Comments on: The gospels and the historical Jesus http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/the-gospels-and-the-historical-jesus/ Atheism & Religious Skepticism Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:23:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: A Defense of my Position and Examination of Bias in the Topic of Jesus’ Historicity « Arthenor’s Ramblings http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/the-gospels-and-the-historical-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-8054 A Defense of my Position and Examination of Bias in the Topic of Jesus’ Historicity « Arthenor’s Ramblings Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:58:03 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3201#comment-8054 [...] Jesus from being even longer than it was, I did not respond to two points that Darthcynic made in The Gospels and the Historical Jesus. Those points are his description of my position and his evaluation of our respective biases and [...] [...] Jesus from being even longer than it was, I did not respond to two points that Darthcynic made in The Gospels and the Historical Jesus. Those points are his description of my position and his evaluation of our respective biases and [...]

]]> By: More on the Historicity of Jesus « Arthenor’s Ramblings http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/the-gospels-and-the-historical-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-8026 More on the Historicity of Jesus « Arthenor’s Ramblings Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:12:29 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3201#comment-8026 [...] More on the Historicity of Jesus Darthcynic has replied to my article Response to Darthcynic on the Historicity of Christ over at AnAtheist in The gospels and the historical Jesus [...] [...] More on the Historicity of Jesus Darthcynic has replied to my article Response to Darthcynic on the Historicity of Christ over at AnAtheist in The gospels and the historical Jesus [...]

]]> By: Arthenor http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/the-gospels-and-the-historical-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-7730 Arthenor Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:54:54 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3201#comment-7730 I didn't doubt that you forgot, I just wanted to give you a heads up in case you planned on getting it done before I replied to this post. It seems to me that what was left out is quite possibly closer to the core issues than what you discussed in this post. As we observed elsewhere, a large part of evaluating historical details as above is subjective, which makes it hard to go very deep. Unless we come to some kind of agreement on what divides admissable claims from inadmissable claims, such a discussion could quickly become little more than a ping-pong game of restating our subjective assessments. Furthermore, an assessment of the gospels contradictions or lack thereof seems to have a major bearing on whether one can accept them as at least useful for determining some historic claims. Other a priori assumptions, such as those rejecting supernatural claims or the possibility of God's existence also factor in significantly. I suspect quite a few people share your views as well, making such a discussion of interest to a wider audience than just ourselves. Therefore, I would encourage you to post a response to those issues you omitted above, either in the comments here, on my blog, or as a separate post. If you still feel that no one else would be interested, let me know and I'll give you an e-mail address you can send it to. :-) I didn't doubt that you forgot, I just wanted to give you a heads up in case you planned on getting it done before I replied to this post. It seems to me that what was left out is quite possibly closer to the core issues than what you discussed in this post. As we observed elsewhere, a large part of evaluating historical details as above is subjective, which makes it hard to go very deep. Unless we come to some kind of agreement on what divides admissable claims from inadmissable claims, such a discussion could quickly become little more than a ping-pong game of restating our subjective assessments.

Furthermore, an assessment of the gospels contradictions or lack thereof seems to have a major bearing on whether one can accept them as at least useful for determining some historic claims. Other a priori assumptions, such as those rejecting supernatural claims or the possibility of God's existence also factor in significantly. I suspect quite a few people share your views as well, making such a discussion of interest to a wider audience than just ourselves.

Therefore, I would encourage you to post a response to those issues you omitted above, either in the comments here, on my blog, or as a separate post. If you still feel that no one else would be interested, let me know and I'll give you an e-mail address you can send it to. :-)

]]> By: Darthcynic http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/the-gospels-and-the-historical-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-7701 Darthcynic Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:02:14 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3201#comment-7701 Oh I had the rest done at pretty much the same time, might need some changes after I separated it out of the original rather large essay but tis pretty much done. I have only hesitated in posting as it seems, I imagine to be largely of no interest beyond ourselves; but I am aware of what was not covered. Oh I had the rest done at pretty much the same time, might need some changes after I separated it out of the original rather large essay but tis pretty much done. I have only hesitated in posting as it seems, I imagine to be largely of no interest beyond ourselves; but I am aware of what was not covered.

]]> By: Arthenor http://www.anatheist.net/2009/07/the-gospels-and-the-historical-jesus/comment-page-1/#comment-7696 Arthenor Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:41:21 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/?p=3201#comment-7696 I am pretty much done with my response to this post. However, as noted in this post, there is material in my previous post which this one does not address. If you would like more time to produce a response on those other issues, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll post on Friday and point out which topics have yet to be addressed. :-) I am pretty much done with my response to this post. However, as noted in this post, there is material in my previous post which this one does not address. If you would like more time to produce a response on those other issues, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll post on Friday and point out which topics have yet to be addressed. :-)

]]>