Folks, what the hell is up with the use of size=1 tags? Are the sub tags not good enough for you?
Daniel
[sub]making sure that the sub tags aren’t just auto-converting to size=1 tags these days[/sub]
OK.
Well, your current position is self-consistent.
I would argue that it sets a tremendously high, and thoroughly unuseful, standard for acceptance of historical existence, so much so that it’s self-evident: you’re denying the historical existence of Socrates. That’s a defensible position to take, but it presumably means that there are countless other “historical” figures whose existence you undoubtedly question. I’m all for reasoned skepticism, but setting the level that high means we effectively erase, as unproven, huge chunks of what is now generally accepted as history.
This is the reason I do not share your standard. As a matter of historical record, I contend it’s reasonable to accept the existence of Socrates, and it’s reasonable to accept the existence of Jesus.
You mean they didn’t just look at them??
An important point:
This is a good example, Scott, of a reasoned dialog. We both read and understood each other’s points. We have disagreed on the weight to be given to interpretations and we have reached different conclusions. Nonetheless, this was a good argument on both sides.
I hope you can see the difference between this exchange and others you’ve been in. We disagree, but we each addressed the points in play.
There is plenty of disagreement on the SDMB. That’s what we live for, I think.
As long as the basics of argument and discourse are observed and followed, mere disagreement will not get you pilloried.
Scott, may I ask what standard you would accept for the existence of another human being? Do you, for example, believe that the following people exist or existed?
-Julius Caesar
-Lucy (of Dr. Leakey fame)
-Julius Caesar’s mom
-King Tutankhamen
-George Washington
-Martha Washington
-Martha Stewart
Daniel
Bullshit. I’m think that using the [del] feature is Great Debates is unnecessary. Period. Therefore, you overuse it. I win!
Just for shits and giggles, I’m going to give you a short version of what a lurker thought the discussion you and Bricker were having in that thread. I’m going to do this from memory…I’m not going to re-read the thread in question at all.
Here’s may take…
Bricker asked you if it were possible that people who were alive during Jesus’ live time could have believed he was the Messiah, using the information available to them during the time in question (Torah, oral tradition, whatever was available during their lifetime). This in relation to the fact that other Jews had been believed to be the Messiah by their follows and others, during their lifetimes, until they proved they weren’t the Messiah by dying before they had met all the criteria for Messiah-hood.
You told Bricker it wasn’t possible for a number of reasons. Bricker asked you if the people who believed some other guy* was the possible Messiah, until he had the bad graces to die before fulfilling the requirements, were also wrong to believe he was the possible Messiah while he was fulfulling the requirments.
Bricker was using these questions to get at whether Jews could believe different people were the possible Messiah, using the information available to them during the times in question. He was not trying to prove that all Jews believed that any one person was a possible Messiah, just that some Jews had believed that previous men had begun to fulfill the requirements.
During the debate, you got confused several times as to which person Bricker was talking about Jesus or the other dude. Basically, your posts were impossible to follow and Bricker’s were clear and concise. You didn’t answer the questions posed to you. You provided no useful information, nor did you provide a considered view of the Jewish perspective.
You lost the debate.
*His name escapes me–remember I’m doing this from memory and I’m not up on this possible Messiah stuff on my own at all.
This makes no sense what so ever. I am saying that it is ok to deny the historical existence of Socrates. That does not mean I want people to stop study the works of people who claimed he existed. Instead, I am taking a “Wait and see” attitude. That in no way would ever lead to "effectively eras(ing) chunks of history. How the hell did you make that huge leap?
Scott, I’m now convinced of two things: you are so married to certain prejudices that your brain is impervious to any evidence contrary to them, and you simply do not understand the meanings of simple words in English. You do not seem to grasp the difference between making something easier and causing something. The determination was made, rightly or wrongly, to intern people of German, Italian and Japanese descent. Once this determination was made, it would have been carried out whether the census data existed or not. The census data made easier something which was going to be done regardless. Can you understand that?
Well, we have photographs, government records, and possession claimed to former possession. I would accept those as proof. This is in sharp contrast to Jesus, where we have no historical records, save for a sole reference to a jesus in one record. This is proof for the existence of Thomas Covenant, in the same way that a single reference to a person named Thomas (No last name), in the diary of a governor would be . We also have documents written by supposed friends of his. However, these were written down far after he died, and contradict themselves.
A sole reference to a Jesus in one record?!?
How about Suetonius, second-century historian?
How about Tacitus, around the year 100 AD?
How about Josephus and Antiquities of the Jews c. 95 AD?
I have a Polaroid™ of the Last Supper.
Can you elaborate? I do not understand what you are saying.
That would be of Dr. Johanson fame.
May I recommend a nightsick, officer?
NO. You have not shown by any metric that the “registration” of the census led to the internment of Japanese Americans.
A: There was a “registration” (assuming for the moment that the US Census is directly comparable to the type of registration being discussed in the Mutant thread, which it isn’t)
B: There was internment.
It is incumbent upon you to deminstrate that A --> B. You simply have not done so.
Bricker, he was probably referring to Josephus, as he is the most frequently cited historical source.
Scott, if you knew any history, you would know that the direct evidence for quite a few historical figures is similar to the evidence for Socrates. Also, I read somewhere, can’t give a source, that when one says “that makes no sense”, what one is really saying is “that makes no sense to me”. I’ve taken that to heart, and try to avoid the phrase, lest I reveal my inability to understand while trying to put someone else down. Also, I realize that this board isn’t Mensa, but I’d be interested to read the answer to Bricker’s previous question about your verbal SAT score.
I’m guessing 950 on the verbal.
(And if there’s ever substantial evidence to support the existance of Thomas Covenant, I want to see it so I can give that whiny fucker a swift kick in the slats.)
I agree. That’s adjusted for the fact that the SATs are biased against true intelligence, of course.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
A sole reference to a Jesus in one record?!?
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of “Useful One”, he [ Claudius ] expelled them from Rome." Besides which, being expelled from roman hardly equals a crcifixion.
Hah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
How about a forger? After all, Josephus, a religious jew would hardly be likely to have said “He was the Christ.”