Let us re-examine what DuvDuv wrote:
At least in the case of Jewish history there can be anecdotal references among mutually antagonistic sources about the existence of a particular individual. In the case of Moses, his existence is upheld by Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Roman and Greek sources. This does not exist in the case of Paul.
But ultimately there is no empirical proof there is only FAITH
I express here only my own opinion, not one intended to be in synchrony with that of any other forum member.

I do not agree that this quote indicates that "The argument for a historical Moses and the idea that faith must be used to reach any conclusions regarding ancient Judaism or Christianity."

I interpret this quote as follows:
Moses had been a legendary figure, whose historicity has been suspect for centuries, despite having been claimed as genuinely human, by writers from many different cultures and epochs, just as had been the historicity of Herakles attested to, by none other than Philo of Alexandria. However, the FACT that so many authors, from so many different cultures, writing at so many different periods of human civilization, attested to the veracity of the claim of Moses' existence, in no way mitigates the FACT that Moses' very existence can only be accepted on FAITH, not empirical evidence. A similar situation exists for Paul of Tarsus, about whom, however, there exist even fewer authors attesting to his existence, than for Moses or Herakles. There is no empirical evidence for the legitimate historicity of these characters. By contrast, as Philosopher Jay has noted, there exist at least three different Greek writers attesting to the existence of Socrates and Plato, acknowledging of course, that Moses and Herakles both had been claimed to have lived a millenium before Plato.

Regardless of DuvDuv's position on this matter, in my opinion, any idiot can recognize that FAITH is absolutely required to believe in the divinity of any of these religious figures. There exists no evidence of any kind to support the Mormons, the Jews, the Christians, the 7th day Adventists, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the 29 sects of Hinduism, the 41 sects of Buddhism, the zoroastrians, the last of the Mandaeans, or the last of the Mohicans.

So, YES, FAITH is required, Peter, to reach any conclusions about religious doctrine, for it is, all of it, 100% NONSENSE.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by Peter Kirby »

avi wrote:Regardless of DuvDuv's position on this matter, in my opinion, any idiot can recognize that FAITH is absolutely required to believe in the divinity of any of these religious figures. There exists no evidence of any kind to support the Mormons, the Jews, the Christians, the 7th day Adventists, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the 29 sects of Hinduism, the 41 sects of Buddhism, the zoroastrians, the last of the Mandaeans, or the last of the Mohicans.

So, YES, FAITH is required, Peter, to reach any conclusions about religious doctrine, for it is, all of it, 100% NONSENSE.
Thank you for clarifying what you consider the point to be here. It is telling of why both you and Duvduv struggle with the concept of investigating what can be said historically about ancient Jews and ancient Christians in a non-faith-based manner.

This is a history forum. There's lots of better places (and even some other sub-forums here) for bringing up the issues you have with religious doctrine.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote:It's not quite skepticism worthy of our applause if it's not motivated by skepticism as a value and an ideal ...
I'm not so sure about that statement - I'm not sure skepticism is a 'value'.

Good reasoning & critical thinking are valuable, but not even that makes them values.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Detering, etc.

Post by MrMacSon »

stephan happy huller wrote:At the outset you have to establish whether or not the study of history is possible.
It is, of course. It's a question of whether those studying it are using similar methodology, or value consistent methodology.
Perhaps one might argue that the universe is completely chaotic. But there is a semblance of order. The earth revolves around the sun in a predictable pattern. Summer follows spring at basically set times during the year. There are laws in mathematics etc.
Those laws describe the patterns, they do not govern or establish them.
stephan happy huller wrote:So the question becomes whether or not recorded information about the history of civilization should be accepted or rejected.
This sentence tied to the previous paragraph is a non-sequitur, and a category error.

Furthermore, the history of civilisation has many many facets, each requiring assessment in isolation as well as in conjunction with events either side of them chronologically, and assessment on the basis of the 'quality' of the information

stephan happy huller wrote: I propose a most controversial hypothesis - namely that the history of Christianity can be developed from the surviving sources. I think to some degree mainstream scholarship has erred on the side of caution - namely that the identities of Paul and Peter are developed from the Acts of the Apostles and what Church Fathers who used these sources say about them.
I agree the history of Christianity (and other religions) can be developed.

I think main-stream scholarship has erred on the side of giving undo credence to the religious texts as 'historical documents' about the religion's origins.
Post Reply