| Revision as of 10:57, 6 April 2009 editJbolden1517 (talk | contribs)5,334 edits fixing link in bruc's post, error in wikipedia original← Previous edit |
Revision as of 10:59, 6 April 2009 edit undoBruceGrubb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,222 edits →Argument from silenceNext edit → |
| Line 51: |
Line 51: |
|
: What we are covering now is things like contemporary writers. What influences the Christ myth crowd it seems to me, is the lack of biography in early Christian writings. In other words during the 1st century and for most writers in the 2nd, Jesus is spoken of like a mythological being not a historical being. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
: What we are covering now is things like contemporary writers. What influences the Christ myth crowd it seems to me, is the lack of biography in early Christian writings. In other words during the 1st century and for most writers in the 2nd, Jesus is spoken of like a mythological being not a historical being. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There ''was'' something like this back when we had a section on ] who was removed because few scholars make reference to his list or to his ideas on the ''Christ myth'' in general. I reworked the relevant parts and put them on the page on ] and provided it below so you can see the problem it had with regards to ''this'' article: |
|
::There ''was'' something like this back when we had a section on ] who was removed because few scholars make reference to his list or to his ideas on the ''Christ myth'' in general. I reworked the relevant parts and put them on the page on ] and provided it below so you can see the problems it had with regards to ''this'' article: |
|
|
|
|
|
"In recent years a list of names from the chapter of The Christ (often called the Remsburg/Remsberg list) has appeared in a handful of self published books regarding the nonhistoricity hypothesis by authors such as James Patrick Holding*, Hilton Hotema*, and Jawara D. King*, as well as appearing in some 200 blog posts on the nonhistoricity hypothesis. |
|
::"In recent years a list of names from the chapter of The Christ (often called the Remsburg/Remsberg list) has appeared in a handful of self published books regarding the nonhistoricity hypothesis by authors such as James Patrick Holding*, Hilton Hotema*, and Jawara D. King*, as well as appearing in some 200 blog posts on the nonhistoricity hypothesis. |
|
|
|
|
|
However at best The Christ along with The Bible and Six Historic Americans is regarded as an important freethought book* rather than a major contribution to the Christ Myth hypothesis." |
|
::However at best The Christ along with The Bible and Six Historic Americans is regarded as an important freethought book* rather than a major contribution to the Christ Myth hypothesis." |
|
*= a reference is provided for this. |
|
*= a reference is provided for this. |
|
|
|
|
|
::To date I have not found anyone who would qualify under Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources who even make a passing reference to the Remsburg list. I have found others than those listed above but they also have the problem of not being scholars and being self published: |
|
::To date I have not found anyone who would qualify under ] who even make a passing reference to the Remsburg|Remsberg list. I have found others than those listed above but they also have the problem of not being scholars and being self published: |
|
Norman, Asher (2007); Ashley Tellis ''Twenty-six reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus'' Black White and Read Publishing pg 182 |
|
Norman, Asher (2007); Ashley Tellis ''Twenty-six reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus'' Black White and Read Publishing pg 182 |
|
O'Hair, Madalyn Murray (1969) ''What on earth is an atheist!'' American Atheist Press, Austin, Texas Page 246--] (]) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
O'Hair, Madalyn Murray (1969) ''What on earth is an atheist!'' American Atheist Press, Austin, Texas Page 246--] (]) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
The main problem I have seen with Argument from silence idea is the tendency to assume that the canonal Gospels are completely accurate historical documents. Some people even go as far as to include all the supernatural stuff (three hours of darkness, all the dead being raised, etc) happened and then ask why didn't anyone note this down at the time?
Not that the counterarguments often presented are any better. Argument from silence is often presented as a logic fallacy but then you see it used to counter ideaa like the Sphinx being 2,000 years older than it is thought to be. The main contention is where is the evidence for the culture that supposedly built the Sphinx if it is that old and yet when the exact same criteria is applied to Jesus it suddenly is dismissed as "Argument from silence"? Something just not right with that kind of thinking.
Another problem with refutation attempts of "Argument from silence" is the tendency to strawman the idea by referring to people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Nero. It gets really silly when comparisons to Queen Elisabeth I, Shakespeare, or Eisenhower are made. Most of the people presented have good solid contemporaneous evidence (statues, coins, mosaics, and in the case of Julius Caesar letter to, from, and about him) showing they existed. Better comparisons as Joseph Campbell did in Hero with Thousand Faces would be Apollonius of Tyana, Buddha, and Krishna whose contemporary evidence is in as bad or even worst shape than that of Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
