Rick Sumner

This does not follow. Paul did not see a Jesus, therefore seeing a Jesus is not necessary. That makes no comment on the necessity of his existence.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Chris Weimer

How so? Leaders don't have to actually be "real", because people can follow ideas. But given "deity" that implies and entails existence in reality. Zeus isn't a god, because gods don't exist. Yahweh isn't a god, because gods don't exist. Instead, Zeus and Yahweh were people's conceptions of divine power. If spin wants to change his wording to accomodate such a meaning, then that is fine.

J-D

I thought we'd just established that. What was wrong with it was that it did not accurately convey to you my intended meaning. That is why I restated it more precisely. I don't see how that is 'arbitrary'.Consult a few dictionaries. The sense of 'history' as being concerned with all past events, not just those that were recorded at the time, is not just mine but a standard one. Many works of history include discussion of the 'prehistoric' past, recognising there are (at least) two senses of the word: one restricted to recorded events, which contrasts with prehistory, and one encompassing all past events, which includes prehistory. When I used the word initially, I wasn't thinking about this ambiguity, and hence I inadvertently caused a miscommunication. I accepted responsibility for this and clarified what I meant, so you should no longer be confused on that point.

J-D

This is a response to spin by reformulation of my position, instead of line by line, which I think would be less clear for this part.

A historian would be confronted with the fact that Christianity came into existence: that is, groups of Christians formed. It seems to me that it is a legitimate question for a historian to ask how this happened. It also seems to me that it would be a legitimate approach to this question for a historian to begin by asking: what are the possibilities? what are the known ways in which religious movements can get started? I suggest that by far the commonest way is that a group forms around a (real live existing) human religious leader. Hence, it seems reasonable to consider this as at least a possibility. Are there other other possible answers, known to be possible because they have been observed in the cases of other religious movements? I think there may be some, but I don't yet see how any of them will fit with what is known about the case of Christianity.

spin presents a parody argument supposed to be along similar lines, arguing from the premise of the existence of theistic religions to the conclusion of the existence of deities. I say that the parallel is not valid. If we ask the question I asked above about the known ways in which theistic religious movements get started, we have not one confirmed instance in which they formed around a manifestly real deity. Besides, spin evidently doesn't believe that deities exist, so must not accept the parody argument as a sound one: yet spin has not explained what spin thinks is the fault in the parody argument. I think spin's parody argument is logically valid (that is, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true): does spin agree? I say that not all the premises of spin's argument are true: what does spin say about that?

J-D

Why do you respond as if this is a great imposition? Don't you think the question: 'how did Christianity begin?' is worth answering?The difficulty with this scenario begins with the fact that on Paul's own account there was already a group of Christians before him. Of course, just because he said so doesn't make it true, but it seems to me that it raises two obvious questions. Is there any reason why Paul would fabricate a story that there was a group of Christians before him, if it wasn't true? I can't see one. Is there any evidence tending to confirm the account of the existence of a group of Christians before Paul? I think there is.

I have no trouble with the less inclusive claim that much of existing Christian doctrine was first constructed by Paul. But the question 'did Jesus exist?' is logically separate from the question 'did Jesus preach Christian doctrine in the form we know it now?', and I'm trying to answer the first, not the second.

J-D

And not to what I meant.

spin

Whether it is worth answering, we don't have the facilities to answer it. We are restricted by the quality of historical record available.

He didn't call it that. He acknowledged a messianic group which awaited the messiah (christ).

Speculation is not the basis for history.

I'm not so sure.

And I don't think you can with what you are trying to do. If you don't like my third proposition, it's because yours doesn't work.


spin

J-D

I think that imposes limits on historical investigation, but I don't see that it rules it out entirely. And I also think that the limitations on the quality of the historical record limit your ability to draw the conclusion that Jesus did not exist.Are you referring to particular texts? Can you direct me to them?I think it's standard practice for historians to attempt to estimate the reliability of their documentary sources, and I think it's also standard practice for them to attempt to estimate the likely motives of the authors/compilers for this purpose. In this, the historian is no different from a detective, or an investigating tribunal, or any other investigator: the question 'Would they have any reason to lie about this?' is an obvious one. Whether this is properly described as 'speculation' or not, it is part of what historians do.Obviously.So, do you think it's possible to answer the question 'did Jesus exist?' at all? If so, how?Sorry, not following you here. Could you expand on this to make it clearer? I seem to have lost the thread.

squiz

Do you have a quote to support this? I have read Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus a few times (or maybe only once and thought I was reading it repeatedly ) and could find no reference to Jesus at all. According to this link: http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/james.htm, he does not believe that Jesus existed as an historical figure.

Zeichman

Re-read the last paragraph of the book. Or sentence, for that matter.