|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 11:51:06 GMT -4
Given that there appears to be no evidence of the existence of Jesus outside the Bible, what does the Bible offer in the way of evidence?
And why am I bringing this up here? I am curious to hear the arguments of critical thinkers -- and apollohoax.net is neutral territory. I'm quite sure there are a number of people here who have knowledge of the contents of the Bible that far outstrips mine. Is anyone here interested in looking into this?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 2, 2007 13:06:41 GMT -4
The question is, if someone points out parts of the Bible that offers evidence - would you accept it? Any part of the Old Testament would not be acceptable unless you believed in the prophecies.
Since none of the Bible New Testament was actually written in Jesus's day, wouldn't none of it be acceptable as evidence just the same as other documents by other authors that were written after the fact?
EDITed
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 15:55:47 GMT -4
Of course, as long as we can agree on the logic of the claim that a thing is evidence. Have I been unreasonable elsewhere in dismissing evidence? If I have, then we should clear the issue up immediately. But I do think that evidence should not be a matter of belief. Either it is or it is not.
Please note that I have not made any claim about whether or not Jesus existed. I honestly don't know whether he did or did not. Far too often discussion of the question of whether there is evidence becomes a question of whether or not Jesus existed. What I believe or what anyone else believes is not relevant to the question of evidence.
In my experience, it seems to be taken for granted that there is evidence outside of and within the Bible . The extra-Biblical evidence is fairly easily dismissed (though I would be more than willing to revisit it). I am aware of much of the textual and historical criticism of the Bible, but I am much less aware of arguments that it is evidence.
I want to hear arguments in its favor.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 2, 2007 17:18:21 GMT -4
Have I been unreasonable elsewhere in dismissing evidence?
Yes you have. You dismiss it based on that we can't conclusively determine who wrote it, even those much of it has a declaration in the writting of who the author was. You also dismiss it on the fact it wasn't written at the time Jesus was alive. On their own, that might be fair, however you refuse to hold other historical documents to the same standards, something that other historians don't do. Historical documents are generally treated as if they are correct, unless it can be shown that their statements don't align with known fact (ie if a document states that Gailee was a sea port and that Jesus travelled to Jerusalem by boat then we can pretty much declare it erronous and remove it from being real history.) You don't do this, you simply dismiss them, despite their being the best documented historical writtings we have on any subject, counting in an order of magitude greater then the next numerous. As already pointed out in the other thread, you believe that Alexander the Great lived, yet the documentation for him is far less that that for Jesus. One could make the case that Alexander was just the same as King Arthur, Robin of Lockley, and William Tell, not real in themselves, but a combination of real people turned into myth. Why then accept Alexander as real, but not Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 18:29:38 GMT -4
I can see we're off to a good start.
Well, yes I did say that. I do have a problem with not knowing when it was written, who the authors were and how much its original text has been changed. That is more than I should have said, however. When you held the Bible up as evidence earlier, I should have just asked why it is evidence. That is what I am asking here. Give me a sturdy argument as to why the Bible is evidence.
Show me where I have done this.
The Bible is a religious document. There are many religious documents which tell wonderful tales. I am asking why I should believe this one. How do I distinguish your claim for the Bible being evidence from a claim that any other religious text is evidence of whatever it claims?
I did not make the comparison with Alexander, nor did I accept him as real. I can't believe how many times I've said that on this forum. The amount of evidence for the existence of Jesus will not change, no matter what the evidence for Alexander.
I'm looking for a reasoned argument as to why the Bible is evidence for the existence of Jesus. In advance, I guess I'll tell you that I won't accept these arguments, and why:
"Lots of people believe it is evidence." Then Xenu is real. "People a long time ago believed it." Then Zeus is real. "You can't prove that it is not true." Then the Easter Bunny is real.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 2, 2007 18:56:35 GMT -4
Perhaps you should begin with what you do accept as evidence of a historic personage, or what your criteria would be for evidence of Jesus' existence.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 2, 2007 19:23:20 GMT -4
You asked me on the other thread if it really was a choice between the historical existence of Jesus and the Apostles' managing to have fooled an awful lot of people in a terrible hurry. My considered answer is yes. After all, we know that there were a lot of people who believed in a person called Jesus (leaving aside the Son of God aspect for the nonce) within a hundred years of His life and death. They could all have been wrong, true. But the belief had to come from somewhere and it did spring up in an all-fired hurry.
This, by the way, does not rely on the gospels' being written by eyewitnesses; I don't believe they were. But someone had to tell the stories.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 19:32:43 GMT -4
I probably could have been more clear. Sorry. I was asking if there might be another choice, other than those two.
edited to add a word
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 20:21:21 GMT -4
Well, again, I'm looking for evidence of his existence. I'm not looking to prove that he existed or that he didn't exist. I'm trying to see if we can find a bit of evidence that we can all agree is evidence.
I think we can define evidence here as "a claim of fact concerning the person Jesus that can be shown to be true." Is that fair, if not perfectly grammatical?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 2, 2007 20:45:45 GMT -4
I think this is where you are coming unstuck. While the Bible is used as a religious book, the writings themselves aren't. The four Gospel and Acts were not for use for a religous nature, but were written as histories to tell the early belivers about Jesus, and then onwards about the formation of the church. The author of Luke states this emphatically about his own writting:
Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Acts 1:1-2
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
I'm going to repeat part of this again because I think it needs it.
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account
How is this book anything other than what it claims to be, a history of the ministry of Jesus? It doesn't claim to be a religous document, it just is what it is, an orderly account that the author carefully reseached. Just because 300 years later it was taken and grouped together with other books and letters so that it could be used for teaching, doesn't detract from what it originally was, just as if in 300 years someone starts an Apollo religion and gathers several Apollo writtings into one source doesn't mean that they are no longer history documents and no longer valid to prove Apollo's existance.
How about the writtings of Ceaser?
Yes I noted that you refused to commit yourself to actually confirming your belief here on the grounds that such an answer would lead to your being called inconsitant. A bit of a cop out really which leads me to suspect that you know you are wrong in your stance, but aren't willing to admit that you hold a double standard.
This is true, but irellevant. The reason it continues to be brought up is that it is clear you have a double standard as to what you will accept. On one hand you are willing to accept historical writings that don't include any "God" references in them as valid and fine, but anything that does, you write off as being "religious" and thus of no worth. You also are willing to accept historican figures on very little information, often less that what there is on Jesus (who really was in an obscure little part of an obscure little country in the backbloacks of the Roman Empire) and yet instead of accepting that there is a similar amount of evidence for Jesus as those others, you start demanding extra-ordinary evidence just for his existance. That is a major double standard, and it's plainly obvious why you refuse to state what standard you are willing to use to prove a historical figure existed because you know for a fact that in doing so you either have to include Jesus in your standard, or rule out those accepted as fact, a position you clearly can't dare to face for some inexplicable reason.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 2, 2007 20:51:20 GMT -4
I think we can define evidence here as "a claim of fact concerning the person Jesus that can be shown to be true." Is that fair, if not perfectly grammatical? That's still pretty vague. What do you mean by "shown to be true"? Can you give me an example of some fact concerning a historical person that can be shown to be true?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 21:21:34 GMT -4
Hey, I'm game. What do you offer in return as a definition?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 21:31:07 GMT -4
Congratulations. You've quoted the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true history. Well done. Your logic is impeccable.
So, 300 years later they took their 300 year-old original texts, bundled them together and voila, the Bible? And, yet the earliest fragment we have of the New Testament is from around the year 125 or later. You are making a lot of assumptions, here.
You know, this is the third time you've referenced Apollo -- as if I am the hoaxer and you are the Apollo astronaut. As if comparing your case to the overwhelming evidence of the Apollo missions somehow gives strength to your claim. I hate to break it to you, but you are on the side of flimsy evidence and irrational claims.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 2, 2007 22:12:54 GMT -4
Hey, I'm game. What do you offer in return as a definition? The problem is the insistence on "shown to be true." Historical facts cannot be shown to be true in the same way physical or mathematical laws can. Experiments that demonstrate physical laws can be repeated, whereas historical events cannot (at least until we invent time machines). Unless we experience the events ourselves we must rely on second-hand accounts. Any historic evidence is therefore only as reliable as we consider its source to be. In other words, it is by its nature subjective. Or, put another way, it is an act of faith to accept the existence of any historical fact, as you can't "prove" it's existence. Apollo is a prime example. We can present a preponderance of evidence that Apollo existed (and indeed, few historical events were as well documented as Apollo was), but we cannot "prove it" in any absolute sense, we can only prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and the term "reasonable" is subjective. Individual hoax believer theories that are based on flawed understandings can be corrected to some extent, but if they accept the new idea this only makes Apollo more plausible for the individaul - it does not prove it. So, in short, I think there is no simple definition that will work, because evidence of historical events and persons is subjective. The better choice is to have the person you are debating with provide an example of what he finds acceptable evidence, so that you have some idea of what criteria he uses to accept historical evidence, and then either try to match the example with one from the event you are trying to prove or try to persuade him that other criteria/sources are also valid.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 2, 2007 22:49:36 GMT -4
Well, again -- it seems to me that you are arguing that we can't be sure about anything in history. You are arguing that because we have no evidence of Jesus, then we have no evidence of anything. I doubt that you will find many historians who agree with you.
There is no evidence of the Jesus of the New Testament, outside of the New Testament -- unless you want to include one obvious forgery and several sources that don't actually mention a person named Jesus. To argue that that is exactly the same evidence as we have for all historical figures is not logical.
Yes, that is a problem. It would be so much easier if we could define evidence as what "we want to be true."
|
|