Novowels

No, Christianity has had an impact on many other objects. You are mixing up the religion with the man. (or the myth, as the case may be)

Jobar

ReasonableDoubt, DH Cross- yes RD was a bit terse. But he was not actively insulting. No foul that I see.

ax, I also am a skeptic on the physical existence of Jesus- I think he's as legendary as William Tell or Paul Bunyan. There are good arguments in the II Library and in threads in the Biblical Criticism forum- I think you should look there first. My own favorite authority is G.H. Wells, who has written several books on the subject. J.

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

plantingaquinasus

I think its possible to know whether one exists or not. There are certain tests for truth that philosophers use in order to have an idea of what is true and what is not. These tests are unaffirmability and undeniability. The test we would apply to your question of whether or not you exist would be the test of undeniability. Here's how the test works.
Something is undeniably true if in the very process of you denying you affirm it (exp It's impossible for me to type, Sentences with over 2 words simply to do not exist). Now, in the case of your metaphysical existence, it seems you affirm your existence when making your metaphysical case against your existence. For there has to be someone making a case for there to be any case at all! Why was your post in existence? Someone had do to the posting! So in the very act of denying your existence, you affirm it; for there has to be someone in existence to do the denying; otherwise your whole argument would be non-existent.

God Bless!!

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: plantingaquinasus ]</p>

plantingaquinasus

All I really have to say in response to your post is for me to point you to some sources that have made pretty good arguments and objections against the books of G.H. Wells.
Look here for starters:
<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html</a>
<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WWW.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_WWW.html</a>

God Bless!!

plantingaquinasus

plantingaquinasus

I got to really learn how to start posting right.
With 4 posts in a row of the same old stuff, you guys probably are wondering what the heck I'm doing.

Sorry

Jayhawker Soule

Don't worry, people ask that about me all the time. As for Wells, you might find Kirby's excellent <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html" target="_blank">Historical Jesus Theories</a> of value.

The fact remains, historicity continues to stand as a heavily debated issue. As such ...

For ax to assert: "We all know the evidence for jesus exsists (Josephus, talmud etc..), We know he did some things that made him unpopular with various officials. According to the bible texts he claimed he was god. So we can prove a man called jesus exsists ..." is presumptuous in the most literal sense of the.

For D.H. Cross to assert: "There is evidence that Jesus lived, but after that all bets are off ..." is at best misleading in that it implies a non-existent consensus.

For D.H. Cross to assert: "As RD wrote, it is quite a huge jump from evidence that a man existed to having "proof" that this man was god, or actually said what is written in the Gospels." is simply confused.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

D.H. Cross

It means that most people NT scholars assume that Jesus lived, that there is evidence that he lived. Beyond that fact, the search for the historical Jesus is a hotly debated topic (all bet's are off). Those who claim he never lived at all are in the minority (regardless of whether they are right or wrong). We DO have consensus that Jesus lived, that being the opinion of the majority.

Read "Gospel Truth" by Russell Shorto for a good overview of the search for the historical Jesus.


What do you mean, "confused"? I suppose it means you are confused. It is not difficult to establish some evidence that a man like Jesus existed. It is impossible to prove that he was God.

Again, you've dismissed what I write without providing any reasons.

Jayhawker Soule

If you say so.

You originally wrote: "There is evidence that Jesus lived, but after that all bets are off as far as what he actually said. The "Q" source is probably the closest thing to the actual sayings of Christ."

So, your admission that "all bets are off" had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of this evidence, but with the accuracy of the quotes attributed to someone whose historicity you take for granted, allowing you to speak of "the actual sayings of Christ". Feel free to reinterprate your initial comments as you wish. I continue to believe that they were misleading in that they suggest a non-existent consensus.

Parenthetically, I would not be at all surprised if "most people NT scholars assume" the resurrection.

It is my understanding that the term "consensus' is most commonly used to imply unanimity among all competent and responsible participants. Otherwise, we might also speak of a 'consensus' concerning the resurrection.

Perhaps I'll add it to my list. What are Mr. Shorto's credentials, and how would you compare his work to that of Kirby?

If, by "As RD wrote", you where referring to me, please show me where, in my two prior contributions to this thread, I presented the position you attribute to me -- one which takes for granted "that the man existed".

You've made your opinion clear. Thanks, and take care.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Pomp

This seems to be turning into a straight up "did Jesus exist?" thread, although the OP took an approach closer to "what implication does the existence of Jesus have for the existence of the Xian god?" Unless it gets back on topic soon, it's going to BC&A.