aa5874

Just believing Jesus existed and believing Jesus existed with supporting evidence are two different positions.

Consider statement A: I do not believe Unicorns exist because I have no evidence to support their existence.

Statement A is universally accepted as reasonable.

Consider Statement B: I do not believe the Jesus of the NT existed because I have no evidence to support his existence.

Statement B is also reasonable.

Consider Statement C: I believe Unicorns exist although I have no evidence of their existence.

Statement C is universally accepted as faith-based.

Consider Statement D: I believe Jesus existed although I have no evidence to support his existence.

Statement D is also faith-based.


Consider Statement E: I believe Unicorns exist because I have evidence to support their existence.

Statement E is universally accepted as reasonable.

Consider Statement F: I believe Jesus existed because I have evidence to support his existence.

Statement F is also reasonable.

So, it is perfectly reasonable to reject Jesus' existence if there is no evidence to support him.
People who accept his existence without evidence are either Christians or faith-based.

Ben C Smith

Relevance to things today is hardly the only reason to study something. Sometimes it is just the thrill, the mystery, or the challenge of it all.

And sometimes it starts out as one thing, but soon evolves into something else....

Ben.

Ray Moscow

If you mean the supernatural/magical Jesus of the gospels, I think your analogy holds. Both unicorns and the Magic Jesus are supernatural or mythical entities.

However, if one means an HJ who is just a human being, then I think your analogy fails. And I think this is the sort of HJ that most scholars would posit.

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseDon,

My sincere apologies to Chris Weimer.


Yes GakuseDon, I did google Chris Weiner and atheism.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

[QUOTE=GakuseiDon;5002551][QUOTE=PhilosopherJay;5002467]Yes, I did forget Chris Weimer.

{snip}

Johnny Skeptic

It is a challenge to me to believe that a rational God would use copies of ancient written records as a primary means of communicating with people when he could show up tangibly, in person, and do a much better job of communicating with people. It is also a challenge to me why Jesus would have appeared only to a limited number of people after he rose from the dead.

In my opinion, inspring and preserving texts implies that whoever inspired them wants people to have access to them, and to easily understand them.
As it was, millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message, and many wars have been fought among Christians regarding disagreements over interpreation of the Bible.

It is interesting to note that the people who had the best chance to hear the Gospel message lived closer to Palestine. No loving God would show favoritism based upon geography, or upon anything else for that matter, gender, for example. In the U.S., a much higher percentage of women are Christians than men.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we find so many things that we would expect to find. One example is that if the God of the Bible does not exist, it is reasonable to assume that all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. What kind of God would on the one hand want to reveal himself to people, and on the other hand distribute tangible benefits in ways that mimic a naturalistic universe?

If God opposes homosexuality, why did he create numerous examples of homosexual behavior in over 200 species of birds and animals, giving many people the impression that if he exists, he does not oppose homosexuality, and that the Bible writers were speaking for themselves and not for God regarding homosexuality, and by implication, regarding many other issues.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it would always be up to humans to deal with their tangible needs, with no direct help from God, and God would supposedly always be available to deal with spiritual needs.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Solitary Man,

Yes, I agree that that there's nothing wrong with exploring possibilities.

In regards to my mistake,I don't think my mistake in regards to Chris Weimer and John Hobbins reflects on the vigor of my research in general. Actually, a mistake like this, just indicates that I'm overtired. I've been quite busy lately and I generally partake in these discussions just to relax. I usually find them quite pleasurable.

Looking at the general issues more reasonably, I would say that one should not be surprised to find atheists who believe in an historical Jesus. It is, for the moment, the standard paradigm in the field. Because someone bucks one standard paradigm (the God hypothesis), it does not mean that they may not adhere to another.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

OK. But how did you confuse the two? What "research methodology" did you use that led to, and resulted in, your confusion of Chris with John and your attribution to Chris of something John wrote? Was it, as GDon has asked, your putting "Chris Weimer" and "atheist" into Google and assuming when Hobbin's blog came up that you got back articles by Chris?

I hear you on that score. But is being "over tired" also what accounts for your attributing "good scholarly credentials" to people who demonstrably don't have them and a "mythicist" status to those who, like Brandon, are most certainly not "Jesus mythers"?

Yours,

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

And it is a challenge to me to figure out the relevance of your post to (A) what I wrote, (B) what I believe, and (C) what I have ever discussed on this forum.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Walter,

Thank you for the response and the clarification.

Incidentally, I thought the article was quite thought-provoking and interesting.

It is also interesting that I quite agree with your description of a "literary Jesus." We are most likely getting some references to historical figures in the composite Jesus' of the gospels. I just tend to place the character within the tales as a whole under the genera of mythological.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

How can it fail, when as of right now, people who accept Jesus' existence are actually Christians or those who have some faith in the NT's description of him, whether wholly or in part.