leonarde

Posted by Malaclypse: Yes, I agree totally. When we are talking about the HUMANITY of Jesus we do well to treat him as
Alexander the Great or Socrates or any figure from
antiquity. Yet I find at least SOME non-believers
here are unable to do that in talking about the
historical Jesus: somewhere, in the back of their
minds perhaps, is the recognition that if they
accept his historical existence that that MIGHT
ramify into acceptance of certain religious claims
. I brought up with someone here the case of Socrates: for those who have studied philosophy
Socrates is as real as ANYONE from the ancient world EVEN THOUGH we have nothing written by Socrates himself. When Plato or someone else makes
a reference to Socrates it is plain that they are
referring to someone who was an actual person. By
those same standards---indeed by ANY sensible standards-----Jesus was as real a 1st Century human being as, say Pontius Pilate. Most non-believers don't seriously question Pilate's existence because that existence in and of itself poses no religious dilemna for them....


Posted by Malaclypse: But what if the intellectual process is that of
elimination? We ASSUME naturalism up to the point
that it proves totally unable to explain something
: that "something" could be the feeding of 5000
persons with a few fish and a few loaves of bread,
or it could be the curing of those oppressed by
"demons" (the mentally ill), or it could be the
raising of a man dead for four days (Lazarus).
"Naturalism" in these instances won't really be
able to explain things; rather the attempt will be
to deny they really happened----or at least to
claim that the witnesses are mistaken and/or hallucinating.

But if it isn't in the
nature of a god to cease existing then that wouldn't be a problem, would it?

leonarde

Posted by Ipetrich: Good question. Still, why should she?

People look at the sun glancingly
every day. Why did all those thousands have the
same "afterimages"?

No way. See pages 3 to 9
of the "Shroud of Turin" thread: I was a major
participant.

Unlikely, but I THINK you mean the images in the
eyes; what about the form of the Virgin herself
on the cloak? Was Juan Diego some super-clothing
designer?
Cheers!

Malaclypse the Younger

leonarde

Dude, don't hit ENTER after each line in the edit box. Just let the words wrap. Just hit ENTER a couple of times for paragraph breaks.

I don't see that you have any rational warrant for making this assertion. I myself find Earl Doherty's mythicist argument pretty persuasive, although his opponents make some good points as well. But regardless, the historical existence of Jesus is completely irrelevant to my lack of religious belief.

It is insulting and morally objectionable to impute intellectually dishonest motives merely on the basis that someone has come to a different conclusion than your own, especially when the actual evidence is ambiguous and scanty.

Frankly, I don't know this to be true. I have only the weakest of belief in Socrates' actual existence, based only on my impression that expert historians don't dispute his actual existence. Since I really don't care one way or the other (were I to be persuaded that Socrates was actually a fictional character of Plato, the rest of my life would not change in the slightest), I don't bother to investigate the issue more carefully.

But there are two issues. First, regardless of the evidence, the actual existence of Socrates is technically not a fact. Even if I were to have a stack of good solid evidence such that it would be bizarre and absurd to deny the existence of Socrates, the belief in his existence would be a conclusion predicated on the assumption of naturalism.

It is also difficult to understand your point. If you are trying to prove that it is possible to come to rational conclusions from the existence of evidence under the assumption of naturalism, this point is trivially conceeded. That's the entire purpose of scientific thought.

This is simply not the case. The evidence for Jesus existence is substantively inferior to those for others' historical existence. Argue the point in BC&A, though.

First, naturalism seeks explanations for what happens. Even if these events did actually happen, you cannot exclude a naturalistic explanation unless you are omniscient (or at least know that you understand all natural law). The process of elimination is deficient; by definition, you can know that you know natural law completely only when every event is explained.

Second, there is a trivial naturalistic explanation for the actual factual evidence at hand (the fact of the gospels' existence and text): That they are works of historical fiction, and that the unusual events depicted are the authors' inventions. I see no compelling reason (other than the assertions of those obviously biased in favor of a particular conclusion rather than a method) to change this belief.

Well, you have to prove that it is not in the nature of a god to cease to be. Furthermore, if such a god were to actually exist, and does not cease to be, then we are astonished that this god does not appear to manifest itself in any obvious manner; the conclusion that no such god exists, and didn't exist, and that the evidence from antiquity must be interpreted in light of the nonexistence of such a god, becomes compelling.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

tronvillain

Melaclypse the Younger:
I know, it's like looking at a poem, though it's not like reading one.

Malaclypse the Younger

leonarde

Because you are asserting that someone or something (God/Jesus/Mary) wishes to make his/her/its presence known. Since appearing regularly at big sports matches or whatnot is an obviously effective means of doing so, that such a being does not employ such means is evidence against its existence.

To avoid such a finding, you have to start adding ad hoc elements to the definition of these beings, until your conjecture simply collapses of its own absurdity.

It is simply intellectual dishonesty to make points like this. It is asserted even by the proponents of a miraculous interpretation of Fatima that the crowd was staring--not glancing--at the sun during the event.

Introducing elements which force a false-to-fact interpretation of the actual events is tantamount to lying.

Oh please. The Shroud is such a completely obvious fake that to rely on it is evidence only of extreme credulity or irrationality. It is so obviously fake that one cannot even interpret dishonesty from its acceptance.

Why is this unlikely? Likeliness is evidentially provable. Why should we trust the subjective opinion of one who has shown himself not only credulous and irrational, but possibly mendacious (or grossly ignorant) as well?

joedad

So very true.

I recall Finch's posts in another thread. Finch's reasoning went something like this:

1. I conclude that everything has a cause, based upon my observations.

2. But what is the cause of the Universe?

3. I do not know.

4. Therefore I believe that a god must have caused the Universe.

5. But what is the cause of that god?

6. I do not know.

7. Based on my belief, I conclude that this god is causeless.

Finch later engaged in a little apologetics by stating that his initial statement about cause/effect was made within the context of believing in a causeless god.

joe

lpetrich

However, historians do not view accounts of such people uncritically, as Richard Carrier will tell you. For example, you don't see many historians claiming that Alexander the Great's biological father was not Philip of Macedon but Zeus. And that Plato's biological father was not Ariston but Apollo. And that Pythagoras's biological father was not Mnesarchus but Apollo. The analogy with the Virgin Birth story of Jesus Christ is very obvious; all four stories have in common that the supposed human fathers of these gentlemen had been cuckolded by gods!

When evaluating history, one has to consider the nature of the account. Is it the sort of account that usually turns out to be very reliable, or is it something that often turns out to be a figment of the imagination? Thus, if a hundred years from now, people saw the claim that I was a participant in this bboard, they would see no reason to question it. But if they saw the claim that I was the son of a god and a virgin, they would find it hard to take seriously.

And this is why the Roman historian Livy is considered generally reliable about much of Rome's early history, but not about its founder being the son of a god and a virgin.

Also, JC fits Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile very well, much like the likes of Romulus, Hercules, Moses, Krishna, and the Buddha. And unlike most people generally considered real.

If one strips away the miracles and the mythic-hero elements, one does get a half-plausible biography of the sort of religious prophet that other historians describe. But as Earl Doherty shows in <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">The Jesus Puzzle</a>, one can go further and show that it could be entirely mythical -- a sort of allegory (Mark) combined with a collection of sayings (Q).

And even if one supposes there to be a historical Jesus Christ, one has to recognize that he's the sort of person that others would invent myths about, as has happened with numerous other religious prophets and saints.

Why not? It would be a LOT better than revealing a few secrets to a few people in some out-of-the-way places. And telling them to hold on to those secrets for several years.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

palom

Good thread! Unless leonarde comes up with better arguments, I'm taking the position that the Guadalupe Virgin story is a hoax and jesus did not exist.

Bill Snedden

Of course, whether or not the GV story is true has no bearing on Jesus' existential status or significance...

Just want to set the record straight.

Bill

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

KJELLMUSIC

Sure sounds a lot like Paul and his "vision" on the road. Boy, that sure is some coincidence.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: KJELLMUSIC ]

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: KJELLMUSIC ]</p>