Religious Debates Question

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "Their details are inconsistent and some places irreconcilable. This brings their testimony into question."

Absolutely not. If you ask four witnesses to describe an event, an accident, a murder, a sportsevent, a family issue (oops !) they all witnessed you will see the same incongruities. It would be very suspicious in my view if all four Bibl ...[text shortened]... our Gospels. It raises their credibility instead of reducing it, as you are suggesting.

This is true. However, in the case of the Gospel accounts, we see what
we call a stemmatic rendering. That is, we can deduce that St Matthew
and St Luke very likely derived their information from St Mark (and Q);
that is, a witness told a witness what he observed. We all know the game
'telephone,' right? We know what happens to the message.

St Matthew adds very little unique information and changes a lot of St
Mark's (and Q's) details. St Luke handles St Mark (and Q) with a little
more care. Additionally, St Matthew (especially) depicts a Jesus which
would communicate to his particular Jewish audience.

So, with the exception of a story here and there between Sts Matthew
and Luke, we really only have St Mark's testimony about Jesus's life
and Q's testimony about Jesus's sayings.

That leaves St John. I can only think of four stories that line up
with anything that happens in the other three Gospels: Jesus's baptism,
his healing of the blind man, his cleansing of the temple (although this
occurs at the beginning rather than the end of his ministry -- another
contradiction), and his crucifixion. There may be more, but I think you
and I both know that this Gospel hardly resembles the others. The
theology is obviously more developed, testifying to a later date, later
than any other Gospel, almost certainly penned after all the living
Apostles had died (including St John). This reduces its quality as a
reliable witness.

So, in truth, the four Gospels really come down two unique reliable
sources: St Mark and Q (and a handful of sayings that St Matthew
and St Luke had acquired elsewhere or inserted on Jesus's behalf).

Again, let me be clear: I believe that Jesus existed. But I wouldn't
call the evidence for His existence 'strong.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is true. However, in the case of the Gospel accounts, we see what
we call a stemmatic rendering. That is, we can deduce that St Matthew
and St Luke very likely derived their information from St Mark (and Q);
that is, a witness told a witness what he observed. We all know the game
'telephone,' right? We know what happens to the message.

St ...[text shortened]... that Jesus existed. But I wouldn't
call the evidence for His existence 'strong.'

Nemesio

If I understand you correctly you are inclined, on the basis of the existing facts, to recommend as acceptable and plausible the existence of a historic figure called Jesus Christ.

Right ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If I understand you correctly you are inclined, on the basis of the existing facts, to recommend as acceptable and plausible the existence of a historic figure called Jesus Christ.

Right ?

I would say that I feel it is the better of two reasonable choices, but that I
would say that to believe that he didn't exist was a reasonable, albeit less
plausible choice.

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
I am unconcerned with what is "commonly accepted" and believe it's "ignorant" to accept something based on what other people say without examing the evidence.


I guess should you follow that view , you personally oversee every experiment known to man before actually agreeing to its authenticity.
Quite a Nihilist no 😉


You appear to not be able to read; I never said that the FACT that the "evidence of the historicity of Jesus is slim" (and it is a FACT) "converted" me to Agnosticism; I merely said that I was surprised to find that so.

Ok, you claim a false statement. IE: The fact that Darwin was a Satanist, leads me to believe he hated Christians ? My original premise is clearly false, thus my conclusion even more diluded.


I was also surprised to find that the good Christians here had such difficulty finding Old Testament passages supporting that the Messiah was to be a descendent of David. Apparently, a lot of people like you are "accepting" things with very little or no evidence; but that's not how my "unintelligent" mind works.

Urm. No-one has difficulty finding such a thread. The Messiah was propecised. Do you even know what the scriptures state about prophecies ? I guess not.

Either way, prophecies have a miniscule influence on the historicity of the man called Jesus Christ. Your claim that there is limited evidence of Jesus's existence is false, plain and simple.

I suggest doing atleast some research on the matter, you may want to start with

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/

After you've read that article, ofcourse you'll do a search on google for 'evidence against box of James' , but then that's the actions of someone who doesn't want to believe. Alas..

pc

Originally posted by pcaspian
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I am unconcerned with what is "commonly accepted" and believe it's "ignorant" to accept something based on what other people say without examing the evidence.


I guess should you follow that view , you personally oversee every experiment known to man before actually agreeing to its authentici ...[text shortened]... of James' , but then that's the actions of someone who doesn't want to believe. Alas..

pc[/b]

I am beginning to think that you are a compulsive liar as well as a petty troll. "Evidence" isn't necessarily something solid in my hands, but it has to be something besides a flat assertion. The first assertion made in the Gospels is that Jesus existed as a real person, I asked for evidence BESIDES the Gospels supporting that assertion. Even Ivanhoe concedes that non-Gospel evidence of Jesus' historicity is slim; unless you are using some non-standard definition of the word "slim" the statement that "Non-Gospel evidence of Jesus' existence is slim" is not false, but a FACT.

You are again deliberately prevaricating when you change my statement that "I was also surprised to find that the good Christians here had such difficulty finding Old Testament passages supporting that the Messiah was to be a descendent of David" into an assertion that the Messiah ITSELF wasn't prophesied. Again, have someone read my statement to you veryyyyyyy slowly and you may perhaps be able to fathom that the "descendent of David" phrase was the important point. Again, I have no firm conclusion on whether there was a real Jesus or not and am willing to look at the evidence; you're conclusion that "I don't want to believe" is just typical ignorant nonsense as you don't have the slightest indication that that is true in my case.

If you're going to play my foil, Pcaspian, at least try to be a intellectually worthy one rather than the misinformed, dogmatic dullard that this post shows you to be.

Originally posted by Alcra
You can be a religious person and not be a Christian (wow, imagine that - more than one religion).

And just for the record - I am an atheist.

And I am a non-Christian theist. Apparently a minority of one here on the forums.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I am beginning to think that you are a compulsive liar as well as a petty troll. "Evidence" isn't necessarily something solid in my hands, but it has to be something besides a flat assertion. The first assertion made in the Gospels is that Jesus existed as a real person, I asked for evidence BESIDES the Gospels supporting that assertion. Even Ivanhoe concedes that non-Gospel evidence of Jesus' historicity is slim; unless you are using some non-standard definition of the word "slim" the statement that "Non-Gospel evidence of Jesus' existence is slim" is not false, but a FACT.



So much for breaking my argument down point for point. Clearly not your strongpoint. Actually your claim was ... and I quote

A few points have been raised in these threads that I wasn't aware of; for example, that the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is pretty slim.

Had you some knowledge regarding the historicity of Christ, you would know that Christians and athiests widely accept that the vast majority of accounts regarding Jesus were encorporated into the Biblical scriptures. It makes quite alot of sense really 🙂

Again, have someone read my statement to you veryyyyyyy slowly and you may perhaps be able to fathom that the "descendent of David" phrase was the important point. Again, I have no firm conclusion on whether there was a real Jesus or not and am willing to look at the evidence; you're conclusion that "I don't want to believe" is just typical ignorant nonsense as you don't have the slightest indication that that is true in my case.

Neah, I figure its true. You're like a KKK member protesting his 'best friend is black'.

If you're going to play my foil, Pcaspian, at least try to be a intellectually worthy one rather than the misinformed, dogmatic dullard that this post shows you to be.

Man, I couldn't care less whether you consider me intellectually worthy of debate. The mere fact that you can make such idiotic statements without having any knowledge about the subject is enough for me to laugh off your poor attempts at insult. What kinda dork uses the word 'dullard' anyway ? Is that your best attempt at sounding intelligent ?

Originally posted by pcaspian
Had you some knowledge regarding the historicity of Christ, you would know that Christians and athiests widely accept that the vast majority of accounts regarding Jesus were encorporated into the Biblical scriptures.

Could you expand upon this? I am assuming you mean NT literature, as I would
gather that 100% atheists and agnostics do not find the argument of 'prophecy
fulfillment' as compelling, since the authors of the Gospels could have very easily
composed their accounts such that it appeared post facto that Jesus fulfilled the
various prophecies listed. In fact, doing so would have been consistent with the
Jewish midrash tradition, one which an author like St Matthew would have been
familiar and fluent in (and, no surprise, this Gospel has the quantitatively highest
number of 'fulfilled' prophecies).

The questioning of the historicity of Jesus is a fairly new field in NT scholarship. It
is no surprise that many atheists haven't even heard of it. Indeed, I only became
aware of this some months ago when Telerion pointed me in the direction of a few
articles and websites.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Could you expand upon this? I am assuming you mean NT literature, as I would gather that 100% atheists and agnostics do not find the argument of 'prophecy fulfillment' as compelling...


Actually my response was directed as no1, specifically addressing his statement that there exists few historic accounts of Jesus outside the scriptures. Prophecy is not applicable.


The questioning of the historicity of Jesus is a fairly new field in NT scholarship. It is no surprise that many atheists haven't even heard of it. Indeed, I only became aware of this some months ago when Telerion pointed me in the direction of a few articles and websites.

Questioning the historicity of Christ has been around since after Christs death and resurrection.

Originally posted by ivangrice
Has anyone ever experienced a committed Christian being won over by atheist argument? Or a committed atheist being won over by a Christian argument?

Three plus years (and 144 pages of meaningless drivel) later, I'm guessing the answer remains the same...

Originally posted by ivangrice
Has anyone ever experienced a committed Christian being won over by atheist argument? Or a committed atheist being won over by a Christian argument?

Sure. I believe atheists are saved at altar calls every Sunday.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Sure. I believe atheists are saved at altar calls every Sunday.

Tell us about the experience.

Originally posted by darvlay
Tell us about the experience.

I can't--I wasn't saved in that manner.