Is Mormonism so bad?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by Kishkumen »

dastardly stem wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:50 pm
*Shrug...not really. I haven't adopted Carrier's view as my own. As I pointed out I fall just on the other side of the issue as he--when it comes down to it I think Jesus actually did live. But I'd agree in that many things pointed to as strong evidence is either really weak or not really evidence at all. We have to make some leaps and that isn't really a big deal, in my view.

I haven't adopted his "hyper-skepticism" so I guess I can take your insult as simply your lashing out, after having misunderstood where i'm coming from. Its unfortunate because I figured we could talk about these things and not get worked up like this.
LOL. Shrug. I don't think it is an insult. I think of it as an observation. What is your idea of evidence, stem? I see you say a lot about what you don't consider to be evidence, but I see it as evidence. One of the two of us does history for a living. I am not saying you are completely unfamiliar with the concept of evidence according to every use of the word. Presumably you watch police procedural dramas and know about evidence there. But what is your sense of what makes for evidence in history?
I don't think history is not worth it. It is crucial to our lives. But you are right, I'm not so trained, nor am I an expert. And if it's true the Pilate mention can be considered evidence, then so be it. I'd be wrong. I could easily accept that. As I see it, I don't see how anyone can reasonably conclude the mention of Pilate is evidence that Jesus actually lived. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, I've considered what you've said and have stayed put in my position. Again...I could be wrong.

On this, though, I would think history is not about claiming some event with certainty. It's all about likelihood and probability. And as the discipline demonstrates some things are more likely than others.
Let me tell you what your rhetorical position reads like right now.

"You know, if the name Pilate just shows up in the text, then that is not evidence that Jesus lived."

OK, if that were true, I would agree with you. Instead, we see Pilate relating to Jesus in a manner and setting that is entirely consistent with what we know of him from other sources. That is not what you seem to be saying, and the two positions represent quite different levels of historical probability. The mere mention of Pilate doesn't give us much. The other gives us quite a bit.
I agree. The example I offered was simply to point out that the disagreement between whether Jesus lived or did not live is decided upon the evidence. He who thinks he lives needs to supply the evidence for the claim. It was not an attempt to say Book of Mormon historicity and Jesus historicity are comparable in and of themselves.
And, if you agree, then how do you conclude that Jesus probably did not exist or even only 50/50? Yes, the two cases have very different levels of evidence. One of them has almost none. The other has a fairly generous amount by ancient standards. Yet you say Jesus probably did not exist. That is, anyway, the position you seem to be arguing for, in agreement with Carrier.
I certainly did not intend to be rude or disrespectful. I don't know what evidence I brushed aside. I did mention I think the Pythagoras and Apollonius examples were not applicable and said why I thought that. It was not meant to be disrespectful of course. It appears we simply disagree on whether there is some application here. Aside from what you quoted regarding Apollonius I have no particular issue. I'm not making the connection you seem to have here. I don't think Carrier or myself would be obligated to argue Apollonius never lived, nor should it even matter as a question in regards to whether Jesus lived or not.
I guess the rudeness enters this when you say you want to know more about something, I take the time to give you some useful leads, and without really making much effort--you admit you made very little--you say, "Oh, I just don't think that those cases are applicable," when a professional ancient historian has said differently. That is pretty mind boggling to me, but it should not be, as common an occurrence as it is.

If you want to know whether or not it is reasonable to treat Jesus as a figure who actually lived, then you should look at comparanda that fit the general profile. Pythagoras, Apollonius, and Alexander do. They are all Mediterranean holy men who allegedly performed miracles and attracted followers, about whom we know mostly through the writings of others. They did not leave much in the way of physical traces, such as coins, inscriptions, or autograph texts we can look at ourselves. All of them are generally believed by most ancient historians to have lived based on the evidence we have of their lives.

I doubt most historians would look at Jesus and say, "Oh, I give him about even odds to have lived or to have been made up." Most would say that he did live, and that is because they generally know on what evidentiary basis it is reasonable to treat a person as one who actually lived.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by Kishkumen »

Manetho wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:18 pm
The comparison exposes the double standard. If Carrier's dismissal of the evidence for Jesus's existence were applied across the board, countless other ancient people would be consigned to the twilight zone: "May have been made up; we'll never know." But Carrier just wants to erase Jesus, so he contrives ways to dismiss the evidence for Jesus' existence and doesn't pursue the larger implications of his arguments.
Thank you, Manetho. You get to the heart of the matter.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
IHAQ
God
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by IHAQ »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:31 pm
IHAQ wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:23 pm
just as a sort of aside. Do you happen to know how many root sources there are for evidence of Jesus?
I am not sure what you mean by "root source." Do you mean "eyewitness account"?
Sorry, what I mean is that, as far as I can recall, a number of the books in the New Testament are based on other book in the New Testament. So to my mind they don’t count as separate, additional evidences of Jesus. They’re just a rehash of earlier accounts.

So when I say root evidences, I mean accounts, documents etc that are the first, rather than references to earlier accounts.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by Kishkumen »

Sorry, what I mean is that, as far as I can recall, a number of the books in the New Testament are based on other book in the New Testament. So to my mind they don’t count as separate, additional evidences of Jesus. They’re just a rehash of earlier accounts.

So when I say root evidences, I mean accounts, documents etc that are the first, rather than references to earlier accounts.
Ah, sorry. That should have been pretty clear to me. So, yes, the Synoptic Gospels depend on Mark, but they also appear to be pulling on other sources. There is the Sayings Source, for example. One of the tidbits I brought up here, the chreia at Luke 13:1-5 cited above, for example, seems to be a pair of references to related historical events, namely Pilate’s slaughter of Galileans who had come to Jerusalem to sacrifice, and the collapse of the Siloam tower that killed 18 people. These two events are only mentioned here, but they fit the historical context well and are not the kind of thing one would expect a writer would simply invent.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by mentalgymnast »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:25 pm

I doubt most historians would look at Jesus and say, "Oh, I give him about even odds to have lived or to have been made up." Most would say that he did live, and that is because they generally know on what evidentiary basis it is reasonable to treat a person as one who actually lived.
Kishkumen, on the whole what percentage of trained historians such as yourself with an expertise in your specific area of study are open to Jesus being THE Son of God as attested to by the Holy Scriptures? Do you see Jesus as an interesting figure of study from the ancient world or do you see him as something more?

Also, what are your feelings/impressions of the work the Jesus Seminar folks did years ago? Would you lump Carrier in with them as having similar expertise, etc.? In other words’s, would you say the Jesus Seminar folks, on the whole, were idiots inasmuch as they may not have been fully qualified to do what they were doing? They were writing more for popular culture, or had some kind of ax to grind, than for analysis of real history?

Thanks to those that have provided a very interesting discussion.

Regards,
MG
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by dastardly stem »

Manetho wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:18 pm


The comparison exposes the double standard. If Carrier's dismissal of the evidence for Jesus's existence were applied across the board, countless other ancient people would be consigned to the twilight zone: "May have been made up; we'll never know." But Carrier just wants to erase Jesus, so he contrives ways to dismiss the evidence for Jesus' existence and doesn't pursue the larger implications of his arguments.
Are you saying Carrier has commented and looked into Apollonius? Where might we consider his findings?
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by Kishkumen »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:21 pm
Kishkumen, on the whole what percentage of trained historians such as yourself with an expertise in your specific area of study are open to Jesus being THE Son of God as attested to by the Holy Scriptures? Do you see Jesus as an interesting figure of study from the ancient world or do you see him as something more?

Also, what are your feelings/impressions of the work the Jesus Seminar folks did years ago? Would you lump Carrier in with them as having similar expertise, etc.? In other words’s, would you say the Jesus Seminar folks, on the whole, were idiots inasmuch as they may not have been fully qualified to do what they were doing? They were writing more for popular culture, or had some kind of ax to grind, than for analysis of real history?

Thanks to those that have provided a very interesting discussion.

Regards,
MG
As to the first question, MG, I have no idea. I don't think history is able to tell us that he was THE Son of God, anymore than it can validate other theological viewpoints. That does not mean that there are not historians out there who would argue that position. I am sure there are. I have no idea what percentage would, however.

The Jesus Seminar is interesting. There were some highly competent scholars participating in it. Dominic Crossan springs to mind. Robert M. Price was also a participant, and he is closer to Carrier in his views, really quite radical and fringe, although I find his work fun to read. So, you might have found Carrier participating in it. Carrier was trained as an ancient historian and he has a PhD in the discipline. I think he was a student of the highly regarded, but poorly behaved, William V. Harris. Carrier's dissertation, If I recall correctly, was about something regarding the history of ancient science. On that basis I don't see him participating in the Jesus Seminar, perhaps, but then there were all kinds of folks who did participate.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by Kishkumen »

dastardly stem wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:24 pm
Are you saying Carrier has commented and looked into Apollonius? Where might we consider his findings?
:lol:
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by dastardly stem »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:25 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:50 pm
*Shrug...not really. I haven't adopted Carrier's view as my own. As I pointed out I fall just on the other side of the issue as he--when it comes down to it I think Jesus actually did live. But I'd agree in that many things pointed to as strong evidence is either really weak or not really evidence at all. We have to make some leaps and that isn't really a big deal, in my view.

I haven't adopted his "hyper-skepticism" so I guess I can take your insult as simply your lashing out, after having misunderstood where i'm coming from. Its unfortunate because I figured we could talk about these things and not get worked up like this.
LOL. Shrug. I don't think it is an insult. I think of it as an observation. What is your idea of evidence, stem? I see you say a lot about what you don't consider to be evidence, but I see it as evidence. One of the two of us does history for a living. I am not saying you are completely unfamiliar with the concept of evidence according to every use of the word. Presumably you watch police procedural dramas and know about evidence there. But what is your sense of what makes for evidence in history?
I don't think history is not worth it. It is crucial to our lives. But you are right, I'm not so trained, nor am I an expert. And if it's true the Pilate mention can be considered evidence, then so be it. I'd be wrong. I could easily accept that. As I see it, I don't see how anyone can reasonably conclude the mention of Pilate is evidence that Jesus actually lived. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, I've considered what you've said and have stayed put in my position. Again...I could be wrong.

On this, though, I would think history is not about claiming some event with certainty. It's all about likelihood and probability. And as the discipline demonstrates some things are more likely than others.
Let me tell you what your rhetorical position reads like right now.

"You know, if the name Pilate just shows up in the text, then that is not evidence that Jesus lived."

OK, if that were true, I would agree with you. Instead, we see Pilate relating to Jesus in a manner and setting that is entirely consistent with what we know of him from other sources. That is not what you seem to be saying, and the two positions represent quite different levels of historical probability. The mere mention of Pilate doesn't give us much. The other gives us quite a bit.
I agree. The example I offered was simply to point out that the disagreement between whether Jesus lived or did not live is decided upon the evidence. He who thinks he lives needs to supply the evidence for the claim. It was not an attempt to say Book of Mormon historicity and Jesus historicity are comparable in and of themselves.
And, if you agree, then how do you conclude that Jesus probably did not exist or even only 50/50? Yes, the two cases have very different levels of evidence. One of them has almost none. The other has a fairly generous amount by ancient standards. Yet you say Jesus probably did not exist. That is, anyway, the position you seem to be arguing for, in agreement with Carrier.
I certainly did not intend to be rude or disrespectful. I don't know what evidence I brushed aside. I did mention I think the Pythagoras and Apollonius examples were not applicable and said why I thought that. It was not meant to be disrespectful of course. It appears we simply disagree on whether there is some application here. Aside from what you quoted regarding Apollonius I have no particular issue. I'm not making the connection you seem to have here. I don't think Carrier or myself would be obligated to argue Apollonius never lived, nor should it even matter as a question in regards to whether Jesus lived or not.
I guess the rudeness enters this when you say you want to know more about something, I take the time to give you some useful leads, and without really making much effort--you admit you made very little--you say, "Oh, I just don't think that those cases are applicable," when a professional ancient historian has said differently. That is pretty mind boggling to me, but it should not be, as common an occurrence as it is.

If you want to know whether or not it is reasonable to treat Jesus as a figure who actually lived, then you should look at comparanda that fit the general profile. Pythagoras, Apollonius, and Alexander do. They are all Mediterranean holy men who allegedly performed miracles and attracted followers, about whom we know mostly through the writings of others. They did not leave much in the way of physical traces, such as coins, inscriptions, or autograph texts we can look at ourselves. All of them are generally believed by most ancient historians to have lived based on the evidence we have of their lives.

I doubt most historians would look at Jesus and say, "Oh, I give him about even odds to have lived or to have been made up." Most would say that he did live, and that is because they generally know on what evidentiary basis it is reasonable to treat a person as one who actually lived.
I wrote up a response, hit submit and it disappeared. That's happened a couple of times and it sucks. Don't know what's causing it. Going brief because I'm running short on time right now.
"If you want to know whether or not it is reasonable to treat Jesus as a figure who actually lived, then you should look at comparanda that fit the general profile. Pythagoras, Apollonius, and Alexander do. They are all Mediterranean holy men who allegedly performed miracles and attracted followers, about whom we know mostly through the writings of others. They did not leave much in the way of physical traces, such as coins, inscriptions, or autograph texts we can look at ourselves. All of them are generally believed by most ancient historians to have lived based on the evidence we have of their lives."
Well that's fine but the disagreement is on one piece of evidence claimed to be strong evidence to validate Jesus having lived. Does the general conclusion that these 3 lived suggest that the Pilate mention should be considered evidence? I've read what you've given and I don't see the comparison. What if someone wanted to contest the majority opinion and pointed out the evidence for any one of the three is weak and other evidence points to this person not having really lived? If no one is at that point, why are these three examples relevant? Maybe Carrier has discussed these three, but I certainly haven't read up on them. What I see happening here is you are using these 3 examples as 3 people thought to be real historic people, and since they come from a similar era, with similar or lesser material on them, that means Jesus too should be regarded as historic. I don't think that works very well as a point here. All I"m saying is, let's evaluate the evidence for this one.

I see this precisely like the Hamblin/Jenkins discussion. Hamblin was intent on getting Jenkins to read the experts who have given arguments, because evidence, though he claimed he had it, should not be expected as Jenkins expected it. You have to get all complex and nuanced to accept something as evidence, on Hamblin's point. I"m not feeling swayed. That hardly means I don't think you have good reason. I just haven't seen it. Or rather what I have seen seems to come up short.
we see Pilate relating to Jesus in a manner and setting that is entirely consistent with what we know of him from other sources. That is not what you seem to be saying, and the two positions represent quite different levels of historical probability. The mere mention of Pilate doesn't give us much. The other gives us quite a bit.
And I think you may want me to say, if you say so. But, I think the point remains, as I've been laying it out. If Pilate lived and his legacy carried on to some degree, then why would any story that included him not be consistent with him from other sources? That seems to be possible whether Jesus lived or not. What we have is Mark, or whoever wrote that gospel, was given an orally transmitted story about Jesus and Pilate decades after Pilate and Jesus. Why would consistency about Pilate mean Jesus did actually live? That consistency with other sources could be there whether Jesus lived or not. And it is just as possible Jesus did live and the story about Pilate still be made up. I honestly do not, after all I've seen presented, consider it evidence for Jesus living. It doesn't seem reasonable in a parsimonious way.

Does this mean I'm saying its likely Jesus didn't live because of this story? No. It means the evidence presented doesn't appear to be good evidence, if evidence at all. And I grant again, I could simply be wrong, confused and lost because I don't have your expertise. Great, if so. I'm running down the wrong road in life then.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Is Mormonism so bad?

Post by Kishkumen »

I am taking this piecemeal because I am on my phone.
I see this precisely like the Hamblin/Jenkins discussion. Hamblin was intent on getting Jenkins to read the experts who have given arguments, because evidence, though he claimed he had it, should not be expected as Jenkins expected it. You have to get all complex and nuanced to accept something as evidence, on Hamblin's point. I"m not feeling swayed. That hardly means I don't think you have good reason. I just haven't seen it. Or rather what I have seen seems to come up short.
stem, you are really reaching to see this as parallel to the Jenkins/Hamblin debate, especially since in this case Carrier is considered the crackpot. Jenkins had the evidence on his side. Hamblin did not. He had close to nothing. The difference here is that you and Carrier are denying evidence by a sleight of hand called historical Bayesian analysis.

Here is a simple comparison of the two cases:

Book of a Mormon chronological setting:
6th century BC-5th century AD

Gospels’ church chronological setting:
early first century CE

Book of Mormon ancient manuscripts/texts in Reformed Egyptian:
0

Gospels ancient manuscripts:
thousands, dating from the second century CE on

Book of Mormon, earliest text or fragment:
19th century translation

Gospels: a handful of second century fragments

Book of Mormon, time between events and text:
1,400 years

Gospels, time between events and earliest surviving texts:
100-170 years

Book of Mormon, corroboration in near-contemporary outside sources:
0

Gospels, corroboration in near-contemporary outside sources:
Philo (on Pilate), Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and many others

I think it is clear why Jenkins does not need to waste his time on “subtle scholarship,” stem. There is nothing to argue about there. No sane, non-partisan historian would see the Book of Mormon case coming within a light year of the case for the historicity of the Gospels and Jesus.

On the other hand, most people who know ancient history and Biblical studies don’t waste their time on Carrier’s blinkered attempt to argue all of the evidence in favor of the historical Jesus away, and, yes, that does include the presence and activities of Pontius Pilate.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Post Reply