Originally posted by RJHinds
That shows lack of faith.

Guilty as charged. 😏

Originally posted by whodey
Neutral position? Is there such a thing?

I think so. I accept some of the Bible's claims. It is an historical document that gives us insight into ancient peoples' worldview. I am not so rabid that I want to throw the whole thing out or deny that Jesus ever existed. I think the evidence quite strongly affirms Jesus' existence. I just don't think he was a deity or did any supernatural stuff. That's legend. Similarly, I can affirm Davy Crockett's existence without thinking he killed himself a bear when he was only 3. 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
YES of course there is.

The bible either contains errors or it doesn't.

The neutral starting position is NOT to assume that it contains errors OR to assume that it is inerrant.

You then investigate the bible checking it against reality and itself to see if it is self consistent and matching reality.

Biases are assumptions about the outcome be ...[text shortened]... position is starting without assumptions about the outcome and letting the evidence guide you.

But (and I say this as a non-theist) is it neutral to rely on "evidence" or does this reliance entail some ideas about what is evidence and what is not; and how it is evaluated, that pre-ordains the outcome?

As is so often the case, the devil might lie in the details, in this case, the defining criteria of admissable "evidence."

On a broader level, appealing to rational analysis would be rejected by the fideists.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think the evidence quite strongly affirms Jesus' existence.

What evidence?

Serious question.

Now I agree that you can accept JC being a historical rather than mythical character without
in any way accepting or believing in JC the 'son of god'.

However you state that the "evidence strongly affirms Jesus' existence"...

To which I ask "what evidence?".

Because I don't see ANY evidence that affirms JC actually existed let alone Strongly affirms it.


Now I don't care if he existed or not and I am not 'rabidly' throwing anything out.
I simply don't think that the evidence does actually strongly indicate that he existed.

If the evidence does indicate that he actually existed then I will change my stance but as far as
I can see, without being conclusive either way, the evidence points more towards JC being mythical
as opposed to historical. Not the other way around.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What evidence?

Serious question.

Now I agree that you can accept JC being a historical rather than mythical character without
in any way accepting or believing in JC the 'son of god'.

However you state that the "evidence strongly affirms Jesus' existence"...

To which I ask "what evidence?".

Because I don't see ANY evidence that affirms J more towards JC being mythical
as opposed to historical. Not the other way around.

how many other mythical entities has influenced mankind as profoundly, can you name
one? You said it, so pony up the details.

Originally posted by JS357
But (and I say this as a non-theist) is it neutral to rely on "evidence" or does this reliance entail some ideas about what is evidence and what is not; and how it is evaluated, that pre-ordains the outcome?

As is so often the case, the devil might lie in the details, in this case, the defining criteria of admissable "evidence."

On a broader level, appealing to rational analysis would be rejected by the fideists.

Yes but fideists are just plain wrong.

However this is getting into the discussion about objectivity and subjectivity from the other thread that I intend to get to later this evening so I will tackle this there and then.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how many other mythical entities has influenced mankind as profoundly, can you name
one? You said it, so pony up the details.

Mythical entities being as they are non-existent have no influence over anything.

However peoples beliefs can and do have profound impact on the world.

The fact that people who believe in the Christian god and JC happen to have been some
of the most powerful and influential in recent history and that belief in this being has been
an influence on their behaviour and thoughts says nothing about the truth of such beliefs
or the the truth or otherwise of JC's existence.

Truth of JC's existence is not effected or determined by the number or fervour of people
believing in him.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What evidence?

Serious question.

Now I agree that you can accept JC being a historical rather than mythical character without
in any way accepting or believing in JC the 'son of god'.

However you state that the "evidence strongly affirms Jesus' existence"...

To which I ask "what evidence?".

Because I don't see ANY evidence that affirms J ...[text shortened]... more towards JC being mythical
as opposed to historical. Not the other way around.

Basically, Jesus popped up in so many different writings, both inside the New Testament and outside it, that the odds are very high he in fact existed, despite the fact that many of the accounts of his miracles and some of his teachings and the stories about him are highly dubious.

For a comprehensive list of historical evidence [not theological!], see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think so. I accept some of the Bible's claims. It is an historical document that gives us insight into ancient peoples' worldview. I am not so rabid that I want to throw the whole thing out or deny that Jesus ever existed. I think the evidence quite strongly affirms Jesus' existence. I just don't think he was a deity or did any supernatural stuff. That ...[text shortened]... Davy Crockett's existence without thinking he killed himself a bear when he was only 3. 🙂

There was some legends like that about Jesus too. What he did as a child.
However, that book was left out of the canon of true scripture.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Basically, Jesus popped up in so many different writings, both inside the New Testament and outside it, that the odds are very high he in fact existed, despite the fact that many of the accounts of his miracles and some of his teachings and the stories about him are highly dubious.

I find that a poor argument. Doesn't Zeus also pop up in vast quantities of literature, not to mention movies? I would consider inadmissible as evidence any writing that is clearly based on prior writing - mere quantities tell us nothing. What matters is what is original and what is it based on. We have no eye witness accounts. Not one writer actually met Jesus, so the question is how much of what they wrote they made up themselves (quite a lot clearly), how much was made up by their sources or prior sources, and how much is true. I think only a very few books of the New Testament are of any value in determining this, and I don't think they are sufficient to make a judgement on the matter.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find that a poor argument. Doesn't Zeus also pop up in vast quantities of literature, not to mention movies? I would consider inadmissible as evidence any writing that is clearly based on prior writing - mere quantities tell us nothing. What matters is what is original and what is it based on. We have no eye witness accounts. Not one writer actually met ...[text shortened]... in determining this, and I don't think they are sufficient to make a judgement on the matter.

How do you know John, Mark, Matthew, Peter, and James never met Jesus?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find that a poor argument. Doesn't Zeus also pop up in vast quantities of literature, not to mention movies? I would consider inadmissible as evidence any writing that is clearly based on prior writing - mere quantities tell us nothing. What matters is what is original and what is it based on. We have no eye witness accounts. Not one writer actually met ...[text shortened]... in determining this, and I don't think they are sufficient to make a judgement on the matter.

Thor's in the Avengers!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find that a poor argument. Doesn't Zeus also pop up in vast quantities of literature, not to mention movies? I would consider inadmissible as evidence any writing that is clearly based on prior writing - mere quantities tell us nothing. What matters is what is original and what is it based on. We have no eye witness accounts. Not one writer actually met ...[text shortened]... in determining this, and I don't think they are sufficient to make a judgement on the matter.

It's not the only one. But I'm not really interested in debating this issue. It's off-topic, and it's not important to me whether Jesus actually lived or not.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's not the only one. But I'm not really interested in debating this issue. It's off-topic, and it's not important to me whether Jesus actually lived or not.

That's fine, and JC might have been a historical character.

However given that there is significant dispute over this in the field among the experts I don't
think it's justified to claim that the evidence 'strongly' favours either side.

And certainly as has been pointed out you haven't mentioned or linked any evidence that strikes
me as being at all strong.

And I do think that it's relevant to discussions of the validity of the Christian faith.

If it can't even be shown that there is 'strong' evidence that JC even existed as a historical character
let alone had magical powers and was the son of god then that's a serious hole in the religions credibility.

People ask for evidence that JC was the son of god and performed miracles and as far as I can see at the
moment the evidence isn't even conclusive or strong that he even existed at all.

If you don't want to discuss the issue then that's more than fine but as it is a contentious issue that is
far from settled among the experts in the field, if you claim that the evidence for JC's existence is strong
you're going to be asked to prove it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think so. I accept some of the Bible's claims. It is an historical document that gives us insight into ancient peoples' worldview. I am not so rabid that I want to throw the whole thing out or deny that Jesus ever existed. I think the evidence quite strongly affirms Jesus' existence. I just don't think he was a deity or did any supernatural stuff. That Davy Crockett's existence without thinking he killed himself a bear when he was only 3. 🙂

But is that really neutral?

You seem to think that trying to find a middle ground between two belief systems is somehow neutral. You have no use for the concept that Jesus was God in the flesh. Again, that is not being neutral.