Reply to If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Without wading through 37 pages of stuff, is there anyone (Christian, Jew, atheist or otherwise) who doesn't believe Jesus was a historical figure?[/quote]

I don’t know if he - or if he didn’t.

No evidence.

Seems likely, but we don’t know definitively. 
[/quote]

I think you're confusing "evidence" with "evidence that's totally convincing." The letters of Paul are evidence, the Gospels are evidence, the non-controversial reference to Jesus in Josephus is evidence, as are the references in Pliny and Tacitus. It's likely that none of them are first hand evidence, but "someone told me a Jewish teacher named Jesus existed and was crucified" suggests that it is likely that such a man did exist. Even in a court of law, hearsay IS evidence, it's just not generally admissible evidence. There's evidence, even if it's not conclusive evidence.[/quote]

DP here, and you are correct that the evidence is not totally convincing.

- [b]Using the Bible as evidence that the bible is true is begging the question.[/b]

- Josephus is widely considered a forgery: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7437

- Pliny and Tacitus were around a century after Jesus, not contemporaneous.

[/quote]

Why is it begging the question? It’s second-hand accounts probably based on sayings/quelle passed down for a few decades. Pretty much the same thing happened with our knowledge of Socrates, but you wouldn’t dismiss Socrates out of hand just because we only know him through Plato.

Also, you’d need to come up with a convincing alternative explanation for the gospels and Paul. Waving your hands and complaining about the patriarchy doesn’t work when you’re talking about early believers who, instead of controlling things, were killed for their faith.[/quote]

Because using a book to prove what is written in that same book is the definition of begging the question.[/quote]

You don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “begging the question” or the role of second-hand evidence in law. You’d be more credible if you used terms like “second-hand source” and “hearsay,” but you won’t use these terms because they imply there could possibly be something behind them.

What’s your alternative explanation? Who do you think wrote the gospels, and why?[/quote]

I understand what begging the question is perfectly.

[i]Begging the question is when you use the point you’re trying to prove as an argument to prove that very same point. Rather than proving the conclusion is true, it assumes it. It’s also called circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.[/i]

https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-begging-the-question/[/quote]

Sigh. It would be convenient for you to toss out all four gospels and Paul as evidence for Jesus. That’s not how evidence works. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics