Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2012, 06:05 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(31-12-2012 08:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thanks StarC for the Dr. Rich Carrier link. There are a bunch of other vids by him on YouTube also. It is really interesting to see all the nonsense in it's historical context. It confirms my contention all along, that nothing any of them say about religious subjects is reliable, in a day when a "magical" worldview was so widely held.
And thank you for the National Geographic link on "The First Jesus". It's entirely possible that there was a "Jesus-like" guy who wasn't named Jesus of Nazareth, which would explain why his name doesn't show up in any 1st century documents outside of the gospels.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2012, 11:30 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(25-12-2012 10:18 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(08-12-2012 11:38 AM)Free Wrote:  I wonder what the odds are that 4 different Gospel writers, Paul, Apostolic Fathers, Josephus, Tacitus, and other writers in the NT from the 1st century all imagined the exact same guy by the name of Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate?

Since I find that none of these writers refer to each other's writings (aside from the Synoptic and Apostolic Fathers) I think we could use a logical and reasonable explanation supported by textual evidence that could provide a better argument for Jesus being a total myth than for existence.

Nobody can say with certainty whether or not Jesus existed or was a total myth, but the argument for existence is certainly far better than the argument for total myth.

Honestly guys, the mythology argument needs to adequately dispute existence, and so far, I have not seen one good argument to dispute it. I see plenty of assertion, supposition, and tons of logical fallacies and lack of reasoning, but not once in 30 years have I seen a good solid argument for total mythology on this subject.

My position remains as it is:

Somebody named Jesus who was regarded as the Christ by many Jews was crucified by Pontius Pilate sometime in the 1st half of the 1st century.

Whoever he was is an entirely different argument.
I used to be in this camp, arguing that it was probably true that Jesus existed (mainly from being convinced by Bart Ehrman's "The Historical Jesus" lectures) but I saw a YouTube video that shot it down so nicely. I can't remember the video, although I remember plenty of the arguments.

You say that it's odd that so many different writers, none of them using each other as a source, referenced the same character... but we can find the same thing happening in the modern day. Take Paul Bunyan for one example. Even if there was a real person named Paul Bunyan, and there's no good reason to suspect there was, the stories about him are obviously fake. Even if there was a real person that the myth was based on, would it even be fair to call him "the real Paul Bunyan" if literally nothing said about him was true? We could all recount stories of Paul Bunyan, and some of these stories would have some overlap, but it's not because they actually happened... it's because we've all heard the same stories.

While there are several "independent" writers that wrote about Jesus, what exactly did they say about him? Paul cites nothing about Jesus except that he was crucified and died for our sins. He doesn't tell a single story about Jesus' life. Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, so those aren't independent. John is an independent source, and that's probably why it contradicts the other scriptures on almost every story... it's likely that others who had read Mark (and maybe Matthew and Luke) had passed around these stories orally (public education was not a thing at that time) and the writer of John had heard these stories but only after they'd gotten severely warped from re-tellings... so while it's possible that John was "independent", it was also probably based on the exact same original scripture -- Mark. So we possibly have only 2 sources, Mark and Paul, and Paul doesn't verify Mark's stories. Since it would appear that there was an early religion based on Jesus' life, the fact that Paul believes its basic tenants doesn't prove that there even were stories about Jesus when he wrote his letters, but only a religion based on Jesus... and it's possible that once stories were circulated, Mark wrote them down and everyone copied his tales.
You just nailed it! You been reading my mind?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2012, 11:52 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2013 05:37 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(30-12-2012 06:54 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(27-12-2012 08:17 AM)Free Wrote:  What I like or dislike is irrelevant.

No, it's really not. Are you familiar with the "fallacy fallacy"? It's where you write off an argument entirely because you spot a fallacy (or think you did). You made it clear that you don't recognize this fallacy when you said "most of those anti-existence arguments are full of holes when analyzed closely" and when you continue to play "spot the fallacy" with my arguments.

The reason that dis-confirming evidence is required in your arguments (and mine, and everyone's) is to prevent confirmation bias from preventing rational thought. If you don't recognize a line of evidence that would change your mind if it was presented, then you really don't have the "open mind" that you're claiming to have -- it means you can make any evidence fit your preconceived belief. And that appears to be the case here. Your evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is that there are "multiple attestations" of his existence, and when I attempted to prove that those multiple attestations are all from only one or two sources at most, you tried to find a flaw in my argument rather than to present evidence to the contrary. Did you realize that multiple attestations, even if you could prove such a case, is not enough to prove Jesus was real? There have been false events and false people attested to by multiple witnesses, and because of that, your evidence requires a stronger backing... but it doesn't even have that, and you'd recognize that if you weighed the evidence yourself rather than to try to block my attempts to provide evidence by calling it "flawed". You, too, are capable of bringing evidence against your argument forward. Have you even tried?

And please, stop trying to prove that you're an "expert" in debate and historical method. I've heard real experts discuss historical method, which is why I recognized your method to be lacking. And if you really were an "x-champion debater", I'd imagine you could (and would) cite it. I'm not going to take your word for it, especially after these examples given of your performance. But even if those things were true, they wouldn't make your evidence stronger or your argument more valid.
Free....you seriously need to think about this...
"No, it's really not. Are you familiar with the "fallacy fallacy"? It's where you write off an argument entirely because you spot a fallacy (or think you did)." Starcrash has very eloquently stated the same argument I had with you...although he's had much more patience with you than I did.

Starcrash also writes "And please, stop trying to prove that you're an "expert" in debate and historical method." Sound familiar? When you do this, it's patronising, diverts the discussion away from the issue at hand, and is itself a logical fallacy.

PS..Free, keep smiling! You wrote something good somewhere about hell and the Jerusalem dump. I now can't find it. Can you tell me where it is please? Big Grin
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:Free....you seriously need to think about this...
"No, it's really not. Are you familiar with the "fallacy fallacy"? It's where you write off an argument entirely because you spot a fallacy (or think you did)." Starcrash has very eloquently stated the same argument I had with you...although he's had much more patience with you than I did.

I'm sure you noticed how he failed to produce the evidence of this so-called "fallacy fallacy" he accused me of? Wink

Quote:Starcrash also writes "And please, stop trying to prove that you're an "expert" in debate and historical method." Sound familiar? When you do this, it's patronising, diverts the discussion away from the issue at hand, and is itself a logical fallacy.

Perhaps there's a method to arguing in which an emotional response is invoked for "nefarious" purposes? I am indeed an evil evil EVIL man!

Just maybe there's more to the art of debate than meets the eye?

Wink

Quote:PS..Free, keep smiling! You wrote something good somewhere about hell and the Jerusalem dump. I now can't find it. Can you tell me where it is please?

Sure, it's linked below: Wrote it a few years ago.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid228200

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2013, 09:31 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
I didn't look at it all, because it seemed like a waste of time.. But it doesn't look like any of them give any evidence at all. They prance around the question and give non-answers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2013, 04:21 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-01-2013 10:38 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Free....you seriously need to think about this...
"No, it's really not. Are you familiar with the "fallacy fallacy"? It's where you write off an argument entirely because you spot a fallacy (or think you did)." Starcrash has very eloquently stated the same argument I had with you...although he's had much more patience with you than I did.

I'm sure you noticed how he failed to produce the evidence of this so-called "fallacy fallacy" he accused me of? Wink

Quote:Starcrash also writes "And please, stop trying to prove that you're an "expert" in debate and historical method." Sound familiar? When you do this, it's patronising, diverts the discussion away from the issue at hand, and is itself a logical fallacy.

Perhaps there's a method to arguing in which an emotional response is invoked for "nefarious" purposes? I am indeed an evil evil EVIL man!

Just maybe there's more to the art of debate than meets the eye?

Wink

Quote:PS..Free, keep smiling! You wrote something good somewhere about hell and the Jerusalem dump. I now can't find it. Can you tell me where it is please?

Sure, it's linked below: Wrote it a few years ago.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid228200
Thanks...I'll look into this
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: