Ten oz

Excellent point. The GOP have just over 3 months until 115th Congress ends. There is time to available to do right by all parties.

So until that happens you think this should all go away and Kavanough should be appointed, the Senate should delay a vote and hear from all 3 accusers, or what? That not not a rhetorical question. The train has left the station so to speak. Confirmation hearings are already up to speed on the rail.

I suggested nothing. I believe claims of sexual assault should be investigated and it is simply a matter of fact that many of those who support Kavanough do not want the FBI involved. I made no suggestion about why they don't want the FBI involved.

The Senate can refer this to the FBI and FBI could make the appropriate recommendations related to court proceedings. We seem to be saying similar things yet for some reason you don't seem open to the Senate having professional investigators get involved, why?

That is an okay start but to a large extend are the Senate hearings rife with political bias? I think professional investigators rather than Senators in the middle of election season would be a superior group to get to the bottom of this.

So what are you suggesting should happen? I cannot think of anything more fair to all parties than an investigation which scrutinizes the claims on both sides. Regardless of how high the burden of proof might be it is better than doing nothing. Imagine if the FBI could uncover an email or text from one of the now Three accusers were they mention wanting to sink Kavanough to help Democrats. That would be a massive bombshell that would secure Kavanough's seat on the bench and provide Republicans a massive stimulus at polls. Right, not for nothing I had posted "all the more".

Some of Aristotle's work is still around today via manuscript transmission. Note that I at no point in this discussion have ever challenged whether or not Paul Letters or the Gospels were real and are dated back accurately despite originals not being available to today. Please do not mix my arguments with those of others. I accept the methods which were used to record manuscripts as reliable. At no point have I argued Josephus or Tacitus quotes are forgeries or mistranslated. Per those methods Aristotle's work has survived which means Aristotle was very probably (as your like to say) a real person. Aristotle had access to Thales work. That is a quality first hand account of Thales existence from a very probably real source. Paul never met Jesus and cannot/did not speak first hand about Jesus. Josephus and Taciitus also never met Jesus and the subject matter of their quotes were neither first hand accounts or directed at the existence of Jesus. It is not the same level of quality evidence as The Corpus Aristotelicum.

Humans are not inherently logical or rational creatures. What you or I may assume someone would do in a given situation has no baring over what they do. It is not uncommon for a victim of rape to engage in riskier behavior afterward. Alcohol, drugs, become more promiscuous. It is also common for a victim to become more shy and isolated. There is not a one size fits all. So arguments about why a did X,Y, or Z in the weeks, months, and years following are not necessarily good arguments because we are talking about individuals who have been traumatized. Who suggested that? You asking about due process. Wouldn't due process include a formal legal investigation? You said this thread wasn't about Kavanough's fitness for the bench but rather was about due process. Can you name another way for this situation to receive fair due process for all parties without a legal investigation? Isn't this just empty speculation. Plenty of people have Kavanough's back. Plenty of people like him. On the macro level those managing the Senate hearings have his back and the President himself is on TV defending the guy. Republicans, who make up a significant portion of the population, seem to like Kavanough plenty. On the micro level even here on this forum the only thread on the topic is this one (yours) and it errors on the sympathetic side for Kavanough. If they are false Ford can be charged with perjury. All the more reason to get that investigation rolling.

1 - The claims should be investigated. Unfortunately it is Kavanough's supporters who do not want the FBI to get involved. 2 - Perjury is already against the law. Ford has sent 4 sworn affidavits to the Senate. If the FBI were to get involved and Ford or those who provided sworn affidavits were found to be lying they could face criminal charges. 3 - As mentioned in #2 Ford could be charged with a crime and as mentioned in #1 the FBI could investigate this. That seems like a perfectly fair situation to me.

Right when minorities are pepper sprayed, tased, shot and so on without being guilt of any crime the many argue they didn't follow commands well enough. When wealth white men are approached regarding legal issues the cases must be air tight and proved in advance or else they are being mistreated. Sometimes even after they are proved (Manafort comes to mind) people claim it is unfair.

We get what we know about Thales from Aristotle whom is thought to have had access to Thales work. Could some of that be inaccurate, of course. Does it matter though? What matters about Thales is his contribution to philosophy. Even then it is more clear than what we have on Jesus. Again, had Josephus (a historian) sat down and specifically wrote a bio for Jesus's life that would be very convincing evidence. Instead we have Gospels and we do not know who wrote them or for what purpose. Aristotle for Thales vs unknown Person(s) for Gospels.

In is normal outside of political appointments for multiple different individuals to be considered for a job. Unfortunately when it comes to political appointments the process often because purely about winning vs losing. Once a President nominates someone it is an all out fight to get the person through. The president could nominate someone else but politically that would be seen as a defeat. So the process as it exists seems to be more about political optics than actually getting the best qualified person a lifetime appointment. In my opinion the process needs to change. A list of a dozen potential nominees should be presented to Congress, evaluated, and voted on. It would ensure that whichever Judge moved forward had the support needed to be appointed without controversy which leaves large portions of the population suspicious and dissatisfied throughout the lifetime of that appointment. As that applies to the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanough it seems clear to me that many who feel the women are lying assume they are lying for political reasons. The Presidents said this is a con job and the Democrats are laughing "like hell". It is easy to label everything political in the middle of a political spat. It is dehumanizing to an extent because everyone involved becomes an extension of a political ideology rather than a flesh and blood person.

All the people complaining that Kavanough is being treated unfairly and that we all must withhold judgement seem to be ignoring that Kavanoough is being considered by the nation's elected representatives for a life time appointment. A seat of the supreme court is not Kavanough's birth right. Whether women had come forward against Kavanough or not he should scrutinized carefully. Everyone up for such important positions should be. Now that women have come forward now, during ongoing heirings, is the time to delve into it and not after Kavanough in on the bench for life. Also not getting a lifetime appointment on the supreme Court doesn't ruin one's life. More over is there ever an opportune time to be accused of sexual assault?

Tactius was describing who Christians were. *Edit to elaborate. Tactius was writing about a fire and how Nero had accused Christians of starting the fire. The reference to Jesus was about Christians and was not the subject matter of what Tactius was writing about. Tactius was not deliberately saying anything about Jesus other than that Christians are people who believe in Jesus, which is accurate.

There are many cases where the historicity figures are assumed by association indeed. That is what the pre-socratic philosophers discussion is about only in their case known figures in history wrote of reading their work. The fragments available are not of unknown origin. If James had written a Gospel Jesus's Historicity would be very probable. James knew Jesus and Josephus, a Historian, references James as did Paul. So Jesus would be very probable via association through James. That is the sort of association we have for other historical figures we make assumptions about. Known entities referencing first person artifacts (tombs, writings, art, etc). The bar for Jesus is simply lower than that. There are more assumptions being made with less info. Saying the Gospels are "multiple fragments of evidence" implies we know all of the Gospels weren't inspired by a single persons tale. Sure the Gospels differ from each other but over time people remember things differently and stories change as they are repeated. I think it is a massive assumption to think Paul's work and the Gospels are all independent from each other. That simply is not know. Eise is citing the work of a single historian, Bart Ehrman . I have read his work and the work of other Scholars who disagree with him. No one in here isn't aware of what Bart Ehrman thinks. So what am I to do just ignore the work which makes more sense in favor of the work Eise says has a consensus? If that consensus could be quantified maybe I would. I am not convinced by Bart Ehrman. He takes to much for granted and has changed his own position to dramatically over time. You literally seem to be saying I should take Bart Ehrman's word for it out of some vague sense of consensus. Can we at least get the work of some other Historians in the mix here? Should be super easy to do since there is a consensus. I have listed other Historians but you yourself dismissively referred many of them as in emeritus. I do not really see why a professor who retires but continues publishing should be ignored. It isn't like there is new information rolling in regularly on the Gospels they are missing out on by working from home. Because Eise repeats it in nearly every post. Eise is claiming the consensus makes their analysis of the info superior. If they are going to cite a consensus as support for their position than they should be able to prove a meaning consensus exists. That cannot. The extent of a consensus isn't known. Why? Whether or not Jesus was a flesh and blood man has zero historical significance in my opinion. Christianity is real and the story of Jesus is real and that is what matters with regards to history has consequence. Jesus as a flesh and blood man or myth changes nothing. Likewise is there any historical significance to whether or not Santa Claus is based on an actual person? If so whomever that person was didn't live at the North Pole, have flying reindeer, and etc. Just as Jesus didn't raise the dead or walk on water. Jesus historicity is inconsequential. It is Christianity which matters.

The Historicity of Jesus is not its own discipline to itself like Antiquity or Egyptology. Because of that I do not know what to make of said "consensus". I cannot quantify so for the sake of this conversation where only the work of few scholars has been cited (Carrier, Ehrman, Price, Brodie, etc) I see no relevance of arguing about the said consensus. Moreover a consensus doesn't make something true anyway. As mentioned a few posts back the Historicity of Jesus is really only labored over by a small network of people. Again, I am not even denying a consensus exists. Rather I am simply saying that since no one here can quantify it the consensus has no value in the discussion. You honestly don't believe that who wrote them would have any barring on the analysis? Probabilities and guesstimates normally become more accurate with more data. Who isn't data which they currently have so the best guesstimates don't include them. I think it is obvious that if that data existed it would absolutely be included. There is a meaningful difference between doing without something because you have no choice and doing without something because you don't need it.

A poll, no, but joint research among hundreds if not thousands is common. When people mention the consensus surrounding Climate Change one can quickly reference the joint work of thousands of scientists working for NOAA, NASA, DOD, IPCC, the U.N., and etc. The consensus can be review and quantified. Who wrote those?

I am still waiting for the" Consensus" view to be quantified. I do see it stated that a consensus exists on wikipedia or in various articles about Jesus's Historicity yet nothing ever cites an actually study or even a poll taken among academics. I found a BBC article citing a Church of England poll showing that 40% of people in the UK believe Jesus was a myth. , I couldn't find any sort of poll conducted here in the U.S. dealing specifically with whether or not Jesus was a person but did find an old Gallup poll from 2002 stating that 80% of the U.S. believed Jesus was in fact the son of god or otherwise divine. . Of course these aren't polls of what scholars think and provide no true insight into what the consensus among scholars looks like today. Even more frustrating is that every search leads back to the same small, comically small, pool of people. Several PhD's have their own blogs primarily devoted to marketing their own books on the matter or Church but everyone seems to cite either Ehrman or Carrier while making their case. I am not even denying a consensus exists. Just as am not claiming Jesus did not exist. Rather I am asking for the proof and in return am referencing arguments about which types of philosophical methodologies I should consider superior. I tired of the notion of a consensus being used without it being quantified. It is just am additional piece of inconclusive information which muddies the already cloudy water. An academic consensus which can only be stated but not shown hold no weight in this conversation. Some sort of research or poll of a broad group of academics needs to be cited or Eise needs to drop that talking point.

Nearly everything I have ever read about Socrates generally notes that he potentially could be an invention of Plato. Like Jesus is it possible Socrates wasn't real. There is dispute related to him. So it is an apt comparison but doesn't really make anything clearer. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/ I have never disputed that both the Tacitus and Josephus references are authentic. Rather that they are proof of that Christians exist during their time and not of a human Jesus specifically. Neither Tacitus and Josephus were contemporary to Jesus and neither claimed that Jesus was real or claimed to have directly interacted with anything belonging to Jesus. They don't claim anything about Jesus. Rather their writings are about Christians in general. This is not in dispute. Who are those "several" references? There is also no alternative father to Jesus than God. lack on an alternate theory for something doesn't prove anything specifically.

You have repeatedly used the notion that most historians agree with you and that standard historical methodology is on your side. If that standard only applies to Jesus, Buddha, and perhaps Mohammed (I don't know much about Mohammed) that it isn't as robust a standard as you insist. I have been arguing that your position is exaggerated and not that it is wrong. Our difference are nuanced. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/

I didn't mean to imply the stigma associated with tatleteles was the primary reason. I understand your point about it being easier to fear the a false claim because one has positive control over whether or not the assault. That said I am a man and I have zero fear of being falsely accused of sexual misconduct. So I cannot personally relate to that.

It my experience there are always negative repercussions for women who come forward. Even when their side of the story is vindicated people will still treat them differently moving forward. No one likes a snitch, narc, rat, stoolie, stool pigeon, etc. "Loose lips sink ships". It is partly why Police Officer don't come forward against abusive Officers. There is a stigma attached to speaking out whether one is telling the truth or not. Because of that, among other reasons, there is seldom ever anything to gain from falsely accusing someone. In my opinion concern over false reporting is just propaganda designed to put in people's heads that fasle reporting is a bigger issue that it is as a means of creating plausable deniability for the accused.

The prophets of all current major regions happen to be accepted as real while all prophets of religions no longer broadly followed are myths. The pre-socratic philosophers Eise mentioned are believed to have existed but nothing about their stories are magical or otherwise understood to be impossible. Additionally there are first had accounts by people who claim to have read writings written by their hands.

It is about precedence. You have repeatedly referenced methodology and historical consensus (which you can't quantify). If the Historicity of Jesus is standard historical science than see how its applies elsewhere should provide insight in my opinion. These are terrific examples. As previously mentioned contemporary artifacts would be the best possible evidence. Nothing contemporary to pre-socratic philosphers remains. What we know comes from primarily fragments written by philosophers who had studied their work. The reason why their work could be studied is because they were known to have written housed in libraries and studied by others over time. Primary sources are not of a oral nature recorded by a third party. Rather we have accounts of people who literally claim to have sat down and read things written by the hand of pre-socratic philosphers. So there are first hand accounts of people interacting with works written contemporary to their lives. In the absence of contemporary artifacts first hand accounts of interaction with contemporary artifacts is the next best thing. Through those accounts we have reason to believe contemporary artifacts had existed and were available for some time. The Historicity of Jesus does not have that. Had Josephus (who was not contemporary to Jesus) claimed that he had read something written by Jesus's hand that would be great evidence and I would agree with your 85/15 probably. Had Tacitus (who was not contemporary to Jesus) written of seeing drawings done by Jesus himself that would be great evidence. Rather Josephus & Tacitus reference individuals who reference Jesus. They are degrees of separation and no accounts of contemporary artifacts. Likewise with Paul. We can argue that Paul met James but James never recorded anything. Paul's account is also has degrees of separation. To my point about precedence if the standard for study of pre-socratic philosphers is applied to Jesus I think Jesus comes up short. No one in history has ever claimed to have read anything written by Jesus. I agree. Buddha, in my opinion, is a spot on example. Also another religious figure with over 500 million followers world wide. Like Jesus Buddha was born of a miraculous manner, was a child prodigy, tempted by the devil, had disciplines, performed miracles, renounce wealth, and etc. I see a criterion of not disrespecting religion a certain extend. People broadly accept Buddha to have been a real person but not for nothing it would be disrespectful to Buddhist around the world not to. Also nothing about Buddhist beliefs has culture or ethnic significance outside of Asia. That is important because Buddha's history doesn't compete directly with Abrahamic history.It is did I suspect a much more critic view toward Buddha would exist. What I mean by that is much of Jewish history has been regulated to myth. Just things of legend. Christianity and Islam both have over 2 billion followers a piece to just 6 million Jewish people. Both Christianity and Islam essentially were created to replace Judaism. So while it may be moderately disrespectful to Jewish people to call their religious history myths it serves a purpose to the more prevalent and dominate Abrahamic religions. Moses can be a myth but Jesus and Mohammed mustn't be. I do believe the dominance of various religions globally impacts (not the be all end all) the way history is viewed. I suspect back when the Greeks still believed in Zeus they would have argued Hercules had been real. *full disclosure while I am an atheist and basically always have been the religion which did exist in my home growing up was Judaism.