Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 04-07-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...at any rate. If we start with the realization (not assumption) that the Gospels are completely untrustworthy, as they obviously are, then we really can't trust them in regard to expectations of Jesus either. They become mostly (entirely?) irrelevant in regards to any HJ argument in that regard, since they are equally compatible with any other theory du jour.

So, in effect, the HJ argument is baseless or significantly extremely weak. The internal primary source for Jesus is untrustworthy and there is no external non-apologetic information about him.

If I wanted to make a case that a historical Jesus existed, the Gospels would not be my primary piece of evidence. My primary piece of evidence would be the existence of Christianity.

J-D · 04-07-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

No answers?

Actually, they are numerous. There are many scholars outside New Testament studies who have commented at length about the situation. Just one such scholar is Robert Grant. I know many people personally who started with Classics and got interested in early Christianity, I myself being one.

Can you tell anything more about this Robert Grant? I STFW, but I can't find him.

Toto · 04-07-2008, 06:55 PM

I think SM meant the late Michael Grant.

aa5874 · 04-07-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, in effect, the HJ argument is baseless or significantly extremely weak. The internal primary source for Jesus is untrustworthy and there is no external non-apologetic information about him.

If I wanted to make a case that a historical Jesus existed, the Gospels would not be my primary piece of evidence. My primary piece of evidence would be the existence of Christianity.

Well if that is the case then your primary piece of evidence is extremely weak. A religion does not need a figure of history to exist, just belief.

J-D · 04-08-2008, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If there were a real historical Jesus exactly as described in the Canonical Gospels, he would have generated a lot of notice and controversy. So I agree that we can rule out that possibility.

But if there were a real historical Jesus who was not exactly as described in the Canonical Gospels, he wouldn't necessarily have generated a lot of notice and controversy. So it's not equally clear to me that we can rule out that possibility.

I don't think that Jesus of the NT has to be exactly as described to have generated a lot of notice and controversy. John the Baptist, Jesus the son of Ananus, the false prophet from Egypt and Jesus the son of Damneus were mentioned by Josephus, yet he did not make any claims about them that were exactly like Jesus of the NT.

It is a given that it is possible that Jesus did or did not exist, all we have is the evidence or information about him, and it is more likely that he did not exist based on the evidence and less likely that he did.

It is possible that a person charged with a crime is either guilty or innocent, only the evidence presented can support a verdict at that time. And the verdict is deemed to be correct until further new evidence surfaces, but it is always possible that the verdict is wrong.
But possibilty cannot overturn a verdict, only evidence or relevant information.

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is exteremely weak, the evidence for non-existence is strong. It is reasonable to consider Jesus to have never existed. Only evidence or relevant information can overturn my consideration, since it always possible that Jesus did or did not exist.

I understand what you mean when you say that the evidence for existence is weak, but what are you referring to when you say that the evidence for non-existence is strong?

Sheshbazzar · 04-08-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If I wanted to make a case that a historical Jesus existed, the Gospels would not be my primary piece of evidence. My primary piece of evidence would be the existence of Christianity.

By that sort of logic, one may equally make a case that a historical Moroni existed, and The Book of Mormon, need not be the primary piece evidence for Moroni's historical existence, for the primary piece of evidence is the fact of the existence of Mormonism.
Mormonism exists so there must have been a historical Moroni, who did what Mormonism claims he did, from which Mormon Scripture and doctrine evolved, because obviously there could not be a Mormon religion without an actual historical Moroni to have inspired it. ????
I don't think so.

Again, if only (an unidentifiable) 5% of the NT story/text even at all existed during the 1st century, and out of that small core of legend, only a few sayings and a couple of stories were really derived from the teachings of an actual 1st century rebbe Yeshua ben Joseph, What would THAT at all prove about the fictional and ridiculously inflated Christ, of Christianity?
It certainly wouldn't make to be "true" all of those fabricated BS "christ" stories, and the theological conclusions that Christianity latter invented, and long forced upon the world, through tyranny, torture, and murder.

andrewcriddle · 04-08-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think SM meant the late Michael Grant.

I suspect you are right but there is a Robert M Grant who is an early church and NT authority see for example http://www.thefishersofmenministries...Robert%20M.pdf

Andrew Criddle

No Robots · 04-08-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

By that sort of logic, one may equally make a case that a historical Moroni existed, and The Book of Mormon, need not be the primary piece evidence for Moroni's historical existence, for the primary piece of evidence is the fact of the existence of Mormonism.
Mormonism exists so there must have been a historical Moroni, who did what Mormonism claims he did, from which Mormon Scripture and doctrine evolved, because obviously there could not be a Mormon religion without an actual historical Moroni to have inspired it. ????
I don't think so.

Christianity and Mormonism both originate with the activating genius, respectively, of Christ and Joseph Smith.

Solitary Man · 04-08-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think SM meant the late Michael Grant.

I did mean Michael Grant, not Robert Grant, a competent historian, but one who is primarily involved with the New Testament and related literature.

aa5874 · 04-08-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I understand what you mean when you say that the evidence for existence is weak, but what are you referring to when you say that the evidence for non-existence is strong?

Well, let me list some of the evidence.

No non-apologetic source that wrote about Judaea in the 1st century mentioned Jesus, his followers, his doctrine or his alleged miracles.
Eusebius in Church History did not mention any writers outside of the disciples that met or saw Jesus.
Christianity did not need a figure of history to have existed, just belief.
The life of Jesus as described in the NT is implausible.
From the trial to the ascension of the supposed Jesus appear to be complete fiction.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2008, 06:55 PM	#183
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think SM meant the late Michael Grant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.