www.jesusmythbusters.com

[James Hannam]

Apr 21, 2010 16:01:37 GMT peterdamian said:

That is clearer, and apologies.

My fault. Work is busy at the moment (in a good way) but quickly shifting focus from corporate restructuring to historiography at high speed is not something I recommend....

Best wishes

James

[unkleE]

Apr 21, 2010 10:21:43 GMT perplexedseeker said:

Another way of putting this would be, suppose that you are convinced based on philosophical arguments, beyond all reasonable doubt, that metaphysical naturalism is false and that the supernatural is real. You therefore accept the possibility that miracles, perhaps even violations of the laws of nature, can take place. So far, so good.

G'day PS, I guess you were addressing this to me? So much has happened on this thread overnight - 2 extra pages no less!

However, you now have an additional problem to tackle. You also know that humans are prone to inventing fantastic tales, or misinterpreting unusual phenomena as divine intervention. Indeed, if one is a Christian exclusivist (not that I am implying you are, if you are not one), then this must play an important part in explaining the existence of other religions.

For the record, I think I am a mild inclusivist.

What reason, therefore, would you have for accepting the veracity of miracles reported in the religious literature of any one tradition, and not others? Clearly they would have to meet a burden of proof that the others did not. If you can give reasons why the Resurrection meets this and no other competing miracles do, then fair enough.

I have no preference for believing the present day miracles of one tradition rather than the other, a priori, though I would certainly have in individual cases, based on the evidence or plausibility of the alleged miracle. But of course the resurrection and other Gospel miracles are a different matter.

The resurrection and other miracles of Jesus are different because they were allegedly performed by someone who I have reason to believe was divine. I therefore have both reason to believe it is quite possible that he did miracles and quite unlikely that he was being deceptive, two things I am much less certain of in all present day cases. It is also better attested than most miracle claims, though I have seen a few present day claims that are very well attested.

But what if, having set an acceptable burden of proof, after a thorough investigation, you find that multiple miracles do meet this burden, but originate from religious traditions which make incompatible truth-claims dependent on these miracles. How, then do you decide which really happened?

I think this is the most important point (and what you were leading up to). And my first response is to say that apart from the resurrection (which is integral to my and most christians' understanding of christianity), I don't have to "decide which really happened". I can, and am happy to, remain in a state of doubt about many alleged miracles. It does me no harm! : )

Secondly, I have no difficulty believing that the one true God has granted miracles to all sorts of people in all sorts of traditions - common grace and the rain falling on the just and unjust alike, and all that.

Thirdly, I believe in spiritual evil. I have some problems with some aspects of belief in the devil, but in the end I think it is an essential part of christian belief (certainly of Jesus' belief), even if taken to unhelpful extremes by some christians. So I can also believe that counterfeit miracles are possible.

Finally, I don't think obvious miracles are as common as some people claim, or as I might expect from the NT. (I think, tentatively, that God wants us to be more autonomous from him in some respects, not dependent on the miraculous, though dependent on his Spirit.) So I tend to treat most miracle claims with a healthy dose of scepticism.

In the end, apart from the resurrection, etc, I don't think it is one of the really important questions. Getting on with following Jesus in the way we live is more important, and he gave us some quite clear instructions (love your enemies, share with others, don't judge, trust God, etc).

Best wishes.

[unkleE]

Apr 21, 2010 13:23:54 GMT peterdamian said:

You ask at the end where the discussion is going. I think our disagreement is not about logic (which is my only real interest).

I guess this clarifies things a lot. I think logic is a tool to knowing truths which I definitely want to know correctly if I can. I don't think I am probably up to all the subtleties of formal logic, though I did study it for a year once back in the Dark Ages of my youth.

Which is more miraculous: that a dead man came to life and escaped a guarded tomb, or that someone made up the whole story?

It surely depends on the context. If it was Adolf Hitler or Joe Bloggs, then probably I'd believe the story was made up. But as it was Jesus who made plausible claims to be God's Messiah, it changes things, and I and many others are prepared to go with the miracle as the better explanation. As I've said before, I think you ignore context a little.

There are several of these. There is Anselm's ontological argument, there is the Kalam or causal argument. There is the argument from design. The first two are reckoned by most philosophers to be defective. On the third, it is commonly supposed that Darwin refutes it.

I have only read a little on this, but I think a fair summary of the state of play is that none of the formal proofs have been proven, but none have been totally falsified either. (Therefore "defective" may be a misleading word.). Belief in them is more a matter of opinion, and opinions vary widely. That is why the trend is to "arguing to the best explanation", about probability and the use of Bayesian statistics.

So that is why I say that I think the matters raised by the "proofs" lead me to conclude that God's existence and creative activity is a much more probable explanation of the universe than any of the others. Or, to put it in a more Bayesian way, if there was no God, I'd expect the universe to not exist, and if it did exist, I'd expect it to be chaotic and short-lived. But if a creator God exists, I wouldn't know what to expect, but an intricately designed universe would be quite consistent. And those statements point me quite clearly to a best conclusion.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. As usual, even short discussions help me to consider new aspects of it all. Best wishes.

[wraggy]

Tim, I am aware that you are busy. But is it possible that you could give us a revised update on when this site will be in operation?

I am looking forward to seeing it up and running.

[rtaylor]

I don't think Jesus ever existed any more than the god Zeus existed.
I also don't believe that the god of the ancient Jews existed either. He was just a local tribal god. A savage, fearsome god. Or perhaps it is better to say that the believers of this god where savage and fearsome people. As they still are to this day, as we can see by the history of Christianity and the behaviour of Islamic fundamentalists even now.
They all worship the god whose name is Jealous. Exodus 34.14.
Believers in this god are potential persecutors of non-believers.
The chapter in the bible called 'Revelation' is all about Jesus coming back to earth to destroy all non-believers. By force.
Where is the God of Love?

[gymnopodie]

I don't think Jesus ever existed any more than the god Zeus existed.

Historians have more than sufficient evidence of Jesus existence. Are you talking about Jesus as a god or Jesus as a man?

[rtaylor]

Jesus, the man, who was , according to the bible born of a virgin, claimed as the divine son of the God of the Jews. Supposed to have performed many miracles in his lifetime, before being cruelly killed and then coming back to life again after 3 days. Then, sometime later, accending into heaven to sit at the right hand side of the God of the Jews.This is a mythical story. It has no basis in fact.
The God of the Jews is itself a myth. No more real than any of the other ideas about God that man has so far come up with.
History tells us that people have had Faith in these myths and that is all. There is no actual evidence that proves the story of Jesus is true or that the god who is supposed to be his father ever existed.

[gymnopodie]

History tells us that people have had Faith in these myths and that is all. There is no actual evidence that proves the story of Jesus is true

There is clear historical evidence of Jesus' existence. If you choose not to accept that evidence, that is your choice, but to blatantly say there is none is preposterous. Virtually every historian in every university in North America and Europe accepts the existing evidence of an historical Jesus.

[rtaylor]

The easy way to stop all discussion is to say either, it is preposterous to dis-agree, or that you are insulted by what has been said. End of discussion.
There is , as far as I know, no real evidence for the existence of the man known as Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. There may well have been people who claimed to be the new messiah but there can only be one Jesus, who was born of a virgin, did many wonderous things, was cruelly put to death and then rose again on the third day, to take his place in heaven, sitting on the right hand side of God, Creator of the universe. All of this is supposed to have happened during the reign of the emporor Augustus.
To believe in the story of Jesus I must believe in angels and demons and other such hypostases. I must believe in the previous existence of Abraham. Moses and even Jonah ,being swallowed whole by a big fish and spat out again three days later, still alive.
No evidence required. Non available. Its in the book so it must be true.
You say that virtually every historian accepts the evidence for the existence of Jesus. In every university. Perhaps those who do not accept the evidence don't get employed in universities.
The academics are just as afraid of being ridiculed and loosing their name as most other people. Darwin sat on his ideas for about 20 years, for fear of upsetting the status quo.
He only published because someone else was about to publish the same theory as him.
Show me the clear historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
The one man in history who could perhaps have given us the evidence never did.
That was Constantine. The first Holy Roman Emporer. All he had to do was to go into the Roman Archives and dig out the paperwork from the reign of Augustus. The trail in front of Pilate would surely still be in the archives.
But it probably never actually happened. The trail, that is.
Its true that Constantine existed. We do have the evidence for that. He was of course a bloody tyrant, responsible for the deaths of various members of his own family, before converting to Roman Catholicism. Even after his conversion he was able to carry on being a bloody tyrant. He ordered the death of his former Pagan priest, Sopater, and then destroyed, by force, pagan temples through-out his domain. Ordering the burning of any books that where not Christian, and putting to death those who objected.
Christianity was born in bloodshed and violence.

[noons]

All you've been doing, in just about every post, is respond with sweeping assertions, blunt statements, and a general lack of understanding of the subject matter.

When you state that in order to believe that the man Jesus existed, you also have to believe all the stories from the Old and New Testaments, you either ignore are unaware of the range of theories concerning Jesus and history. Are you aware that there are many historians who have published many books claiming that the New Testament was inspired by a real spiritual leader called Jesus? The claims of miracles and the resurrection are a matter of faith, but that there was a real historical figure behind the New Testament is undisputed.

I don't know much about Constantine, but killing off political threats seemed to be par for the course in the Roman Empire.

[gymnopodie]

There is , as far as I know, no real evidence for the existence of the man known as Jesus

It's never too late to educate yourself.

To believe in the story of Jesus I must believe in angels and demons and other such hypostases.

There are tales told of virtually every historical person. It is up to the historian to sort through what is plausible. Certainly no historian believes that everything written about every historical person is infallible.

You say that virtually every historian accepts the evidence for the existence of Jesus. In every university. Perhaps those who do not accept the evidence don't get employed in universities.

Perhaps not. Why would universities be interested in hiring those who perpetuate crackpot conspiracy theories?

The academics are just as afraid of being ridiculed and loosing their name as most other people.

Tenured professors have little to worry about ridicule.

Show me the clear historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.

I'm not your secretary; go to a library. There's been enough written to keep you busy for years.

Its true that Constantine existed. We do have the evidence for that.

And what evidence is that?

Christianity was born in bloodshed and violence.

What evidence do you have of Christians being violent during the first century of our common era?

[sandwiches]

You say that virtually every historian accepts the evidence for the existence of Jesus. In every university. Perhaps those who do not accept the evidence don't get employed in universities.

Perhaps there is a good reason such people do not get employed in Universities?

[rtaylor]

The potential for violence is always there. It is written into the Holy Scriptures of the Jews , the Christians and Islam. History tells us this. Believers of a Jealous God , Exodus 20.5, will, at some point try to impose their beliefs onto those who do not believe. We see it happening today with fundamentalist Islam. It happens too in Christianity . A couple of years back, in America a fundamentalist Christian shot dead a doctor and another member of his staff outside an abortion clinic. He was sentenced to death and said that he considered himself a martyr and thought that he was going to heaven. He had been demonstrating outside the abortion clinic for some time and felt that it was time take direct action. In the name of Jesus.
So he got himself a shotgun.
The bible quite clearly says that those who do not believe should be put to death.
Jesus himself was not the peaceful person that Christians like to portray him as.
I am usually accused of taking things out of context, such as the incident with the money changers, which was a pre-meditated attack by Jesus on people who did not believe quite the same things as he did.
The biggest sin as far as believers are concerned is non-belief. Indifference.

[turoldus]

Funny how the myther rhetoric parrots that of IDers.

[timoneill]

Sept 29, 2010 11:15:35 GMT rtaylor said:

Jesus himself was not the peaceful person that Christians like to portray him as.

This would be the Jesus who you also say didn't exist? You need to make your mind up about a few things pal.