Eise

Yes, and relativity and QM are also still highly disputed. Look at all those postings of crackpots coming in here! So many more threads on it than on "2+2". I can't help that there are so many crackpots thinking that the problem isn't solved yet. The 'problem' with relativity, QM and the solution of free will, is that they are (partially) counter intuitive. The extra problem with free will is that intuitions are very dear to many people, connected to their answer on the meaning of life, and their world view in general. That is true both for 'hard determinists' and believers in contra causal free will.

You should see the context to understand it. Jesus believes that the end of times is coming soon. People should give up everything to assure they can enter the kingdom of God: the highest treasure.

Philosophers will not go away. Or better philosophy will not go away. The difference is: there might come a time that people do not want to pay an academic discipline that only strives for intellectual clarity. Of course, every science strives to intellectual clarity, so in this respect philosophy seems to be a discipline without a subject. However, every time science gets into some crisis, like the beginning of QM in the 20th century, or the methodological discussions in sociology, psychology etc, scientists are doing philosophy. They might be best equipped, better than 'general philosophers', but surely, when having fundamental methodological discussions, scientists are not actually doing science: they philosophise. Now, if somebody specialises in such fundamental questions in sciences in general, he is a philosopher. I think you are perfectly able to make the parallels for other philosophical disciplines, like ethics, social philosophy, philosophical anthropology etc. Then there is a big area that is often forgotten by scientists: daily life. As our understanding of nature and ourselves increases, questions about what the consequences for us individuals, change. These questions should be clarified, maybe answered. But as times change, these questions change, and so their answers. So there is no permanent 'body of philosophy', of definite answered questions. It is a mistake to see philosophy as a science. Philosophy is the big reservoir of intellectual techniques, of memories about how people thought about all kind of problems, a training in how to cope with intelligibility problems. It is useful, because the same kind of intelligibility problems rise again and again in a changing society. Philosophers did not develop the scientific method: scientists did. Philosophers clarified it, made it explicit. And so also made it useful for e.g. the demarcation between science and pseudo science. (Be aware: philosophy does not pretend to be a science, so it cannot be a pseudo science.) I already said: philosophy clarifies. I consider the free will problem solved, mainly by clarifying what 'free will' really means. You can start a new thread about free will if you want to...

Now that is a straw man. I would even claim that philosophy didn't invent the scientific method. If someone needs intellectual clarity.

Well, then it least has a purpose. But I do think philosophy offers more, but I already wrote that here. Let me know what you think. OK. Message taken. But then your contribution is as meaningful as e.g. this one. Physics resembles a post game commentary on what should have/could have been of the human condition. It dwells on the shortcomings of our experiments, and for those that believe in its usefulness to overcome the impossibility to know what reality really is behind our observations, presumes it can or does influence the later outcomes of the sport, be it the triumphant wins or the tragic losses. And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology. If you think this is absurd, then look at all the crackpot theories that are posted here or sent to physicists. You know, it is for those who think that physics tells us what reality really is behind the scenes. It only has nothing to do with what physics really is.

OK, now I see what you mean. Yes, I reacted a bit from anger here. It is my strong suspicion, that arc thinks it, but you are right, he did not state it. But if music is useful, it is in a completely different way than science. Science always has the promise of its use: technology. With technology we can change our environment, we can reach many of our goals with help of science. We can't with music. But music is more or less a value, it makes life worth living, people enjoy music. But if you mean that, then philosophy is also useful. Many people enjoy philosophy, so it is useful. Many people need philosophy to come to terms with life, to find their meaning in life. So in this way, philosophy is not useless at all. But I think arc will not come back at this topic. He just wanted to make a rant, and does not want to discuss this. If he would, he would do something useless... namely philosophy.

No, it is not a good question. It supposes that at least one of the stories is true. Only some kind of believer can make such a statement. A historian can't.

No, I didn't. But your answer is so unclear that I still don't know how you interpret "And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology". I interpreted: Astrology is useless. Philosophy is like astrology --> Philosophy is useless (If you like you can also take 'BS' instead of 'useless'.) If arc meant something else he should say so.

Yes, I said it, and yes, it is not relevant. Are you such a bad reader??? I did not say they find truth in the NT, but in the history of the NT. So it is not about the question if Jesus healed a blind man, but how the story is written. Is it exactly the same wording as in another gospel? Then one might have copied it from the other, or they copied it from the same source. Is the Greek funny, but does it make sense when it was originally written in Aramaic? Then it probably originally was Aramaic, and must stem from Palestine, not from the surrounding countries. Does a misunderstanding only make sense in Greek? Then it was surely later added. Etc etc. And no, stop your insinuations about theologians. You know your assumption 'you mean Theologians' is false. No academic historian has contradicted Ehrman that he describes the consensus of what historians think about Jesus' existence. Read Ehrman, see if that is a theologian defending his belief, and then come back.

Then how do you interpret this sentence?

According to which Gospel? Mark, the oldest Gospel, says nothing about Jesus birth about a virgin birth. Neither does John, the latest that was accepted as authoritative. So do we give Jesus a point on that? And why would it not be possible that messianic elements were added afterwards? Why would that be an either/or? And again, why could that not be added afterwards? I already said that we will never have real prove if Jesus existed. So no 'robust confirmation'. But, as you say 'we go where the evidence takes us', or I would say 'we go where we have the most probable assumption'. Why would failing documents would be a proof that he did not exist? Do you know of any document where Jesus should have been mentioned? Yes, I already said that. Suffering people long for a saviour, a messiah. So why should Jesus not been molded into one? It seems to me that you make the same methodological errors as Ten oz: it is obvious that the NT has a history, and historians are able to derive a few things from that. Differences or similarities in style, passages that must be originally written in Arameic, others that clearly are added later in Greek, differences and similarities in the exact wordings of some stories, etc etc. Then the probability that Jews would start to believe in a humiliated and executed messiah, the fact that Paul describes that he met Peter and Jesus' brother James, and the fact that Josephus also mentions James as brother of Jesus, the fact that Josephus also mentions John the Baptist, the fact that nobody in antiquity disputed the fact that Jesus existed, the quick rising from Christianity... That is a theological argument, and therefore has no value in the question if a person Jesus, on who these stories go back, really existed. Besides that this is a theological argument again, why should one decide ,which is the real story'? Why not just do research on the sources, on the context and time in which the stories arose, and then draw your conclusions? And again: why would it be impossible that all these magical stories were added afterwards? And what is the relevance? Because Jesus was called messiah, i.e. Christos, he did not exist? Did Julius Caesar not exist because Caesar just means 'emperor'? And that Buddha means 'enlightened one' is also a proof that he did not exist?

Why was this moved to philosophy? Philosophy is an academic discipline, and I can assure you, nothing of AshD's post has anything to do with it. This belongs in speculations. Or worse...

Beautifully written. It only has nothing to do with what academic philosophers do. Just to clear this up: philosophy is not a science. But to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.

It is hard to be humble... Here and here. See what you think. Note: I am not Doctor. How do you call somebody who finished his study, but did not write a thesis? Bachelor? Oh, man! Then you should see a doctor.

That is of course true. Suffering is of all ages, and the longing for the end of it too, including somebody who ends it (from Jesus to Hitler), whoever. Yeah, right again. But you must separate between all the stories told about Jesus, and if there actually existed a person about which these stories were told. As you can read in my previous posting, the historians leave not much of the messianic, miracle stories about Jesus. Yes, and these historical accounts are the only we have. Do we investigate them, in their historical context, or do we throw away them beforehand? What would the scientific stance be, according to you? Possible, yes. But Christianity has a problem here. In the Jewish belief the Messiah was a man of Power, either the right hand of God, or a King like David, a kind of war king, freeing the Jews from oppression. But Jesus was crucified, by the occupants, the Romans. It is very unlikely that Jews would make up a story about a crucified Messiah. So it is highly probable that it was an undeniable fact that Jesus was crucified. Crucification just doesn't fit in any of the previous existing theologies, so Christians had to reinterpret what a messiah was, to get the message over. It is an important part of the myth, but this time it can easily explained. The Hebrew word for 'virgin' aslo means just maid, young woman. Just take the translation you like (wow, a mystical birth), and you are on the way making a messiah of Jesus. Proven? Never. We only have a few resources. But who knows, a few more will be discovered. It already happened last century, old papyrus scriptures, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in a grave in Egypt. But a definite proof, no, never. But our conclusion should be the most probable. And there the historians have something to say.

Uhh? The bible being a critical resource? Who said that? Not me, nor Ehrman. It is a resource that must be critically evaluated. I read Carrier's critical review of Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?', and Ehrman's response. I read Acharya S' The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. It is worthless, really. You see, I read Ehrman, but you treat him the same as the NT: 'Christian source, thus worthless'. Read him, and then say what you think of it. And Ehrman may work 'outside of mainstream theology': but he is in mainstream history. Do you find any criticism of an academic historian that it is not true that Ehrman just gives the general view point of historians?

So once a theologian, always a theologian? Why do you think so many theologians don't like him? And don't you think the bible is one of the most important books in Western history? Not of course as the book containing the most, and most important truths, but standing at the basis of 20 ages of Christianity? Das Kapital is also a very important book in history. But you don't have to believe its contents for just one sentence to acknowledge that. Aristotle's ideas about physics and biology have been very important in the past. But they were mostly wrong. Ehrman does not believe in the Jesus of the theologians. He believes in the Jesus of history, which is a quite different Jesus than the one of the theologians, and of who we know not much: that he was baptised by John the Baptist (whose existence is even more widely confirmed by Josephus than of Jesus himself) that he had a brother James and that he was crucified under Pilate who was probably a apocalyptic preacher, of who many Jews thought that he was the Messiah That's more or less it. It is not much, but this is more or less what all sources agree on: the gospels, the Pauline epistles, Josephus, and Tacitus. Their mentioning of Jesus fits in the cultural background of Palestine in those days, and the appearing of Christians, first in the East, then in Rome.

Ten oz, I am not giving the theological view. I don't believe in 'the Saviour', the 'son of God' or any of that crap. I don't believe in Jesus' miracles and his resurrection, I don't believe in God. I am an atheist. Style and language are clear indications that there we at least 7 sources for the gospels. You forget again, that we must base our conclusions on the scriptures we have. Christian and none Christian. Ehrman is not a believer, he is a historian, an agnosticist. He wrote many critical books about Christian scriptures: How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them), Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Even in the last book he develops a very critical view on Jesus, that most theologians do not like very much. Ehrman is the perfect projection screen for theologians and frustrated atheists. Which is also a hint that he might be right. The unprejudiced researcher always gets it from both sides... Your reference to theologians' points of view is completely beside the point. I don't believe theologians, Ehrman neither. You are building a straw man. The gospel of John is the latest, because clearly influenced from occurrences after Jesus' death. It is also the most theological gospel (in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it). There is more talk from Jesus about who he himself is than in any other gospel. Just self declarations and miracle stories. No ethical preachings. No mentioning of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. Why do you think?

Wow, that is funny way to picture discrepancies in the Bible. Enjoy, yahya515!

I think one example of why philosophy can be useful is to analyze why not every science can have exactly the same method and criteria for (preliminary) truth, e.g. the differences between physics and history... See the Jesus thread.

Of course. The gospels also might be have beamed to Palestine in 0 CE by Scotty from the future. You see, Ten oz, historians work on basis of the available material. They do their best to analyze them, see what they can conclude of them. (The best analysis reveals that the 4 gospels are based on at least 7 sources. Some must have been Arameic, others were directly written in Greek.) Then they fit their possible findings in what they know from this time and place from other sources. You behave like some critics of Galileo: just refuse to look through the telescope. A skeptical approach does not mean not to investigate at all, but don't taking your material as the bare truth. If I would take your extreme skeptical stance then I could also conclude that Julius Caesar did not exist: the coins were put in the ground, all the antique documents, so called 'first eyewitness accounts' included, were put in libraries and archives in the second century, etc. etc. Of course, I have no proof of that, but hey, I don't need it! It is enough to declare the sources unreliable. The question of Jesus' historicity is approached researching the material we have. If we are left with nothing, that will turn out. As with Moses, Krishna, Heracles, ... But if we are left with some positive facts, then we should accept them. It has all not much to do with knowing the actual authorship of the gospels. Paul gives nearly no facts about Jesus. Why should he? He was writing his letters to Christian communities, who needed advice or correction of their theological errors. But Paul gives a few interesting details about his life: e.g. that he went to Jerusalem and met the apostle Peter (Cephas) and the brother of Jesus, James. Funny, Josephus also mentions James as brother of 'Christ'... No, the mythicist method is very simple. Do you find something that points at a historical Jesus? Then just say it was a later insertion by a Christian scribe. Problem solved. Do not look into other ways of trying to establish the reliability. Do not search for other versions of the same text. That is empirical research: just disqualify the observations that do not fit your ideas. You are close to a conspiracy theory, Ten oz... According to which of the accounts of Jesus' life these points were gotten? Take the following three approaches. Give a point for every similar point found in any source of Jesus' life we have (e.g. this we find in Mark, not Luke, but we have a point; that is not found in Mark, but in Luke, so another point. Or worse: Source 1 says X, Source 2 says not Y, and contradict each other. Great! One point for X and one point for Y!) Give a point for every similar point found that all sources agree upon. Give a point for every similar point found in every one single source. So you get as many scores as you have sources. (e.g. Lukas 13, John 18). And? What is it worth? What can one conclude from it? That Jesus was made up completely? That some mythical features were added to his life stories later? Sorry, this has nothing to do with science, not applied on this way. In this context, the question if Jesus existed, it is just a silly game.

I recognise these postings. Don't know what he is up to. See here. And if the link works, look what he has posted already... And further here, here, here, and here (in Google's Webcache only. Was the thread deleted? Or must you be a member first?) I am away...

I reacted already on that here. Relevance? It is possible to distillate a lot of the history of the gospels without knowing the authors. If you are seriously interested in this subject, read Ehrman. He explains very well what one can conclude from different versions of the same stories, of different versions of the same texts, of translation errors, of the historical context, etc. Oh, I forgot, you already put him on the list of believers, so he is not reliable. Funny however, that he is mentioned as one of the strongest critics of traditional interpretations of the Gospel stories. See how his opponents react on him.

Not evidence. But making something more probable. One 'hearsay' is of course not worth very much. But many of them, combined with how the reports correspond, and how they differ, how they changed in time, yes, they are strong hints that Christianity is based on a real existing preacher that was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It does not mean to take the NT literally: we don't have to believe contradicting stories (how could you? OK, Christians can...), we don't have to believe supernatural stories. Same error again. Unless you prove to me that the history of writings does not reveal at least something about these writings, your statement is empty. Nobody asks you to believe the NT beforehand, or take anything literally. From the history of the 'Lord of the Rings' we know that Frodo did not really exist. Like flying into buildings? We are not talking natural science here, also no judicial case. It is about history. You are simplifying things. I don't think you know much about historians' methods.

You keep making the same error. If you look at the history of the book 'Forrest Gump' you would find out soon enough that it is a product of fantasy. It is not enough for a text to be placed in a historical context. Every historical novel is. If you look at the history of the NT, then you find that it is based on different sources, written at different times, and at different places. It is a much more probable assumption that different people, at different times, and at different places, base their writings on hearsay stories of a real person, then that based on legends people come to such stories with as well essential core elements, as widely different interpretations around them. The problem in your (and maybe of all mythicists') approach, is that you throw away all hints that Jesus might have lived one for one, but do not take them all together. When all hints to a common core are taken together then they point to a real historical Jesus.