On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:39:37 -0600, Midwinter
<midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Christopher A.Lee <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said :
>
>>>It is a rationalisation in the sense that I am appealing for
>>>rationality. As I said, there is little reason to deny the
>>>possibility of his existence as a man - that a man might have existed
>>>is, as I said, nothing out of the ordinary and does not in itself
>>>stretch the bounds of physical possibility or imply the existence of
>>>God.
>>
>> More im****tantly, there is nothing that leads to the conclusion that
>> there was one.
>
>No indeed. However, as I said, the possibility of Jesus having existed
>as a man strains no-one's perception of the possible, and thus is a
>neither-here-nor-there issue. Where the question is something that's in
>violation of our view of how the world works it's fair to argue that if
>it can't be proved it probably doesn't exist. Where it's something that
>is entirely in accordance with that understanding, then a lack of
>evidence doesn't give us reason to discount the possibility.
Unfortunately that's not the methodology used for the rest of the
world.
>Again, challenging the established tenets of Christianity does not
>require that we rule out the possibility that a man called Jesus existed,
>or that he was a bit of a troublemaker. It would require that we rule
>out the possibility that he might have performed miracles or been God
>incarnate. Those things are so out of line with our current
>understanding of the Universe that we could justly require solid evidence
>before we accept them.
There is a "rest of the world" outside Christianity. Where the
"established tenets of Christianity" are merely part of somebody
else's religion.
As is Jesus.
Once again, if they expect everybody else to take it seriously they
have to back it up using real world, outside the Christian tradition
evidence.
Of which there is none.
Which gives people who aren't Christian no reason to believe it.
Couple this with the fact that the earliest writings of any kind would
be Paul's which show no knowledge of a human Jesus, just a divine
Christ. Giving an insight into the earliest Christian beliefs.
>> Indeed the evidence is against it. Paul describes a divine Christ, and
>> knows nothing of an historical Jesus. That came later when the Gospels
>> were written for gentiles.
>
>Well, I will have to defer to your knowledge on that one: for myself, I
>have only the gospels as they appear in English today.
There is also the obvious forgery in Josephus. Which is the only
attempted "Evidence" outside the Christian tradition.
>> There is nothing outside the Christian tradition apart from a passage
>> in Josephus whose obvious tampering places it in doubt.
>
>I think it's been reasonably firmly established that that particular
>passage is a later insert. I may be wrong on that. But even so, as I've
>said before, we would do well to bear in mind that the Church - as the
>most powerful authority in the known world for a number of centuries -
>has had ample time to claim and collate the available sources that refer
>to this person. He is, after all, their central concern. Thus I would
>not be surprised to find few if any easily-available references to him
>outside of the Church's influence.
Then they should keep it to themselves.
The trouble is that when they attempt to provide evidence, that is all
they offer that directly mentions Jesus. A few others mention
"followers of Christ". Even "who was crucified" but this raises
another can of worms because the Roman historian and Senator would
hardly have said "we executed the anointed one". But they don't draw
any connection between Christ and Jesus - later Christians do that
using the hindsight of Christian tradition.
None of which we would know if they hadn't offered this stuff as
"evidence".
>Again, we can quite rationally say that a lack of evidence for his
>miracles probably suggests that he performed no miracles. However, a
>lack of substantial evidence for the existence of a man means relatively
>little, and can't really provide a foundation for any particular
>conclusion. He might; he might not.
No. Lack of evidence suggests there is no reason to believe in an
historical Jesus. This has not yet been established in order to say
there was one but he didn't perform miracles.
>> Trouble is that gets things the wrong way round.
>>
>> One doesn't come up with something and then say there is no evidence
>> against it therefore there is no reason to assume it didn't exist..
>
>I know the argument well, and generally abide by that reasoning.
>However, the argument is stronger where the proposition is one that
>would, if shown true, challenge our understanding of how things work.
No. There is no logical difference between this and any of the other
baseless claims.
>This could certainly be said for the idea that Jesus was God.
Which is irrelevant outside Christianity.
> The
>possibility that Jesus as a man once existed, and perhaps has become the
>central figure in some impressively elaborate stories, would not
>challenge anything about our worldview.
There's nothing to challenge because it's merely the unsubstantiated
beliefs of somebody else's religion.
> That a man was born in a certain
>place, given a certain name, a caused a bit of trouble by mouthing off
>about religion, and may even have been nailed up for it, as I said,
>doesn't stretch credulity all that far.
So which one of these people mouthing off was the historical Jesus?
Like I said, you're rationalising an excuse not giving a reason.
>> When there is no evidence for something, then one has no reason to
>> believe it.
>
>Indeed. But when the thing being proposed is in accordance with all the
>laws of Nature as we understand them, then it is not necessary to make a
>firm statement that the thing does not or did not exist. "We don't
>know" will suffice.
That is a false dichotomy ignoring what has now been explained several
times.
It isn't even something to say "I don't know" about.
In the rest of the world beyond Christianity, it is merely part of
somebody else's religion.
>> I don't think anybody else does - but it is too easy to forget that
>> there are zillions of other things that can't be ruled out, however
>> unlikely they are.
>>
>> It is a mistake to single any one of them out because this usually
>> leads to emotionally prejudicial misrepresentation.
>
>For myself, my position with regard to claims that Jesus was God are that
>I have no reason to believe he was. This is why I'm not Christian. My
>position with regard to the question of whether he existed as a man is
>simply that he may or may not have done. I have insufficient information
>to make a judgement: either possibility, that he did or did not, is
>reasonable and rational.
And it's still merely part of somebody else's religion.
In the total absence of evidence outside the Christian tradition there
is no reason to think there was.
You're assigning equal yes/no probability to a baseless claim.
|
