mikumiku

The gUSp Ls?
Quite a good amount I'd guess.

Amaleq13

Would that be an example of "poisoning the well"?

mrunicycler

It would seem to be.

However, I'll easily shed it with:

1) I'm not finding doubt 'prima facie' (at first appearance). I went to a catholic school. As a college student, I took a course or two in philosophy, and quite a few classes in history (classics being one of the areas I focused on...though it has been awhile). As an adult, I've re-read the bible and some of the gnostic gospels (what there are of them, anyhow), as well some texts on a few other religions and philosphies (though, at some point, I found them all flawed in similar ways, and gave it up).

At this point in my life, there isn't much about the bible that one could claim I'm looking at 'at first appearance', or prima facie, as you say.

2) Finding doubt in the religious text isn't a bad thing.

That I have doubts about it doesn't mean I'm not open to reviewing it as evidence.

The problem is, you have no evidence outside the bible (and similar texts written by believers)--when there should be evidence- to validate the historicity of jesus...and all I've talked about in this thread is the historicity of jesus...you'll notice from my post that you quoted exactly what I am asking for: 'show me evidence that he existed'.

If you want to use the bible, et al, as a source for what people may have worn, or how they may have phrased their thoughts, or how they thought women or slaves should have been treated, or how they may have built a gilded tent, or how they viewed outsiders, feel free. I would have no problem at all if that were used as a source, because there is evidence outside the bible that can corroborate these things, and because no one is wasting their life away over the question of what kind of hide John's sandals may have been made of (whereas, if we accept that jesus lived without question, we end up squandoring our lives away in the vain hope of going to heaven...therefore, because of this chance for the ultimate waste, we should demand more proof, not less, in his existence).

I would find it odd to use a religious text as a source for most of the things I mentionned, but I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as it wasn't the only source, and as long as it was done properly...religion can be a great channel into the inner workings of a society.

I don't doubt the religious text simply because it's a religious text that is discussing the subject of the historocity of jesus.

I doubt the religious text because there is a complete lack of evidence outside of those religious texts--when there should be corroborating evidence- to support the claims the text makes.

However, if you assume, prima facie, that I'm closed minded on any subject relating to religion, then I'll agree that there's no longer any point in you having a discussion with me.

aa5874

Well, what is not doubtful about Jesus, the son of God or any other God?

I think, prima facie, all Gods are doubtful, and this includes those of the Christian religion.

Doug Shaver

I didn't assume it, prima facie or otherwise. I inferred it from your asserted belief that no evidence for Jesus' historicity exists outside of the Bible or other documents of Christian provenance and your suggestion that because it is of Christian provenance, it is essentially worthless as evidence for his historicity.

mrunicycler

Your inference is mistaken.

It is worthless as evidence--but, as I've said, not because it is 'of christian provenance', but because there is nothing to corroborate it outside those religious texts.

It's no different from the real-estate agent who wants to sell you great beach from property in North Dakota, and wants you to verify his statements as to the quality of the sand on your doorstep with only the paperwork he gives you.

That shady agent has an agenda--to get your money.

No different at all from the church, except that the church wants your money, your soul [whatever that may be], and your life.

Joan of Bark

I've always argued that the gospels were written as propaganda. I assume this is what you are saying, also, mrunicycler?

Still, they can give us insight into what was important for people of the time, how they presented their myths, what they were prepared to believe ...

From a practical standpoint, though, telling Christians that Jesus never existed will just shut the conversation down completely. I prefer to start from the position that He existed, that He said what the Bible claims He said, and point out the contradictions in His statements and the controversial (for our time) quotes of His. This tends to drive the Christians crazier than anything else, because of course most of them tend to think of Him as 'perfect'.

mrunicycler

Perhaps. Certainly, the oral traditions were started partly as propaganda.

Though, it would be important to distinguish between those propagadists who started the oral traditions, and those people who actually wrote the gospels. The ones who wrote it may very well have believed what they were writing, which wouldn't make their motivation for writing propaganda, though it could still be said that the gospels, et al, were the material of propagandists.

A sentiment I've already shared here:

Note that I'm not saying that the bible is worthless as an historical source into some things.

But I'll maintain that we should be very choosy about what we accept from the bible, careful about how we interpret it, and that there is no reason outside the religious texts to believe in something as basic to its tenets as the historocity of the biblical jesus.

Anytime one reads propaganda, one must first understand the motivations of the creater of the propaganda before one can make anything like an accurate judgment of what the propaganda says about society. The propagandists could easily be a small minority writing as a counter culture, stating their agenda as more widespread than it truly is to keep the faith of their few believers strong, and therefore not making accurate statements at all about the society at large. Given what we know about the persecution of early christians, it would be hard to argue they were not a counter culture, to some extent.

Fox News is such an entity in our time. If one didn't understand their motivations, it would be easy to assume many mistaken things about our society as a whole, from the idea that the majority of our society wears three piece suits to the idea that we're all gun-toting, mysoginistic pro-lifers; when the truth is that majority of our society, even the religious, are more pro-choice than Faux news would have us believe.

I'm not arguing this at all. IRL, when I have to deal with christians at every corner, I'm not nearly so adamant as I come across here. Being so would make a social life very hard, in the Louisville, KY area.

However, this is a secular site, and one of the few places I can come and speak freely without worrying about things like the fragile emotional states of the religious people who 'are only worried about my soul.'

If the religious don't like to hear the truth about their religion, they can go to a religious forum wherein their religious propaganda is still being spread.

If they come to a secular website, they should be prepared to face some hard truths.

Which, I suspect, is the very reason they come.

Honestly, I'm careful to point out that I'll only assume the existence of the biblical jesus for the sake of the argument, and then point out all of the contradictions, etc, as you said. I don't try to convince a christian that there's no proof of his existence (or even further evidence outside their bible), but I let them know that I don't accept it as a given.

However, you'll notice my statement that started this wasn't directed at a christian. It was directed at an atheist, in a forum that is widely secular.

Joan of Bark

Fair enough. I'm generally in agreement with you.

Doug Shaver

So you say. My experiences, when I was active in various churches, were different.