Continuation of this thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1521348,1521750


MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And remember that there are more than the two possibilities in this discussion. There is more than "There was a historic Jesus" & "There was no Historic Jesus" there is the concept "Because the evidence is of such poor quality, we do not know if there was a historic Jesus"

Good point.

> Sorry that taking the position that, base on the evidence so far, we do not know. Sorry that taking that position has caused you so much grief.

It hasn't caused me grief.

I have been trying to think about my own personal standards of evidence (having tried to ferret out information in the past, over a number of years.) The gold standard for me is, two vetted first-hand witnesses, who don't know each other (and thus can not corroborate information,) and are not especially invested in the outcome one way or another, both saying the same thing. This won't work in every situation (think grassy knoll, or any other extraordinary or inflammable claim,) but for ordinary information it works quite well.

When you have only one witness, you have to judge the information according to how well you know the witness, how invested that person is in the outcome (which is not necessarily a bad thing, sometimes people notice things because they care,) and more importantly -- does it fit into the mosaic of what you already know. You can't count on the information 100%, but that doesn't mean it's unreliable.

Other information from various sources -- again, it's not entirely reliable, and you keep that in mind, but you see if it fits into the mosaic of information you already have.

A mosaic of information can be a powerful thing, and over time, a reasonably clear picture of an individual or situation can emerge.

________________________________________

Let's take the BoM as an example. The purported validity of the BoM fails not only on my "gold standard" (I believe all of the witnesses had a vested interest, plus most later recanted,) but more importantly on the mosaic test -- i.e. literary analysis by independent experts, historical evidence, and lack of archeological evidence and support. In this case I think that the mosaic of information against it has the strongest supporting evidence.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 04:03PM by summer.

I wanted to weigh in about an argument made a few days ago; the argument that if Jesus had existed as portrayed, that the whole world would have turned out differently. Without taking one position or the other, I just felt that this was a poor argument to make. Most people don’t notice, or care about, what’s going on beyond the tip of their own nose. They live their lives not noticing much of what goes on around them, even when it’s happening right in front of them.

If Jesus was real, and true, and met and spoke to hundreds upon hundreds of people; the thought that he only gathered up twelve people who understood him sounds about par for the course to me, based on what I see from the general population of humans I live around. I’m just saying; that to assume that if he had been real (and true), that it would’ve rocked the world to its core, is a really bad argument. Most people don’t notice much about what goes on around them, or care even when they do. You could walk down the street naked and over half the people wouldn’t notice anything happened.

I’m not saying one way or the other, I just wanted to say: the ‘professional’ who said that made a really bad argument. They don’t seem to be ‘aware’ of people’s ‘awareness’.

However, that view also comes from my own personal ‘mosaic’, because I never saw Jesus as a magical supernatural being anyway. I always saw him as a dude who’d simply spent time in the far eastern ashrams and monasteries, studying enlightenment with the eastern philosophers and the Tibetans. That’s the records they have of him. He simply returned to his people with his enlightened message, and tried to get them to stop worshipping their phony gods and false idols; to emancipate their thinking. But, much as today, people were far too attached to all their raping and killing to listen. The notion that he would be morphed into a god for later people to idolize and worship (the things he spoke out against), doesn’t surprise me in the least. It suited the purpose of what religion is used for; to steer people away from enlightenment. That’s always been my take on it.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I don't put a lot of weight into it one way or the other. That all happened (or didn't) a very long time ago.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 04:01PM by steve benson.

IMO I think the stories of Jesus' amazing miracles would have scored as truly important and rather amazing things to notice, talk about, and write about. There were quite a few of them, and many were spectacular - like walking on water! feeding multitudes from only a tiny amount of original food! rising the dead!

This is not what happened. This evidence does not exist in existing tested history, and to say that this large amount of evidence somehow just disappeared, rather like the all the evidence for the Book of Mormon people, does not make sense when compared to many other cases where evidence, from various sources on subjects, has been saved in the historical record.

In my opinion, the lack of evidence shows that this Jesus that came to be worshipped was the 'mythical Jesus" talked about first by the Jews as being up in heaven, then later made into a person who came to earth.

I agree with you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it's just not there for the purported miracles. OTOH, for the claim that Jesus was an itinerant preacher in Galilee (which is an unremarkable, even pedestrian claim,) I believe that there is adequate evidence for someone who lived about two thousand years ago in a culture where literacy was not widespread.

There is more evidence for the historical Jesus than there will be for me in two thousand years. :)

Hell there is more evidence for a historic Frodo than there likely will be for you in 2000 years.

Standards of evidence should be consistent. If you have only one witness, you have to judge by how well you know that witness but what one witness do you have that actually witnessed Jesus? Nobody.

You have nobody that has witnessed Jesus. You have someone that that heard something about Jesus that apparently believed what he heard. We have no idea if what he heard was fiction or non-fiction. That is the same for any of the people that came after Jesus and talking about Jesus as if Jesus actually existed.

The caliber if your witness is very poor.

The "mosaic" which you yourself claim is virtually all from the faithful perspective. I hope we both agree that such evidence is bunk now.

The evidence that you claim is indeed unreliable thus any conclusion is unreliable. Yes, a mosaic of evidence can be a powerful thing, but you have no mosaic in this case.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 04:31PM by MJ.

The standard of evidence for Jesus among professionals is exactly the same as for anyone else in ancient history and historians find it enough. You are demanding extra evidence and that is neither fair or professional. BTW, you are the one going against established scholarship, so the burden of proof is yours

No, it is not. Biblical scholars use things that are NOT used by other historians, criterion of embarrassment is just ONE example of something that Biblical scholars use that legitimate historians do not use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism#Embarrassment

Criterion of embarrassment requires mind reading of the author to determine what the author thins is embarrassing. No, saying that society would find it embarrassing does not justify the claim that the author would find it embarrassing.

Also, citing thing that are embarrassing could be used to for emotional manipulation.

It is bunk, but biblical scholars use it to try to justify their per-defined conclusions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 04:41PM by MJ.

Not true. Those are used with other people whether you think so or not. For many ancient characters, such as would be messiahs mentioned by Josephus,there is not enough information to use the criterion of embarrassment etc. We have their name and a brief description of what they did.If there is enough, such as there is in the NT, it is used.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 04:45PM by bona dea.

I showed where they claim it was biblical scholars, any evidence it is used anywhere else?

It said it is used by Biblical scholars and it is. That doesnt mean it is used exclusively by Biblical scholars. Those are common sense ways to separate fact from fiction and are used in addition to other methods,not in place of them.

The only references I see are like the reference I HAVE PROVIDED. They only discuss it in terms of biblical scholarship.

You have accursed me of not providing documentation to back up my claim, I have done so here, but you have not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 04:51PM by MJ.

MJ, I had enough with the drive by poster last night and am not going the rounds with you. I stand by what I said and your article didnt say differently.

MJ, you keep responding to me, so therefore we can conclude that it is a mutual obsession?

Paul (Saul of Tarsus) met some of the original twelve apostles, James and Simon Peter among them. He would have had a chance to interview them about Jesus and to assess their claims. Now they were not exactly dispassionate witnesses, but if they say that a certain man existed, he probably did.

There are early collections of the sayings and teachings of Jesus (the early writings that made their way into the canonical gospels along with the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas.) Whether the people who made these writings knew each other is impossible to say. But the early writings are unremarkable and simply state, "Jesus said thus and such." I don't have any problem taking them at face value.

Again, there is more evidence for a historical Jesus than there will be for me in two thousand years, and I am very much real. I have a birth certificate, and photos, and journals, and records. I have people who know me and are related to me. But all the evidence for me will crumble into dust or be lost on an ancient hard drive. The people who knew me will die away. I won't even be a minor footnote to history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 05:57PM by summer.

Responding to obsessive posting is not the same as having the obsession.

I was willing to let it drop, but your starting a new thread calling me out shows that you are not willing to let it drop, thus the obsession.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 04:49PM by MJ.

The main reason that I started a new thread was to discuss standards of evidence (for gaining knowledge of people and situations) because it is a personal interest of mine and one that I have used in the past. I was thinking of bringing it up as an independent topic, but it seemed to fit our discussion as well.

But it was also a case of hitting "post" just to find that the thread was closed!

I prefer to think of what we are doing as a discussion, not "calling you out" or an obsession. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 04:55PM by summer.

You mention standards of evidence that may be great, but do not apply in this case. I have seen no "mosaic of evidence". I have only seen what you claim is vitally all "from a faith perspective" which is not a "mosaic" it from a single perspective. A single perspective is not a mosaic.

You are obsessively trying to present flawed ideas that are not relevant.

Again, I am not the one that is starting new threads with inconsequential nonsense. Your very own claim that virtually all the evidence is from a "faith perspective", a single perspective, negates the idea of a mosaic.

Starting a new thread with a post that contradicts what you said earlier speaks directly to obsession.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 05:04PM by MJ.

Your argument is degenerating to insult.

I realized after putting up my thoughts on what constitutes adequate evidence that the claim that Jesus was an itinerant preacher in Galilee probably has adequate support (given the time period) by my definition of a "mosaic of evidence." You are, of course, free to disagree with me (and you do, you do.)

Pointing out that you contradict yourself about the nature of the evidence is not an insult it is fact.

No matter what the time frame, evidence from a single perspective is not a mosaic, it is a single perspective. A mosaic would need many different perspectives, but that is not what you previously claim exists.

You can misuse words in order to hold onto your cognitive bias if you want, but if you try to misuse words in public discussion, be prepared to be called on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 05:16PM by MJ.

Maxwell employed the term "mosaic" in an effort to make a case for Mormon "history," describing it as a means by which can make one's way through, say, the current wastewater of the Mormon Church's supposedly "historical" essays. I was given this advice from Mosiac Maxwell when I asked him in his Church Administration Building office back in September 1993 how to deal with the contradictions and problems posed by LDS Church "history."

In reply, Maxwell cagily noted that the process of writing history is frustrating, complex and incomplete. He handed me a photocopy of a sermon. (The copy turned out, I discovered later, to be a talk Maxwell himself had delivered during the 1984 October General Conference entitled, “Out of Obscurity.” However, the single sheet excerpts that he handed to me contained no title or author, although it had been marked up in red ink for our benefit. Maxwell’s address ultimately appeared in the General Conference issue of the "Ensign," 10, November 1984, p. 11).

Quoting from a "Tribute to Neville Chamberlain," delivered in the British House of Commons, 12 November 1940, Maxwell’s sermon declared:

"History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days."

The sermon then addressed what Maxwell verbally described to us as the definition of history: a collection, he said, of "floating mosaic tiles":

"The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding.

"The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, do not seem to fit . . .

"So, belatedly, the fullness of the history of the dispensation of the fullness of times will be written.

"The final mosaic of the Restoration will be resplendent, reflecting divine design and the same centerpiece–the Father's plan of salvation and exaltation and the atonement of His Son, Jesus Christ."
_____


"Floating mosiac tiles": Good for Jesus "history," and good for Mormon "history," too.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 05:17PM by steve benson.

My experience is that unpleasant truths will invariably be a part of the mosaic. In my case, I was unperturbed by this and used the unpleasant truths to form a fuller, more rounded picture. But those uninterested in unpleasant truths will choose to hero-worship and mythologize instead. I think this is an all-too-human flaw, and one that I learned about the hard way. We must have our heroes, and woe to those who try to knock those heroes off of their respective pedestals! In the end, Maxwell seems to side with the hero worshippers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 05:19PM by summer.

"Envy the country that has heroes, huh? I say pity the country that needs them." -- Reign of Fire.

You want to see what an actual, weak, baseless supposition about the source of the historical Jesus looks like? Just ask the Jesus mythicists to offer their alternate explanation.

What follows is inevitably a series of conspiracy theories, complete fabrications, or ties to some imagined pagan parallel.

And should you choose to subject any of the alternate theories to the same rigors these folks apply to the actual data, they fall apart without any external support whatsoever. There's a very good reason why this theory took over 1700 years to first appear. And it's this same reason why after its brief moment in the sun, it will likely be forgotten along with other famously imaginative conspiracy theories.

As at least one atheist historian notes, Occam's Razor annihilates the Jesus Mythicists.

http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 05:55PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.ht
> m

Never said "all" atheists. But your misrepresentation is no surprise to those of us who know you.

Please, will you take a moment to explain the actual source of the Jesus story?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 06:02PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

An alternative explanation is that at the time Jesus was supposed to be alive, someone created a fiction about someone named Jesus that was believed. Odd how fiction is often believed. Con men rely on that all the time. So did JS.

It fits all the "facts" presented.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 06:06PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> someone created a
> fiction about someone named Jesus that was
> believed.


Please supply the evidence to support your supposition.

It is the same evidence supplied for historic Jesus.

Nobody really knows, so it is possible JC was real, it is also possible that JC was made up, based on the evidence at hand. The evidence at hand does not preclude a Historic Jesus.

I am not stating that one is true and the other is false, only that there is more than one possibility that fits the available evidence.

For example, Josephus makes a claim about Jesus, but he did not meet Jesus, so as far as we can tell, he only heard about Jesus, who can tell if what he heard was fiction or non-fiction? There is not enough in Josephus to determine the true nature of what he heard.

All of here know of at least one religion that was made up, why not the Christ religion as well?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 06:13PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is the same evidence supplied for historic
> Jesus.
>

Actually no. There is no historical source that claims Jesus was a "fiction" as you supposed. All available evidence suggests he was a real person. You need to supply contrary evidence if you wish to claim he may not have been a real person.

Only that the possibility that it is fiction is not excluded by the evidence at hand and is consistent with the evidence at hand.

There does not need to be a historic claim that a lie was a lie for the lie to still be a lie.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only that the possibility that it is fiction is
> not excluded by the evidence at hand and is
> consistent with the evidence at hand.
>
> There does not need to be a historic claim that a
> lie was a lie for the lie to still be a lie.

And you illustrate my point. This is the conspiracy theory du jour. You have no evidence to support it whatsoever. That's pretty imaginative to claim that you need no evidence for a lie to still be a lie. But to argue that it is a lie without any evidence, that takes a firm imagination and a complete lack of logical thought.

Show you evidence that I am acting out of a conspiracy! Sorry, whining "conspiracy" is not a compelling argument.

BTW, it was aliens drinking the Pepsi from the machine on Pluto that shot JFK, if you want to make up conspiracies.

Your evidence is no better for the existence of Jesus. I just look to see if there is another plausible explanation, you know, with an open mind, and see that there is.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 06:30PM by MJ.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All available evidence suggests he was a real person.

Care to share that evidence?

All the evidence points to a story being created, there is no conclusive evidence that shows if the story was fiction or non-fiction.

As I pointed out with Josephus, He reports something about Jesus, but he never witnessed Jesus. The best we can say is that he heard something and believed it. Did he believe a fiction or a non-fiction. What evidence shows that? Josephus does not give enough detail to discern this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 06:20PM by MJ.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You want to see what an actual, weak, baseless
> supposition about the source of the historical
> Jesus looks like? Just ask the Jesus mythicists
> to offer their alternate explanation.

There are people who speak Klingon. People make up shit all the time. Some shit is thin and runs away quickly. Other shit is thick and sticks like underwear to a sweaty ass. That is how religions are made.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 06:13PM by rt.

And some that rely on faith that are clearly false hang on and on, a modern example is the LDS chruch.

But people have FAITH that it is true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2015 06:16PM by MJ.