|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 31, 2007 15:00:10 GMT -4
Of course you have. I just can’t believe that you think that statement carries any weight here. And I am honestly surprised that you said it.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
circumstantial evidence: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue.
The fact that there are Scientologists does not afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the existence of Xenu. Neither does the existence of Christians afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the existence of Jesus.
You confuse circumstantial evidence with wishful thinking.
I am not making the extraordinary claim, here. You are the one claiming evidence of a supernatural being. There is no burden on me at all. If you want to claim that the Bible is evidence, you have to do more than merely make the claim.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 31, 2007 15:26:19 GMT -4
Of course you have. I just can’t believe that you think that statement carries any weight here. And I am honestly surprised that you said it. You're honestly surprised that I'm a Christian? You probably mean that you are surprised I might have thought the statement would have carried weight. Well you misunderstand me then. I don't make that statement expecting to convince you that Jesus exists, but to illustrate that you misunderstand my purpose in engaging in this debate. You had stated that you thought I was attempting to shore up my belief in Christ by producing excuses for why there is little purely secular evidence of his existence. That idea was incorrect. I don't feel any particular concern about the lack of secular evidence. In part, it's true, because I don't expect there would be much evidence, as I've outlined, but more because the religious evidence is sufficient for me. The fact that there are people who maintain that they derive benfit from their belief in a diety is circumstantial evidence for the existence of said diety. The existence of churches indicates that there is a body of people who hold that beliefe. Therefore the existence of churches is circumstantial evidence for the existence of a deity. Now, it doesn't prove the existence of the diety figure by itself, but it is evidence. Are we really at the point of throwing dictionary definitions at each other? That's a rather petty sort of debate strategy. I would much prefer if you had come out and said what you thought was wrong with my definition of circumstantial evidence rather than appealing to authority. Actually for the most part I have been claiming that a historical human being named Jesus existed, a seperate argument from evidence that Jesus was supernatural in nature, capable of miracles, etc. Admittedly when speaking of Jesus it is understandably difficult to keep the two arguments seperate. I believe the general consensus among historians is that a man named Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist. The claim that he did not is therefore the extraordinary claim. For at least fifteen-hundred years the Bible was accepted by the majority of Europe as authentic. Even today Chrstians, Muslims, and Jews all accept at least large portions of it as authentic. That makes the claim that it is not the extraordinary claim. But apart from all that, I don't really care where the burden of proof lies. An argument that the burden of proof lies with one or the other side of the debate seems to me to often be an excuse for not presenting your evidence. If you want me to debate the truthfulness of the Bible, it would be much easier for me to address the specific objections you have rather than spending a lot of time shooting in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Aug 31, 2007 15:32:18 GMT -4
Jason, don't the Mormons think that Christ had three wives? Mary M., and Martha were two of them. And Smith was a decendant of Christ as well.
I wonder why things worked out so poorly for Smith's kids.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 31, 2007 15:53:52 GMT -4
Jason, don't the Mormons think that Christ had three wives? Mary M., and Martha were two of them. And Smith was a decendant of Christ as well. I wonder why things worked out so poorly for Smith's kids. Well I can't speak for what all Mormons think, but official church doctrine does not include the ideas that Jesus had three wives, what their identities might have been, or the idea that Joseph Smith was a descendent. I have no problem with the idea that Jesus may have been married, and certainly Marry Magdeline seems a good candidate if you think he was married, but there's no official doctrine on the subject or revelation covering it, so it would be speculation. Joseph Smith did claim descent from Joseph of Egypt (the guy with the multi-colored coat). That might be where the idea that he claimed descent from Jesus came from. And this all seems like rather a tangent. Why did you ask it on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 31, 2007 16:23:59 GMT -4
No, I was surprised that you uttered such an obvious HB statement.
Again, that is just wishful thinking – not any form of evidence.
More wishful thinking.
Was that not exactly what I did? How can I show you what is wrong with your usage of “circumstantial evidence” without showing you how your definition of it is incorrect? Circumstantial evidence is not defined as “some facts that might point to an unproven thing.”
I think I infer from your above statements that nothing I provide will have much effect on you. What kind of evidence would I have to provide to make any headway? What would I have to do to make it worth my trouble?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 31, 2007 16:41:21 GMT -4
Was that not exactly what I did? How can I show you what is wrong with your usage of “circumstantial evidence” without showing you how your definition of it is incorrect? You could have explained your own definition in your own words. Resorting to quoting dictionary terms just seems, well kind of lazy and petty at the same time. Lazy in that you don't have to come up with your own expression and petty in that you expect the other person to be impressed that you can look in a dictionary. I would say circumstantial evidence is evidence that doesn't directly prove anything but, when taken with other evidence, may lead towards a reasonable conclusion. Are you trying to change my mind about something? Because if you are, the internet is really not the forum for it. If you want a nice discussion, where we can both have a look at the other's ideas and maybe re-examine some of our own, then usually I consider that well worthwhile, even if no one ends up changing their minds at the end. You seem to have been doing a lot of stonewalling with the fear that I might find some rhetorical advantage in what you say if you start expressing some opinions. Well so what if I do? It's still just an internet debate.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Aug 31, 2007 17:20:14 GMT -4
I don’t actually think it is a good idea for me to create my own definitions for what we consider to be evidence. We can only reach mutual conclusions if we have a basis for what has meaning and what does not. There is a consensus as to what “circumstantial evidence” is. I will stick with the consensus.
What you are describing is not circumstantial evidence, but could more accurately be described as a guess.
I’m not. I know I can’t. Sorry for wasting your time.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 8:59:13 GMT -4
I'll put this back onto the "Jesus Myth" track with a question: do we have any reason to believe that some of those elements of the Jesus story (those that appear to repeat earlier myths) were later additions to the Jesus story?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 2, 2007 13:02:50 GMT -4
Here's two : December 25, the birthday of Sol, the Sun god, was later made to coincide with the birthday of Jesus.
A Roman festival Lupercalia was an ancient purification and fertility festival celebrated on Feb. 15. In 494 Pope Gelasisus converted it to the Festival of the Purification of the Virgin Mary. (I know it's not about Jesus in particular)
sort of related: -kissing under the mistletoe at Christmas (from Celtic and Norse cultures) -the pagan festival Samain became All Saints Day which became Halloween -the style of pagan Celtic art was used to illustrate the great Celtic Bibles of the middle ages (Book of Kells and so on...) -in Slavonic myth Baba Yaga, the Great Goddess was transformed into the handmaiden of the Devil with the coming of Christianity.
EDIT- I just realized I didn't read the post right, so this post doesn't answer it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 2, 2007 13:56:30 GMT -4
You mean "Samhain," but close enough. (And the "mh" in Gaelic is pronounced like a "w," so the word is pronounced "SAH-wen.")
The date of Easter more closely corresponds to the spring equinox than to the actual date of Jesus' (alleged) resurrection. This was in part because early Church leaders thought it was more important to have Easter always fall on a Sunday than it was to have it always fall, you know, near Passover.
Marian veneration (which is different than worship!) is closely tied to the Goddess worship of most of Europe--the people of those regions had a hard time adjusting to a monotheistic faith with no mother goddess, so in order to gain converts, the Virgin Mary became a more important aspect of the faith than the Bible would indicate she should be.
At this late remove, however, it is nigh impossible to say for certain which aspects of the Bible are adapted to myth and what myths are adapted by proximity to the Bible--and, come to that, given the history of mistranslation and copying errors of the Bible, it's hard to say what it originally said in the first place.
There is such thing as coincidence in this world, but in my personal opinion, if the Bible was adapted to fit anything, it was adapted to fit in with the Messiah legends of the Old Testament, whether the actual history (and I do believe Jesus was a historical figure) fit with it or not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 2, 2007 20:17:00 GMT -4
Are things like kissing under misteltoe and considering Baba Yaga a handmaiden of the devil really part of Jesus' story?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 2, 2007 20:58:57 GMT -4
Here's two : December 25, the birthday of Sol, the Sun god, was later made to coincide with the birthday of Jesus. This isn't Bibical, but is a later addition based on the celebration of Christ's Mass, a special mass designed to more pagans from the celebration of the winter solsitice to Christianity. It is possible that the "birth of the sun" at the solstice become the "Birth of the Son." Jesus' birth was likely in August/October. Again, not biblical. Again, none of these are biblical. No it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 21:51:42 GMT -4
Christianity was all too happy to co-opt the rituals of other religions and cultures. Taking of the Winter Solstice date as the birth of Jesus is likely an example. Some here claim that the Gospels were written specifically as a history of the life of Jesus. I wonder how they missed the birth date? The Easter Bunny and the Easter egg are also likely examples of Christianity co-opting the springtime rituals of fertility. Bunny? Egg? Yeah, WTF do they have to do with Jesus?
If early Christians were willing to adopt these parts of other non-Christian myths, does it not follow that they would have had no problem taking other aspects as well?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 2, 2007 22:19:51 GMT -4
Eggs and bunnies and chicks are symbols of new life. To the Christian Jesus is the source of spiritual life. They may be borrowed symbols but they are symbols because they work. And note that they are not adopted myths, they are adopted symbols. The myths that surrounded them were not adopted.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 2, 2007 22:59:50 GMT -4
Christianity was all too happy to co-opt the rituals of other religions and cultures. Taking of the Winter Solstice date as the birth of Jesus is likely an example. Some here claim that the Gospels were written specifically as a history of the life of Jesus. I wonder how they missed the birth date? The Easter Bunny and the Easter egg are also likely examples of Christianity co-opting the springtime rituals of fertility. Bunny? Egg? Yeah, WTF do they have to do with Jesus? If early Christians were willing to adopt these parts of other non-Christian myths, does it not follow that they would have had no problem taking other aspects as well? Not really, these things were brought in quite late into the piece, after Christianity moved into the Pagan parts of Europe such as France and Britain. That was in the early 6-7th Century, so the Books of the Bible were already well and truely solidified before those things started to influence the Church.
|
|