Unbelievers at church? GASP!!

[C1ay]

You will have to bear with me for a moment, C1ay. The stepwise discussion overall would be:

 

1) Is theism reasonable? followed (if requested) by

2) What are the thiestic choices? followed by

2) Is Christianity reasonable?

 

In the third phase, we would go through

 

3a) was Christ real?, and

3b) was He special?

 

Freethinker jumped directly to 3a) in this discussion.

 

That is all we are talking about at the moment.

The 3a discussion is fine. Was Jesus the Son of God that he claimed to be? I have seen nothing that would convince that he was any more than a man.

[Biochemist]

The 3a discussion is fine. Was Jesus the Son of God that he claimed to be? I have seen nothing that would convince that he was any more than a man.

there isn't. that's the point. no need to stall that simple answer with long posts.

 

I don't mean to be contentious or to avoid the question, but I am putting this off until 3b. Freethinker started the 3a discussion, and I am waiting for his reply. And I agree with Orb that this would be a long post, probably a series. But I certainly do not agree there is no evidence. Anyone can certainly disregard it, but the quantity of evidence in not zero.

[C1ay]

I don't mean to be contentious or to avoid the question, but I am putting this off until 3b.

 

OK, jump to 3b. Assume he was special. Does that somehow make him God?

[bumab]

Hey FT... welcome back.

 

Factual support? By which you mean witnesses to Jesus being a real historical person? Read the various threads. Evidence for the supernatural? Head over to the free will thread for a good discussion (by no means a consensus, of course).

 

Civil discourse, remember.

[Freethinker]

Do me a favor, Freethinkier, if you could. I really can't tell if you are being hostile, facetious, or derisive, but it feels like one of those.

I like facetious. One of my favorite words in fact! But you leave out "tired", tired of the repitition of such nonsense and always having to expose it as such over and over. As I see we will see once more shortly. Yes if you had read some of the earlier threads, you might not be trying to repeast the other's failed attemps. But here we go again kiddies!

I am happy to entertain defending any position I (or others) hold, but I would appreciate the same professional style that you usually maintain when discussing basic science.

I love science more than I love being facetious! And should we find that you are actually sticking to valid scientific methodology and logical application, it will be a very enjoyable "professional" discussion. But your nonsense about Atheist Suicide Bombers does not bode well.

If you were not being negative,

Accurate and reasoned. I can't help the results if it comes across to you as "negative".

I do not think this is a reasonable construct. I suspect you would have a difficult time producing an eyewitness report for the Big Bang or dinosaurs, and yet most of us believe those inferred facts are fundamentally true

Ah, so much for science and reason. Neither the BB nor Dinosaurs are claimed to have left their perfect word behind in written form. To suggest that requiring therefore actual verifyable written proof for them is absurd. Unlike expecting the same for the biblical (WRITTEN) Jesus myth.

As I have mentioned previously, there are over 20,000 documents that are extant from the first century referencing Jesus' historicity.

20,000! Ewe big numbers are SO impressive! To some!

 

All I asked for was ONE! Let's see if out of that MASSIVE 20,000 you can actually provide ONE!

I recognize that some folks (notably lindagarette on this very site) contend that those are all frauds, but that is a minority opinion, even among non-Christian scholars and historians.

Ya and a spherical earth travelling around the sun was also a minority opinion. So now we move into the various Fallacies of Argumentation we always see from your side of the fence. Guess I'll have to start exposing them as I go along again. It really gets tiresome! (See "tired" above) Argumentum ad numerum This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. Further I challenge you to PROVE that the MAJORITY of "non-Christian scholars and historians" accept your supposed 20,000 texts as valid! What nonsense! My first guess is you've read Josh McD(onald) and actually think it's credible! WOW!

Among non-Christian texts, I suspect you are well aware that Josephus is the most often quoted non-Christian contemporary of Jesus.

Oh very familiar. And it is only because you have nothing of value. So you either through outright ignorace or intentional fraud pretend Josephus supports the biblical Jesus claim. If you actually KNEW anything about the claimed Josephus connection, you'd never have brought it up! How badly do I need to destroy the Josephus claim (which I have done here many times) for you? Let's start slow for you. I specifically asked for CONTEMPORARY and EYEWITNESS. Josephus was BORN around 31CE. This would put his birth years after the supposed crucifixtion /resurrection. So much for actually "being there" eh? Do I need to go further? I have lots more on ole J Flavious!

 

So once more. Please provide ONE verifyable CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESS to support the biblical Jesus the Christ claims.

 

Or being unable to do so, show the intellectual integerity to admit you can't.

[Freethinker]

Historicity as a man or as God, Son Of God, Holy Spirit or something else. I will agree that there was probably a man named Jesus that once lived. I do not believe there is one shred of physical evidence to prove that he was God though. Where is there any evidence to prove he was?

Hey he lives today! Open any telephone book in any major city. Lots of Jesus'! :-)

 

In reality, not only is there a complete lack of any written confirmation of the biblical Jesus the Christ, but there is not even one to support there being a single individual to base the myth on. It is merely a construct ripped from many other god men of the time. Dozens of mythical god made man, tortured, died and ressurected.

 

And hey nothing better than celebration of the pagan furtility Goddess Ester (Ostera) for the Christers to rally around. Eating their decorated ritual furtility eggs and forcing the Jews to eat ham or be killed! Easter is a great time of year.

[Freethinker]

there isn't. that's the point. no need to stall that simple answer with long posts.

Ya, but you will never get them to admit it. Honesty does not work well in Christianity!

[Freethinker]

But I certainly do not agree there is no evidence. Anyone can certainly disregard it, but the quantity of evidence in not zero.

And if should actually ever be able to provide ONE, I will agree.

 

Meanwhile, it IS ZERO!

[Queso]

Ya, but you will never get them to admit it. Honesty does not work well in Christianity!

ahhh...i know freethinker, i know :)

[Biochemist]

I like facetious.

Well given the most recent rant, I would probably pick hostile and add crass.

Yes if you had read some of the earlier threads, you might not be trying to repeast the other's failed attemps.

I did. Frankly, I found most of the content to be a little bit idle, although you occasionally make a valid point. Your style is to switch to hostile attack when your position is weak, just as you did in this response.

Accurate and reasoned. I can't help the results if it comes across to you as "negative".

Claiming lack of responsibility for your personal behavior is the hallmark of incivility. Or perhaps you were not claiming lack of responsibility. Perhaps you were claiming incompetence. Which is it?

Ah, so much for science and reason. Neither the BB nor Dinosaurs are claimed to have left their perfect word behind in written form. To suggest that requiring therefore actual verifyable written proof for them is absurd. Unlike expecting the same for the biblical (WRITTEN) Jesus myth.

This is a dodge. Your point was that the historicity of Jesus could not be proven. Then you established a false framework that is at odds with the scientific method. When I noted the inconsistency, you changed the framework again. This is vacuous bias, not science.

20,000! Ewe big numbers are SO impressive! To some!

Another dodge. You point was that there was not a "shred"-was that the word you used? of evidence to support Jesus' historicity. That notion is not only false, it is egregiously false. Your response is to ridicule the volume. I think the number is actuallly closer to 25,000 documents, but I was being conservative.

All I asked for was ONE!

Since you confirmed that you are aware of Josephus, you confirmed you have one already.Goodness, add the gospel of Luke onto that. I expect you have a copy of that as well

Fallacies of Argumentation...

Yes, but have you noted your fallacious arguments yet?

I challenge you to PROVE that the MAJORITY of "non-Christian scholars and historians" accept your supposed 20,000 texts as valid!

Validity of individual texts would be on a text by text basis. This is a non-sensical point. The issue I asserted was that there are over 20,000 extant documents from the first century that reference Christ. I am certain that many have textual errors. But the weight alone is both meaningful and indicative. Are there 20,000 extant documents referencing Caeser? Constantine? Pilate? Marcus Aurelius? Herod? Most reasonable folks would acknowledge that the volume of reference is a meaningful number in itself. But given that "reasonable" notion, I could see why you might not fit in that cohort.

My first guess is you've read Josh McD(onald) and actually think it's credible!

That would be McDowell, and no, I have not. Apparently, neither have you if you can't spell his name.

So you either through outright ignorace or intentional fraud pretend Josephus supports the biblical Jesus claim. If you actually KNEW anything about the claimed Josephus connection, you'd never have brought it up!

If your "destruction" of the scholarly evaluation of Josephus is as weak as your arguments in this post, I am not particularly concerned. Josephus' texts have been widely studied by scholars of many stripes: Christian, Jewish and secular. It would, of course, be challenging to "count" the scholars, but the consensus among textual critics is that Josephus did reference Christ, but that the Christian transcribers did embellish some of his text during transcription in most texts. There are also texts with different translation sources that were probably not embellished.

Let's start slow for you. I specifically asked for CONTEMPORARY and EYEWITNESS. Josephus was BORN around 31CE.

I will start slow for you as well. It was actually thought to be 37CE. And further, I won't even call you a "liar" as you did to me in a separate thread. I will just assume you were mistaken.

So once more. Please provide ONE verifyable CONTEMPORARY EYEWITNESS to support the biblical Jesus the Christ claims.

Sure. Luke. Luke is the most widely authenticated author of contemporaneous Jesus references.

Or....show the intellectual integerity to admit you can't.

I don't think you have demonstrated any reason for someone else to display intellectual integrity to you. If you think that inflammation and evasion earn you points in a debate, you and I were raised on different planets.

[lindagarrette]

FT, Your attempts are in vain. Believers don't appreciate contrary evidence. For one thing, there are so many of them, the rest of us are just a whisper. No wonder some member of this forun can find 10s of thousands of references to Jesus (Christ). The majority of religious people in our cultural environment (US, Canada, Europe) are Christians. Elsewhere, there is virtually no mention of Jesus as being a real person. WHich is not the case with other influential historical figures.

 

 

 

Probably, Jesus is a synthetic construct by theologians. Or the story could be a fiction based on Homer's Illiad and Oddessey. Mark was a Greek scholar and the central figure of his book parallels the tale told by Homer. There are many plausible theories which can neither be proven nor disproven. It boils down to a matter of faith, like so many other controversial aspects of religious study.

 

According to Robert Price, Christ A Fiction:

" 1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. 2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us. And 3) the Jesus who "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own" is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction. And finally, 4) "Christ" as a corporate logo for this and that religious institution is a euphemistic fiction, not unlike Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, or Joe Camel, the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html

[Biochemist]

FT, Your attempts are in vain. Believers don't appreciate contrary evidence.

LG- If that were true, I wouldn't bother to respond to this line of questioning.

For one thing, there are so many of them, the rest of us are just a whisper. No wonder some member of this forun can find 10s of thousands of references to Jesus (Christ).

I am a little surprised to hear that you feel unheard because you are outnumbered. These references to Jesus are not the result of some horde of contemporary Christians going to the library to "find" references. This is the work of archaeologists and textual critics who have obtained 20,000+ physical documents from the first century (although, I confess, some of this number might be from the second). The current volume of Christians in the US is irrelevant.

The majority of religious people in our cultural environment (US, Canada, Europe) are Christians. Elsewhere, there is virtually no mention of Jesus as being a real person.

Seriously? Most islamic cultures explicitly acknowledge Jesus as a "prophet" although I confess I don't know what they mean by that. This means that most of the cultures of the Middle East (where Jesus lived), irrespective of religious thought, acknowledge Jesus' existence.

Probably, Jesus is a synthetic construct by theologians. Or the story could be a fiction based on Homer's Illiad and Oddessey.

LG- I think it is reasonable to assert that any author would interpret events he records through a lens that he/she understands. That might include any extant literature or cultural frameworks. I have not investigated either of these particular avenues. But even you have offered two separate, unrelated models for the synthesis of Jesus. What I can tell you is that the internal consistency between the three synoptic gospels is heavily investigated. If you are allowing (now) that Jesus was a historical figure, but that some of his recorders interpreted His life through their personal experiences, that is worth a listen. But that is a far cry from contending (as I thought you did) that there was no evidence He existed.

It boils down to a matter of faith, like so many other controversial aspects of religious study.

Sure some of this is controversial, but this is an evidenciary discussion, not a spiritual one. Freethinker suggested there was no evidence for the existence of Jesus, and I do not think he was being hyperbolic when he said it (he is certainly able to correct me if I am wrong). That is a very difficult case to argue.

According to Robert Price, Christ A Fiction:

" 1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. 2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us.

This is a pretty significant transition. As I recall (please correct me if I am wrong), you claimed that Jesus was a myth. You own reference is now saying that "it is quite possible" that Jesus never existed. To switch from "myth" to "possibly not" is a pretty significant transition. Are you doing that?

And 3) the Jesus who "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own" is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction....

The hymn that Price quotes is a romanticized contemporary reflection of text, mostly from within the Pauline epistles. Most of those epistles (with the possible exception of Hebrews where the author is in question) are well researched, well supported, and internally consistent as well (although Paul did not meet Jesus during His life). By consistent, I mean that they are probaly genuine first century documents, they are probably actually written by Paul, and they accurately reflect key externally verifiable historical events/places in many instances.

..."Christ" ...is a euphemistic fiction...the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions."

I can't speak for anyone on this but myself, but I do not consider thinking dangerous, and I do not take Christ's existence, the activity of the apostles, or the relevant historical record by faith. This post is intended to focus on a reasoned evidenciary discussion. I am not talking about faith in anything.

 

That would be a different thread.

[bumab]

Believers don't appreciate contrary evidence.

 

That's just silly- why would we even bother discussing these things?!

 

No wonder some member of this forun can find 10s of thousands of references to Jesus (Christ). The majority of religious people in our cultural environment (US, Canada, Europe) are Christians. Elsewhere, there is virtually no mention of Jesus as being a real person. WHich is not the case with other influential historical figures.

 

 

Except those sources that have been cited so far are not of western origin. Islamic folk talk about Jesus all the time. They even bring in Moses. Let's add a few more to that pool, eh?

 

There are many plausible theories which can neither be proven nor disproven. It boils down to a matter of faith, like so many other controversial aspects of religious study.

 

Your requirements for proof are un-realistically stringent. By those standards, many historical figures would not fit the bill of "reality," like Caesar or Genghis Khan. Come now, be fair.

 

According to Robert Price, Christ A Fiction: {/QUOTE]

 

With a title like that, I'm sure it's an unbiased report. But I'll check it out :)

 

the Jesus who "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own" is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction.

 

That has no bearing on the arugment at all.

 

...the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions."

 

Straw man. It's used all the time around here to discount religion, and I'll finally bring it up.

 

A religion should be discussed on it's own merits, not the merits of it's believers. For example, you would most likely be offended if I believed time travel was possible because I saw back to the future. Just because you see some close minded or un-imaginative believers does not mean the core ideal is incorrect, just that the person involved got it incorrect.

 

Heck, I still believe discussion and discourse is good, despite the hostile and unproductive way some go about it.

[C1ay]

Hey he lives today! Open any telephone book in any major city. Lots of Jesus'! :-)

 

In reality, not only is there a complete lack of any written confirmation of the biblical Jesus the Christ, but there is not even one to support there being a single individual to base the myth on. It is merely a construct ripped from many other god men of the time. Dozens of mythical god made man, tortured, died and ressurected.

 

 

Yep. The fact that a man named Jesus lived or not is usually not a dicersion worth arguing over. I tend to let them have that point so that we can get down to the testable proof that he was God. In reality all I usually get is just another diversion from the main point though.

 

Speaking of pork, I wonder if there's any pork fat in the grease that McDonald's uses to cook the fries in. There could be millions eating pork on Good Friday without even knowing it. I know that someone sued them over the saturated fat thing but has anyone bothered to ask just exactly what's in the grease. All the other restaurants too. I wonder just how many of them are getting some pork they don't even know about.

[C1ay]

Your requirements for proof are un-realistically stringent. By those standards, many historical figures would not fit the bill of "reality," like Caesar or Genghis Khan. Come now, be fair.

 

Well tell us then, just what requirements of proof do you think are fair in a science discussion? Certainly you will conceed that we cannot just assume it is true only because someone says so. BTW, we're not discussing Caesar or Genghis Khan so it doesn't really matter if they were real or not now does it?

[Biochemist]

Well tell us then, just what requirements of proof do you think are fair in a science discussion?

I can't speak for Bumab, but I thought it unreasonable that Freethinker was ruling out any evidence that was not "eyewitness" evidence. I made the point above that we do not use that level of standard when confirming the Big Bang or dinosaurs, and yet those facts are broadly accepted.

 

There certainly is plenty of bona-fide eyewitness documentation as well, but the vast majority of that comes from Christian sources. I just assumed that Freethinker would discount that out of hand (again, as a postulate) so I have not surfaced that argument yet, except for Luke.

 

Luke is a special case, since the detail in his writings has been corroborated on many points of minutae, because (for reasons perhaps related to his academic style) he tended to record more minutae than other comtemporary Christian writers.

 

We have an odd problem in confirming contemporary corroborators of Jesus. Most of those who came in contact with Him and stayed with Him for extended periods tended to become Christians. This certainly could be viewed as a "bias". Oddly, if they did not become Christians after extended contact with Him, it would be strong evidence that He was not who He said He was.

 

Overall, the new testament Biblical texts (and many other texts from first century authors) are highly investigated and highly corroborated, even though there are a number of elements that are difficult to explain. Among non-Christian textual critics, there is high acceptance of the three synoptic gospel accounts. Most (I believe) non-Christian scholars hold the gospel of John in somewhat lower regard because the style is less linear and it contains many elements that are not in the other three gospels (like all of the great "I am..." statements).

 

C1ay- The first "proof case" I would suggest that we follow to support that Jesus was who He said He was is to confirm that the tomb was actually empty, and the body was missing. The academic proof case for that is pretty strong, and the implications of the empty tomb are large.

[C1ay]

I can't speak for Bumab, but I thought it unreasonable that Freethinker was ruling out any evidence that was not "eyewitness" evidence. I made the point above that we do not use that level of standard when confirming the Big Bang or dinosaurs, and yet those facts are broadly accepted.

 

For one, I do not necessarily conceed that there was a big bang. I only accept that it is possible based on the observable, expanding universe. As for dinosaurs, we do have complete, fossilized skeletons of them. There is no assumption that these skeletons exist.

 

There certainly is plenty of bona-fide eyewitness documentation as well, but the vast majority of that comes from Christian sources. I just assumed that Freethinker would discount that out of hand (again, as a postulate) so I have not surfaced that argument yet, except for Luke.

 

Luke is a special case, since the detail in his writings has been corroborated on many points of minutae, because (for reasons perhaps related to his academic style) he tended to record more minutae than other comtemporary Christian writers.

 

Even if Luke's writings have been corroborated that he wrote about a man named Jesus and that man lived, it does not prove that he was any kind of God. Where is any document that provides testable evidence that this man named Jesus was in fact a God and not a man??

 

C1ay- The first "proof case" I would suggest that we follow to support that Jesus was who He said He was is to confirm that the tomb was actually empty, and the body was missing. The academic proof case for that is pretty strong, and the implications of the empty tomb are large.

 

Graverobbers? A missing body does not make a God anyhow. BTW, Jimmy Hoffa's body is missing too. Is he God?