The Jesus Itinerary

[DeistPaladin]

It's telling that you don't speak of simple facts, such as date of death of a ruler or date of a census.

You mean Herod who died in 4 BCE and Quirinius who came to administer Syria in 6 CE? Why would 70 CE Christians be educated and savvy enough to know these exact dates? There was no Roman tradition that forced people to relocate to their home town. Neither was there a tradition of releasing criminals during the Passover, certainly not insurrectionists. However, I could believe that Christians wouldn't necessarily know that.

And all this assumes that the Gospels we have today are faithful representations of what they had then (I know of at least one significant alteration in Mark 16).

There's no reason to think the Middle East was populated by well-educated fact-checkers who cried "false" in the public square over any historical inconsistencies.

I disagree.

With what?

[Minimalist]

With anything that contradicts his bullshit bible.

Surely you have figured out his act by now?

[Cyberman]

Except I'm not talking about burden of proof, I'm referring to the total dismissal of the other person's position by forestalling whatever proof may be available. Doesn't matter if that proof, or evidence, isn't what it's claimed to be, or falls short of doing what's claimed to be on the tin; simply shooting it down as nonexistent before it's even been presented is hardly conducive to a reasonable discussion - the bread and butter of a discussion forum.

Who is forestalling anything, DP made an addition to the scriptures that has absolutely no support at all, until he brings that support then his supposition's dismissal needs no action on our part other than to discount it.

GC

You are forestalling. You didn't wait for DP to bring the support for his claim, you didn't even ask him if he could support it. You said "First of all you can't prove that it's not history." That's not asking for evidentiary support; that's forestalling.

[John V]

You are forestalling. You didn't wait for DP to bring the support for his claim, you didn't even ask him if he could support it. You said "First of all you can't prove that it's not history." That's not asking for evidentiary support; that's forestalling.

No, as GC said that in direct response to DP's forestalling claim of 'This isn't "history".'

[Cyberman]

And GC said "you can't prove it", instead of, for instance, "can you prove it?" One is a request or perhaps a challenge for evidence; the other is a blanket rejection of the claim, forestalling further discussion.

[John V]

You mean Herod who died in 4 BCE and Quirinius who came to administer Syria in 6 CE? Why would 70 CE Christians be educated and savvy enough to know these exact dates?

Why not? Anyone who could read and write back then was educated. They didn't need to know precise dates - only whether Quirinius was around before Herod's death or not. And, there was simply less to learn back then, so educated people likely knew recent history pretty well.

With what?

With your belief that people didn't know history from 70 years or so prior.

---

And GC said "you can't prove it", instead of, for instance, "can you prove it?" One is a request or perhaps a challenge for evidence; the other is a blanket rejection of the claim, forestalling further discussion.

You can't forestall a discussion that's already been halted.

But FWIW, OK - let's see someone prove it.

[DeistPaladin]

With your belief that people didn't know history from 70 years or so prior.

And yet there were Christians who lived at the time of John who didn't think Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person. Their existence is detailed in the Bible, in passages penned by John. These Christians, by the way, were called "Docetic Christians", those who thought Jesus was an apparition. You'd think the historical reality of Jesus would have been more obvious than when exactly Herod died. Did Jesus not have nieces and nephews who could have testified he was a real person born to a mother in ways apparitions don't need to be? And if early Christians could be confused with that, what makes you so certain that they were all so well educated in exact historical dates in ways that exceed even modern Republican standards?

Your whole apology here is based on some pretty grand assumptions.

But FWIW, OK - let's see someone prove it.

How many historical texts talk about zombies?

[John V]

And yet there were Christians who lived at the time of John who didn't think Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person. Their existence is detailed in the Bible, in passages penned by John. These Christians, by the way, were called "Docetic Christians", those who thought Jesus was an apparition. You'd think the historical reality of Jesus would have been more obvious than when exactly Herod died. Did Jesus not have nieces and nephews who could have testified he was a real person born to a mother in ways apparitions don't need to be? And if early Christians could be confused with that, what makes you so certain that they were all so well educated in exact historical dates in ways that exceed even modern Republican standards?

What do theological positions have to do with knowledge of history?

How many historical texts talk about zombies?

I don't know - how many?

[DeistPaladin]

What do theological positions have to do with knowledge of history?

Oh dear, I went too fast again.

OK, think about this as an "since/then" question.

Since: Early Christians who lived during the time of John debated whether or not there was a flesh-and-blood Jesus.
Then: Why are you so sure they would have known Herod the Great died before Quirinius came to administer Syria?

I don't know - how many?

None that I know of.

[Minimalist]

What do theological positions have to do with knowledge of history anything?

Fixed that.