Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 13 of 19
 [ 379 posts ] 
Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus
Author Message
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:If we both agree with the proposition "most claims that God has spoken to someone are false" and that proposition is sufficient to make my argument then I have no need to push for a stronger proposition with which you will not agree anyway.

You seem to be suggesting a proposition which you yourself don't even agree with.

SPECIALFROG. Do you believe that God or many Gods could exist? If so, then I ask; what evidence do you have to support this belief? If the answer is No, then I have to wonder why is it your position is so inconsistent.

If the answer is No, then your "fortion" argument does not accurately represent your views.

The following two propositions could both be true:
1) most claims that God has spoken to someone are false (e.g. more than 50% of these claims are false)
2) all claims that God has spoken to someone are false (e.g. 100% of these claims are false)

You will of course agree that 100% is more than 50%.

In fact, I think both of those propositions are probably true. But we both agree with proposition 1), which is the point of an a fortiori argument. Any argument that is true if 1) is true is also true if 2) is true because 2) implies 1).

Are you really struggling with this basic logic or are you just trying to avoid discussing evidence?

As for your second pointless question, I don't know what could exist. However, I know of no reason to believe that any gods actually do exist. I also know of know reason to consider the god you believe in more probable than any other god or gods.

Also, the current text of the Torah dates to around 600BCE or later. While some bits are certainly older there is no good reason to think this bit is older than myths around Hermes (who is actually depicted in that image).
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:49 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3144Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Image


Much like I said above. It would be the Hebrews incorporating a much older story into their traditions and myths. You know that that symbol and myth are not unique to Judaism right?


I am not sure why you would be posting this since the torah predates the greek myth of Asclepius by 1000 years.


:lol:

As SpecialFrog already pointed out, that is Hermes and notice what he is holding? That is called the caduceus, the origins of which date back to 3,000 to 4,000 BCE. Do you have any sources for Moses putting serpens on sticks before that in Jewish lore? That would be impressive, because that would throw off the whole timeline of the Bible.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:12 pm
YIM WWW
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 665Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:SPECIALFROG. Do you believe that God or many Gods could exist? If so, then I ask; what evidence do you have to support this belief? If the answer is No, then I have to wonder why is it your position is so inconsistent.

I know this's been directed to SpecialFrog but... Define "god/gods". That word has so many meanings that asking if they are possible isn't a coherent unless you define the word.
Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:50 am
thenexttodiePosts: 577Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:If we both agree with the proposition "most claims that God has spoken to someone are false" and that proposition is sufficient to make my argument then I have no need to push for a stronger proposition with which you will not agree anyway.

If the answer is No, then your "fortion" argument does not accurately represent your views.
The following two propositions could both be true:
1) most claims that God has spoken to someone are false (e.g. more than 50% of these claims are false)
2) all claims that God has spoken to someone are false (e.g. 100% of these claims are false)

You will of course agree that 100% is more than 50%.

In fact, I think both of those propositions are probably true. But we both agree with proposition 1), which is the point of an a fortiori argument. Any argument that is true if 1) is true is also true if 2) is true because 2) implies 1).

Are you really struggling with this basic logic or are you just trying to avoid discussing evidence?


I'm struggling to get you to lays your cards on the table, so to speak. I've already plainly admitted to you why I believe 1 is true. Now I'm trying to get you to do the same.

So, the reason you believe 1 is true, is because you actually believe 2 is true. Because you believe God does not exist and therefore can not speak. Have I got that right?


SpecialFrog wrote:Also, the current text of the Torah dates to around 600BCE or later. While some bits are certainly older there is no good reason to think this bit is older than myths around Hermes (who is actually depicted in that image).


Actually I think the Torah is much older then that. The date of 600BC for some parts of the Torah is based on the Documentary Hypothesis, basically the idea that the Torah was the reasult of a cut and paste job of scriptures written by 4 different authors over a period of 600 years. I believe this idea relies on many assumptions which are now known to be extremely unlikely or have actually been proven false.

The serpent staff of Moses is mentioned later in the Bible in 2nd Kings chapter 18. It says King Hezekiah apparently uncovered a cult that had been worshipping this snake staff for 700 years.

I'm sure you would agree that we have pretty solid evidence that Hezekiah was in fact, king of Judah around 700BC. Now if 2nd Kings 18 is true, then the latest possible date Moses could have made this staff would be 1400BC, pre-dating even the Greek Dark ages(the time period which most of the Greek myths were set in.)

But even if Moses never existed and we were to invoke the latest possible date of the relevant text in Numbers according the DH which would be what? 400BC? I don't agree that these scriptures could have been inspired by the Greek Myth of Hermes at that time.

Moses had a bronze snake made and held it up on a staff as God commanded. The Isrealites, being inflicted with venom, gazed upon it and were healed.

Hermes took a staff and smacked two copulating snakes with it. And then he turned into a woman.

I just don't see a parallel there.

(While Hermes staff was eventually used a symbol of healing and medicine, that didn't happen until later. Much later.)
Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:13 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:If we both agree with the proposition "most claims that God has spoken to someone are false" and that proposition is sufficient to make my argument then I have no need to push for a stronger proposition with which you will not agree anyway.

The following two propositions could both be true:
1) most claims that God has spoken to someone are false (e.g. more than 50% of these claims are false)
2) all claims that God has spoken to someone are false (e.g. 100% of these claims are false)

You will of course agree that 100% is more than 50%.

In fact, I think both of those propositions are probably true. But we both agree with proposition 1), which is the point of an a fortiori argument. Any argument that is true if 1) is true is also true if 2) is true because 2) implies 1).

Are you really struggling with this basic logic or are you just trying to avoid discussing evidence?

I'm struggling to get you to lays your cards on the table, so to speak. I've already plainly admitted to you why I believe 1 is true. Now I'm trying to get you to do the same.

So, the reason you believe 1 is true, is because you actually believe 2 is true. Because you believe God does not exist and therefore can not speak. Have I got that right?

If we both agree on something does it matter to the discussion why we think it is true?

And no, 2) is independent of whether or not God exists. I see no evidence that any human has said or written anything that indicates access to a divine -- source of information. So if humans could have written all "revealed" texts they probably did and we should require evidence that this was not the case.

As to whether I would argue that God does not exist, it depends on how you define God. If you want to talk about that, start a new thread and I will be happy to do so.

But in the mean time, did you actually want to talk about evidence for Jesus or do you accept Carrier's arguments as sound now that I have corrected your misunderstanding of them?

thenexttodie wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:Also, the current text of the Torah dates to around 600BCE or later. While some bits are certainly older there is no good reason to think this bit is older than myths around Hermes (who is actually depicted in that image).

Actually I think the Torah is much older then that. The date of 600BC for some parts of the Torah is based on the Documentary Hypothesis, basically the idea that the Torah was the reasult of a cut and paste job of scriptures written by 4 different authors over a period of 600 years. I believe this idea relies on many assumptions which are now known to be extremely unlikely or have actually been proven false.

Citation needed. And what false assumptions are you talking about?

thenexttodie wrote:The serpent staff of Moses is mentioned later in the Bible in 2nd Kings chapter 18. It says King Hezekiah apparently uncovered a cult that had been worshipping this snake staff for 700 years.

King Hezekiah probably existed. Some of what the Bible says about him is probably roughly correct. This doesn't make claim correct. Also, my version of 2 Kings makes no mention of 700 years. What text are you using?

thenexttodie wrote:But even if Moses never existed and we were to invoke the latest possible date of the relevant text in Numbers according the DH which would be what? 400BC? I don't agree that these scriptures could have been inspired by the Greek Myth of Hermes at that time.

If you looked at the link He Who Is Nobody posted, the caduceus appears to trace back to a Mesopotamian symbol in the 3000BCE-4000BCE range. Given the obvious influence of Mesopotamian myths on the Bible it is more likely that Hermes and the staff of Moses have a common mythological origin.

It still doesn't make Moses probably historical.

You indicated you were familiar with the reasons why Moses is considered to be purely mythological. With which parts do you disagree?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:48 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 577Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

he_who_is_nobody wrote:As SpecialFrog already pointed out, that is Hermes and notice what he is holding? That is called the caduceus, the origins of which date back to 3,000 to 4,000 BCE. Do you have any sources for Moses putting serpens on sticks before that in Jewish lore? That would be impressive, because that would throw off the whole timeline of the Bible.


So you agree with what your link suggests? That the idea of the serpent staff originated not with the Greeks but with an ancient Semitic people? Because that sounds alot like what I was saying. Not sure why you think this is funny.
Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:55 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As SpecialFrog already pointed out, that is Hermes and notice what he is holding? That is called the caduceus, the origins of which date back to 3,000 to 4,000 BCE. Do you have any sources for Moses putting serpens on sticks before that in Jewish lore? That would be impressive, because that would throw off the whole timeline of the Bible.

So you agree with what your link suggests? That the idea of the serpent staff originated not with the Greeks but with an ancient Semitic people? Because that sounds alot like what I was saying. Not sure why you think this is funny.

Look at how this whole thing started:

thenexttodie wrote:Why would the Jews make a story about Moses putting a serpent on a staff?

with the additional claim that this makes no sense unless it is a reference to Jesus.

The evidence suggests this was a reasonably common symbol in the ancient Mediterranean world, which makes your claims about a specific purpose for it suspect.

Moses is depicted as doing it because it is a think that people did in ancient mythology.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:09 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3144Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As SpecialFrog already pointed out, that is Hermes and notice what he is holding? That is called the caduceus, the origins of which date back to 3,000 to 4,000 BCE. Do you have any sources for Moses putting serpens on sticks before that in Jewish lore? That would be impressive, because that would throw off the whole timeline of the Bible.


So you agree with what your link suggests? That the idea of the serpent staff originated not with the Greeks but with an ancient Semitic people? Because that sounds alot like what I was saying. Not sure why you think this is funny.


I never said it originated with the Greeks; I put up a picture of Hermes holding the caduceus because I thought it was common knowledge that Hermes also possessed a serpent staff. Thus, pointing to this story not simply being apart of the Bible alone. Meaning, much like with Moses, the Greeks also explained this ancient symbol away with one of their mythological characters. What I am laughing about is that I thought Hermes was such a well-known character, that I am surprised you confused him with a different Greek deity.

Beyond all that, SpecialFrog is spot on with the point I was making with this. You realize that playing daft on a written forum does not work, right?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:47 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 577Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:If we both agree on something does it matter to the discussion why we think it is true?
Yes.

SpecialFrog wrote: So if humans could have written all "revealed" texts they probably did and we should require evidence that this was not the case.


As to whether I would argue that God does not exist, it depends on how you define God. If you want to talk about that, start a new thread and I will be happy to do so.

But in the mean time, did you actually want to talk about evidence for Jesus or do you accept Carrier's arguments as sound now that I have corrected your misunderstanding of them?

SpecialFrog wrote:Also, the current text of the Torah dates to around 600BCE or later. While some bits are certainly older there is no good reason to think this bit is older than myths around Hermes (who is actually depicted in that image).


thenexttodie wrote:Actually I think the Torah is much older then that. The date of 600BC for some parts of the Torah is based on the Documentary Hypothesis, basically the idea that the Torah was the reasult of a cut and paste job of scriptures written by 4 different authors over a period of 600 years. I believe this idea relies on many assumptions which are now known to be extremely unlikely or have actually been proven false.

SpecialFrog wrote:Citation needed.


If you want to read about Documentary Hypothesis there is actually an
ok wiki on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
SpecialFrog wrote:And what false assumptions are you talking about?
One is that the mosaic law was too advanced to have been written in 900BC or earlier. It was supposed that religion evolves in a linear manner from animism to monotheism.

SpecialFrog wrote:If you looked at the link He Who Is Nobody posted, the caduceus appears to trace back to a Mesopotamian symbol in the 3000BCE-4000BCE range. Given the obvious influence of Mesopotamian myths on the Bible it is more likely that Hermes and the staff of Moses have a common mythological origin.


If God exists and Genesis is true, I would suspect snake worship to have existed near the beginning of recorded human history. The Bible tells us idol worship and paganism existed long before what we now call Judaism was established.


SpecialFrog wrote:..It still doesn't make Moses probably historical.
I think the reason why HWIN posted a dicpiction of Hermes, is because he actually believes that some or much of the Bible to be inspired by Greek Myth. That's a common argument atheists use.
Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:55 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:Actually I think the Torah is much older then that. The date of 600BC for some parts of the Torah is based on the Documentary Hypothesis, basically the idea that the Torah was the reasult of a cut and paste job of scriptures written by 4 different authors over a period of 600 years. I believe this idea relies on many assumptions which are now known to be extremely unlikely or have actually been proven false.

SpecialFrog wrote:Citation needed.

thenexttodie wrote:If you want to read about Documentary Hypothesis there is actually an ok wiki on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

I am familiar with the documentary hypothesis. I am more interested in evidence that the Torah is older and that documentary hypothesis relies on unlikely or false assumptions. Besides, even most of the alternative hypotheses to the documentary hypothesis involve the texts changing over time into a reasonably-final version in 600BCE. The dating doesn't depend on that hypothesis.

SpecialFrog wrote:And what false assumptions are you talking about?

thenexttodie wrote:One is that the mosaic law was too advanced to have been written in 900BC or earlier. It was supposed that religion evolves in a linear manner from animism to monotheism.

Do you have evidence that the documentary hypothesis requires this assumption? Because it seems unlikely given the clear influence that the code of Hammurabi had on Mosaic law, which dates back to around 1754BCE.

SpecialFrog wrote:If you looked at the link He Who Is Nobody posted, the caduceus appears to trace back to a Mesopotamian symbol in the 3000BCE-4000BCE range. Given the obvious influence of Mesopotamian myths on the Bible it is more likely that Hermes and the staff of Moses have a common mythological origin.

thenexttodie wrote:If God exists and Genesis is true, I would suspect snake worship to have existed near the beginning of recorded human history. The Bible tells us idol worship and paganism existed long before what we now call Judaism was established.

So what? The reason this whole "snake staff" discussion is happening is because you claimed that Moses's staff in Exodus only makes sense as a reference to Jesus. Now you are saying that symbols involving snakes date back to the beginning of human history, which completely contradicts your original point.

So do you have any actual evidence for a historical Moses you want to bring up? If not, why don't we go back to talking about Jesus.

SpecialFrog wrote:..It still doesn't make Moses probably historical.

thenexttodie wrote: think the reason why HWIN posted a dicpiction of Hermes, is because he actually believes that some or much of the Bible to be inspired by Greek Myth. That's a common argument atheists use.

I have literally never heard that argument made.

I find discussions around history and historicity of the Bible interesting but it has nothing to do with any argument for atheism. We both appear to have agreed that the Bible doesn't require a supernatural explanation, which kind of means it isn't evidence for or against atheism.

Similarly I don't think the argument around the historicity of Jesus has anything to do with atheism. I used to assume both Jesus and Moses were historical but I was still an atheist.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:27 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3144Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:
SpecialFrog wrote:..It still doesn't make Moses probably historical.
I think the reason why HWIN posted a dicpiction of Hermes, is because he actually believes that some or much of the Bible to be inspired by Greek Myth. That's a common argument atheists use.


:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody on Wednesday January 06, 2016 wrote: :lol:

As SpecialFrog already pointed out, that is Hermes and notice what he is holding? That is called the caduceus, the origins of which date back to 3,000 to 4,000 BCE. Do you have any sources for Moses putting serpens on sticks before that in Jewish lore? That would be impressive, because that would throw off the whole timeline of the Bible.


he_who_is_nobody on Thursday January 07, 2016 wrote:I never said it originated with the Greeks; I put up a picture of Hermes holding the caduceus because I thought it was common knowledge that Hermes also possessed a serpent staff. Thus, pointing to this story not simply being apart of the Bible alone. Meaning, much like with Moses, the Greeks also explained this ancient symbol away with one of their mythological characters. What I am laughing about is that I thought Hermes was such a well-known character, that I am surprised you confused him with a different Greek deity.


The best part about all of this is that everything I just quoted is found on this page. One does not have to click back to see any of this, just scroll up.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:48 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 577Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:Actually I think the Torah is much older then that. The date of 600BC for some parts of the Torah is based on the Documentary Hypothesis, basically the idea that the Torah was the reasult of a cut and paste job of scriptures written by 4 different authors over a period of 600 years. I believe this idea relies on many assumptions which are now known to be extremely unlikely or have actually been proven false.

SpecialFrog wrote:Citation needed.

thenexttodie wrote:If you want to read about Documentary Hypothesis there is actually an ok wiki on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

SpecialFrog wrote:..even most of the alternative hypotheses to the documentary hypothesis involve the texts changing over time into a reasonably-final version in 600BCE. The dating doesn't depend on that hypothesis.


The dating depends on the same idea that mans understanding of God evolves in a predetermined manner. I know there are a few exceptions, scholars argue whether or not a certain ancient Hebrew term refers to trousers or a undergarment. Or whether or not a certain word could have existed pre-exile. But these arguments avoid the main issue. When was the Torah first written?

The reasons for dating some parts of the Torah at late date and other parts at an earlier date have always been philosophical.
SpecialFrog wrote:And what false assumptions are you talking about?

thenexttodie wrote:One is that the mosaic law was too advanced to have been written in 900BC or earlier. It was supposed that religion evolves in a linear manner from animism to monotheism.

SpecialFrog"Do you have evidence that the documentary hypothesis requires this assumption? Because it seems unlikely given the clear influence that the code of Hammurabi had on Mosaic law, which dates back to around 1754BCE.[/quote] There is no clear evidence of the code of Hammurabi having an influence on Mosaic law. You must be confused. But that's ok. I make mistakes sometimes too.

The code of Hammurabi wasn't discovered until after DH was established.

[quote="SpecialFrog wrote:
If you looked at the link He Who Is Nobody posted, the caduceus appears to trace back to a Mesopotamian symbol in the 3000BCE-4000BCE range. Given the obvious influence of Mesopotamian myths on the Bible it is more likely that Hermes and the staff of Moses have a common mythological origin.

thenexttodie wrote:If God exists and Genesis is true, I would suspect snake worship to have existed near the beginning of recorded human history. The Bible tells us idol worship and paganism existed long before what we now call Judaism was established.

SpecialFrog wrote:So what? The reason this whole "snake staff" discussion is happening is because you claimed that Moses's staff in Exodus only makes sense as a reference to Jesus.


Yes. Jesus became sin for us and was risen up, like Moses rising up the serpent on the staff.

SpecialFrog wrote:So do you have any actual evidence for a historical Moses you want to bring up?
Unless you can explain why the Jews would have made up a story that would only be relevant to Christians, I would say the score is1-0, in my favor.
Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:32 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:..even most of the alternative hypotheses to the documentary hypothesis involve the texts changing over time into a reasonably-final version in 600BCE. The dating doesn't depend on that hypothesis.

thenexttodie wrote:The dating depends on the same idea that mans understanding of God evolves in a predetermined manner. I know there are a few exceptions, scholars argue whether or not a certain ancient Hebrew term refers to trousers or a undergarment. Or whether or not a certain word could have existed pre-exile. But these arguments avoid the main issue. When was the Torah first written?

The reasons for dating some parts of the Torah at late date and other parts at an earlier date have always been philosophical.

The basis of the documentary hypothesis is differing styles, uses of vocabulary, etc. The dating of the final text is to a large extent based on other factors, such as differences between different copies of the texts, The dead sea scrolls show that there were still different versions floating around into the 1st century CE.

Again, where is your evidence that the documentary hypothesis depends on some hypothesis about religious development?

SpecialFrog wrote:Do you have evidence that the documentary hypothesis requires this assumption? Because it seems unlikely given the clear influence that the code of Hammurabi had on Mosaic law, which dates back to around 1754BCE.

thenexttodie wrote:There is no clear evidence of the code of Hammurabi having an influence on Mosaic law. You must be confused. But that's ok. I make mistakes sometimes too.

The code of Hammurabi wasn't discovered until after DH was established.

The modern Torah was assembled largely in Babylon by people who would have certainly been familiar with Hammurabi's code and who appear to have adopted aspects of Mesopotamian mythology into the text (like the flood narrative).

And while the beginnings of the documentary hypothesis pre-date the re-discovery of Hammurabi's code, it has continued to be developed by other scholars and is not dependent on ideas that are decisively disproven by knowledge acquired since (like the existence of Hammurabi's code or what we now know about early Chinese and Indian civilizations).

SpecialFrog wrote:So do you have any actual evidence for a historical Moses you want to bring up?

thenexttodie wrote:Unless you can explain why the Jews would have made up a story that would only be relevant to Christians, I would say the score is1-0, in my favor

First of all, saying that unless I can provide another explanation your explanation is automatically valid is an example of the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. You have no evidence that this is the meaning of the text intended by the authors.

Secondly, you yourself have provided an alternative explanation in that, "snake worship [has] existed [since] near the beginning of recorded human history." That alone is an explanation for snake symbols turning up in Jewish mythology.

So you are still scoreless, if you want to go with that method of keeping track of the argument.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Jan 15, 2016 1:22 am
thenexttodiePosts: 577Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:..even most of the alternative hypotheses to the documentary hypothesis involve the texts changing over time into a reasonably-final version in 600BCE. The dating doesn't depend on that hypothesis.

thenexttodie wrote:The dating depends on the same idea that mans understanding of God evolves in a predetermined manner. I know there are a few exceptions, scholars argue whether or not a certain ancient Hebrew term refers to trousers or a undergarment. Or whether or not a certain word could have existed pre-exile. But these arguments avoid the main issue. When was the Torah first written?

The reasons for dating some parts of the Torah at late date and other parts at an earlier date have always been philosophical.

SpecialFrog wrote:The basis of the documentary hypothesis is differing styles, uses of vocabulary, etc. The dating of the final text is to a large extent based on other factors, such as differences between different copies of the texts, The dead sea scrolls show that there were still different versions floating around into the 1st century CE.

Again, where is your evidence that the documentary hypothesis depends on some hypothesis about religious development?


You seem to be conflating 2 different issues. Dating copies of texts and dating the original texts of the Torah. I don't doubt that different copies would have been written at different times at least to preserve the original text. No one does.


SpecialFrog wrote:The modern Torah was assembled largely in Babylon by people who would have certainly been familiar with Hammurabi's code and who appear to have adopted aspects of Mesopotamian mythology into the text (like the flood narrative).


Actually there doesnt seem to be any influence of mesopotamian myth.


SpecialFrog wrote:And while the beginnings of the documentary hypothesis pre-date the re-discovery of Hammurabi's code, it has continued to be developed by other scholars and is not dependent on ideas that are decisively disproven by knowledge acquired since (like the existence of Hammurabi's code or what we now know about early Chinese and Indian civilizations).


The dates are based are still same old philisophy.
Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:11 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:The reasons for dating some parts of the Torah at late date and other parts at an earlier date have always been philosophical.

SpecialFrog wrote:The basis of the documentary hypothesis is differing styles, uses of vocabulary, etc. The dating of the final text is to a large extent based on other factors, such as differences between different copies of the texts, The dead sea scrolls show that there were still different versions floating around into the 1st century CE.

Again, where is your evidence that the documentary hypothesis depends on some hypothesis about religious development?

thenexttodie wrote:You seem to be conflating 2 different issues. Dating copies of texts and dating the original texts of the Torah. I don't doubt that different copies would have been written at different times at least to preserve the original text. No one does.

They are related in that while the text was still being edited you can try and piece together from context clues when bits of text might have been written but you can't necessarily conclude that the content of a piece of text is unchanged from its original composition.

And you are conflating a) the textual criticism that makes it clear that the Torah and other parts of Hebrew scripture had multiple authors and b) the attempts to date the various authors. Even if b) is wrong, a) alone still validates a lot of the documentary hypothesis.

SpecialFrog wrote:The modern Torah was assembled largely in Babylon by people who would have certainly been familiar with Hammurabi's code and who appear to have adopted aspects of Mesopotamian mythology into the text (like the flood narrative).

thenexttodie wrote:Actually there doesnt seem to be any influence of mesopotamian myth.

Even conservative Jews acknowledge that the Biblical version of the flood story and the Epic of Gilgamesh version at least have a common source in Mesopotamian mythology. See this for a start. If you disagree, please give some evidence.

SpecialFrog wrote:And while the beginnings of the documentary hypothesis pre-date the re-discovery of Hammurabi's code, it has continued to be developed by other scholars and is not dependent on ideas that are decisively disproven by knowledge acquired since (like the existence of Hammurabi's code or what we now know about early Chinese and Indian civilizations).

thenexttodie wrote:The dates are based are still same old philisophy.

Citation needed. If you keep saying this without evidence I'm just going to ignore it.

And anyway, it still appears that your evidence for Moses is a) the documentary hypothesis might be partially wrong and b) the snake staff thing, which as noted is a bad argument and contradicted by your own admissions.

So do you want to talk more about Jesus?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:08 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 577Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:The basis of the documentary hypothesis is differing styles, uses of vocabulary, etc. The dating of the final text is to a large extent based on other factors, such as differences between different copies of the texts, The dead sea scrolls show that there were still different versions floating around into the 1st century CE.

Again, where is your evidence that the documentary hypothesis depends on some hypothesis about religious development?

thenexttodie wrote:You seem to be conflating 2 different issues. Dating copies of texts and dating the original texts of the Torah. I don't doubt that different copies would have been written at different times at least to preserve the original text. No one does.

SpecialFrog wrote:They are related in that while the text was still being edited you can try and piece together from context clues when bits of text might have been written but you can't necessarily conclude that the content of a piece of text is unchanged from its original composition.


Yes, context clues can and are used to support a philosophical reasoning behind the dating of the 1st original texts of the Torah.



SpecialFrog wrote:And you are conflating a) the textual criticism that makes it clear that the Torah and other parts of Hebrew scripture had multiple authors and b) the attempts to date the various authors. Even if b) is wrong, a) alone still validates a lot of the documentary hypothesis.


No. If b is wrong, then to me A becomes more inane.

Listen, if the philosophy used to say that each text was was written at a different date, is incorrect, then there is not much else to show that certain texts of the original Torah had more that 1 author (other than Joshua, who probably added details on Moses' death and such.).



SpecialFrog wrote:
Even conservative Jews acknowledge that the Biblical version of the flood story and the Epic of Gilgamesh version at least have a common source in Mesopotamian mythology. See this for a start. If you disagree, please give some evidence.
I what you say is true then I disagree with the these people. The evidence that I disagree is that I say I disagree.

SpecialFrog wrote:And while the beginnings of the documentary hypothesis pre-date the re-discovery of Hammurabi's code, it has continued to be developed by other scholars and is not dependent on ideas that are decisively disproven by knowledge acquired since (like the existence of Hammurabi's code or what we now know about early Chinese and Indian civilizations).

thenexttodie wrote:The dates are based are still same old philisophy.

[quote="SpecialFrog"Citation needed. If you keep saying this without evidence I'm just going to ignore it.[/quote]

Virtually everything you can read on the internet and in books on this subject supports what I say. Everything.
Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:27 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:And you are conflating a) the textual criticism that makes it clear that the Torah and other parts of Hebrew scripture had multiple authors and b) the attempts to date the various authors. Even if b) is wrong, a) alone still validates a lot of the documentary hypothesis.

thenexttodie wrote:No. If b is wrong, then to me A becomes more inane.

First of all, being wrong about the specific dates doesn't mean that the dates are the same.

Secondly, the textual analysis is independent of the date. You could have two different text written at roughly the same time blended together and still identify that this has occurred if the styles are sufficiently different.

Do you recognize textual analysis of ancient texts as being a valid thing to do? Do you accept the consensus on the non-Pauline authorship of some of the "Pauline" epistles based on the same techniques?

SpecialFrog wrote:Even conservative Jews acknowledge that the Biblical version of the flood story and the Epic of Gilgamesh version at least have a common source in Mesopotamian mythology. See this for a start. If you disagree, please give some evidence.

thenexttodie wrote: I what you say is true then I disagree with the these people. The evidence that I disagree is that I say I disagree.

Yes, because clearly I am interested in evidence that you disagree and not evidence to support your disagreement.

Are you just averse to discussing evidence?

thenexttodie wrote:The dates are based are still same old philisophy.

SpecialFrog wrote:Citation needed. If you keep saying this without evidence I'm just going to ignore it.

thenexttodie wrote:Virtually everything you can read on the internet and in books on this subject supports what I say. Everything.

And yet you can only appeal to Google. If everything agrees with you why is it so hard to point to one thing that does?

Anyway, this discussion seems kind of pointless. The documentary hypothesis could be false and Moses would still be mythological.

There are sufficient extant Egyptian records and archaeological findings from that period that we can conclude that we should have evidence for the events of Exodus if anything like that actually happened. Moreover, the events described are wholly inconsistent with what the archaeological evidence in Israel indicates.

As I said, this is the consensus view. I accept that I have the burden of evidence if I disagree with the consensus on Jesus. Similarly, you have it if you want to disagree with the consensus on Moses.

If you don't have any more evidence than "none" why don't we go back to talking about Jesus.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:02 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 577Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:And you are conflating a) the textual criticism that makes it clear that the Torah and other parts of Hebrew scripture had multiple authors and b) the attempts to date the various authors. Even if b) is wrong, a) alone still validates a lot of the documentary hypothesis.

thenexttodie wrote:No. If b is wrong, then to me A becomes more inane.

SpecialFrog wrote:First of all, being wrong about the specific dates doesn't mean that the dates are the same.
Secondly, the textual analysis is independent of the date
The idea that the Torah was originaly written by several different authors becomes less plausible one you realize there is no real reason to suppose that it could not have been written during the lifespan of a single individual.

.
SpecialFrog wrote: You could have two different text written at roughly the same time blended together and still identify that this has occurred if the styles are sufficiently different.

Do you recognize textual analysis of ancient texts as being a valid thing to do?
[/quote]

No.
Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:35 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

SpecialFrog wrote:And you are conflating a) the textual criticism that makes it clear that the Torah and other parts of Hebrew scripture had multiple authors and b) the attempts to date the various authors. Even if b) is wrong, a) alone still validates a lot of the documentary hypothesis.

thenexttodie wrote:No. If b is wrong, then to me A becomes more inane.

SpecialFrog wrote:First of all, being wrong about the specific dates doesn't mean that the dates are the same.
Secondly, the textual analysis is independent of the date

thenexttodie wrote:The idea that the Torah was originaly written by several different authors becomes less plausible one you realize there is no real reason to suppose that it could not have been written during the lifespan of a single individual.

Nonsense. The divergent styles and language are enough to make the "multiple authors" hypothesis probable.

SpecialFrog wrote:Do you recognize textual analysis of ancient texts as being a valid thing to do?

thenexttodie wrote:No.

So which Bible translation do you prefer? Because all of them employ textual criticism as a means of creating a single text from multiple inconsistent sources.

Do you actually believe what you are saying or are you just playing dumb because you realize you have no basis for your position?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:15 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 577Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

thenexttodie wrote:The idea that the Torah was originaly written by several different authors becomes less plausible one you realize there is no real reason to suppose that it could not have been written during the lifespan of a single individual.


SpecialFrog wrote:Nonsense. The divergent styles and language are enough to make the "multiple authors" hypothesis probable.


No. The most simple explanation for variances of style and language would be then become subject matter and genre. Additional evidence would be required to introduce a more complex explanation.

SpecialFrog wrote:Do you recognize textual analysis of ancient texts as being a valid thing to do?


thenexttodie wrote:No.

SpecialFrog wrote:So which Bible translation do you prefer?


English.

SpecialFrog wrote: ..Because all of them employ textual criticism as a means of creating a single text from multiple inconsistent sources.


First of all, many of these texts would have hardly been considered "ancient" at the time they were made part of the canon. Secondly, how is having multiple sources a bad thing? Thirdly the methods used would have been different from what most people today would consider a "textual analysis"
Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:30 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 13 of 19
 [ 379 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests