Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Attonitus · 05-04-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

Well, actually, the Roman Emperors were divine entities walking on earth. Or at least, so said their followers after their death

Well, they only had the title

Jayhawker Soule · 05-04-2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attonitus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legion

that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for many other historical figures whose existence we accept unquestionably--beginning with some of the Roman emperors who were roughly contemporary to Jesus.

The great difference is that none of those figures they appear in the history as divine entities walking on the earth, when something as this is said then the doubts increase exponential and reasonably.

Why does that constitute a great difference? How can the likelihood of historicity be a function of polemical embellishments and fabrications consructed decades after the fact? Put somewhat differently, are you not, by conflating the issue of historicity and the issue of divinity, simply constructing a strawman?

Legion · 05-04-2004, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

I'm sorry, Legion, did the link not work? Udo Schnell is Professor of New Testament in Theology Faculty at Halle in Wittenberg, Germany. The information was, as I noted, extracted from his book. You might also find Kirby's excellent Early Christian Writings valuable.

Yeah, I've visited that site many times and used it frequently for linking to various writings.

Quote:

Even in the polemics surrounding the Gentile mission?

I'm not following what you are getting at.

Legion · 05-04-2004, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Exactly right. But, if I may ask, why do you think that Jesus existed while thinking that "the evidence for Jesus' existence isn't really all that strong"?

I don't think that the evidence is anywhere near conclusive in terms of proof, but on the whole, I think the evidence suggests the man existed, just as I think other historical figures existed based on even less evidence.

Legion · 05-04-2004, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Yes, but as I've said before, the veracity of what is said about Jesus is a very different matter of study than the veracity of whether or not the man actually existed. That I think Jesus existed does not require me to believe everything that has been said about him.

Anyway, I've raised your exact point before as well, when arguing with someone who thinks that because I believe other historical persons existed and I believe Jesus existed, I should also believe the things the early church tells us about Jesus. Logically, that does not follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attonitus

You are sure? Jesus is object no subject of preaching. Doesn't exist any primary source about Jesus. Paul, the Gospels are only theological and late works, no historical works. Jesus doesn't exist in the history.

I'm not even sure what you are asking.

mrmoderate · 05-04-2004, 11:32 PM

For no other reason than noting the main content of the New Testament, at least a half dozen writers have mentioned Jesus by name almost 1,000 times.

rlogan · 05-05-2004, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmoderate

For no other reason than noting the main content of the New Testament, at least a half dozen writers have mentioned Jesus by name almost 1,000 times.

Well, mrmoderate - this board does have a standard of documentation for claims that is quite a bit higher than the political board.

I am in complete agreement with Toto. There is no separate standard here for secular and nonsecular personages.

Hey Attonitus - your english is improving! And yes - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Christians use this false analogy. If you can't find the grave of so-and-so then you need to agree Jesus rose from the dead.

Dean Anderson · 05-05-2004, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmoderate

For no other reason than noting the main content of the New Testament, at least a half dozen writers have mentioned Jesus by name almost 1,000 times.

You should start worshipping Great Cthulhu then, since literally hundreds of writers have mentioned Him by name.

Al Kafirun · 05-05-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

I do not understand this logic at all. In what way does the literature make "the evidence against his existence ... all the more compelling", and what is this evidence?

Well, if there were vast records on George Washington that couldn't get beyond his chopping down a cherry tree and throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac, and were all writ years after his supposed death... see where I'm going? The more inaccuracy and mythos you pile up against a character the more obscured the figure becomes, real or not.

Jayhawker Soule · 05-05-2004, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Kafirun

The more inaccuracy and mythos you pile up against a character the more obscured the figure becomes, real or not.

Real or not - precisely my point. Post hoc fabrications do not, in and of themselves, make a personage, if real, any less real, but simply less knowable.

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

05-04-2004, 11:32 PM	#36
mrmoderate Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Baltimore/DC area Posts: 1,306	For no other reason than noting the main content of the New Testament, at least a half dozen writers have mentioned Jesus by name almost 1,000 times.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.