In total there are 34 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 33 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
I actually didn't mean it as a measure for authenticity, but rather as a simple statement of clarification and fact. The accounts are not neutral histories... they are letters written for the evangelical and discipling purposes.The sincerity of believers does not get you very far at all. People have believed and have been willing to die for beliefs throughout history. Surely that hardly counts for evidence.
It defies modern standards of evidence (in a technological CNN world). The Gospels and letters of the New Testament were products of a primarily oral culture. They were set to papyrus beginning in the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries (Mark is considered the earliest gospel with dating probably around 30 years after Jesus' death. Later dating is based upon a disbelief in the possibility of prophetic writing.) They thus reflect an already existant body of belief (sometimes called the hypothetical Q gospel), which was in circulation well prior to the time of writing.Doulos, your courtesy is appreciated. Dexter expresses a very reasonable frustration, that science generally finds it incomprehensible that people believe things that are simply false. You assert that Luke's claims to be writing history constitute evidence. Yet Luke wrote generations after the supposed time of Christ, and derived his historical fables from Mark. If Jesus was real, and not a myth, it defies credibility that the "evidence" is so late and so embedded in texts whose primary objective is to inculcate religious belief.
I think you're a bit out of date with this assertion. There was a period when it was fashionable to assert theories of Jesus' non-existance. That view has basically lost ground as critical scholarship has tested the theories. Even liberal agnostic/atheist theologians like Ehrman now accept the reality of Jesus' existance.A lot of current research argues that the actual evidence is far more compatible with the invention of Christ than with the supposed 'big bang' of expansion of Christianity from a single historical founder. Paul barely quotes Jesus, and then only in ways that suggest a cultic archetype rather than a real person. The supposed external evidence such as from Josephus is blatant fabrication. Writers such as Philo who would have written about Jesus if he was real are silent. Earl Doherty's Jesus Neither God Nor Man presents a comprehensive logical and evidentiary demolition of the Historical Jesus hypothesis.
I'm not sure who Ant is, but I'm fairly certain I'm not him/her.I appreciate your reply, Doulos, and your openness and courtesy. I was confused initially because I thought I had responded to ant's post, yet you replied as if you were the author of that post. Now ant and you have somewhat similar views, but you can't be the same person...can you?
Christianity was not accepted by Rome until at least the time of Constantine, and even then only in parts of the empire under his control. That leaves over 300 years where Christianity was a persecuted sect.Far more plausible is the idea that ancient religion involved cosmic mysteries that were seen as distasteful to the Jewish Yahweh cult, and these Gnostic traditions were suppressed by the political agenda of making Jesus the basis of imperial stability for Rome. Reconstructing the fragments of Gnostic stellar myths presents a far more scientific approach to early Christianity than any effort to rehabilitate the tired old supernatural fantasies. This scientific method opens the prospect of Christianity being reconciled with science, discarding the supernatural weeds in favour of the fertile seeds of natural reality.
What I've posted is evidence, as is the humourous example you posted. You did a nice drawing by the way. I'll give you 2 stars.As others have pointed out the above does not constitute evidence, especially not extraordinary evidence. Let me show you by example.
.
I'm afraid you have me there. The statute of limitations would definitely be an issue as well, as would be the fact that this same case has been tried already... repeatedly through the centuries. The issue of whether a crime had been committed would also be an interesting questionI was also referring to evidence that is allowable in court. Including witnesses. You have none. You have a book instead. That's the truth of it, unfortunately. The book can't be considered admissable as an "ancient document" in court due to the unknown chain of possession.
Interesting that so many people who were alive when the witnesses WERE alive were convinced though. As were those simple and gullible people, the later Roman emperors.If it were, you would still need a mountain of ordinary evidence in conjunction with the bible to offset the precedent. Even in the court of law.
I am within your experience Interbane.In my experience, people who support the bible want extremely low standards of support for their belief to be accepted. An entire nation of people. There is a reason the word "faith" is used, but so many new up and comers believe they have PROOF that their belief is true. In every case I've encountered, they have no understanding of the distinction between proof and evidence. They have no clue what constitutes justified evidence, either legally or scientifically. It's no wonder we have people believing in every fantasy under the sun.
No, I had sufficient personal evidence to lead me to a point where I could make a clear choice. It thus constituted sufficient proof for me.That is why you only have "faith" to justify your belief(I don't consider faith a justification of belief). Not evidence, and certainly not proof. I believe you continue to misuse the word "proof" as well, Doulos. If you had proof, no matter the archetype, it would mean your belief is incontrovertible and all the critics on this website would change their minds if they saw it. Unless you have something new, that I haven't seen in my roughly 10,000 hours of studying the debate between science and religion, then I'd humbly claim you're mistaken.
I will respond in more detail later. There have been a number of threads at in the Booktalk Belief Religion and Philosophy Forum that discuss these issues. My review of Doherty's book is at http://www.booktalk.org/post96752.htmlDoulos wrote:I think you're a bit out of date with this assertion. There was a period when it was fashionable to assert theories of Jesus' non-existance. That view has basically lost ground as critical scholarship has tested the theories. Even liberal agnostic/atheist theologians like Ehrman now accept the reality of Jesus' existance.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Josephus is unreliable. There are about four passages from Josephus which are possibly modified, but this modification is mainly in degree (based upon Syraic desert copy of Josephus and scholarly critique). The fact that he wrote about a historical Jesus has never really been in doubt by mainstream academia, and Josephus is still regarded as one of our primary sources for his period. Which Philo are you referring to by the way, and why do you think he would hae written about Jesus?
I'm afraid I can't comment on Doherty's book, as I haven't read it. If you'd like to post some of his more convincing theories, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.
So you're saying I understand what a logical fallacy is, but don't understand the difference between faith, evidence and proof?Yes, a fallacy is neutral. Many use it as if it were evidence of a false claim. A claim isn't false because of a fallacy, but the fallacy does not support it. Your use of the word "prove" makes me anxious. Proof is a rare thing.
Thanks Robert. I may be slow in replying as well. I should really be doing work at the moment...I will respond in more detail later. There have been a number of threads at in the Booktalk Belief Religion and Philosophy Forum that discuss these issues. My review of Doherty's book is at post96752.html
