Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 16:42:32 GMT -4
Hmm, I would say "bound" is the wrong term. Is a person bound by his belief that 2+2=4, or does believing that give him the ability to build on it to greater things?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2007 17:05:14 GMT -4
Of what? That there is no real evidence that Jesus existed.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 30, 2007 17:07:16 GMT -4
Of what? That's actually a good question because I can't figure out what wdmundt is arguing for anymore. Half the time it seems as if he is claiming that Jesus never existed and half the time that while he did that he wasn't divine. From what I have seen Jason, DH and I know I have and are merely trying to show that he actually existed. There isn't any point in going further until that's been clarified. As to the question of should historians recored that he didn't exist, I'd suggest that they would have. There was this strange new "cult" spreading throughout the Roman Empire, attributed to following this guy said to have been crucified in the lands of Palestine. What better way to stop it spreading than showing that the person it was based on simply never existed. it would have stopped the movement dead (if you fogive the pun.)
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2007 17:09:17 GMT -4
Hmm, I would say "bound" is the wrong term. Is a person bound by his belief that 2+2=4, or does believing that give him the ability to build on it to greater things? I guess it depends on how you look at it. I know people who belongs to different faiths but seem 'bound' in the sense that they are unable to think out of the box, because their faith doesn't really allow for it. e.g. because apparently the Bible teaches that homosexuality is bad, they are unable to show empathy for gays, or begin to understand them or even want to understand the gay issue.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 17:14:48 GMT -4
Those Christians who are unable to show empathy for those they consider sinners are not following their religion.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 17:27:05 GMT -4
I have said a couple of times that my statement of purpose is that "because (Jesus) can't be proven to have existed, claims that he was definitely the son of God seem dubious." In response to that, I have fielded several claims that there actually is independent evidence that Jesus existed. I believe I have been fairly straightforward about this.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 17:34:34 GMT -4
It's rather like saying "because Alexander the Great cannot be proven to have existed, claims that he conquered most of the known world seem dubious."
EDIT: There aren't any primary sources for Alexander's personality, deeds, or actions either, and there is a great deal written about his life that is probably myth.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 18:10:43 GMT -4
Hmmm. Well, if every time you searched historical documents for "Alexander the Great" the best you came up with was "Andrea the Good," "Axel the Rod" or "Lavender the Eighth," then you'd have a problem. But that isn't the case with Alexander the Great, is it?
Regardless, casting doubt on other characters in history does not add to the evidence of Jesus' existence.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 30, 2007 18:11:54 GMT -4
As to the question of should historians recored that he didn't exist, I'd suggest that they would have. There was this strange new "cult" spreading throughout the Roman Empire, attributed to following this guy said to have been crucified in the lands of Palestine. What better way to stop it spreading than showing that the person it was based on simply never existed. it would have stopped the movement dead (if you fogive the pun.) The non-existence of John Frum didn't noticeably slow the development of Cargo Cults...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 18:15:58 GMT -4
Actually, searching for accounts of Alexander you might come up with "Eskandar-e Maqduni", "Arda Wiraz Nâmag", "Tre-Qarnayia" or even "Dhul-Qarnayn", none of which look very similar at first glance.
No, it just proves that you're trying to hold evidence of Jesus' existence to an unreasonable standard when compared to other historical figures.
EDIT - sorry, I wanted that to be a little clearer.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 18:31:48 GMT -4
No, that's not correct. Your claim is apparently that history can show us nothing about anything, but I don't think many others will agree with you. My only claim is that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 20:42:15 GMT -4
Where's the evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great? Why is this qualitatively different than what exists for the existence of Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 21:05:52 GMT -4
The difference for the purposes of this conversation is that Alexander is not claimed to be the son of God. Are you really saying that history can teach us nothing about anything, just because it can’t tell us anything about Jesus?
So Jason is claiming that even if Jesus existed, I should not expect evidence. PhantomWolf is claiming that if Jesus didn’t exist I should expect more evidence. Who should I go with on this one?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 21:19:49 GMT -4
You are the one that is taking a hardline about evidence for historical figures, not me. My point is not that we can never know anything about history, but that you are demanding unreasonable evidence for one historical figure while accepting the existance of another.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 21:25:28 GMT -4
Of course, I am assuming that you do accept the existence of Alexander the Great.
|
|