|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 21:42:29 GMT -4
I have made no claim about the historicity of Alexander the Great. I haven’t even made a claim here about the historicity of Jesus. All I have said is that if there is evidence of the existence of Jesus, then show it to me.
If by “hard line” you mean evidence that proves something – evidence that is actually evidence, then I guess I am being unfair.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 21:50:58 GMT -4
So my assumption is wrong? You don't believe Alexander the Great existed?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 30, 2007 21:56:56 GMT -4
I'm saying that my beliefs about Alexander the Great are irrelevant.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 30, 2007 22:02:49 GMT -4
No they're not irrelevant. If you accept the existence of one historical figure you should accept the existence of another on similar evidence. Otherwise you are guilty of using a double standard.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 30, 2007 23:54:21 GMT -4
Okay, my head is spinning. I'm having a hard time figuring out the twists and turns of this debate going on. I think with Alexander, a lot of the evidence is cause and effect. Someone had to travel or conquer parts of Asia etc. to Hellenize it, if it wasn't Alexander, then it was someone else. Greek language and customs need some explanation for how they spread all over the place. And the splitting up of the empire into smaller ones run by Greek generals would have to come from somewhere and on and on. So I guess my point is, that maybe part of the evidence for the existence of Jesus would be the effect of his having lived. Maybe we should look at whether or not Paul could invent a fictional character using parts of older myths and could spread a belief in that character by his preaching. Also didn't Paul meet some apostles? Or eyewitness' to Jesus? I doubt you could deny the existence of Paul himself. Without him there wouldn't have been any Christianity in my opinion. I know I'm putting out tangled knots here, bear with me...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 31, 2007 0:07:44 GMT -4
I think that either the Apostles convinced a lot of people that Jesus existed even though he didn't in an awful hurry or that he existed. Those strike me as the two choices. Occam's Razor suggests the latter. That doesn't mean, as is well known, that I believe he was divine; my feelings on that subject are far more complicated and uncertain. However, I take the existence of the Church to be circumstantial evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus just as I take the existence of Alexandria to be circumstantial evidence for the existence of a historical Alexander.
I would note, however, that there is a lot more evidence for the existence of a historical Alexander or Julius Caesar than there is for a historical Jesus, and I think it's awfully disingenuous to suggest otherwise. After all, there aren't, you know, coins bearing His image from the lifetime of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 31, 2007 0:31:34 GMT -4
Please stop saying that. I am not accepting or denying the historicity of Alexander the Great, Elvis or the Easter Bunny. If you want to follow your hypothesis, then you must show that the evidence and historicity of Jesus and Alexander are similar.
I don't.
Is there no other possibility here? Just those two choices?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 31, 2007 11:14:03 GMT -4
I'll stop accusing you of inconsistancy when you begin to act consistantly. They are. None of the surviving historical sources for either one were written within their lifetimes. In fact the sources for Alexander were written much later than those for Jesus - within roughly 300 years as opposed to within 50. Both have inspired a great deal of literature about their lives that is generally viewed as mythical. As a Christian in Jesus' case I'm speaking primarily of the various apocryphal works, though a non-believer may also view the gospels as mythical. Both have had a tremendous impact on Western Civilization. Both had relatively short lives, dying at about age 33. Both had followers who attempted to carry on their legacies. Jesus' followers were more successful in this regard. Neither has left a tomb or identified remains (Alexander reportedly had a fabulous tomb, but it no longer exists). Jesus probably has more monuments and depictions of him than Alexander does (consider all the churches in Europe). Although Alexander does appear on some coins that we believe are from his lifetime (the advantage of being a king instead of a religious leader), other existing depictions of him are reportedly copies of older works. Considering their different stations in life I would say the evidence for their existence is roughly equivelent. In both cases it rests on second-hand accounts and largely circumstantial evidence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 31, 2007 11:22:25 GMT -4
I think with Alexander, a lot of the evidence is cause and effect. Someone had to travel or conquer parts of Asia etc. to Hellenize it, if it wasn't Alexander, then it was someone else. Someone came up with Jesus' parables and sermons. And someone started the religion that eventually became modern Christianity. If not Jesus than it was someone with a similar genius. Yes. According to the biblical account Paul met most of the Apostles who had been followers of Jesus from the beginning. Actually I'm not sure I agree. Paul may have the reputation he has today simply because more of his written works have survived to the present, but Christianity still exists today because of the message, not the messengers.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 31, 2007 12:38:02 GMT -4
That is a standard HB argument. Show me where I accepted no evidence of one person over no evidence of Jesus.
Show me circumstantial evidence that Jesus existed. Show me second-hand accounts of Jesus. I do not believe this has been done here.
You can prove that someone did this?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 31, 2007 13:02:08 GMT -4
That is a standard HB argument. Show me where I accepted no evidence of one person over no evidence of Jesus. Do you accept that Alexander the Great existed? You've been dodging the question to this point. Go find a Christian church. I'm sure there's probably one within five miles of wherever you're sitting at this moment. There you go - circumstantial evidence that Jesus existed. Well, for starters, how about the Bible: scriptures.lds.org/en/nt/contentsAlthough some of it is first-hand accounts (books by John and Paul in particular).
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 31, 2007 13:19:35 GMT -4
I wouldn’t want to answer that question and then be called inconsistent because I had done so. And, honestly, even if you can make your argument (and you haven't) -- all you are really doing is trying to find a way to make yourself feel better about the lack of evidence showing the existence of Jesus.
There is a Church of Scientology not too far from where I live. Is that circumstantial evidence that Xenu existed?
Show me that it is evidence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 31, 2007 13:32:10 GMT -4
I wouldn’t want to answer that question and then be called inconsistent because I had done so. Very well. You have been consistent on this forum in that you have refused to answer my questions on the matter. However, I believe it quite probable that you do in fact accept the existence of Alexander the Great and other historical figures for which there is as little or less evidence of their existence than there is for Jesus. Or at least, you did beforw this debate began. Am I wrong? LOL! I have no need to "make myself feel better" about a lack of evidence. I have long had all the evidence I felt I needed of Jesus Christ's existence. I'm engaging in this argument largely for the entertainment value, and on the off chance that some of what I say may be of interest to forum goers. Yes, it is. Show me that it's not evidence. The book is here, ready to be read. It is of demonstratable antiquity - at least dating back to the 3rd century with parts of it dating back to the 1st. Why is it not acceptable as evidence?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 31, 2007 13:54:02 GMT -4
HBs often ask the same question endlessly.
This is the primary barrier to HB logic.
I will alert the media.
Many religions have religious texts. Are all religious texts true?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 31, 2007 14:34:08 GMT -4
Maybe you want to take some time to actually compose an argument here (rather than just compare me to a Hoax Believer). I'll wait.
|
|