Saying the phrase “an academic of values” suggests that an academic that doesn’t 100% believe a statement as fact is someone who doesn’t have values or operates purely with bias. I am pointing out that the statement, in reasonable circumstances, is odd.
analogy is not applicable
Probability. It’s an example of how to balance out conflicting ideas when even I can’t escape my own bias. So, there is strong evidence that jesus existed and also compelling arguments against. I can say there is a very high probability that he existed and a small chance he didn’t. The only way to resolve this to 100% certainty would requre we travel back in time. (This is just a long form version of Occam’s razor, TBH.)
So, we both understand that facts exist. A fossil in a rock is generally a fact written in stone and has a low probability that it was planted or tampered with, assuming appropriate accountability during discovery.
A document supposedly written by a shop owner 500 years ago can be absolutely proven it is a piece of paper that may be carbon dated to about 500 years ago on a sliding scale to about 95% accuracy. The type of ink could imply it was manufactured around that time and its content aligns with other documents around that same time. We both would say there is a reasonable amount of data to assume that document is what it appears to be. Regardless of consensus, the document being fake is still a possiblity given that there are layers of probability baked in.
I love me some facts grounded in reality! We can, and do, agree on what some facts mean. However, it seems we diverge philosophically at that point. You would say something must be, where I say something should be.
After spending the last hour or so reading about the debate of his existence and evidence for his existence was weird. Biblical scholars generally have consensus that mythic jesus theories are fringe. While there are quite a few statements from historical scholars about the possibility of jesus existing, Ehrman and Casey are the most vocal. The general consensus outside of biblical experts is more like “there was a dude named jesus who might have lived during that time and it seems there are cross-references between the bible, Mark and Paul.” If you want to dive into Richard Carrier’s opinions, feel free. His work, while vocal, absolutely breaks consensus.
It’s extremely difficult to find data that isn’t quoted from Ehrman, btw. On the surface, it looks like authors of many articles I found had a consensus that Ehrman was a primary source. There are plenty of other works, but filtering out repeated quotes and rehashed interpretations of Ehrman takes a bit of work.
Hell, I haven’t even started reading into formalized, peer-reviewed studies yet. Opinion articles have their place, but it’s not fun to dig through them.
Edit: I should note that the prevalence of people saying there is consensus rarely show who they are talking about. When you start digging into the references of the Historical Jesus page, it has a clear bias with an attempt to show a counter-opinion from Price, that really isn’t a counter opinion. Many pro-jesus scholars themselves reference similar sources.
I personally don’t care if jesus existed. I am just pointing out how the consensus argument is vague.
You’re nitpicking a point that is not important to what I said and was clearly used to emphasis general consensus (non-fringe). Arguing the fringe is equally as valuable as the general academic consensus is like saying anti-vaxxers opinions are important because they exist.
Skimming articles for an hour doesn’t allow you enough time to reach any depth of understanding.
It appears that you’re arguing just for the sake of an argument. I did not anticipate nor want to argue about semantics and consensuses. I merely responded to OP’s comment.
what I said and was clearly used to emphasis general consensus
And with a trivial amount of reading, I found the general consensus was not as general as implied and actually somewhat confusing.
anticipate nor want to argue about semantics and consensuses // nitpicking a point
Words have meaning and I took issue with your phrasing. So yes. You are absolutely correct.
anti-vaxxers opinions are important because they exist.
Yes and no, and not for the reasons you would think. Every fallacy or myth might have a grain of original truth, or at minimum, it might help source the misinformation. In the interest of not arguing, I won’t comment further on that non sequitur.
Feel free to respond with anything and I won’t reply so you can get the last word in, if you choose. (Seriously, I am not trying to be cocky.)
Saying the phrase “an academic of values” suggests that an academic that doesn’t 100% believe a statement as fact is someone who doesn’t have values or operates purely with bias. I am pointing out that the statement, in reasonable circumstances, is odd.
Probability. It’s an example of how to balance out conflicting ideas when even I can’t escape my own bias. So, there is strong evidence that jesus existed and also compelling arguments against. I can say there is a very high probability that he existed and a small chance he didn’t. The only way to resolve this to 100% certainty would requre we travel back in time. (This is just a long form version of Occam’s razor, TBH.)
So, we both understand that facts exist. A fossil in a rock is generally a fact written in stone and has a low probability that it was planted or tampered with, assuming appropriate accountability during discovery.
A document supposedly written by a shop owner 500 years ago can be absolutely proven it is a piece of paper that may be carbon dated to about 500 years ago on a sliding scale to about 95% accuracy. The type of ink could imply it was manufactured around that time and its content aligns with other documents around that same time. We both would say there is a reasonable amount of data to assume that document is what it appears to be. Regardless of consensus, the document being fake is still a possiblity given that there are layers of probability baked in.
I love me some facts grounded in reality! We can, and do, agree on what some facts mean. However, it seems we diverge philosophically at that point. You would say something must be, where I say something should be.
After spending the last hour or so reading about the debate of his existence and evidence for his existence was weird. Biblical scholars generally have consensus that mythic jesus theories are fringe. While there are quite a few statements from historical scholars about the possibility of jesus existing, Ehrman and Casey are the most vocal. The general consensus outside of biblical experts is more like “there was a dude named jesus who might have lived during that time and it seems there are cross-references between the bible, Mark and Paul.” If you want to dive into Richard Carrier’s opinions, feel free. His work, while vocal, absolutely breaks consensus.
It’s extremely difficult to find data that isn’t quoted from Ehrman, btw. On the surface, it looks like authors of many articles I found had a consensus that Ehrman was a primary source. There are plenty of other works, but filtering out repeated quotes and rehashed interpretations of Ehrman takes a bit of work.
Hell, I haven’t even started reading into formalized, peer-reviewed studies yet. Opinion articles have their place, but it’s not fun to dig through them.
Edit: I should note that the prevalence of people saying there is consensus rarely show who they are talking about. When you start digging into the references of the Historical Jesus page, it has a clear bias with an attempt to show a counter-opinion from Price, that really isn’t a counter opinion. Many pro-jesus scholars themselves reference similar sources.
I personally don’t care if jesus existed. I am just pointing out how the consensus argument is vague.
You’re nitpicking a point that is not important to what I said and was clearly used to emphasis general consensus (non-fringe). Arguing the fringe is equally as valuable as the general academic consensus is like saying anti-vaxxers opinions are important because they exist.
Skimming articles for an hour doesn’t allow you enough time to reach any depth of understanding.
It appears that you’re arguing just for the sake of an argument. I did not anticipate nor want to argue about semantics and consensuses. I merely responded to OP’s comment.
I won’t engage further.
And with a trivial amount of reading, I found the general consensus was not as general as implied and actually somewhat confusing.
Words have meaning and I took issue with your phrasing. So yes. You are absolutely correct.
Yes and no, and not for the reasons you would think. Every fallacy or myth might have a grain of original truth, or at minimum, it might help source the misinformation. In the interest of not arguing, I won’t comment further on that non sequitur.
Feel free to respond with anything and I won’t reply so you can get the last word in, if you choose. (Seriously, I am not trying to be cocky.)