Provisional nature of knowledge (dogma, religion, science)

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

If that's the case we may as well jettison all of ancient history -- the Romans, Greeks, all of it.

Not necessarily. Even if Socrates or Plato didn't exist, the thoughts attributed to them are still very viable and insightful. It seems to me that it matters less who said them than what was said. I could read and enjoy Shakespeare no matter who wrote it.

Whereas with Jesus, there seems to be more importance put on whether he was a real person, and whether it was actually the "son of God" who said the things he said. I agree with pretty much everything he said, but I am not a Christian because I don't believe he was the son of God or any of the other stuff that's involved.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

If that's the case we may as well jettison all of ancient history -- the Romans, Greeks, all of it.

It is rational to to assume that Aristotle existed, after all he is mentioned in connection with Alexander the Great. Supposedly as far as those same sources go, Aristotle is connected to other philosophers in a chain of academic descent. So it is most rational to assume he existed Occam's Razor, inh its original form which acknowledges God, or in it's more contemporary corollary.

Same goes for Jesus.

Zip Zop, another clean shave.


Regards,
Scott

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Not necessarily. Even if Socrates or Plato didn't exist, the thoughts attributed to them are still very viable and insightful. It seems to me that it matters less who said them than what was said. I could read and enjoy Shakespeare no matter who wrote it.

Whereas with Jesus, there seems to be more importance put on whether he was a real person, and whether it was actually the "son of God" who said the things he said. I agree with pretty much everything he said, but I am not a Christian because I don't believe he was the son of God or any of the other stuff that's involved.

The issue between logician and I is the very existence of a guy named Jesus of Nazareth. I'm claiming that if we say we can't affirm Jesus' existence because the evidence is too scant, we must also say the same about Ceasar, Alexander the Great, or any other ancient figure of any degree of fame whatsoever. Indeed, the problems for all other ancient figures is much worse than for Jesus. That is, if textual criticism is any indication.....

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

The issue between logician and I is the very existence of a guy named Jesus of Nazareth. I'm claiming that if we say we can't affirm Jesus' existence because the evidence is too scant, we must also say the same about Ceasar, Alexander the Great, or any other ancient figure of any degree of fame whatsoever. Indeed, the problems for all other ancient figures is much worse than for Jesus. That is, if textual criticism is any indication.....

Actually, there is a much better case for the existence of Alexander the Great, Caesar and the others. There is much more evidence of their existence than of Jesus's. And my point still stands. Whether or not Caesar existed doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. If he didn't, it has no effect on us today. If Jesus didn't exist, or even if he did but wasn't who you think he was, it would affect us even now. So, the problem with Jesus is that even if you prove that a person named Jesus existed, you still then have to prove that he was the son of God.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Actually, there is a much better case for the existence of Alexander the Great, Caesar and the others. There is much more evidence of their existence than of Jesus's. And my point still stands. Whether or not Caesar existed doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. If he didn't, it has no effect on us today. If Jesus didn't exist, or even if he did but wasn't who you think he was, it would affect us even now. So, the problem with Jesus is that even if you prove that a person named Jesus existed, you still then have to prove that he was the son of God.

The claim that the textual evidence is superior for ancient figures other than Jesus is superior to that for Jesus is entirely false. Objectively so. The textual evidence for Jesus is both more numerous and closer in time to the events recorded than any other ancient person we know.

The importance of the existence of Caesar is that his existence explains certain things. The same for Jesus. His existence (and particularly the picture we have of him in the gospels) makes more sense of history (and the shape and content of the gospels themselves) than his nonexistence. This is simply what historians do.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

The claim that the textual evidence is superior for ancient figures other than Jesus is superior to that for Jesus is entirely false. Objectively so. The textual evidence for Jesus is both more numerous and closer in time to the events recorded than any other ancient person we know.

The importance of the existence of Caesar is that his existence explains certain things. The same for Jesus. His existence (and particularly the picture we have of him in the gospels) makes more sense of history (and the shape and content of the gospels themselves) than his nonexistence. This is simply what historians do.

Yes, but it didn't have to be Caesar. It could have been anybody that did what he did. If it wasn't Alexander the Great who accomplished what happened, then someone else, or some other people did. The only important part is that that stuff happened, not who did it. In Jesus's case, the important part is that it was this person called Jesus who did this stuff and who was more than just a person.

For instance, if Shakespeare was a woman named Jill Smith, it wouldn't lessen the works we have by her. If Alexander the Great was actually three different people, and things didn't happen quite the way history books say, things are still exactly how they are today. The same cannot be said for Jesus. If he was actually more than one person, and things didn't happen the way the Bible says, then it changes everything for most Christians.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Yes, but it didn't have to be Caesar. It could have been anybody that did what he did. If it wasn't Alexander the Great who accomplished what happened, then someone else, or some other people did. The only important part is that that stuff happened, not who did it. In Jesus's case, the important part is that it was this person called Jesus who did this stuff and who was more than just a person.

For instance, if Shakespeare was a woman named Jill Smith, it wouldn't lessen the works we have by her. If Alexander the Great was actually three different people, and things didn't happen quite the way history books say, things are still exactly how they are today. The same cannot be said for Jesus. If he was actually more than one person, and things didn't happen the way the Bible says, then it changes everything for most Christians.

If I take that to be true, how's it relevant to the case we're discussing?