Did Jesus Exist?

I said it was an introduction and I linked to the web site for those interested in the detailed arguments. I wanted to show the overall shape of the viewpoint. The textual details take a great deal of space to deal with point by point and so, no I didn't paste them, they would have gone on for pages!lfen

As usual a series of pithy comments, much appreciated.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 01:20 AM

If he had preached, that is. And once again we get back to the fact that there's no actual evidence for any of these thousands; you're simply talking about the thousands of people that he would have been preaching to, if the Bible was true - and you assume it is, so you conclude thousands. And then you use that to support the Bible.It's the perfectly circular reasoning of the believer. discuss the reasoning not the people. - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-08-2006 12:26 AM

That is a misuse of the concept of circular reasoning, typical for EvC and quite false. If you have writings that appear to be historical reports, especially reports that have obviously been believed as historical reports by millions upon millions, this is not circular reasoning, this is simple historical evidence. All of it. I see no need for the "typical for EvC" comment. Argue the issue not the person - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-08-2006 12:30 AM

Yeah. But see, you don't have any of that. You just have the Bible, which is both the beginning and end of your argument: "I assume the Bible, so such and such is true, which proves the Bible."Absolutely circular. Circular reasoning is sort of like trying to build a house using its own roof as a foundation. Only M.C. Escher could ever make that work.

ironically, without being circular, just self-referential. that's actually my favourite escher print. i don't know why.

---

אָרַח

They ARE historical reports. Trusting them to be true is based on their obvious credibility. This is not circular reasoning.

deleted.(I guess you're entitled to that bit of wit)This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 03:25 AM

A better question is does Jesus exist?I think one reason believers put more stock in the gospels than skeptics is that believers have subsequent experiences after they believe, and some before they beleive.The skeptic says this evidence is subjective and rejects it, but is that reasonable? The believer thinks it is unreasonable, and for good reason. He or she communes with Jesus and experiences a real experience with Christ, sometimes more dramatic with some believers than others, but real nonetheless, and so the believer thinks the proof is in the pudding. He or she puts Christ to the test and passes it.The problem is this can only be done, for the most part, within and by the individual. You may have some objective evidence such as miracles in Christian meetings, and the New Testament, but without the same subjective evidence, the argument dead ends.

so you have evidence outside the bible to back this up? thats how we know its history! you have to have something other than the bible to conferm the bible as history, or it is circular reasoning

Since there is no actual evidence for the debunking of the historical claims of the Bible, but only conjecture and opinion which contradicts the historical church's reading of the Bible, the whole enterprise has the flavor of aiming to discredit it by hook or by crook. They have no evidence, merely their own prejudicial reading of the texts, which they treat as better than the traditional reading of the text, based on what? Their own high opinion of themselves I suppose. In this case all there is is speculative reimagining based on personal readings of the texts. There is no new evidence of any sort. Today's scholars simply read errors into the New Testament and then speculate about what might explain those supposed errors. The whole thing is an exercise in imagination and nothing more. It is not at all similar to, say, the case of Mormonism, where there is lots of historical evidence about the personalities and events to compare with their version of their history.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 02:25 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-08-2006 02:25 AM

I've answered this twice now. It is not circular reasoning. If all you have is ONE historical document and NOTHING that contradicts it, it is a historical document.However, beyond this, the Bible is not one book by one author but a compilation of many books by many authors, so you can't say it is being proved by itself as it is not a singular It.

the thing is rand, its not about whether jesus stands up to being questioned, so much as does the thing that the believer points to as evidence of jesus stand up to questions - namely the bible, if jesus did exist he only seemed to exist within the bible historically, we have plenty of evidence about many figures, such as john the baptist and paul,caeser, but notice we never argue over if they existed, because there is evidence for them (not sure so much about paul need more information)but, jesus is not found outside the bible, nothing that people would consider real information, just some stuff thats presented but can't stand up as evidence
by the way what does this have to do with the topic? if you believe he's up there now its a non-issue

Interesting that the existence of John the Baptist, which you believe to be adequately verified by independent sources, doesn't amount to evidence in itself for Jesus or the rest of the gospels that report on both of them.My signature says why the only contemporary evidence for Jesus is in the Bible. It is utterly sufficient as a historical record among all the other amazing things it is, but it is only given to some of us to appreciate it. I wish we had the power to convince the rest of you, and perhaps God will grant that power in some measure. I can hope.

---

Mat 11:25 ...Jesus answered and said, I thank you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes.

nonsense, you have no understanding of how history collection works, you don't just use one document to verify history so its by one author when you want it to be, and more than one when you want it to be?
which is it? if its by more than one author they contradict each other and which is the right one then?, I think james and thomas should be in the bible since they are both more right than any of them, but they are all part of the religion so, I'm asking for existernal evidence