Doug Shaver

That is not what I thought you meant. You were nowhere near that specific in your OP. Here is how it ended:

Had I known that you were asking particularly about Jesus' historicity, my earlier responses in this thread would have been very different.

Very briefly, my reasons for thinking there was probably no historical Jesus is that all the canonical writings are, in general, inconsistent with what I would expect if their authors had believed that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who had been the real founder of their religion. The few apparent exceptions are insufficient, all things considered, to outweigh the evidence of all the rest of the material.

Tharn

My evidence is twofold: first, you would be dead a thousand times over if you did not apply induction to crossing the street, tying your shoes, and restocking your fridge because you can't count on magic bread-and-fish multipliers. Second, you have again and again refused my requests to supply even a single, trivial example of an instance for which the evidence is as overwhelming as the permanence of death, and yet you are willing to defend its rejection as reasonable.

Here's an example of a parsimonious induction: you don't answer my repeated question, because there is no such example, and my initial hypothesis is correct.

Sorry, "much of what you say" is not helpful for an explicit definition, validity and sufficiency are wildly different concepts, which sound in epistemology rather than metaphysics, and the very first sentence in the SEP link is "The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy."

I could ask you a fourth or a fifth time to be more precise, or a fourth or a fifth time to show me what, specifically I should be doing to form more accurate descriptions of what's wrong with my car, or how plants convert sunlight into usable energy, or whether I should dig up my relatives to see if they're still dead. But the question is, should I?

My hypothesis is that "but you're just assuming naturalism!!" is a rhetorical trick apologists teach believers to throw out when their evidentialist arguments start to run dry, as they inevitably must when talking about flying rabbis ascending into the clouds with their magic powers. You try to portray corpse-resurrection as a "reasonable" induction from the observation of some old anonymous texts, and when it's pointed out that corpse-resurrection would be an insanely unreasonable induction even given much, much, much better evidence, in order to hide the blatant question-begging just say the other guy is "dogmatic" and "biased".


I could repeat, a sixth or seventh or eighth time, my request that you distinguish in a consistent fashion between bare logical possibility and reasonable possibility. It is "barely logically possible" that you might start doing so, but the reasonable conclusion is that you will continue to demand Absolute Metaphysical Certainty from people challenging your beliefs and ordinary, everyday certainty (which just means arbitrarily high probability) for every other belief you hold.

The upshot of this is that there is no difference between saying that something is more probable and saying that it is more likely to be true. Try saying "I believe there is a 100% chance that this will happen, but I don't believe it will happen" with a straight face. Try saying "There's an 85% chance of rain today, but you'd be foolish to bring an umbrella." Try saying "your chances of winning the lottery are one in 10,000,000, therefore spending your last fiver on that ticket is much more reasonable than buying food." Probability defines what reasonable conclusions are.

Are you conceding that it is wildly, astronomically more plausible that some anonymous texts may not be literally true than that everything we know about biology and physics is fundamentally wrong? This is all I need to make the special-pleading charge stick.

ercatli

I am interested in the topic, I have my own views, and I thought it might be interesting to see if the views of those who conclude differently to me contained anything I hadn't considered, and to give some comment in return. I'm sorry if I confused you. I tried to make the OP quite clear where I was coming from, looking for some discussion. I think I've probably had enough now.

No, just a few bits on the net. I read what I can find in my local library and what I choose to buy, and neither has included Price.

Thanks for being thoughtful about this and wanting to be helpful.

ercatli

No, I didn't say that. I have read many books about this (not necessarily the entire books, but at least the relevant chapters). I make notes in exercise books as I go - I am up to my 4th exercise book. I am confident of the statement I made, but to document would require me to go through the books and type up the quotes - quite a few hour's work. I don't want to do that unless you will follow suit.

It is no bluff. Are you willing to undertake to do the same as I am willing to do?

Yes, I stand by that. Let me make it clear. I studied some of this in a Theology Degree I completed 35 years ago, when Bultmann and his disciples tended to be the prevailing opinion. I have followed the debate since, and read a lot since I retired 4 years ago. I am saying that the "third quest", since Bultmann, more or less over the past half century, has concluded, in general, that the gospels are more historical and reliable than Bultmann and company concluded, and that this trend is continuing to this day. I will demonstrate this in two ways:

(1) By quoting a number of the most respected scholars whose own conclusions form part of this trend, and
(2) I will quote a number of reviewers who have summed up the situation in the above terms.

I don't suggest that mere numbers are normally indicative of historical truth, but in this case we are not talking of the truth of the gospels, but the fact of what scholars are saying.

I will be using reputable scholars. Your denigration of them will not be an issue.

You are right in your first sentence. But I regard the Jesus Seminar as a bit of a sidetrack in the third quest, and I will be able to support that as a conclusion of other scholars.

Not all of this is "current" if you mean 21st century, but it is certainly current if you mean last half century. Here are the books I have read or referred to (there are also many websites which I won't list here - I would use quotes from these books and many websites, including scholars I haven't read but who are quoted there):

Richard Bauckham: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
Craig Blomberg: The historical reliability of the gospels.
M Bockmuehl (ed), Cambridge University: The Cambridge Companion to Jesus - about 20 scholars.
M Borg: Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time.
M Borg & J D Crossan: Last Week.
M Borg & T Wright: The meaning of Jesus: Two visions.
Dr J Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary: Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Dr J Charlesworth (ed): Jesus and Archaeology (about 30 scholars - I have read portions on the web only)
J D Crossan: Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography.
Robert Crotty: The Jesus Question.
John Dickson: The Christ Files.
Craig Evans: Fabricating Jesus
C Evans & NT Wright: Jesus: the final days
Prof P Fredriksen, Boston University: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews
Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar: The Acts of Jesus
M Grant: Jesus: an historian's review of the Gospels.
AM Hunter: The Work and Words of Jesus
Prof L T Johnson, Emory University: The Real Jesus.
M A Powell: The Jesus Debate. A review of the views of the Jesus Seminar, J D Crossan, M Borg, E P Sanders, J Meier N T Wright.
Lee Strobel: The Case for Christ. (Not a scholar, but he quotes them - but I won't use these because they can be viewed as apologists)
Prof Geza Vermes, formerly of Oxford University: The Changing Face of Jesus.
G Vermes: The Nativity.
R Van Voorst: Jesus Outside the New Testament
L Michael White: From Jesus to Christianity (on the web only)

There may be others I have forgotten, but that is the main list. You will note a range of scholars from apologist to sceptical.

So, what do you say? I don't want to go to the trouble, but I will if you are willing to do the same.

Best wishes.

ercatli

G'day Zaphod. Thanks for joining in, although I am preparing to leave this thread.

There are many sceptical or non-theist scholars who believe in the historical Jesus. The question of the historicity of Jesus and belief in God are quite separate questions, though they come together in deciding whether one believes in the NT Jesus or not.

I don't think this is so. The historicity of Jesus is a historical question. The existence of any god (or 10,000 of them) is a metaphysical question.

That is a separate question, off-topic here. But the logic is strange to me.

I'm sorry mate, you don't seem to be making much sense to me. I do examine my initial premises. I didn't have belief in God drummed into my head when I was a mere child. And I do look for evidence. Three out of three wrong assumptions isn't a helpful start. I don't think we need discuss any more. Thanks and best wishes.

ercatli

I'm sorry Doug, I didn't mean to mislead you. I wanted to discuss the matter with people who thought differently to me, to see what you thought, to test my conclusions, and to perhaps challenge some of yours. I said quite specifically:

It was just an attempt at having some discussion on a forum in a more constructive and friendly manner.

I actually thought you presented the best case of anyone. I find the above less so, to be honest. I don't think what you or I would expect would be very important. But since I am about to leave this thread, I won't say any more.

If I don't speak to you again, please accept my thanks for the courteous and thoughtful way you have discussed this with me. Best wishes.

Chaucer

Now, this is intriguing: please show me where you do recount your own story. I'm guessing from what you write here that you became a theist after you "left the nest". I'd like to know where I can read the full story of your becoming a theist and what you were when growing up.

Thanks,

Chaucer

aa5874

That is a false notion. Jesus was described as the son of God, the offspring of the Holy Ghost. Please put Jesus, the son of God, in the 10,000. Jesus is one of them Gods.

You worship Jesus as the son of God and believe he has supernatural ability.

If the existence of any god is a metaphysical question then Jesus of the NT, Lord and Saviour Son of God MUST BE a metaphysical question.

Why are you denying that Jesus is one of your Gods that you worship?

Mt 14:33 - Jesus, the son of God is a metaphysical question.

Jesus, the son of the Living God, himself asked the question and Peter answered.

Matthew16.15-16

ercatli

Yes, but the way I make decisions about everyday matters is not in dispute. You made a strong statement about the way I made decisions about belief in God, contrary to my statements as to how I make them.

To be specific, you said: "My assertion is that you .... can, must, and do accept the level of evidence supplied for every claim except your pet religious beliefs." You clearly claimed that I use a different level of evidence and/or a different process for my religious beliefs compared to everything else.

In response, I said this was not the case. I said: "In all things I do, including metaphysics and the historical Jesus, I try first of all to get the facts and apply reason. But few things in life can be resolved by those things alone. We are human, we are imperfect, we have valid emotions, we don't know everything, somethings are unknowable or subjective, etc. So when I make decisions about relationships, politics, ethics, aesthetics, even the football team I support, I apply evidence and reason as far as I can, and then I move forward using other aspects of human thinking. It is the same with my beliefs about Jesus, as I have explained to others - I start with the historical facts as I can ascertain them, and then I make decisions on what I can belief as a result."

You have continued to argue that I don't make religious decisions like that, and those are the statements I asked you to support, and which you haven't.

I have continued to point out that once I believe in God and Jesus as his son, I can no longer draw a parallel between his death and any other person's. I apply the same logic and process in all things, but the situation is what differs, not the process. But I guess nothing will convince you of that, and you cannot demonstrate that is not the case. So we are at an impasse, and I don't feel inclined to discuss it further.

Of course I am not "conceding" that or even saying that. I don't suggest anything we know about biology and physics is fundamentally wrong. You are not listening, or at least, not hearing. The laws stand. I say this is one case where an unusual factor is introduced - the creator God raised the son of God from the dead. You keep saying it can't happen, but you cannot demonstrate it. All you can demonstrate is that with normal people and normal situations it doesn't happen.

Anyway mate, I think I've had enough of going round the same circles. I think it is time I quit this thread, and definitely time I quit this abortive discussion. So I'll bid you farewell. :wave2:

Loomis

But wait! Please come back! :frown: You still haven’t demonstrated how a good, decent, mature, level-headed, responsible Christian such as yourself (who is only genuinely interested in seeking the truth) should respond to the compelling issue of the zombies!

What are all the good Christian missionary boys going to do when they see that you’ve abandoned us like this? What type of example are you setting?