Philadelphia Lawyer

It seems to me that you are the one who is missing the point. It's not about what we know, it's about what you know. If you want us to believe that Jesus existed, you have to provide the supporting evidence. It won't do to tell us that we can't prove that some other, particular person existed. For all we know, that other person didn't exist either. And, if that other person just happens to be your grandfather, then, once again, you are the one in the position to provide the evidence of his existence. And, presumably, you could do that with documentary and/or testimonial evidence. On the other hand, if all you are saying is that you have (or had) a grandfather (whoever he might be), we already know that by your sheer existence, and don't need any proof.

You: Jesus really existed.
Us: Prove it. Show us what he did and where he went
You: Oh yeah, prove that person X really existed. Show me what he did and where he went.
Us: WTF? I don't know from person X and never claimed person X really existed.

or

You: Jesus really existed.
Us: Prove it. Show us what he did and where he went.
You: Prove that my grandfather really existed. Show me what he did and where he went.
Us: WTF? Obviously you had (or have) a grandfather or you would never have been born. What's that got to do with Jesus?

Now, where was the proof that Jesus really existed again?

Chris Weimer

I have indeed done such. You, on the other hand, seem to have been oblivious to not only this entire post, but all the other posts in this forum dealing with the matter. I've given my thoughts on the subject numerous times, now why don't you deal with them?

Nice strawmen. Now go reread this entire thread in full. I have given the evidence, I would appreciate you actually taking the time to read instead of jumping in at the last minute and start claiming preposterous things.

Why, haven't you read this thread yet? Get to it!

Philadelphia Lawyer

From this I take it that you have now abandoned the riduculous argument about your grandfather.

As for the "evidence" for an HJ you claim to have presented, I have searched this thread in vain for it. You admit that HJ is obscure and insignificant. You admit that you can't even claim to know anything definite about him. You admit that the gospels are worthless and that Josephus is an interpolation. Basically, as Spenser pointed out, your argument boils down to "because Paul says so." Even if it is true that Paul said so, this is still not evidence, because Paul doesn't even claim to have seen an actual human Jesus.

As for your other arguments, I find them to be lame in the extreme. On the one hand, you compare HJ with George Washington, a person for whom we have contemporary portraits, signatures, documents written by the man himself, etc., etc. None of which we have anything remotely like for HJ. On the other hand, you beg the question by comparing HJ with other figures of dubious historicity, such as Achilles and King Arthur. These are legendary figures (as the source you provided for Achilles--Wikipedia, no less--admits in the first sentence). So what if the sources for Arthur's and Achilles' historicity are no better than those for Jesus? It is entirely possible that all 3 are purely mythical.

Finally, let me close by saying that I find you to be very insulting and condescending. I had already read all of your posts on this thread before I responded to your lame-ass grandpappy argument. In addition, and despite your unsupported assertions to the contrary, I did not take that POS argument "out of context," nor did I attack a "strawman." You made a bullshit argument, and I called you on it. Tough shit if you don't like it.

Chris Weimer

The "ridiculous argument" about my grandfather was taken far out of context by yourself. Since you claim you've reread the thread, I can only suppose that you've missed the context. Let me show this for you in plain site.

Here Spenser is asking for me to describe where Jesus went and what Jesus did.

My reply was destroying this notion that we need to know what someone did or where someone went to know that they indeed existed. We don't know anything about my grandfather, but we know he existed. The point was that we don't need to know what Jesus did or where Jesus went to still get a positive confirmation of the event. You, however, took this as saying that just because we don't know anything about Jesus that means he exists. False. It wasn't an argument for Jesus, it was an argument against the fallacious requirements for existence that Spenser imposed upon any reconstruction of the human Jesus.

You missed the justification for Paul entirely. And again for another fallacious argument. *Sigh* And most likely, any attempt for parody will, again, be lost upon you. You can never win.

No I don't. I show how certain arguments against the Historical Jesus could be easily applied for George Washington, thus making their arguments lame. But hey, whatever you want to think.

So what if all three are purely mythical? Heck, even Jesus could be mythical? Who gives a flying fuck what could or couldn't be. This ain't about possibility. It's about probability, like every other historical study. You yourself, a lawyer, should know how this works. Will you ever know for sure that the defendent is lying? Did the husband really cheat on her wife? You'll never really know, will you. It's all about who has the most evidence for it.

Coming from you I find that a compliment. :thumbs:

Oh yeah, sure you did. Actually, I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you merely missed Spenser's post and the part I quoted. After all, it does get to the best of us.

*yawn* You attack a parody, and expect to be taken seriously? Move on, folks, nothing to see here.

Hey PL, come back when you're ready.

Philadelphia Lawyer

You exist. Therefore, you had a grandfather who existed. Jesus, I take it, was not your grandfather. If we want to establish that Jesus really existed, we do need to know something about his life. There is nothing "fallacious" about this requirment. Otherwise, any legendary figure could be said to have existed. Don't believe in Paul Bunyon? No evidence about his life? That's OK, we know he really existed because Chris Weimer has a grandfather.

Oh, poor you. So misunderstood. If you have something to say, why don't you just say it? Leave out the parody. Leave out the dramatic sighing. Leave out the cryptic references. And just present your evidence about Paul or whatever else you think you got.

Except that they can't be applied to GW. As I already pointed out, GW has a ton of evidence in favor of his existence, and Jesus has---what, exactly?

Right. But your argument was that the evidence for other legendary figures' historicity is no better than that for Jesus'. And that just begs the question. Assume, as you did, that the evidence for the historicity of Achilles is no better than the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. OK. So what? No one (on this thread at least) is confidently stating that the "weight of evidence" supports an Historical Achilles. No one is stating that it is "probable" that Achilles really lived. But you are stating that those things about HJ. Your showing (if it can be called that--it was really only an assertion) that the evidence for HJ is no worse than the evidence for an Historical Achilles is completely meaningless, because no one is (1) asserting that Achilles really lived, or (2) using the evidence for a real live Achilles as some kind of benchmark for historicity. Again, you might just as well have argued that the evidence for HJ is no worse than the evidence for a real Paul Bunyon. True. But you are setting the bar awfully low.

No, at least nothing of substance. Just sighing, yawning, "parodies," and insults.

Doug Shaver

No, and I'm not advocating that assumption. What I'm advocating is not making any assumption one way or the other.

RUmike

Don't we need to establish that Jesus existed first (or didn't) before we can know anything about his life?

Doug Shaver

I can't tell you one thing about your grandfather. Your own existence, however, cannot be explained except on the assumption that some man who was your grandfather actually existed.

Can you suggest one undisputed fact that cannot be explained except on the assumption that some man commonly referred to as Jesus of Nazareth actually existed?

If you think that is setting the bar too high, make it "one disputed fact that cannot be easily explained . . . ."

Julian

[MOD]
Okay, everybody needs to chill out. The language is becoming excessive to a degree not becoming BC&H. Stop the sniping and the borderline insults. You guys should know better.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

DramaQ

Ok, I haven't been around for a while and I am probably way out of touch.

After all the comments made about this question I didn't notice anyone pointing out the obvious:

Chris, what is your grandfather's name and what was his last known location?

From that we ought to be able to find records: if he is still alive, where is is now, his social security number, if passed away his obtiuary with a list of surviving relatives. We can find those people and interview them. (This should include YOU if you knew him.) His school records, old letters, perhaps military service, jobs he worked and records from those places.

People who existed rarely come and go in this world without leaving SOME trace. Your grandfather left some.

Obviously you had a grandfather who lived. But... If you had asked us to find this information on, say, some mentor you once had (not an ancestor) and we were unable to find a shred of evidence, then we might suspect that person never existed.

DQ