Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 9, 2008 16:48:40 GMT -4
All I'm saying is that from a skeptic's point of view, the answer here has to be that there is not enough evidence to prove Jesus physically existed. I in fact believe he did exist but as of yet there is nothing to prove that. It really depends on just how skeptical you are. A fair-minded person will probably say "well, there's a lot of people near that time who were convinced he existed, so he probably did in one form or other." Someone who's a little anti-Christian will probably lean towards "there's not enough evidence he did exist, so I say he didn't."
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 9, 2008 17:08:09 GMT -4
It's possible to use archaeological evidence to test the accuracy of historical texts. A classic example is comparing Josephus's account of the siege of Masada with the results of archaeology at the site. True, but unless you are yourself an archaelogist, and go and perform work on the site, you're still relying on the writings and work of others. I believe most of us on this forum are not archaeologists, so again it's a choice between who you feel is most credible. That is a clasic claim for a hoax proponent when backed into a corner. It is no more required that we personally excavate Massada than we go the the moon to argue that either account is true. We simply need quality sources. It is just that the moon landings are better documented than Masada so much less is left to doubt.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 9, 2008 17:20:08 GMT -4
It really depends on just how skeptical you are. A fair-minded person will probably say "well, there's a lot of people near that time who were convinced he existed, so he probably did in one form or other." Its the "one form or another" issue that is important here. There is a form told in the Gospels. But is there another form that is acceptable to you? Someone who's a little anti-Christian will probably lean towards "there's not enough evidence he did exist, so I say he didn't." I don't think that anyone is making the argument you are attributing to them. History clears indicates that some one came along a changed the world. I don't think that is being questioned. The OP topic was the lack of extra biblical evidence, that case has been presented well enough without any rebuttal.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 9, 2008 17:20:52 GMT -4
Exactly so. We need quality sources, and what we view as quality sources is entirely up to each individual. More documentation certainly adds credibility for most people (including myself), but it doesn't really prove anything. Historical events from 2,000 years ago have astonishingly little real evidence for them, if you look closely enough. Most of it is in fact hearsay - sources copying other sources they consider credible.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 9, 2008 17:23:19 GMT -4
Exactly so. We need quality sources, and what we view as quality sources is entirely up to each individual.
Got a source for that claim. Try to make that case to a historian and see how far you get.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 9, 2008 20:15:37 GMT -4
First:
I have never made that claim, Jason. Ridiculous right back at you. I have never made anything like that claim.
What I have said is that since there is no historical record of Jesus, claims that he was definitely divine are dubious.
I don't believe my rejection of the proposed evidence for the existence of Jesus is unreasonable. Without even looking at the content, the fact that none of it was written until 60 or more years after the supposed events would put all of it on shaky ground, at best. And the content itself does not hold up to scrutiny.
Now... as to some of the other claims made here -- such that Jesus probably existed because of how quickly Christianity flourished -- I'd first point out that evidence of the exact nature of Christianity and of how widespread it had become is also hard to come by.
What do we know for sure that happened in the first century? What do we really know about the apostles and what became of them? Even the Bible doesn't shed much light on this, except for two.
Of Judas, we know he hanged himself. Or, possibly, he fell down and his innards came out. Or, as some Christians claim -- he hanged himself and then fell down and his innards came out. One writer missed the noose and the other didn't stick around for the fall.
James was reported as killed by Herrod.
Of course, there is no matching historical record of either (or the three) of these events, which is not surprising.
What is surprising is that the rest of the apostles just melted away and history never even knew they were here. That, coupled with the fact that the first of the gospels was written no earlier than the year 50 and possibly 20-40 years later than that, certainly adds to the puzzle. The gospels were almost certainly not written by those whose names they have been given. They contain conflicting information and are not written as one might expect a first-person account to be written. They also contain information about many acts for which the supposed authors were not present. They are written more like tales handed from one source to another and then eventually written down.
I would suggest a long, deep look into what you think you know to be true about Christianity in the first century.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 9, 2008 20:53:03 GMT -4
Exactly so. We need quality sources, and what we view as quality sources is entirely up to each individual. Got a source for that claim. Try to make that case to a historian and see how far you get. What if I don't view that historian as a quality source?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 9, 2008 21:19:02 GMT -4
I have never made that claim, Jason. Ridiculous right back at you. I have never made anything like that claim. Nice edit there. The ridiculous claim I was referring to was not "the lack of secular evidence that Jesus exists," but your claim on the "Dirty Tricks" thread that Christianity had set back the cause of medicine a thousand years by burning witches - the master of herbal remedies - a claim for which you were roundly criticized by others than myself. That was a ridiculous claim. And that makes little sense either. Does there need to be a secular historical record of Jesus for him to have existed? And what do secular historical records have to do with whether he was divine or not? I would guess that you will classify any record that speaks of Jesus working as miracles as "religious" rather than "historical", am, I correct? It's as if you wanted to know if any black swan had ever been seen, but automatically reject any photos or stories of someone having seen a black swan as fake. Again, what records do you expect to have been created and preserved to today? There are traditions (likely oral at first) that have been handed down for the fate of all of the apostles. Why should we expect more? Many scholars agree with you, and many others disagree. The matter is not settled, despite youre "almost certainly," and there really is no way to know for certain from strictly secular sources. You should expect multiple accounts of eye-witnesses to conflict in some details, particularly if they were written 20-60 years after the events they convey. And it's hard to criticize the style or viewpoint of something when it's a translation of a translation (and a copy of a copy). But which the claimed authors could have interviewed those who were present for details - including acts which only Jesus witnessed. And that is possibly what they are. Or they may have been written by who they say they were. Again, there's no way to be certain from strictly secular sources. I already know a bit about 1st Century Christianity, primarily because the theology discussed at the time by church leaders was much more like LDS theology than modern Protestantism or Catholicism is. What in particular troubles you about the 1st Century church? Just the lack of knowledge about it? How much do we know about other 1st century religious movements among the Jews? Is it comparable?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 9, 2008 21:52:39 GMT -4
Jason, your exact statement was:
I denoted that it was edited with "..."
We weren't talking about Christianity setting back science by a thousand years, we were talking about the historicity of Jesus. And reading your statement in full context -- it still appears that you are claiming that I made a statement that I did not. Nice deflection.
As to Christianity setting back science a thousand years, it did. That fact that we have not had a further discussion about that subject does not somehow mean that you "won" and I "lost." If you think Christianity was a guiding light through the dark ages, you are wrong. And another thread should be started for that discussion.
You miss my point. Claims that he was definitely divine, in light of the fact that he can't even be shown to have existed, would seem to be claiming an awful lot, considering the evidence. And, in fact, any claim that he was divine in light of this fact is irrational -- as in, not born of rational thought.
(Doing his best Ronald Reagan impersonation) Well... there you go again. Photos and stories of black swans would be excellent evidence, but if in looking for a black swan, all I came up with were stories about dark blue swans, polka dotted swans and black hummingbirds, I'd have to say that there is no evidence for black swans. You, on the other hand, would accept a dark blue swan. I won't. Nobody looking for a black swan should accept a dark blue swan in its place. A dark blue swan is not a black swan.
In light of claims that Christianity was on the rise and that it was widespread, I'd expect to hear much more about the apostles. But we don't hear anything. All we have is stories written some hundreds of years later.
"Almost certainly" by non-Christians and even by some Christians. If it requires faith to believe, then the evidence is pretty thin. It should be noted again that many of the events of the gospels did not occur when the supposed author was there.
You mean... they might have been... embellished?!! But they conflict in details that one might have expected them to get right -- such as details immediately following the supposed resurrection.
What troubles me is that we really don't know anything about Christianity in the first century. Almost everything we think we know comes from much later. And even if we give an early date for the first of the gospels, we have no idea how many people knew anything about it. So many assumptions are made, but they are all made with the assumption that Jesus was a real person. If he was not, then many of those assumptions are based on faulty ideas.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 9, 2008 23:09:57 GMT -4
Exactly so. We need quality sources, and what we view as quality sources is entirely up to each individual. Got a source for that claim. Try to make that case to a historian and see how far you get. What if I don't view that historian as a quality source? Whatever the source, it is better than I simply get to pick my own views. Well I will have to declare that wdmundt won this argument by lack of any information to counter the initial proposition.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 9, 2008 23:27:51 GMT -4
I thought Al already won this. ;D
It is interesting that historians have different views on what happened in history, how it happened, and how it influenced the world. But they are only human, and can't see everything clearly through their clouded glasses.
What you have to be careful when reading history though, are books that masquerade as history but are written by people trying to advance their misguided views, or just trying to make a buck. The Moon Hoax books could fall in this catagory. If you read something written by a Russian historian about European history, it will certainly be different than lets say, a British author. It is to be expected.
Regarding Christ's existence - it's tough. The Gospels themselves have been preserved well - there are thousands of manuscripts, beit some are small fragments, going back almost two thousand years.
Try to find Plato or Aristotle writings that old. But we assume they existed of course, by their influence. Wdmundt, can I ask you a question? I know where you stand on the evidence issue, but do you believe that Jesus existed? As a man of course.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 10, 2008 2:16:25 GMT -4
We weren't talking about Christianity setting back science by a thousand years, we were talking about the historicity of Jesus. I can understand why you would want to avoid re-visiting the subject. Was it not your position? True, you didn't use those exact words, but you didn't call me on it when I restated your position in that fashion either. The reason I brought it up is that it's part of the pattern of your behavior when confronted with Christianity. For some reason you have a personal beef against the religion, and so you're willing to believe things other people wouldn't as long as it casts Christianity in a negative light. Of course you believe a lack of secular evidence of Jesus' existence is significant - it gives you one more reason to doubt Christianity. One more reason to believe you're smarter than all those fools who try to live their life according to a 2000-year old book that was a total fraud to begin with. By burning witches? You mean you still think you have a valid point there? Oh I did win, and you definitely lost. The reactions of the rest of the forum members on that thread makes that pretty clear. And it was before Al called his dibs. We already had one, but you abandoned it after you got your nose bloodied. Claims that Christ was divine are extraordinary. Claims that he actually existed, not so much. You have your opinion because you don't like modern Christianity, not because a lack of historical evidence has convinced you he didn't exist. I believe you misunderstood my analogy. I mean that memory is a tricky thing, and eye-witnesses to the same event will recall different details. Since there was at least 20 years between the events and the writing of them it's not surprising that there are inconsistances. In fact the presence of inconsistancies is good evidence that the accounts were independently compiled and are therefore more trustworthy than they would be if they had repeated each other verbatim. In any case, the details may differ but the central point is there. There are quite a few extra-biblical writings from Christians in the second century. That will give us an idea of what it was like to be a Chrstian then. What topics were of interest to them, what persecutions they faced, etc. I admit that first-century writings outside the Bible itself that mention Christians are pretty scarce, but so were Christians back then, at least when considered in the context of the world as a whole.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 10, 2008 2:18:40 GMT -4
Well I will have to declare that wdmundt won this argument by lack of any information to counter the initial proposition. Wdmundt can't win. Al wins all debates. To boil it all down, I would say that he's right that secular sources on Jesus' life are extremely scarce and not very detailed. My counter is that this is exactly what we should expect, and that an absence of evidence does not constitute evidence that he didn't exist. In fact it might be suspicious if there were more secular accounts or artifacts.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 11:52:26 GMT -4
Well, that's an irritating thing for you to say - as it directly follows me having offered to revisit the subject.
I must have missed that. And no, I have absolutely never said that the lack of secular evidence proves that Jesus did not exist -- so you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
A couple of people responded with "nuh uh, Christianity was good" and provided no support whatsoever for that position. Since that position agrees with yours, you accept it. However, arguments are not made with those kinds of statements. People disagree vehemently with me all the time. In fact, several people believed they had bloodied my nose on the topic of secular evidence for the existence of Jesus -- by just listing the writings of the authors above. Disagreeing does not equal a "bloody nose." The fact that I was distracted by other threads and did not return to the thread in no way shows anything except that the argument was not engaged.
I have made a strong case to show that claims that he existed may in fact be extraordinary.
You made a bad analogy. Your analogy was just a continuation of your argument that I am unreasonable when it comes to evidence concerning Jesus. I am not. You are.
Bah. Inconsistencies do NOT provide any support for the idea that the stories are true. Try that one in court.
Extra-biblical writings from the second century are useless in determining whether the stories are true -- as there is no chain showing where any of the stories originated.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 11:56:28 GMT -4
Wdmundt, can I ask you a question? I know where you stand on the evidence issue, but do you believe that Jesus existed? As a man of course. I actually said once on this forum that I think he probably existed. However, after another six months of reading, I'm starting to think that he probably didn't. The evidence we have is consistent with Jesus being a myth and it does not show consistency with the kind of evidence we would expect if he had been a real person, in my humble opinion.
|
|