Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-08-2006, 04:52 AM

As a corollary to Peter Kirby's thread of a similar but negative name let's try it the other way around:

I want to play a game of sorts, with a purpose. I want to collect as many possible arguments to the effect of "Therefore, Jesus did exist." Here are the rules:

1. No rebuttals.
2. No parody posts, please. Serious arguments only.
3. One argument per post.
4. A maximum of 500 words per argument. (You shouldn't need more; you can use citations to support points that are developed in the literature.)
5. The conclusion must be "Therefore, Jesus did exist."
6. You don't have to be a logician. However, you may submit revisions of previously made arguments that attempts to put them in a logically valid form.
7. You don't have to be a historian. However, you must submit historical evidence. To do so, you must show the evidence to be contemporary to Jesus. Plausibility is not a sufficient criterion, as lies thrive on plausibility.

When we've collected them, I will perform my own arbitrary ordering of them, and start new threads for the top 10, or fewer, depending. If you want to start a thread on any given argument, you are free to do so at any time.

When we're done, we will have a good base for an a christology.

NOTICE to the mods: If anyone starts doing rebuttals in this thread, please farm them out to their own separate threads.

spin

Peter Kirby · 12-08-2006, 05:08 AM

1. Paul wrote that Jesus did exist.
2. If Paul wrote that Jesus did exist, Jesus did exist.
3. Therefore, Jesus did exist.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

spin · 12-08-2006, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

1. Paul wrote that Jesus did exist.
2. If Paul wrote that Jesus did exist, Jesus did exist.
3. Therefore, Jesus did exist.

Analogous is:
1. Tertullian wrote that Ebion did exist.
2. If Tertullian wrote that Ebion did exist, Ebion did exist.
3. Therefore Ebion did exist.
4. Oops, Tertullian may not have claimed to be a contemporary, but does this change the validity of #2 if neither Paul nor Tertullian had any direct experience of the personage?

I'll leave you to suffer in historian's purgatory for #2, Peter.

spin

Peter Kirby · 12-08-2006, 05:38 AM

Hey, I thought we said no rebuttals at this stage!

I plan to beef up the no-Jesus arguments as much as possible before releasing them into threads to be wrastled with. Will you allow the same for the pro-Jesus contenders, or shall they be servile gladiators existing on a scrap?

I.e., I plan to live out the dictum that one should state a point of view as forcefully as possible before even thinking about trying to knock it down. I rightly expected that the initial submissions of arguments would not be either fully fleshed or particularly strong, but that it would be still a good idea to catalogue them, before taking them in and nourishing them with decent ratiocination. I also suspected that people would be discouraged from contributing if rebuttals were being posted right away, as also that the primary thread would get bogged down on a single argument cycle.

I take it that your plan for this thread wasn't quite analogous?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

douglas · 12-08-2006, 05:43 AM

Here are a few stolen from an article in Apologetics Press...

Quote:

The Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence.It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera.
Pliny, governor of Bithynia, wrote the Roman emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112), asking for advice about how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn “to Christ as if to God” (Epist. X.96).
The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (c. A.D. 115), referred to “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (XV.44).
Writing about A.D. 120, Suetonius, a popular Roman writer, declared that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Vita Claudii XXV.4). “Chrestus” is a corrupted form of Christos (Christ). Luke alluded to this situation in Acts 18:2.
The Roman Catacombs: The catacomb vaults are filled with art work, which testifies to the deep faith in Christ that was embraced by legions in the capital of the Roman empire. Common among these inscriptions was the figure of a fish, frequently containing the word ichthus (Greek for “fish”; Boyd, 1969, p. 203). The letters, however, were an acrostic for the declaration, Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior. Did millions, living in the shadows of the first century, die for a “myth”? Such a theory makes no sense.
Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity.
Lucian of Samosata (c. A.D. 115-200) was called “the Voltaire of Grecian literature.” He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility.
Porphyry of Tyre was born about A.D. 233, studied philosophy in Greece, and lived in Sicily where he wrote fifteen books against the Christian faith. In one of his books, “Life of Pythagoras,” he contended that magicians of the pagan world exhibited greater powers than Christ. His argument was an inadvertent concession of Jesus’ existence, and power.

So, given this evidence, Jesus did exist.

spin · 12-08-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

Here are a few stolen from an article in Apologetics Press...

[See above full message]

So, given this evidence, Jesus did exist.

Quote:

7. You don't have to be a historian. However, you must submit historical evidence. To do so, you must show the evidence to be contemporary to Jesus. Plausibility is not a sufficient criterion, as lies thrive on plausibility.

At least some evidence that is contemporary, pu-lease!

spin

Gooch's dad · 12-08-2006, 06:11 AM

Paul knew James, and called him (and nobody else) the brother of the Lord.

Josephus was in Jerusalem during the Jewish Wars, and quite possibly knew some of the early Christians such as James, and Josephus wrote of one James as the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ.

Historians largely agree that both writings are original.

A secular source (Josephus) independently corroborates a Christian source (Paul) on Jesus being a real person with a brother named James, who lived in the early 1st century.

Therefore Jesus did exist.

spin · 12-08-2006, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch's dad

Paul knew James, and called him (and nobody else) the brother of the Lord.

What exactly does the phrase "brother of the lord" mean? Isn't it the same as the name "Ahijah"? I can't see how this brother of the lord stuff has anything to do with the issue.

Perhaps if Paul had said "the brother of Jesus", you might have something to start with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch's dad

Josephus was in Jerusalem during the Jewish Wars, and quite possibly knew some of the early Christians such as James, and Josephus wrote of one James as the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ.

The last phrase is a crap translation, unless you want to argue that that's what Mt 1:16b really says. The fact that the text clearly says that Jesus was "called christ", guarantees that our good Jew Josephus didn't write it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch's dad

Historians largely agree that both writings are original.

Arguments based on authority aren't particularly useful. If you need to introduce the claim, you need to do your own footwork. I'll be happy to discuss the issue, as I have done in the past numerous times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch's dad

A secular source (Josephus) independently corroborates a Christian source (Paul) on Jesus being a real person with a brother named James, who lived in the early 1st century.

Therefore Jesus did exist.

You'll need more critical work on your sources to get there.

spin

Thomas II · 12-08-2006, 07:16 AM

From the time of Tiberius on, there is historical evidence of a group of followers of a man known as CHRESTUS. This group is also known as Christians.
So, if they existed, and their leader was Chrestus, and Chrestus was also known as Jesus, then Jesus did exist.

Vorkosigan · 12-08-2006, 07:18 AM

1. Mainstream New Testament scholars all believe Jesus existed.
Therefore Jesus existed.

12-08-2006, 04:52 AM	#1
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Therefore, Jesus did exist As a corollary to Peter Kirby's thread of a similar but negative name let's try it the other way around: I want to play a game of sorts, with a purpose. I want to collect as many possible arguments to the effect of "Therefore, Jesus did exist." Here are the rules: 1. No rebuttals. 2. No parody posts, please. Serious arguments only. 3. One argument per post. 4. A maximum of 500 words per argument. (You shouldn't need more; you can use citations to support points that are developed in the literature.) 5. The conclusion must be "Therefore, Jesus did exist." 6. You don't have to be a logician. However, you may submit revisions of previously made arguments that attempts to put them in a logically valid form. 7. You don't have to be a historian. However, you must submit historical evidence. To do so, you must show the evidence to be contemporary to Jesus. Plausibility is not a sufficient criterion, as lies thrive on plausibility. When we've collected them, I will perform my own arbitrary ordering of them, and start new threads for the top 10, or fewer, depending. If you want to start a thread on any given argument, you are free to do so at any time. When we're done, we will have a good base for an a christology. NOTICE to the mods: If anyone starts doing rebuttals in this thread, please farm them out to their own separate threads. spin

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

12-08-2006, 05:08 AM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	1. Paul wrote that Jesus did exist. 2. If Paul wrote that Jesus did exist, Jesus did exist. 3. Therefore, Jesus did exist. kind regards, Peter Kirby

12-08-2006, 05:38 AM	#4
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Hey, I thought we said no rebuttals at this stage! I plan to beef up the no-Jesus arguments as much as possible before releasing them into threads to be wrastled with. Will you allow the same for the pro-Jesus contenders, or shall they be servile gladiators existing on a scrap? I.e., I plan to live out the dictum that one should state a point of view as forcefully as possible before even thinking about trying to knock it down. I rightly expected that the initial submissions of arguments would not be either fully fleshed or particularly strong, but that it would be still a good idea to catalogue them, before taking them in and nourishing them with decent ratiocination. I also suspected that people would be discouraged from contributing if rebuttals were being posted right away, as also that the primary thread would get bogged down on a single argument cycle. I take it that your plan for this thread wasn't quite analogous? kind regards, Peter Kirby

12-08-2006, 06:11 AM	#7
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	Paul knew James, and called him (and nobody else) the brother of the Lord. Josephus was in Jerusalem during the Jewish Wars, and quite possibly knew some of the early Christians such as James, and Josephus wrote of one James as the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ. Historians largely agree that both writings are original. A secular source (Josephus) independently corroborates a Christian source (Paul) on Jesus being a real person with a brother named James, who lived in the early 1st century. Therefore Jesus did exist.

12-08-2006, 07:16 AM	#9
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	From the time of Tiberius on, there is historical evidence of a group of followers of a man known as CHRESTUS. This group is also known as Christians. So, if they existed, and their leader was Chrestus, and Chrestus was also known as Jesus, then Jesus did exist.

12-08-2006, 07:18 AM	#10
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	1. Mainstream New Testament scholars all believe Jesus existed. Therefore Jesus existed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.