Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Carrier, Van Voorst, O'Neill. Names. If we are going to discuss this writer v. that writer then it's all ad hominem and appeal to authority without addressing the issue under discussion.
Nor did they argue that Hercules or Dionysus did not exist although few today would argue that they did. Prior to Copernicus, Galileo and Newton there was no alternative to superstition. To argue that someone else's god does not exist was to invite a counter argument that your's does not exist. Boxcar wanted an example of an ancient who disputed the existence of Jesus. I gave him one who at least indirectly acknowledged the possibility.
How many different religions were there in the ancient world? Thousands. How many different religions are there today? Thousands. Can they all be true? No.
How many different sciences are there today? One. Did North Korea build its nukes using a different science than our guys in Alamogordo used? No. There are two things that are absolutely true about science:
- There is only one.
- It works.
If you get sick or are injured you go to the hospital. You do not go there for religion. You go there for the science. Because the science works. Even if the doctors tell you that you have an incurable disease the science still works because the science tells them they can't save you.
The question of the historicity of Jesus only came about as a serious discussion in the nineteenth century. It needed science to bring it about. It needs science to seriously investigate it. If no ancient writer steeped in superstition ever questioned it then that is not surprising. It's also irrelevant.
Question: Why is Jesus called Jesus? His name was Joshua. Jesus is a Greek name. |
So you arrived at your position via your own research, and have rarely cited other sources who have unearthed supportive arguments? Nonsense. You utilize whatever supports your position, from a half-remembered something about cats to juvenile cartoons. And were I to continue, I would need an indication of when it's OK to appeal to authority. Global warming? Yes. The overwhelming majority of scholars that accept an historical Jesus? No.
When scholars are done laughing at the attempted analogy of a historical Jesus who has impacted the Western and near Eastern world vis-a-vis Greek mythology, they may suggest to you that the "Paul" mentioned in the Christian scriptures did challenge Greek mythology at Areopagus in his longest recorded dialogue.
To miss the point that "Jesus" would be the fulfillment of "Yahweh is Salvation" is to submit one's point of reference-composed by all the factors that form it--to bear on the matter. And so your "scientism" establishes an hermeunetic of suspicion--"Jesus is another Hellenized myth". For millions of other individuals, countless individuals with letters behind their names, Jesus is the New Joshua, the New Moses, the New David, i.e., the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. Tomorrow is Tuesday. Do you use the term? If so, you are undoubtedly a worshipper of Tiw, the god of single combat, victory and heroic glory in Norse mythology. What other reason could there be for your acceptance of the name?
The rest is the appeal to the thesis that science alone gives us knowledge of reality. When I asked if the truth of that thesis can be measured by the scientific method itself, you resorted to the incoherent response that (after thousands of posts in the Religion thread), we can't really know if anything outside the mind is real.
