J-D

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...78#post4349178

'I can't speak for spin, but suppose just for the sake of argument spin did say: 'My position is that I don't know whether Jesus existed or not.' There are people who say that, even if spin isn't one of them.

How do you respond to people who hold that position?'

spin

We are not talking about billions of unknown people. We are talking about infidels who are open to non-standard, though it is hoped evidentially-based, views. These are the people who you need to worry about. If you had a case, you should be able to communicate it to many of the members of this forum.

Is the "historicity of Jesus" for you part of a binary taxonomy (a system of only two elements) in which the other element is the "falsity of Jesus"? If it is, I don't think your question is meaningful, for by answering "no" your system would put me in a position which doesn't reflect my views. If it is not, I can answer "no" and say that there isn't enough evidence to give a definitive answer.

It is this third zone in which much of the discussion on this forum takes place, trying to eke out that bit more evidence.


spin

Febble

No, I don't "come" to an HJ on my hunch. I said, quite clearly, that I hadn't evaluated the evidence, and therefore had "come" to no conclusion. I'm interested in seeing arguments and evidence for both sides. I don't consider your evidence entitles you to "come" to an MJ any more than my hunch entitles me to "come" to an HJ.


As I said, I don't draw conclusions from a hunch.

aa5874

I do not worry about other people views, whether infidels or believers. I just give my views and respond to those who post.

You come across as being worried about other people's view. I don't understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that you have no opinion on the historicity of Jesus or that Jesus is not historical? In order for me to have a discussion, I need to know your position clearly.

aa5874

If you are a Christian, then I would expect you to believe Jesus is historical, even without evaluating any evidence.

'Now faith is the sustance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen'- Hebrews 11:1.

aa5874

I will have no response, in general, if you just simply say 'I don't know', however if you give some reasons why you cannot make a decision one way or the other, then I may discuss the reasons on their merit.

Chris Weimer

Why? Why are you so biased that you require a position beforehand? Science comes to a position after the evidence is reviewed, you just believe on faith whatever you want to believe and expect everyone to believe on faith as well?

I name thee Fundidymus.

Febble

Well, you thought wrong.

spin

You are supposedly posting here for a reason -- though you don't seem interested at all in biblical criticism and history --, ie you have some desire to air your views in public. If this is not for pure hedonistic self-gratification, you are supposed to be interested in the supported views of others.

There is a community here. One participates. You think about others' ideas. You contribute and you learn.

If people like myself are saying something to you, it may be because of a sense of community. If I think you are not supporting your views, I'll tell you. And in fact that is what I have been saying. I don't think your views stem from your premises. Others agree. Your views don't seem logically consequent: what you use for your reasoning doesn't support your conclusions.

This is what I said to you:

Is the "historicity of Jesus" for you part of a binary taxonomy (a system of only two elements) in which the other element is the "falsity of Jesus"? If it is, I don't think your question is meaningful, for by answering "no" your system would put me in a position which doesn't reflect my views. If it is not, I can answer "no" and say that there isn't enough evidence to give a definitive answer.

Do you not understand my comment?

Are you working on a simple either/or between historicity and falsity?

If you answer "yes", then you are not dealing with the subject.

If you answer "no", then you imply at least three possibilities,

1. historicity
2. falsity
3. unable to make a decision

Unless you can acknowledge that you are working on this division, then I cannot meaningfully answer your question, as no answer would represent my views properly.

Febble

So, spin, what are your views? What do you think are the strongest arguments for and against the proposition that Jesus was a historical person?