|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2004 : 20:57:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, true, CA. Too bad we have no time machines.
... a deficit which, no doubt, has been bemoaned by more than a few historians. The point, however, is that the argument from silence is, as you know, pathetically weak. It is methodologically identical to the creationist who triumphantly points to the absence of this or that transitional fossil.
What I find difficult to understand, Dave, is why you would raise such an 'argument' or why, for that matter, you deflect the discussion with talk of aliens and the like. Clearly you know better. I can only conclude, Dave, that you're thrashing to maintain an untenable, dogma-driven position.
Though I'm an agnostic on the issue of historicity, I must admit to a mild leaning in the direction of an historical Jesus - perhaps as suggested by John Dominic Crossan. Positing a cult leader seems far less strained than does arguing and explaining the epistles and Acts. Perhaps not, but I've yet to read anything here that demonstrates the mythicist position being more probable. I believe that both you and Gorgo overreach. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2004 : 22:08:20 [Permalink]
|
ConsequentAtheist wrote:quote:
The point, however, is that the argument from silence is, as you know, pathetically weak. It is methodologically identical to the creationist who triumphantly points to the absence of this or that transitional fossil.
I find that comparison weak.
Creationists claim, "Well, there's this fossil, and then there's that fossil, but there's nothing in between. Therefore, evolution is false, and God must have done all this." I claim, "well, we've got no evidence whatsoever about Jesus while he lived. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to take any of the writings, filled with talk of Divinity, after that point as evidence that anyone like the guy written up in the Bible existed."
My current guess is that if there was an historical Jesus, he was so unlike the person described in the Bible that anyone who asks, "did Jesus really exist?" isn't asking about that real-life guy. No more than people are asking about Saint Nicholas when asking "does Santa Claus really exist?"quote:
What I find difficult to understand, Dave, is why you would raise such an 'argument' or why, for that matter, you deflect the discussion with talk of aliens and the like.
Perhaps because I didn't attempt to "deflect" anything. You claimed that arguments from absence are rare in history, and I mentioned some famous cases in which the opposite seemed to be true. You could have supplied support for your argument, and thus end the "deflection" you started, but instead chose to ask me a question about my response, which would do nothing but drag it out longer.quote:
Clearly you know better.
But apparently you do not (even though you appear to know the literature on this subject far better than I), so I am the one to be criticized for my behaviour. I see.quote:
I can only conclude, Dave, that you're thrashing to maintain an untenable, dogma-driven position.
Well, since you lump Gorgo and I together later in your post, even though I don't see that we share much in the way of opinions, I can only assume that you did not understand my position the first time around. Perhaps you will now that I've stated it again.
A cult leader does seem the most-likely scenario. That cult leader being at all accurately described in the Bible seems unlikely to me. But shall I guess that you will again hypocritically demand that I be considerate and talk about such things in another thread? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2004 : 04:27:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But shall I guess that you will again hypocritically demand that I be considerate and talk about such things in another thread?
Are you calling me a hypocrite, Dave? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2004 : 12:08:48 [Permalink]
|
Documents written during his lifespan, no. Documents written by people who lived during his lifespan, knew him and then wrote about him, yes.
Because there was already a following before the gospels and other early documents we've found were written, we must assume that what was written was true (or at least close to the truth, as some would argue)...because if he was really only a "nice guy" or if he didn't actually exist, then:
a) The disciples were all killed for believing in a lie that they would have been aware of. Having known the man very personally, there would have been no room for deception. They would have known fully whether or not he was who he claimed to be.
b) The early church was started by a group of ignorant, fickle, blind people. Excuse the sarcasm, but if we are to assume that a group of traditionally Jewish men, ranging from fishermen to tax collectors dropped everything in their lives at the heartbeat of a blatant liar (who would have been well-known in the area as one had he been one) and became followers of this man despite the fact that what nothing he said or did was true, then we must defy all logic.
c) We should be finding evidence of adverse witnesses, and not just the witnesses we do have accounts from. Ie, if the claims made by the authors of the gospels are false, there should be evidence of attempts at correction--corrections which would have easily been able to discredit the claims made by the authors themselves. In other words, assuming there were at least some educated men existing during the time, where are their attempted "textbook corrections"? We find none.
d) We must ignore early writings by Jewish leaders condemning Jesus for being a "sorceror", because in essence, he never even existed in the first place (you silly Jewish leaders, you!).
e) We must ignore other historical documents that make references to Jesus.
f) We must not only throw away the documents written by the early church members (documents like the gospels etc) because they cannot be considered "reliable", but we must also throw away practically every other document of antiquity we have found, as we only have copies of them that were written years/centuries after the actual "events" occurred. Therefore, we must conclude that most of any other written history we have found is completely unreliable as well. (Then again, this being a skeptic's forum, I don't suppose many of you would find that a hard argument to swallow  )
g) Finally, despite the fact that there is little evidence showing major changes made to the gospels as a result of copying errors (in fact, the evidence shows just the opposite), we must still assume that major errors were made during copying if we wish to assume that Jesus was just a neat guy whose legend grew as the years progressed.
Etc. etc. etc.
The list goes on and on, but because I'm sure some lengthy discussion will inevitably proceed from my above points, that's all for now. 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2004 : 13:30:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
Documents written during his lifespan, no. Documents written by people who lived during his lifespan, knew him and then wrote about him, yes.
Because there was already a following before the gospels and other early documents we've found were written, we must assume that what was written was true (or at least close to the truth, as some would argue)...because if he was really only a "nice guy" or if he didn't actually exist, then:
a) The disciples were all killed for believing in a lie that they would have been aware of. Having known the man very personally, there would have been no room for deception. They would have known fully whether or not he was who he claimed to be.
b) The early church was started by a group of ignorant, fickle, blind people. Excuse the sarcasm, but if we are to assume that a group of traditionally Jewish men, ranging from fishermen to tax collectors dropped everything in their lives at the heartbeat of a blatant liar (who would have been well-known in the area as one had he been one) and became followers of this man despite the fact that what nothing he said or did was true, then we must defy all logic.
Two words, "Heaven's Gate". Educated and ignorant alike have been known to subjugate thier own logic to latch onto a charismatic leader who didn't require them to think.
quote:
c) We should be finding evidence of adverse witnesses, and not just the witnesses we do have accounts from. Ie, if the claims made by the authors of the gospels are false, there should be evidence of attempts at correction--corrections which would have easily been able to discredit the claims made by the authors themselves. In other words, assuming there were at least some educated men existing during the time, where are their attempted "textbook corrections"? We find none.
Does not excuse the lack of non-Biblical sources.
quote:
d) We must ignore early writings by Jewish leaders condemning Jesus for being a "sorceror", because in essence, he never even existed in the first place (you silly Jewish leaders, you!).
e) We must ignore other historical documents that make references to Jesus.
Any of these accounts of his actions during his life? As we have mentioned, there are no such credible documents outside the Bible. Perhaps you could list these sources. There are several forgeries that were discovered.
quote:
f) We must not only throw away the documents written by the early church members (documents like the gospels etc) because they cannot be considered "reliable", but we must also throw away practically every other document of antiquity we have found, as we only have copies of them that were written years/centuries after the actual "events" occurred. Therefore, we must conclude that most of any other written history we have found is completely unreliable as well. (Then again, this being a skeptic's forum, I don't suppose many of you would find that a hard argument to swallow )
g) Finally, despite the fact that there is little evidence showing major changes made to the gospels as a result of copying errors (in fact, the evidence shows just the opposite), we must still assume that major errors were made during copying if we wish to assume that Jesus was just a neat guy whose legend grew as the years progressed.
Major editing was done at the bequest of the Catholic Church, not due to copying errors. Instead deliberate changing of the words and addition of passages which fit the dogma of the time. This practice stopped after the College of Cardinals of 1309.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2004 : 13:19:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Two words, "Heaven's Gate". Educated and ignorant alike have been known to subjugate thier own logic to latch onto a charismatic leader who didn't require them to think.
They believed that Jesus died and rose for their sins. Either he did, or he didn't. Critics simply would have had to produce his dead body after his alleged "resurrection", to nip the "cult" in the bud.
But of course, they couldn't, and therein lies the problem with you assuming they were "subjugating their logic", because their logic was based on evidence.
quote:
Does not excuse the lack of non-Biblical sources.
You didn't answer my question.
quote:
Any of these accounts of his actions during his life? As we have mentioned, there are no such credible documents outside the Bible. Perhaps you could list these sources. There are several forgeries that were discovered.
We have several eye-witness accounts written by people who knew him personally. You cannot dismiss their writings because they were not employed as historians.
The Jewish claims I was referring to were written by Talmudic scholars who lived around 400AD. Normally, we would ignore such claims because they were written 400 years after the fact, but we have to remember that those Jews would have had no reason to acknowledge Jesus' existence if in deed he did not exist.
If his inexistence was the case, the Jewish leaders (making up a large opposition to Christianity) would have maintained their stance that Jesus never existed. Yet they didn't.
quote:
Major editing was done at the bequest of the Catholic Church, not due to copying errors. Instead deliberate changing of the words and addition of passages which fit the dogma of the time. This practice stopped after the College of Cardinals of 1309.
Our database of over 5000 NT manuscripts in over 3 languages has allowed us to pinpoint and correct (through cross-checking) the changes we are aware of. This is not a valid point.
Also, if you pick up any regular NT, you will find footnotes on almost every page stating the discrepencies (sp?) in the passages, and what was possibly added and/or taken away.
It is not as though we are not aware of the changes, Valiant Dancer.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2004 : 17:16:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
We have several eye-witness accounts written by people who knew him personally.
I'm aware of none. Who did you have in mind? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2004 : 01:39:05 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo,
Not to get into a battle of wits here with you, because frankly I don't stand a chance;) lol but I think you need to read up on the bible a little. You made the claim that "Paul certainly never speaks of Jesus of Nazareth, whoever and whenever Paul was.". Paul does write of Jesus...on MANY occasions. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying? |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2004 : 01:45:21 [Permalink]
|
| And another thing...this is really just to everyone...I find it silly that you are debating Jesus' existence. That's like trying to prove or disprove God...IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! lol I still stand by my statement that a person can neither prove or disprove God...you can try and rationalize it or you can try and go through history to see if Jesus "existed" or if he didn't but that doens't prove a thing, in my opinion. Consider this: There are no records....theyv'e been destroyed somehow? Or...there are records...theyv'e been falsified or created? And this isn't just from a christians point of view, I have an agnostic friend who says he doesn't know if God exists or not..that he can neither prove or disprove God...my point being that you are all wasting your breath by trying to achieve this impossible goal. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 07:48:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
Two words, "Heaven's Gate". Educated and ignorant alike have been known to subjugate thier own logic to latch onto a charismatic leader who didn't require them to think.
They believed that Jesus died and rose for their sins. Either he did, or he didn't. Critics simply would have had to produce his dead body after his alleged "resurrection", to nip the "cult" in the bud.
But of course, they couldn't, and therein lies the problem with you assuming they were "subjugating their logic", because their logic was based on evidence.
Assumes Jesus existed. Even according to the story in the Bible, the Romans believed that the followers would steal the body. Your black and white "he existed or didn't" logic is a classic strawman to the arguement posited which was "intelligent people will follow a charismatic leader if they want to be sheep."
quote:
quote:
Does not excuse the lack of non-Biblical sources.
You didn't answer my question.
You are only relying on the Bible. We have shown that there are no non-Biblical sources which mention Jesus. You have not answered our questions.
quote:
quote:
Any of these accounts of his actions during his life? As we have mentioned, there are no such credible documents outside the Bible. Perhaps you could list these sources. There are several forgeries that were discovered.
We have several eye-witness accounts written by people who knew him personally. You cannot dismiss their writings because they were not employed as historians.
The Jewish claims I was referring to were written by Talmudic scholars who lived around 400AD. Normally, we would ignore such claims because they were written 400 years after the fact, but we have to remember that those Jews would have had no reason to acknowledge Jesus' existence if in deed he did not exist.
You are quoting the Bible, again, to prove the existance of an individual. Then you mention Talmudic scholars who were being subugated by the Roman government which was forcing the state religion of Christianity on the populace. Could it be that the Jews are recognizing Jesus due to the oppressive Roman government?
quote:
If his inexistence was the case, the Jewish leaders (making up a large opposition to Christianity) would have maintained their stance that Jesus never existed. Yet they didn't.
Judaism never said that Jesus didn't exist. They said he wasn't the Messiah. Again, you are talking about a local phenomenon which the Jewish people would not question the existance of a person. Their significance would have been in question.
quote:
quote:
Major editing was done at the bequest of the Catholic Church, not due to copying errors. Instead deliberate changing of the words and addition of passages which fit the dogma of the time. This practice stopped after the College of Cardinals of 1309.
Our database of over 5000 NT manuscripts in over 3 languages has allowed us to pinpoint and correct (through cross-checking) the changes we are aware of. This is not a valid point.
Also, if you pick up any regular NT, you will find footnotes on almost every page stating the discrepencies (sp?) in the passages, and what was possibly added and/or taken away.
It is not as though we are not aware of the changes, Valiant Dancer.
But yet you use this as an absolute source. There are also changes which are unaccounted for. And who is this "our" that you are speaking of? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 07:52:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
And another thing...this is really just to everyone...I find it silly that you are debating Jesus' existence. That's like trying to prove or disprove God...IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! lol I still stand by my statement that a person can neither prove or disprove God...you can try and rationalize it or you can try and go through history to see if Jesus "existed" or if he didn't but that doens't prove a thing, in my opinion. Consider this: There are no records....theyv'e been destroyed somehow? Or...there are records...theyv'e been falsified or created? And this isn't just from a christians point of view, I have an agnostic friend who says he doesn't know if God exists or not..that he can neither prove or disprove God...my point being that you are all wasting your breath by trying to achieve this impossible goal.
Strawman. Original position is that Jesus probably did not exist. Not absolutely did not exist. It is possible to show that it is highly unlikely that God exists. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 09:02:04 [Permalink]
|
Define God, then I'll tell you whether or not he/she/its existence can be proved or disproved.
People make up stories. What is different about the story that you "believe" is real that makes you think it's real? Because lots of people believe the story? Not good enough.
Because you don't want to believe something else? Not good enough. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 09:16:23 [Permalink]
|
| If God then can't be defined, what good is it? What can you use it for? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 09:39:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
If God then can't be defined, what good is it? What can you use it for?
You can use it to train an invisible pink unicorn. :)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 10:20:41 [Permalink]
|
I'll take two then!
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
