doubtingt

Imagine this:

An author publishes a book about a character with a standard, formula plot line of the "reluctant hero". This hero's birth is claimed to be supernatural and he has superhero powers that allow him to defy the laws of physics. It is claimed that he is the son of an imaginary, invisible, super-human who existence and supposed feats are completely unverified or directly refuted by known facts.

The publishers and promoters claim it is a true story. After, being made to look like fools, when
faced with the impossibility of the stories claims and the patently obvious literary qualities that characterize most fiction.
The promoters back off
and start claiming that everything except those
things that can be proven false are historically
accurate.

Upon hearing this tale, all rational people
exclaim "BULLSHIT!!!!"

The publishers scramble around seeking out any
confirming evidence that can be interpreted as
support for their assertion and come up with some
scattered, vague, inconclusive references to
some actual person who may have shared a name and some other minor qualities with the character in the story. They proclaim that this makes it foolish to doubt his existence and convince the
gullible masses, aching to believe them, that
those who still doubt are making outrageous claims
and they cannot prove he did not exist.

The rational skeptics, stand with jaws agape
as they marvel at those who have managed
to establish as unquestionable fact an extraordinary claim for which they have scrounged up only the flimsiest of evidence and for which there is a clear, highly plausible, heavily supported alternative account.

Sound familar???

The fact is that Occum's Razor favors the ahisoricist position and the burden is upon
those claiming a historical Jesus to provide
evidence.
Here are the facts as they exist independent of
the issue of Jesus as actual man.
Fact 1: The Gospels are a work of fiction evidenced by their numerous impossible claims.
Fact 2: Virtually all works of fiction contain characters and events that have some historical referent, but this in no way means that any individual character or event is a historical telling of an actual character or event.
Fact 3: Many, many, religious myths that predate the Gospels consist of clearly fictional characters (in many cases non-human) who are portrayed and claimed to go through trials that are virtually identical to most of those that the
character Jesus went through.
Fact 4: Stories involving the Jesus character that did not fit the vision of Jesus Paul wanted to portray were destroyed or hidden, thus demonstrating a lack of intent on creating a historical account.

These facts provide no basis to assume that Jesus is anything other than a fictional character, who might have had some historical referent (i.e, a carpenter of the times who happened to be named Jesus), but no more so than any other fictional character. In addition, the facts are quite inconsistent with intent to record history.
Everything in the Gospels is consistent with the
cultural myth hypothesis.

Thus, those who claim that select parts of the Gospels (the non-supernatural parts of Jesus' life) happen to be accurate historical accounts
are making unwarranted assumptions that are difficult to reconcile with the facts. The burden is squarely upon them to bring forth new facts that are predicted by their hypothesis and cannot
be accounted for by a cultural myth explanation.
Their shakey and sparse evidence has not met this burden.

Atticus_Finch

Your argument breaks down at its very beginning. You state, "Fact 1: The Gospels are a work of fiction evidenced by their numerous impossible claims." You assume that the claims are impossible without any proof. Is not the possibility or impossibility of the claims regarding the life of Christ the heart of the issue rather than a point to be assumed.

It is apparent that you, without proof or discussion, assume that no supernatural events could have taken place as described in the gospels and then work from that assumption. That is a flawed approach.

Edited to add--It is obvious that if you are going to rule out the supernatural then all other aspects of the story become suspect.

Regards,

Finch

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]</p>

Goliath

The very fact that those who claim that Jesus Christ existed have made a claim implies that the burden of proof lies upon those who make such a claim.

Sincerely,

Goliath

doubtingt

Yes, and we can rule out the supernatural aspects
because if the concept of "proof" has any application it couldn't be more applicable to
the proof we have in the form of every thing
we have observed about physics, biology, etc.that
makes these events impossible.

You make my point for me. Those who would accept
these supernatural events are beyond the reach
of rational discourse. I am speaking only to
those who acknowledge that such events must
be assumed to be fiction, but still content
that it is rational to conclude in a historical
Jesus. You apparently agree that if the assumed
fiction of the supernatural events would have
to count as evidence against the accuracy of
the more natural parts of the story.

doubtingt

I agree. However, the known facts about the Gospels, hero myths, and fictional literature in general count against their hypothesis, and provide a compelling and more parsimonious alternative explanation for what the story actually represents. All this makes the historical claim more extraordinary, thus requiring even more extraordinary burden of evidence that has clearly not been met.

Jayhawker Soule

What "known facts about the Gospels" count against an historical Jesus perhaps as portrayed by Geza Vermes or Burton Mack?

Atticus_Finch

Alright, lets try some "rational discourse". You have taken on the burden to prove that supernatural events are impossible. I would like to hear your proof.

As an aside, the bible agrees with you that if the miracles associated with Christ, namely the bodily resurrection, are not based on fact then faith in Christ is empty and meaningless. I Cor. 15:12-14

Regards,

Finch

Tristan Scott

I agree with Atticus in that doubtingt has failed in fact #1. While it may be true that the Gospels contain some fiction, that can be proven only because they have some contradictions, that does not make the entire work a fiction. Every history book that was ever written contains information that will be contradicted in other history books. That certainly does not make them works of fiction. Your argument isn't even about contradictions, however, your argument is about "impossible cliams", which without elaboration is meaningless.

Without fact #1, your entire argument falls apart and you have proven nothing.

On edit:

Having read further I see that you have elaborated on your "impossible claims" argument, and I would still submit that even if I were to acknowledge that the supernatural events in the NT were erroneous, that still does not offer proof against a historical Jesus.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>

Radorth

And this is not an extraordinary claim, taken to task by eminent historians? I say it is more than that. I say it is slander sufficient to merit a trial- in which case the burden of proof is on entirely on the slanderer.

Is ED nowhere guilty of "scattered, vague and inconclusive references"? Even his fellow believers say so. Jesus-mythers depend on presumption and innuendo as much as Christians are accused of doing and I'm disappointed so few skeptics see the irony, at least in this case.

It's not so clear who the skeptics are on this issue, or why WE should not be demanding extraordinary evidence.

Radorth

doubtingt

The very term "supernatural" denotes events that violate and contradict basic principles of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.. All of the direct and indirect evidence that supports and confirms our assumptions about these principles
simultaneously serves to falsify any supernatural
claim. Supernatural claims do not simply lack
evidential support they have been essentially falsified by the evidence in favor of natural laws. This is why even a seemingly sound experiment favoring a supernatural explanation
would not even get supernatural claims back up to neutral agnostic ground.