Irony

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]No, I do not concede that - I agree with that. I don't think being a Christian is defined by believing that Jonah's story was literal - but I would wonder why he asserts it is not. After all, we are dealing with a supernatural being. [/i][/i]

You really struggle with terms. You'll note that I wrote:

[i ...[text shortened]... ecessary
for him to do so.

I'll ask the question again: Do you concede my point?

Nemesio[/b]

Perahps you're overlooking the Coletti Switcheroo.

"No, I do not concede that - I agree with that."

He's saying that it's not a concession because he's maintained it all along! You must not have been paying attention to what he was saying. You were the one claiming otherwise, and you are the one now making the concession.

Don't say you weren't warned. I called it immediately.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Perahps you're overlooking the Coletti Switcheroo.

"No, I do not concede that - I agree with that."

He's saying that it's not a concession because he's maintained it all along! You must not have been paying attention to what he was saying. You were the one claiming otherwise, and you are the one now making the concession.

Don't say you weren't warned. I called it immediately.

Jesus, how many names does one phenomenon need? You could have just used the phrase 'Pulpit-Pew Permutaion Paradox', as I've maintained all along.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]No, I do not concede that - I agree with that. I don't think being a Christian is defined by believing that Jonah's story was literal - but I would wonder why he asserts it is not. After all, we are dealing with a supernatural being.

You really struggle with terms. You'll note that I wrote:

[w]ill ...[text shortened]... sary
for him to do so.

I'll ask the question again: Do you concede my point?

Nemesio[/b]

I agree with your point. Neither side is making a concession. We have a point of agreement.

Sorry about the confussion I caused. Mea culpa.

Originally posted by David C
How so? Enlighten. Remember, you're the one who claims he was a real person, and spare me an ad populum via gospels.

You said: "That Jesus wasn't a metaphor (an allegory, really), 'cause he was. Am I begging it?"

The premise: Jesus is a metaphor (or an allegory).
The conclusion: Jesus is a metaphor (or an allegory).

Since your conclusion was presumed in your premise, you are begging the question.

Originally posted by Coletti
I agree with your point. Neither side is making a concession. We have a point of agreement.

Excellent.

Now we are REALLY getting somewhere.

Ok, let's review.

1) It is given that at least some Scripture contains no historical truth, but
metaphorical truth given the irreconcilable contradictions.
2) It is agreed that it is not necessary for a Believer to read some passages
lacking contradictions (the example earlier being Jonah) in order to be a person of
faith.

Ok. Now, fully recognizing that it is improbable (but not impossible) do you think
that one can believe that Jesus didn't historically exist? That is, there have been
many online debates about the existence of Jesus and (again, recognizing that it
is rather unlikely) some have come to believe that Jesus was contrived rather than
existing.

I fully admit that the evidence is not substantial (I for one am not compelled) but
I can recognize how someone might believe it. That is, I do not consider it illogical
to come to that conclusion, even though I feel the merits of that conclusion are
weaker than the merits of others.

That's the first question: do you agree/accept as logical (although highly improbably)
the position that Jesus didn't exist?

Second: Do you think that it is necessary to believe that Jesus historically
existed in order to be a person of faith? That is, do you think that a Believer can think of
the Gospels one big metaphor (like say the story of Jonah agreed upon earlier) or do you
think that it is required to believe in at least some historicity of the Gospels (remember
that point number 1 indicates that there is at least some non-historicity in the
accounts).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Excellent.

Now we are REALLY getting somewhere.

Ok, let's review.

1) It is given that at least [b]some Scripture contains no historical truth, but
metaphorical truth given the irreconcilable contradictions.
2) It is agreed that it is not necessary for a Believer to read some passages
lacking contradictions (the example earlier being ...[text shortened]... er 1 indicates that there is at least some non-historicity in the
accounts).

Nemesio[/b]

1) It is given that at least [b]some Scripture contains no historical truth, but
metaphorical truth given the irreconcilable contradictions.[/b]

Not irreconcilable - but only that if two verses were read as having the exact same meaning - literal or otherwise - and there were contradictory - then at least one of the readings if false. So there are no irreconcilable contradictions in Scripture. But to continue with the discussion....

2) It is agreed that it is not necessary for a Believer to read [b]some passages
lacking contradictions (the example earlier being Jonah) in order to be a person of
faith.[/b]

Not only that, but that some passages clearly are not literal.


Ok. Now, fully recognizing that it is improbable (but not impossible) do you think
that one can believe that Jesus didn't historically exist?

And still be a Christian? No. If all that Jesus said and did was allegorical or metaphorical to the truth, then there would be no objective standard for truth. And without an objective standard for truth, then my world-view becomes irrational. So I do not think it is possible that Jesus did not exist.

I am not saying that all accounts of Jesus in Scripture are historical facts - i.e. things happened literally and in detail as presented in the Bible - even the order of the events is uncertain. But I believe it is only rational to believe the the events in general did occur. Not every detail is accurate - but the death of Christ, and his resurrection are historical facts - the miracles occurred, the conversations occurred, and the truths that Christ was conveying occurred.

That does not mean that it is impossible that a rational person could believe in that the historical existence of Jesus as presented in Scripture is incorrect. That is to say, a rational person could possible disbelieve in the historical Jesus as presented in the Bible. But this would be a person who held a different world-view. And then we are back to the world-view question.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Excellent.

Now we are REALLY getting somewhere.

Ok, let's review.

1) It is given that at least [b]some Scripture contains no historical truth, but
metaphorical truth given the irreconcilable contradictions.
2) It is agreed that it is not necessary for a Believer to read some passages
lacking contradictions (the example earlier being ...[text shortened]... er 1 indicates that there is at least some non-historicity in the
accounts).

Nemesio[/b]

Second: Do you think that it is [b]necessary to believe that Jesus historically
existed in order to be a person of faith? [/b]

Not according to my world-view. That would be irrational. It would make it impossible to know what is objective truth. Instead you might find a sort-of mysticism which has no objective truth.

Originally posted by Coletti
If all that Jesus said and did was allegorical or metaphorical to the truth, then there would be no objective standard for truth. And without an objective standard for truth, then my world-view becomes irrational. So I do not think it is possible that Jesus did not exist.

You have a rational world-view; therefore Jesus existed?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You have a rational world-view; therefore Jesus existed?

QED (Quite Easily Deworstpieceofreasoningever)

Originally posted by dottewell
QED (Quite Easily Deworstpieceofreasoningever)

Ha, his or my understanding of it?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Ha, his or my understanding of it?

His, of course!

Let's present it more clearly.

I have a rational world view, therefore
There must be an objective standard of truth, therefore
Jesus existed.

Originally posted by dottewell
His, of course!

Whenever I read Coletti, I come away with a not entirely disagreeable sensation of transient mental derangement.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Whenever I read Coletti, I come away with a not entirely disagreeable sensation of transient mental derangement.

Your understanding was perfect (see the above).

Originally posted by dottewell
His, of course!

Let's present it more clearly.

I have a rational world view, therefore
There must be an objective standard of truth, therefore
Jesus existed.

If one has no means of grounding truth, then what one believes true just floats around - anything is possibly true. And if anything is possibly true within your own world-view - then contradictions may occur. A world-view of contradictions is irrational.

So a rational world view requires some sort of means for obtaining objective truth - a.k.a. knowledge.

The objective standard of knowledge within my world-view is God's revelation. Which even a cursory consideration shows this is sound. If anything can be absolute, it would be God revealed truth.

"Jesus existed" follows from my world-view.

It could be that there is no objective standard of truth, that I am wrong, and therefor truth and moral standards are all an illusion of the human imagination. In that case, why bother. While this does not prove anything (not even my world-view), it goes to show that any rational objective world-view is preferable to a subjective world-view which has no means to find truth or moral standards.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Whenever I read Coletti, I come away with a not entirely disagreeable sensation of transient mental derangement.

Take an aspirin and lie down. It will pass. 🙂