tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6528229971801393909..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: An atheist criticizes the Jesus MythVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger159125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57563530873136190022012-05-05T06:35:54.299-07:002012-05-05T06:35:54.299-07:00Tony, thanks for the comment. I really did enjoy t...Tony, thanks for the comment. I really did enjoy this discussion! I like discussing these topics with people of different world views and I always learn something as well! I am completely willing to continue the discussion if you would like or you have questions you would like me to answer. However, when it comes to these topics I find there is a point where most of the cards are on the table. Each side will maintain their viewpoint and those who are willing to be persuaded can read the comments and decide for themselves.<br /><br />Have a great day! <br /><br />- tonyAnthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29233626169965169722012-05-04T21:16:57.045-07:002012-05-04T21:16:57.045-07:00AF: "Tony, I responded at first and then real...AF: "Tony, I responded at first and then realized you didn't ask me any questions. However, I want to be true to my word and give you the last word. If you want me to answer for something else then have at it."<br /><br />Anthony, I appreciate your consistent politeness and kind tone, but I stopped asking you questions when I couldn't find a way to get you to answer the one I posed. My question wasn't designed to put you in an awkward position, but to ask you to look into, to detail, the things that support your belief. I value these discussion with theists because they have made me pay much finer attention to issues I was too casual about before -- mainly, philosophical axioms, epistemology, and a range of sub-topics I hadn't looked into closely enough because I hadn't bothered with some of the details behind my arguments. <br /><br />I enjoy the discussions and always learn something, even when (as they always do), peter out.<br /><br />Cheers.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29924379102673953472012-05-04T13:22:56.676-07:002012-05-04T13:22:56.676-07:00Tony, I responded at first and then realized you d...Tony, I responded at first and then realized you didn't ask me any questions. However, I want to be true to my word and give you the last word. If you want me to answer for something else then have at it. <br /><br />Secondly, I have actually taken a couple classes from non-religious teachers that would be considered as comparative religion. I also have taken my free time to study these things as well. I have read the Koran, some parts of it many times. I enjoyed the Upanishads and the Wisdom of Buddah. Just want you to know I am not ignorant of these subjects and have found some awesome stuff in some of the other world religions!Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62510264817521260932012-05-04T12:57:36.156-07:002012-05-04T12:57:36.156-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3883038507851159282012-05-04T12:39:55.607-07:002012-05-04T12:39:55.607-07:00AF: "Whoa there. Perhaps you should respond t...AF: "Whoa there. Perhaps you should respond to any of my arguments and provide a historical argument of your own that explains the evidence we do have before you conflate the lack of direct archaeological evidence with lack of historical evidence."<br /><br />I have pointed out that you appear to be making a confusing and inaccurate claim by conflating the issues of a historical Jesus and archaeological evidence. I have been paying attention to your comments, but I don't see you clarifying this issue, so I can only conclude that you are confused -- I don't know any way to express my question any more clearly.<br /><br />It is trivially easy to explain the documents in the New Testament, in the same way that it is trivially easy to explain the documents found in other religions. Have you never take a comparative religion course? <br /><br />AF: "In fact, I don't know what you are tying to get at here. You claim Jesus existed."<br /><br />To be clear, I think it is more probable that a Jesus of Nazareth existed than not, but I also find it entirely plausible that a Jesus of Nazareth need not have existed in order for the NT documents to have been written and preserved. This seems like a modest and sensible position.<br /><br />AF: "So, is this about being able to maintain some doubt? I am all for that. Unfortunately I would need to see a counter argument, like Carrier's, that attempts to offer alternative theories."<br /><br />Do people ever think something occurred that did not actually happen in the way they perceived or remember? Are some people ever convinced in something that's not true based on others' persuasion? If you agree that both of the above happen, and in fact happen all the time, then the story of Christianity just becomes a question of ascertaining the facts and filling out the explanations. This, by the way, is what Ancient History classes cover, comparative religion courses, etc. Saying that you need a counter argument to Christianity is like saying you can't find any sand on the beach. Taken an Ancient History course, preferably one on Antiquity. Do not take this course from a religious site, or a religious school, or you'll just be closing your mind to what you already know.<br /><br />AF: "Like I wrote earlier, negating Jesus' existence poses other difficulties. Carrier, in his previous debates, at least understood that much."<br /><br />I have learned this much: I truly had no idea how difficult it is for some Christians to imagine a world in which Jesus did not need to exist.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17562129411756061132012-05-04T07:12:11.129-07:002012-05-04T07:12:11.129-07:00Tony,
A few comments ago you wrote, “Anthony, wha...Tony,<br /><br />A few comments ago you wrote, “Anthony, what archaeological evidence corresponds with the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? “<br /><br />“Then I read it as I have in the past, that you are claiming that there is historical evidence that helps support the claim that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Seeing as how you won't rephrase or elucidate this claim for me, and it's unsupported, I see no reason why either of us should believe this. So I assume that you a) don't, or b) are mistaken.”<br /><br />Whoa there. Perhaps you should respond to any of my arguments and provide a historical argument of your own that explains the evidence we do have before you conflate the lack of direct archaeological evidence with lack of historical evidence. <br /><br />In fact, I don't know what you are tying to get at here. You claim Jesus existed. So, is this about being able to maintain some doubt? I am all for that. Unfortunately I would need to see a counter argument, like Carrier's, that attempts to offer alternative theories. Like I wrote earlier, negating Jesus' existence poses other difficulties. Carrier, in his previous debates, at least understood that much. <br /><br />“If you think that the archaeological evidence supports the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth, then you should be even more confident in the existence of a Joseph Smith.”<br /><br />My comment on doubting the existence of Joseph Smith was a joke. Yes, what pilgrimized sites were the plates at? What cities? Where are they located? I'm starting to wonder if you know anything about Mormonism. I've actually read the book of Mormon and spent time studying it. <br /><br /><br />Now, I really want to give you the last word here. Do you have an actual response to what I have written?Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20947453302382494862012-05-04T04:38:09.766-07:002012-05-04T04:38:09.766-07:00AF: "I've just provided the quote in the ...AF: "I've just provided the quote in the context. I hope that helps you."<br /><br />Then I read it as I have in the past, that you are claiming that there is historical evidence that helps support the claim that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Seeing as how you won't rephrase or elucidate this claim for me, and it's unsupported, I see no reason why either of us should believe this. So I assume that you a) don't, or b) are mistaken.<br /><br />AF: "Also, if you are talking about the central claims of Mormonism that Joseph Smith claimed like his findings in "the Americas" then have it. I would love to see your archaeological evidence."<br /><br />No, I am talking about the various monuments to Joseph Smith, the pilgrimized site where he received the plates, etc. Regarding the absence of some archaeological evidence, pot, kettle and all that. (Global flood, Red Sea parting, etc.)<br /><br />"If you mean with Joseph Smith's existence then I would be open for that one too. I've been feeling big doubt lately over whether Joseph Smith actually existed or not."<br /><br />If you think that the archaeological evidence supports the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth, then you should be even more confident in the existence of a Joseph Smith.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50256659327677537472012-05-03T20:29:53.611-07:002012-05-03T20:29:53.611-07:00I've just provided the quote in the context. I...I've just provided the quote in the context. I hope that helps you.<br /><br />Also, if you are talking about the central claims of Mormonism that Joseph Smith claimed like his findings in "the Americas" then have it. I would love to see your archaeological evidence. <br /><br />If you mean with Joseph Smith's existence then I would be open for that one too. I've been feeling big doubt lately over whether Joseph Smith actually existed or not.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5611325218951734852012-05-03T20:26:01.092-07:002012-05-03T20:26:01.092-07:00Anthony, I am trying to figure out exactly what it...Anthony, I am trying to figure out exactly what it is you are saying. I think the quote you gave is obscure -- it certainly implies, to me, that you think we have archeological evidence for the beliefs of early Christians. As I pointed out earlier, it would be easy for me to write the same thing about Mormon beliefs and it would be equally true.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22093654164465648432012-05-03T20:06:47.424-07:002012-05-03T20:06:47.424-07:00Tony, I am going to paste my quote again...
Being...Tony, I am going to paste my quote again...<br /><br />Being wrote, "You guys think the Bible is a reliable source of information about historical events. I do not. I'm open to being convinced otherwise."<br /><br />I wrote, "I do think that over 20,000 full and partial copies from three languages of manuscripts within 50-400 years of the events (closer than any other copies to originals from the ancient world) that correspond with archaeological evidence, which correspond with other letters of witnesses and contemporaries of witnesses, which corresponds to belief systems and other historical events is probably reliable. "<br /><br />On another comment to Being I made a distinction between the form criticism and historical criticism. So, do you want to keep asking me questions in reference to things I did not say. I took plenty of time pointing out the difficulties with negating Jesus' existence based on the evidence we do have. You are welcome to answer them.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79087892609193000972012-05-03T19:58:32.641-07:002012-05-03T19:58:32.641-07:00Anthony, what archaeological evidence corresponds ...Anthony, what archaeological evidence corresponds with the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11939243733272053962012-05-03T19:42:07.487-07:002012-05-03T19:42:07.487-07:00Tony,
I just quoted the same comment you just qu...Tony, <br /><br />I just quoted the same comment you just quoted. <br /><br />I said the copies correspond with archaeological evidence. I did not say they validated or completely alleviated all doubt from the copies or they were direct evidence for the copies. Correspond could simply mean that the places, practices, and the people mentioned are real. You asked me to clarify and I did.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14712547192771962642012-05-03T19:36:44.393-07:002012-05-03T19:36:44.393-07:00AF: "Tony, could you please copy and paste fr...AF: "Tony, could you please copy and paste from my comments that would quote me as saying anything about direct ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE or evidence that directly supports the claims of Christianity. "<br /><br />Okay. Originally, you wrote this:<br /><br />AF "I do think that manuscripts with thousands of copies from 50-400 years of the event (closer than any other copies to original manuscripts in the ancient world) that correspond with ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, which correspond with other letters of witnesses and contemporaries of witnesses, which corresponds to belief systems and other historical events is probably reliable. "<br />I then asked you, Me: "Anthony, can you name a piece of ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE that supports the argument that Jesus existed?"<br />You replied, AF: "Tony, what do you consider as archeological evidence? I never said there was direct ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE that he existed."<br /><br />I think that I can see how you should modify your position from the above, but I'd prefer that you explicate it for me. You brought up archaeological evidence for Christianity, then appear to modify that with (in)direct, but at this point I think you should explain what it is the archaeological evidence supports regarding the claims of Christianity.<br /><br />In other words, what do you think the archaeological evidence supports regarding the existence or non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Please, be specific about what it is about the archaeological evidence (apart from the documents we have) that would incline you to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61256033637732945752012-05-03T19:23:15.528-07:002012-05-03T19:23:15.528-07:00BDK: "How does a nonspecialist like me know w...BDK: "How does a nonspecialist like me know who is an objective, dispassionate scholar in a field where I have zero expertise, and limited time for study?"<br /><br />Hah. I have no idea either. I could make suggestions, but I'm sure they'd be no better than shouts from a crowd.<br /><br />I think there is a reason that History gets the term "soft" instead of its "science" classification. I love history, but I'd be the first to say that it's imprecise and wooly, and goes with an FAR (feels about right) approach that defies precise classification.<br /><br />I think the historical Jesus question has a life on the Internet that it doesn't in academia because the study of history is about facts and effects, which (maybe somewhat surprisingly, but it sure seems obvious to me) can allow one to treat the actual existence of, say, Dionysisus as a non-issue. What matters is not whether or not Dionysius visited earth or not, but what his followers did, believed, and what the effects of their behavior were on their contemporaries. Historians can study all those things and leave untouched the question of whether or not Dionysius actually existed because it just doesn't matter.<br /><br />I think that maybe one way to look at the question is whether or not historians would care about a) a Jesus who existed who no one noticed or wrote about, or b) a belief in Jesus that people acted on and influenced their contemporaries. It seems obvious to me that historians could only care about the second, and the question of the first is left to those who are concerned about religious or metaphysical issues.<br /><br />All of this being said, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many reputable Historians (teaching at one of the top 50 universities in the U.S.?) who would subscribe to something like what apologists describe regarding the impossibility of Christianity arising without a supernatural occurrence at its heart. That's just plain batshit crazy, and I'd hope that enough of those hiring committees can smell that on an applicant from a mile away,Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34974641567490769212012-05-03T19:04:27.936-07:002012-05-03T19:04:27.936-07:00On a separate note, I have read Karen Armstrong...On a separate note, I have read Karen Armstrong's A History of God and took a lot of time to investigate the claims she makes. Some of them were very compelling.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32772757220834200402012-05-03T18:58:47.511-07:002012-05-03T18:58:47.511-07:00Tony, as far as the Ehrman quote.
There is somet...Tony, as far as the Ehrman quote. <br /><br />There is something to it. To say that these people knew each other, who were given titles like being related to Jesus, does carry some weight. <br /><br />We have gone on for a while here. My frustration here is that you seem to just want to say, "that's not enough evidence" or "that doesn't seem good enough" without providing a theory of your own, without citing any historians, and without taking on the real issues. You don't cite any other historical documents, historical finds, or why we should expect any other evidence than what we have. <br /><br />Now, to your credit you have inspired me to take this subject on in greater depth. I even bought Ehrman's book and I will read Carrier's when it comes out. I have read some of Carrier's other work and listened to him in his numerous debates and even heard some of his talks. Personally, I never found him very compelling. If you would like I would be willing to cite my reasons.<br /><br />I try to read books on both sides of the issues. I will do that more here too. However, it will be tough to find any major historical scholar who takes the other side of this one. Do you know of any works that are published by more trustworthy historians that claim Jesus never existed? <br /><br />Of the New Atheists, I personally find Dennett the most compelling and I personally miss seeing Hitchen's in debates. His knowledge of history was truly compelling and fascinating. <br /><br />With all of that, I will let you have the last word unless you ask me some direct questions you would like me to answer.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62262166046168299032012-05-03T18:40:24.301-07:002012-05-03T18:40:24.301-07:00Tony, could you please copy and paste from my comm...Tony, could you please copy and paste from my comments that would quote me as saying anything about direct archaeological evidence or evidence that directly supports the claims of Christianity. <br /><br />I wrote, "I do think that manuscripts with thousands of copies from 50-400 years of the event (closer than any other copies to original manuscripts in the ancient world) that correspond with archeological evidence,"<br /><br />Yes, I do know that I spelled it wrong.<br /><br /><br />When it comes to the names I listed off. You could also ask to see my arguments. I made other points that did not depend on Josephus, or Tacitus however.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86914967241036667652012-05-03T18:39:27.361-07:002012-05-03T18:39:27.361-07:00Btw, I'd like to point out that whatever trans...Btw, I'd like to point out that whatever transgressions Carrier might have been accused of in the last 10 days, it's hard to beat something as asinine as this from Earhman: ""Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed," he says."<br /><br />I truly don't know where to begin with that, other than starting with a request to Earhman to clarify if he thinks he was misquoted and, if so, to try to re-phrase that one.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78042075759357426872012-05-03T18:32:18.986-07:002012-05-03T18:32:18.986-07:00AF: "Tony, I try my best to be objective and ...AF: "Tony, I try my best to be objective and to give good reasons for my positions. I thought I made good points. If I am way off I am willing to have it pointed out to me."<br /><br />Well, your last set of responses was a tad overwhelming, and it's frankly hard to know where to start. I think that if one were to re-read your posts you show one of two behaviors -- a) asserting specific points (e.g., "we DO have archaeological evidence for the claims of Christianity") that when shown to be overstatements are b) claimed to be part of a broader context that nevertheless supports their validity. I see this a lot, and all I can suggest is drawing a chart and isolating where an individual set of claims (e.g., "The historical evidence for the supernatural claims of Jesus") stands in isolation, because I feel like this is getting balled up with a lot of other baggage that doesn't help.<br /><br />As a case in point, I mean something like this: <br /><br />AF: "Furthermore, that's not “all we have.” I have continually pointed out Eusebius, Clement, Ignatius and am prepared to defend Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Lucian as other witnesses of the early Christians and the existence of Jesus. I am sure that R. Joseph Hoffmann is going to bring some of this up."<br /><br />There are so many imprecise things here that I truly don't know where to start -- you are balling up the term "witnesses" with 6 individuals from ancient history and the term "existence of Jesus," and yet none of them could actually be a Witness for the Existence of Jesus, unless you want to re-define those terms way beyond their accepted meaning.<br /><br />I wonder what you might say if I told you that, based on your response above, that "First off, as far as I know there is no archaeological evidence that supports any of the claims of Mormonism. So..." you could also call yourself a witness for the existence of Joseph Smith.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2347701132972899212012-05-02T19:21:13.313-07:002012-05-02T19:21:13.313-07:00Walter, as far as 2nd Peter. I will have to look u...Walter, as far as 2nd Peter. I will have to look up some things and get back to you. Good points.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17724465385440108112012-05-02T19:20:30.882-07:002012-05-02T19:20:30.882-07:00Tony, I try my best to be objective and to give go...Tony, I try my best to be objective and to give good reasons for my positions. I thought I made good points. If I am way off I am willing to have it pointed out to me. <br /><br />What things did I write that infers me being deep in the kool-aid? Like I said, I try my best to give good reasons, perhaps I committed a fallacy or something.<br /><br />I hope you have a good and safe trip.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60371145447247609632012-05-02T17:30:27.698-07:002012-05-02T17:30:27.698-07:00Something must have set 2 Peter apart as worthy of...<i>Something must have set 2 Peter apart as worthy of inclusion</i><br /><br />For starters, this epistle describes Paul's letters as scripture--that alone would be valuable to the early church. It also provides the famous excuse that Christians still use today for the much delayed parousia. <br /><br />Whether the problems are insurmountable or not there are sufficient grounds for reasonable doubt that Peter had anything to do with that epistle.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52483061826018232442012-05-02T17:02:55.173-07:002012-05-02T17:02:55.173-07:00One does not necessarily have to be a "fundam...One does not necessarily have to be a "fundamentalist fringe" element to regard the basic thought, and even many (or even most) of the words behind 2 Peter to be from the Apostle himself. I see no bar to regarding the letter as a compilation of statements actually made by Saint Peter, put together and "smoothed out" by a disciple after his martyrdom.<br /><br />In fact, I find it difficult to believe that the letter would have been accepted into the canon by the early Church without such being the case. After all, there are numerous other writings extant claiming Petrine authorship, all of which are rightly regarded as apocryphal. <i>Something</i> must have set 2 Peter apart as worthy of inclusion, and the least improbable explanation is that the early Christians recognized that the letter was (at least in spirit) traceable to Peter.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74189628887078620712012-05-02T16:29:38.497-07:002012-05-02T16:29:38.497-07:00AF, I am sitting on an airport but just read/scann...AF, I am sitting on an airport but just read/scanned your replies. Looks like you're a wee tad top deep onto the kool-aid barrel there for my bailing to get you out. I son that've time, and I'm not sure I'd know where to start.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11578719985664682962012-05-02T16:14:44.662-07:002012-05-02T16:14:44.662-07:00Walter, I don't think the difficulties are com...Walter, I don't think the difficulties are completely insurmountable and I don't think those like George Eldon Ladd, Donald Hagner, or NT. Wright are fundamentalists.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.com