dag hammarsjkold wrote:It seems to me that a good starting point for this thread is whether or not Jesus even existed. That's why I started where I did and outlined more than reasonable evidence that he did exist. Downplaying the evidence or dismissing it seems dishonest to me.
In other words, if people disagree with you, they are liars. Thanks for entering into the spirit of discussion with good faith...
Danivon:
You made a claim that logic, historicity and science could be used to explain it.
So long as you finish that sentence with "....explain it
as reasonable" yes, that's closer to what I said. And I believe this was in reference to the Resurrection if I'm not mistaken?[/quote]I can quote your exact words if you want. what you said was "historicity, science, logic and intellectual analysis are paramount to grounding Christianity's truth claims and not necessarily at odds with belief." Yes you added that belief must be reasonable.
So, what are the ways in which historicity, science, logic and intellectual analysis do ground Christianity's truth claims?
All you have demonstrated so far is that there is historical evidence that Jesus existed. Fine. I think the evidence is not as strong as it could be, as it's largely second hand once you go outside the Bible, but still, I agree that he probably did exist.
But Christianity's truth claims are far wider than the mere existence of a religious leader called Jesus, aren't they?
Your critique of the five sources strikes me as a tortured response. Suetonius use of "Chrestus" is commonly held by scholars to be a reference to Christ.
But not universally.
To imply that the Roman writers or Josephus or the writers of the Talmud didn't believe they were writing about a man who actually existed strikes me as irresponsible on your part.
Irresponsible? Why would, for example, Tacitus, need to have believed that Christ existed. All he needed to know is that the Christians who he was asking about the persecution of believed in him and that he existed as a person. Even then it's not clear - he describes how they worship a God called Christ.
...it no more proves Christianity.....
I have no idea what this means. Proves Christianity? My guess is you're referring to Christianity's truth claims? If so, agreed. If not, explain.
The truth claims you mentioned. The Resurrection. Divinity of Christ. Miracles. etc etc.
The fact that you've refrained from answering my question concerning "religious experience" and based on some of your responses to others on redscape my guess is that you are either an atheist or agnostic.
Technically I am both. I do not believe in any gods, and I don't think we can know whether gods exist or not.
The reason I asked in the first place was to suggest that "religious experience" plays a fundamental part in examining matters of faith. Your experience is a factor that needs to be considered alongside other evidence. Now how you go about explaining that experience is another affair entirely but to sweep the experiences of billions of people the world over aside down through the centuries because you're unable to place elements of a religions' truth claims under a microscope is a premature mistake I don't think anyone should make.
Just because millions of people believe something over hundreds of years does not make it true. For example, people used to believe various false things about the nature of Earth and its place in the universe such as:
The Earth is flat
The Earth is fixed in position and at the centre of the universe, the sun orbits the earth
The other planets do not have moons
The stars are fixed in place
all based on observation, traditional teachings, belief etc.
The Resurrection is reasonable and there is evidence for it but before jumping into that morass it's helpful for me to know my audience. You see I was not necessarily surprised when I read your response....
So, now you have worked out where I stand... what is the evidence for the Resurrection? I'd be especially interested in examples from without the Bible.
Such a response can be fairly typical of someone who has never undergone a "spiritual experience," let alone an experience of the Resurrected Christ in a personal way. Not understanding why there would be a connection to the question and answers is sometimes indicative of that fact that such a person has never entered into a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus. Such a person has heard the words to the old spiritual 'Amazing Grace' but doesn't "get" the words in a personal or life altering way.
Indeed. but I still don't understand how this stops you from presenting the scientific and logical/intellectual analyses. We may, due to our different perspectives, set different bars on the strength of those needed to give 'reasonable' grounds, but that does not seem to prevent you from starting to give us the skinny on the science.
I know.....at this point I can hear the laughter all the way from here but that kind of experience is important evidence that can not be dismissed outright or without some robust discussion on what exactly that phenomenon seems to be for billions of Christians the world over. Or, as applied to other particular faith traditions, the phenomenon of a life altering experience of something beyond the self. Mass hypnosis? Or as Sassenach I think suggested earlier, some biological need to explain existence? Whatever it is, there has been enough of the opiate over the past who knows how many thousands of years to suggest it be taken a little more seriously than a one sentence dismissal presupposing ironically, absolute certainty.
Buddhism and Hinduism are older. Does this mean that they are more, or less 'true' than Chiristianity? After all, both are also full of people who have had spiritual experiences and potentially have influenced more people over time.
For as easy as it is for you to dismiss the experience of the risen Jesus as fairytale it's just as easy for me to dismiss “thinking” or “science” as moveable goalposts and do so alongside some of the world's most formidable modern philosophers
If you want to dismiss 'thinking', let alone 'science', then we need
including but not limited to:
Jacques Derrida – Deconstruction Theory
Ah, so we are going Post Modern? Derrida is less a philosopher than a literary critic, to be honest.
Karl Popper – Falsification Theory
Do you understand what this means? It means that things that are not falsifiable cannot be dealt with scientifically. So if you cannot falsify, say, Ressurection, then there is
no scientific method that can be used to 'ground' it. Accordingly, there is no way it can be made more or less 'reasonable'.
Thomas Kuhn – scientific research within historical frameworks
yes, he explained the idea of paradigm-shift. He also does indeed address subjective views, but more in the context of science, not in the context of introducing non-scientific ideas into theoru.
Paul Feyerabend – all science is theoretical
Feyerabend directly challenged and disavowed the falsification that Popper embraces, so putting the together as you have confuses me. See Karl Popper - theories are not the same as conjecture. "Theory" in science has a tighter definition than in normal usage.
Theordore Adorno – Dialectic of Enlightenment
Dialectics are dangerous things, intellectually. They quite easily run off into cul-de-sacs without the adherents realising (cf. Marxism). Adorno was a sociologist primarily, anyway.
If my response has struck any of you as overly off the deep end (and I'm sure it has) I am happy to leave this thread be. It would save me a lot of time. But can we please stop with the “Jesus didn't exist business?” or that there is “no evidence” to suggest he existed? I'd appreciate that. This group is typically too clever to dismiss agreed upon scholarship.
Not all scholarship is agreed on (especially if you actually do accept Derrida or Adorno or Feyerabend). Just saying it is 'agreed' does not make it so. My observations on the sources you presented were not plucked from thin air - I looked them up starting with Wikipedia.
Anyway, let's assume Jesus did exist. What further evidence is there, what logic and intellectual analysis and what historical evidence is there for the Resurrection?