![]() |
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
View Poll Results: Was there a single, historical person at the root of the tales of Jesus Christ? | |||
No. IMO Jesus is completely mythical. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
99 | 29.46% |
IMO Yes. Though many tales were added over time, there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
105 | 31.25% |
Insufficient data. I withhold any opinion. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
132 | 39.29% |
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: California
Posts: 631
|
![]()
Good night everyone.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#102 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Near Philly
Posts: 265
|
![]() Quote:
In short, how does one prove the historicity of the resurrection of a HJ w/o assuming, at some level, the reliability of the NT? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#103 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#104 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 6,471
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() d |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#105 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 6,471
|
![]()
I readily admit I run into a problem with the whole "Christian scholars" studying the historicity of Jesus debate.
Presuming the scholars become Christians because of their belief in a HJ, they at that point become less likely to fairly weigh any new information or seriously consider any new perspective/viewpoint. Also, it needs be taken into account that becoming Christian requires far more credulousness than merely having a belief in a HJ. A leap of faith is required between the scholarly conclusion that there was a man named Jesus upon whom the gospel stories were based, and the conclusion that he was the son of God, etc. So the serious scholar who decides there was a HJ based upon extrabiblical evidence and reason must perforce break with this trend to make the leap into worship of HJ as the son of God. I feel justified in questioning the point at which he transformed from a scholar, discarding statements of faith dispassionately in lieu of hard evidence, into a believer who swallows the mountain of unsubstantiated claims connected with Christianity. It's just as irrational to make the leap from "there was a HJ" to "that HJ was the son of God" as it is to decide for intellectual reasons that a god created the worlds and therefore, that god is the God of Christianity. The first step in both may be the result of serious endeavor and intellectual integrity, but the second is invariably the conclusion of bias and wishful thinking, and thus sheds doubt on the trustability of the first conclusion. I don't see how it's possible for them to study or defend something that, by admission of their faith and any oath they've taken, they cannot be unbiased about. This isn't to say they don't or can't add anything worthwhile to the discussion, but I cannot get past the awareness of the fact that they do have an underlying motive, even if they themselves try to suppress it. By the same token, I take the claims of any who clearly have a vested interest in trying to prove Jesus was a myth with a grain of salt, as well. I've found them to be just as biased (and thus, incredible) as the believers. They also contribute to the discussion, but I pay far closer attention to the conclusions of those who are atheist/agnostic who conclude there probably was or probably wasn't a HJ, and the reasons they provide for their conclusions. The belief systems of the researchers in this field are of utmost importance, because there's so much riding on the outcome. d |
![]() |
![]() |
#106 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 6,471
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
People will accept the concensus on things that (1) they already agree with or want to believe in, because they see no reason to question something that confirms their bias, (2) they don't care about, because they don't have a reason to invest their time to question it, or (3) they aren't aware that there's even another option, in which case they don't know to investigate it. If the average person simply accepts the concensus, then one or more of the above are true for him. Does this make him justified in accepting the status quo? What if we take away number 3 (ignorance of options) as an excuse? Is he still justified in accepting "scholarly concensus"? Is he at any point responsible for his own conclusions? Quote:
Quote:
If you mean "that's just the way the mind works," though, I concede your point, but I don't agree that it's justifiable. d |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#107 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Near Philly
Posts: 265
|
![]() Quote:
Let’s take the case of an atheist who argues that there probably was an HJ but the NT accounts of him are so tendentiously rendered that we can know very little, if anything, about him beyond his probable existence. Why should we believe that this atheist scholar has no vested interest in making this case for reasons that have nothing to do w/ his atheism? Perhaps this scholar is making the case in a book, partly drawn from similar arguments he made in scholarly literature and he has academic career and prestige considerations for maintaining his position. Perhaps his mother was also an atheist scholar who also argued for that position and he believes he is honoring her memory out of some diagnosable sense of fealty. What then? Speculation about and contrasting people’s possible motives can become an intellectual holiday that never ends. And it is wholly unnecessary when analyzing and critiquing their arguments will do just fine. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#108 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: southeast
Posts: 2,526
|
![]() Quote:
1) No Historical Jesus 2) Historical Jesus, but not Divine 3) Divine Jesus The atheist has rejected option 3, but could generally accept either 1 or 2 as consistant with his philosophy. As long as the atheist is examing the evidence that separates 1 from 2, I'd expect an unbiased conclusion. The Christian, on the other hand, cannot possibly accept either 1 or 2 as consistant with his religion, and is left with no choice but 3. Any evidence that might suggest 1 or 2 is probably going to be viewed in a biased manner. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#109 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Near Philly
Posts: 265
|
![]() Quote:
I used to have a philosophy professor who was a Berkeleyian. She believed that the material world was merely sense data and that there was no convincing evidence that anything external corresponded to her sense perception of material things. Now every time I open a door instead of trying to walk through it, I show a strong bias for my belief that a material world exists. I would hope that if I were to debate my former professor on this matter that someone might take my arguments for the existence of material world seriously even though I show and fully acknowledge my fundamental bias for the view I am espousing. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#110 | ||||||||||||
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With all due respect, it sounds like you just got this stuff off a Christian website somewhere. You are not showing any real understanding of the theory. Either that or someone did a lousy job explaining it to you. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|