Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi Peter,

I was up till 3. A.M. finishing giving out grades to my students for the semester. Reading and re-reading their papers, it was obvious that about half heard what I was saying all semester about the desirability of critical thought and about half didn't listen to a word. Its frustrating reading papers where students proclaim that they trust their guru/priest/spiritual adviser because he's a good person and good people don't lie.

I'm sorry, but I had to laugh a little bit. Maybe the problem is that the Bible's texts and their traditional understanding lay on their hearts and it´s not so easy for them to break free. A year ago I had a dinner with two good friends, very liberal christians and highly intelligent. One of them told me that he is reading “The Gospel according to Pilate” by Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt. He was impressed by the book. I asked him only questions about the book without a critical approach. At last the novel by Anatole France "The Procurator of Judea" came to my mind and I told them naively the story. Both of them were really shocked about the ending of the story. It was an alien story for them and I was completely unprepared for that situation.

It's funny how this spam brings something up that seems to be very relevant to recent discussions here.

Ulan wrote:It's funny how this spam brings something up that seems to be very relevant to recent discussions here.

What I notice is the spammer's inability to make sense in his/her first sentence. Can you parse the sentence so that it makes grammatical sense?

It's a literary masterpiece that uses the language of nonsensical grammar to promote the writer's system of orthodox grammar, much as Paul does in his letter to the Colossians wrt to gnostic and orthodox theologies.

spin wrote:

Ulan wrote:It's funny how this spam brings something up that seems to be very relevant to recent discussions here.

What I notice is the spammer's inability to make sense in his/her first sentence. Can you parse the sentence so that it makes grammatical sense?

It's just system maintains and look to better work.

I guess he will have to work on his word scrambling algorithm .

But in case it wasn't clear, the stuff that I meant he brought up was this topic, especially the first post.

perseusomega9 wrote:It's a literary masterpiece that uses the language of nonsensical grammar to promote the writer's system of orthodox grammar, much as Paul does in his letter to the Colossians wrt to gnostic and orthodox theologies.

This must mean that you've read Catch-22.

The ancient scrolls will never be considered as reliable evidence for those who have a bias agenda. Because they have an out in saying (correctly) that the meaning of words can be lost in translation because they meant different things at different times to different people.

The problem of precise definition of words was noted as far back as Socrates: "If we assign names as well as pictures to objects, the right assignment of them we may call truth, and the wrong assignment of them falsehood...There may also be a wrong or inappropriate assignment of verbs; and if of names and verbs then of the sentences, which are made up of them."...Cratylus

So, to validate ancient history for the harshest of skeptics, it helps to have empirical evidence from that time period to back it up. To determine if Jesus existed or not so as to satisfy the skeptic you should be prepared to give a way to falsify your position using the scientific method.

If you asked the famed Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, what empirical evidence he would accept that would disprove his religious belief he would say; If someone dug up a 1st century ossuary that still had the bones of Jesus inside along with documentation from family or followers, and DNA/Carbon dating that verified it, that would do it. However, if you ask a mythicist if that same evidence would also destroy their ideology that Jesus was a myth, they would say no, because their religious belief allows them to discount any and all evidence that Jesus was real, be it ancient writings or DNA from bones.

Now with that kind of evidential standard how would you plot both Craig and mythicists on your chart?

Sincerely,
John T

John T wrote:.
If you asked the famed Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, what empirical evidence he would accept that would disprove his religious belief he would say;

If someone dug up a 1st century ossuary that still had the bones of Jesus inside along with documentation from family or followers, and DNA/Carbon dating that verified it, that would do it

.
So, Craig allows for Jesus not bodily ascending to heaven to be at the right hand of god?

John T wrote:The ancient scrolls will never be considered as reliable evidence for those who have a bias agenda. Because they have an out in saying (correctly) that the meaning of words can be lost in translation because they meant different things at different times to different people.

Not just lost in translation; lost in transliteration; repeatedly, over many decades and generations.

John T wrote:So, to validate ancient history for the harshest of skeptics, it helps to have empirical evidence from that time period to back it up. To determine if Jesus existed or not so as to satisfy the skeptic you should be prepared to give a way to falsify your position using the scientific method.

Falsification is not part of the scientific method; it was a philosophy espoused by Karl Popper.

The scientific method is underpinned by testability, and reliability of repeated testing ie. repeatability.

John T wrote:However, if you ask a mythicist if that same evidence would also destroy their ideology that Jesus was a myth, they would say no, because their religious belief allows them to discount any and all evidence that Jesus was real, be it ancient writings or DNA from bones.

Now with that kind of evidential standard how would you plot both Craig and mythicists on your chart?

Sincerely,
John T

Herein lies the crux of the abhorrent nonsense you write.

"ideology", "religious belief", "discount any and all evidence"

as for "sincerely" - you, John T, are as sincere as bear-shit.

@MrMacson,

You are about as sincere and knowledgeable about the scientific method as bear scat.

See, anyone can play the childish game of insults but does it prove anything, nah, except who can be the bigger jerk.
Nice try at spin but I can't help but notice you still didn't address the dilemma.

Fancy that.

Let's see if any mythicist will answer the question: If 1st century bones are proven by DNA to be from Jesus would the mythicist admit that Jesus was indeed real and not a myth?
Come on, show your true colors.

John T

John T wrote:@MrMacson,
Let's see if any mythicist will answer the question: If 1st century bones are proven by DNA to be from Jesus would the mythicist admit that Jesus was indeed real and not a myth?
Come on, show your true colors.

I'm not a mythicist, but your question is nonsensical. What do you want to test against? Ask God for a DNA sample?