Detering, etc.

[stephan happy huller]

I agree the history of Christianity (and other religions) can be developed.

Great. I am glad that this task is now safe in your hands.

[Duvduv]

I agree with you. But if you notice you will see that interpretation is accepted as fact based on faith, not just approximation or conjecture.
It's time folks realize this, and stop talking about interpretations as though they were empirical facts.

Peter, there is a tremendous flaw in the theory of critical analysis that ignores the context and relies on claims that cannot be empirically proven. We both knowthat, so why pretend otherwise? Regarding Huller, he is extremely intolerant in his advocacy of censorship. He should have worked for Pravda.

Nobody's ignoring the context here (at least, I'm certainly not), and nothing about the first four centuries AD can at this remove be "empirically proven" without a time machine or remarkable telescope pointed through a serendipitous wormhole. We are left with interpreting the remains of the past as best as we are able. There is no possibility of the simple, humble empirical historian who can peer into the ancient past while being simultaneously removed from the problems of interpreting the literary and material artifacts as best as humanly possible.

[Duvduv]

AND it takes quite a bit of FAITH to accept the claims of the ancient apologists at face value with no empirical evidence.

The argument for a historical Moses and the idea that faith must be used to reach any conclusions regarding ancient Judaism or Christianity.

Let us re-examine what DuvDuv wrote:

At least in the case of Jewish history there can be anecdotal references among mutually antagonistic sources about the existence of a particular individual. In the case of Moses, his existence is upheld by Jewish, Samaritan, Muslim, Christian, Roman and Greek sources. This does not exist in the case of Paul.
But ultimately there is no empirical proof there is only FAITH

I express here only my own opinion, not one intended to be in synchrony with that of any other forum member.

I do not agree that this quote indicates that "The argument for a historical Moses and the idea that faith must be used to reach any conclusions regarding ancient Judaism or Christianity."

I interpret this quote as follows:
Moses had been a legendary figure, whose historicity has been suspect for centuries, despite having been claimed as genuinely human, by writers from many different cultures and epochs, just as had been the historicity of Herakles attested to, by none other than Philo of Alexandria. However, the FACT that so many authors, from so many different cultures, writing at so many different periods of human civilization, attested to the veracity of the claim of Moses' existence, in no way mitigates the FACT that Moses' very existence can only be accepted on FAITH, not empirical evidence. A similar situation exists for Paul of Tarsus, about whom, however, there exist even fewer authors attesting to his existence, than for Moses or Herakles. There is no empirical evidence for the legitimate historicity of these characters. By contrast, as Philosopher Jay has noted, there exist at least three different Greek writers attesting to the existence of Socrates and Plato, acknowledging of course, that Moses and Herakles both had been claimed to have lived a millenium before Plato.

Regardless of DuvDuv's position on this matter, in my opinion, any idiot can recognize that FAITH is absolutely required to believe in the divinity of any of these religious figures. There exists no evidence of any kind to support the Mormons, the Jews, the Christians, the 7th day Adventists, the Shiites, the Sunnis, the 29 sects of Hinduism, the 41 sects of Buddhism, the zoroastrians, the last of the Mandaeans, or the last of the Mohicans.

So, YES, FAITH is required, Peter, to reach any conclusions about religious doctrine, for it is, all of it, 100% NONSENSE.

[stephan happy huller]

But it isn't black or white, dumdum. You're just projecting your own slavish devotion to the Jewish faith on to anyone who doesn't reject Christianity as a hoax. Look in the mirror son and see that you are just commenting on your own faith not the entire study of Christian origins.

[Duvduv]

How ironic.......I NEVER denied my beliefs were based ultimately on faith. It is, however, people such as yourself who pretend you don't rely on faith in the claims of others for what you hypothesize. So how do you like them apples?

But it isn't black or white, dumdum. You're just projecting your own slavish devotion to the Jewish faith on to anyone who doesn't reject Christianity as a hoax. Look in the mirror son and see that you are just commenting on your own faith not the entire study of Christian origins.

[stephan happy huller]

So you admit when you accuse others of being incapable of moving past faith you're only talking about yourself

[Duvduv]

Not at all.Relyin on the claims of church apologists without empirical evidence is also relying on faith.

[stephan happy huller]

Isn't reading Thucydides description of the Peloponnesian War necessary for us to understand the historical significance of these events? By your standards the study of history is an impossibility. I think you want to justify your faithful acceptance of your religious beliefs.

[Peter Kirby]

Maybe this "does too, does not" debate could benefit from considering historical method as a subject as practiced in secular history.

Historical Method

Full disclosure: I wrote the (substance of this) article.

http://www.christianorigins.com/2005/08 ... ethod.html

Maybe you should start looking for a Peter Kirby fiction postulate to explain the New Testament? I might have wrote it. You never know!

[stephan happy huller]

So you think that any information - anything short of a time machine - is going to change duvduv's mind?