28 Feb 05
Originally posted by pcaspianWhile it is accepted, pcaspian, that doesn't mean that there is a preponderance
When you make a statement such as that, you come across as quite ignorant, perhaps even unintelligent. Few athiests have issues with the historicity of Christ, it is commonly accepted that He actually existed.
of evidence. It just means that people assumed He existed.
Personally, I believe Jesus existed, but the evidence is pretty slim. Certainly
you can admit that, right?
Didn't you read through that thread where it was discussed?
Nemesio
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Personally, I believe Jesus existed, but the evidence is pretty slim .... "
While it is accepted, pcaspian, that doesn't mean that there is a preponderance
of evidence. It just means that people assumed He existed.
Personally, I believe Jesus existed, but the evidence is pretty slim. Certainly
you can admit that, right?
Didn't you read through that thread where it was discussed?
Nemesio
The evidence is pretty slim only, and only, if you decide for whatever reason that the bulk of the evidence, the Jewish sources, the four versions of the Gospel, are not acceptable as evidence.
28 Feb 05
I can't recall an instance here at RHP of someone acknowledging that they had changed to the other side. In the adult phase of my own "real world" life, I have had five Christians spend considerable time discussing/debating theology with me. At no point did they convince me, and as far as I can tell, at no point did I convince them. One of them in fact is now a fairly regular church attender, after having been a twice-a-year attender during the years when we debated.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by pcaspianI 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. 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. 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.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] 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.
A pointer. When you make a statement such as that, you come across as quite ignorant, perhaps even unintelligent. Few athiests have issues with the historici ...[text shortened]... s miracles. The attempt to play the 'convert to agnostic' is rather superficial.
🙂
[/b]
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt is a poor way to prove something to use as the primary evidence the source of the assertion. For example, I say I beat Kasparov last week; Nemesio tells you, "no1 beat Kasparov last week." You say "What proof is there that no1 beat Kasparov?" If Nemesio said, "Well we know no1 exists and plays chess and he says he beat Kasparov", would you consider that sufficient proof?
Nemesio: "Personally, I believe Jesus existed, but the evidence is pretty slim .... "
The evidence is pretty slim only, and only, if you decide for whatever reason that the bulk of the evidence, the Jewish sources, the four versions of the Gospel, are not acceptable as evidence.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderLet's not construct any cases in addition to reality. These constructs will only confuse the issue.
It is a poor way to prove something to use as the primary evidence the source of the assertion. For example, I say I beat Kasparov last week; Nemesio tells you, "no1 beat Kasparov last week." You say "What proof is there that no1 beat Kasparov?" If Nemesio said, "Well we know no1 exists and plays chess and he says he beat Kasparov", would you consider that sufficient proof?
There is indeed slim extra-Biblical evidence for the historical person called Jesus Christ ..... but the fact is and remains: There is !
But there will always be people who want more. Even if they would find whole fields of burried Roman, Greek and pagan pots containing written evidence by Roman, Greek and pagan contemporaries of the historical Christ, there would always be people who will dismiss the evidence for whatever reason or even turn it into a proof for the existence of the vast and veiled conspiracy the Christian faith is .... they cannot be fooled .....
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe four versions of the Gospel have a vested interest in Jesus's existence.
The evidence is pretty slim only, and only, if you decide for whatever reason that the bulk of the evidence, the Jewish sources, the four versions of the Gospel, are not acceptable as evidence.
Their details are inconsistent and some places irreconcilable. This brings
their testimony into question.
As for the other sources, they are few and far between, barely a blip on
the radar screen -- Josephus being the strongest (that is, once you remove
the obvious interpolations), and it's very weak.
The other ones are so questionable as to be dubious, as I demonstrated in
my discussion in the other thread.
As such, I don't see how you could claim that the evidence is anything but
slim, Ivanhoe. I'm happy to debate it with you, because I'm interested in
the topic either way.
Nemesio
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Their details are inconsistent and some places irreconcilable. This brings their testimony into question."
The four versions of the Gospel have a vested interest in Jesus's existence.
Their details are inconsistent and some places irreconcilable. This brings
their testimony into question.
As for the other sources, they are few and far between, barely a blip on
the radar screen -- Josephus being the strongest (that is, once you remove
the obvious interpol ...[text shortened]... I'm happy to debate it with you, because I'm interested in
the topic either way.
Nemesio
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 Biblical accounts, describing many many events, parabels and other stories were exactly the same without any contradictions or other inconsistencies. In my view these inconsistencies, contradictions are indications for the genuine, sincere and trustworthy character of the four Gospels. It raises their credibility instead of reducing it, as you are suggesting.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by NemesioIvanH: "There is indeed slim extra-Biblical evidence for the historical person called Jesus Christ ..... but the fact is and remains: There is ! "
The four versions of the Gospel have a vested interest in Jesus's existence.
Their details are inconsistent and some places irreconcilable. This brings
their testimony into question.
As for the other sources, they are few and far between, barely a blip on
the radar screen -- Josephus being the strongest (that is, once you remove
the obvious interpol ...[text shortened]... g but
slim, Ivanhoe. I'm happy to debate it with you, because I'm interested in
Nemesio
Nemesio: "As such, I don't see how you could claim that the evidence is anything but
slim, Ivanhoe. I'm happy to debate it with you, because I'm interested in .... "
I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding here.
I repeat: The extra-Biblical evidence is indeed slim, but the fact is and remains: "It is there".
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt depends on what the inconsistencies are. Inconsistent testimony of murder witnesses can destroy credibility of one of the witnesses. Too much incongruity makes it look like one of them is lying.
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 Biblical accounts, describing many many events, parabels and other stories were exactly the same without any contradictions or ...[text shortened]... f the four Gospels. It raises their credibility instead of reducing it, as you are suggesting.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is actually an excellent point; eyewitnesses who agree on every detail are almost invariably coached. It is also an interesting contrast with Darfius' insistence that every word of the Bible must be unfailingly and literally true; this leads him to the absurd lengths he goes to attempt to bring into harmony even minor inconsistencies which really have no theological significance. A more reasonable view of the Gospels that they were written by men decades apart and thus differences will creep in, does make them more credible. Point to you, 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.
28 Feb 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemNow eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable of ALL direct evidence as psychological studies have shown the extremely fallable character of human memory and the susceptibility of human beings to post-event suggestion and influences.
It depends on what the inconsistencies are. Inconsistent testimony of murder witnesses can destroy credibility of one of the witnesses. Too much incongruity makes it look like one of them is lying.