Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Proxima Centauri · 02-20-2008, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brion

Originally Posted by scotsmanmatt1
I think that is does not logically follow that a lack of evidence for an Abraham equates with evidence that he did not exist. Why wouldn't that be an example of a fallacious argument from silence?
Same goes for Wodin, The big giant head and the Giant pommegranet.

Same also goes for
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster &
The IPU, Peace be upon Her. May Her hooves never be shod.

:rolling:

InnocentSmith · 02-20-2008, 04:28 AM

There is no strong argument against his existence. The argument from Pauline silence is laughable; the argument from lack of contemporary historical record, while true, says nothing especially interesting about this case; and the argument that the first written record comes (being generous) 40 years later ignores the fact that most biographical works of historical figures come years after their death. (The first notable work on Alexander the Great came 200 years after he died.)

The other arguments against his existence tend to be of the "ridicule the supernatural" variety, which are horribly circular and not at all compelling.

On the other hand, there is no strong record that he ever did exist. I don't need to go too deep into it, but there is no extra-Biblical, secular source. So I should say that any reasonable person should maintain a healthy agnosticism in regards to the whole "Jesus Myth" thing. There's certainly no reason to say he existed, but there is equally little reason to assert, unequivocally, that he didn't.

Proxima Centauri · 02-20-2008, 05:14 AM

I think I agree. We don’t know.

Lógos Sokratikós · 02-20-2008, 05:40 AM

The most probable answer is that the Jesus of the gospels probably didn't exist, unless you ready to accept that a Jewish prophet can make the dead rise, walk on water, make water turn into wine, multiply food, etc. Because THAT character, the one you find in the gospels, did.

Can someone do what the gospels describe? Only if the laws of nature suddenly flip-flopped and then came back to order again, and did so to satisfy the will of one human in all of history, which is so hard to credit, that a very good set of proof is required. If we don't require that proof, then we should prepare to believe the labors of Hercules and other such narratives.

That there was a man about which the gospels were loosely based on, did exist, is entirely another question. And if the main source to posit his existence is a such a narrative (the gospels which are loosely based on him), the question is very possibly futile.

Chili · 02-20-2008, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

The most probable answer is that the Jesus of the gospels probably didn't exist, unless you ready to accept that a Jewish prophet can make the dead rise, walk on water, make water turn into wine, multiply food, etc. Because THAT character, the one you find in the gospels, did.

So why can't it all be metaphor except otherwise noted as in Jn.6:55 where "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink?"

All we have to do then is agree that we are not qualified to read it and leave it till some other day which may never come and that will be OK too.

Lógos Sokratikós · 02-20-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

The most probable answer is that the Jesus of the gospels probably didn't exist, unless you ready to accept that a Jewish prophet can make the dead rise, walk on water, make water turn into wine, multiply food, etc. Because THAT character, the one you find in the gospels, did.

So why can't it all be metaphor except otherwise noted as in Jn.6:55 where "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink?"

It could be a metaphor. But if the question is, "Did Jesus really exist?", then my description holds, ESPECIALLY if its a metaphor. Who knows if the metaphor's central character was based on someone real? I personally would expect even less a real Jesus if it is viewed in such a way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

All we have to do then is agree that we are not qualified to read it and leave it till some other day which may never come and that will be OK too.

I agree. And it's futile to even ask, though we are free to wonder.

Minimalist · 02-20-2008, 09:21 AM

As a member of the JNE forum (as is Klaus) I can tell you that we get an occasional rabid xtian over there threatening to send us all to hell. The level of opposition discourse is much higher over here...but still comes down to:

"I want to believe so it must be true."

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

02-20-2008, 04:28 AM	#22
InnocentSmith Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: United States Posts: 26	There is no strong argument against his existence. The argument from Pauline silence is laughable; the argument from lack of contemporary historical record, while true, says nothing especially interesting about this case; and the argument that the first written record comes (being generous) 40 years later ignores the fact that most biographical works of historical figures come years after their death. (The first notable work on Alexander the Great came 200 years after he died.) The other arguments against his existence tend to be of the "ridicule the supernatural" variety, which are horribly circular and not at all compelling. On the other hand, there is no strong record that he ever did exist. I don't need to go too deep into it, but there is no extra-Biblical, secular source. So I should say that any reasonable person should maintain a healthy agnosticism in regards to the whole "Jesus Myth" thing. There's certainly no reason to say he existed, but there is equally little reason to assert, unequivocally, that he didn't.

02-20-2008, 05:14 AM	#23
Proxima Centauri Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: England, the EU. Posts: 2,403	I think I agree. We don’t know.

02-20-2008, 05:40 AM	#24
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	The most probable answer is that the Jesus of the gospels probably didn't exist, unless you ready to accept that a Jewish prophet can make the dead rise, walk on water, make water turn into wine, multiply food, etc. Because THAT character, the one you find in the gospels, did. Can someone do what the gospels describe? Only if the laws of nature suddenly flip-flopped and then came back to order again, and did so to satisfy the will of one human in all of history, which is so hard to credit, that a very good set of proof is required. If we don't require that proof, then we should prepare to believe the labors of Hercules and other such narratives. That there was a man about which the gospels were loosely based on, did exist, is entirely another question. And if the main source to posit his existence is a such a narrative (the gospels which are loosely based on him), the question is very possibly futile.

02-20-2008, 09:21 AM	#27
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	As a member of the JNE forum (as is Klaus) I can tell you that we get an occasional rabid xtian over there threatening to send us all to hell. The level of opposition discourse is much higher over here...but still comes down to: "I want to believe so it must be true."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.