Did Jesus actually exist?

[IHaveTheGift]

Please delete thread, way off topic, sorry about that.
will do my best to keep stuff under wrap

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suggest that you use the forum's search facilities and read through the many, many threads addressing historicity.

 

[steeltoes]

Does anyone really care if Jesus actually existed, I mean, it was two thousand years ago?

 

[technomage]

Does anyone really care if Jesus actually existed, I mean, it was two thousand years ago?

Well, obviously there are still people who care, and who still consider the question to be relevant. From my point of view, the existence of the Church (in all its various permutations) has a lot more historical impact.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not really important whether he literally existed in some sense, but the character described in the Bible sure sounds like a fictional one.

 

[fantome profane]

Ok, from the first video. Richard Dawkins wrote in the "God Delusion" something like "it is under scholarly dispute that Jesus did actually exist" (from the video, I didn't look it up).

The fact is that the overwhelming consensus among historians is that there was a historical Jesus. There are however a very small minority of historians who dispute this.

So did Dawkins lie? Or did he exaggerate? Or did he simply make a mistake? I see no evidence that he engaged in a deliberate deception. He is not a historian, and the book was not about the history of Jesus. I believe he made a mistake, nothing more than that.

The rest of the video is a long drawn out ad hominem.

 

[technomage]

So did Dawkins lie? Or did he exaggerate? Or did he simply make a mistake? I see no evidence that he engaged in a deliberate deception.

"God Delusion" is an extended exercise in rhetoric--an attempt at persuasive writing. As such, it was fairly effective. Even those who were not persuaded were engaged in the conversation.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Ok, from the first video. Richard Dawkins wrote in the "God Delusion" something like "it is under scholarly dispute that Jesus did actually exist" (from the video, I didn't look it up).

The fact is that the overwhelming consensus among historians is that there was a historical Jesus. There are however a very small minority of historians who dispute this.

So did Dawkins lie? Or did he exaggerate? Or did he simply make a mistake? I see no evidence that he engaged in a deliberate deception. He is not a historian, and the book was not about the history of Jesus. I believe he made a mistake, nothing more than that.

The rest of the video is a long drawn out ad hominem.

From his reply to Lennox, its obvious he knew what he was writing in the book.
He even said "I dont care"
BTW, he still says it the other way around when giving speeches.
You are wrong on that, he knew he misled in the book.

and ad hominems are over exaggerating, they used real historian text.
That sort of data would be allowed in a court of law.
Its real evidence.

"God Delusion" is an extended exercise in rhetoric--an attempt at persuasive writing. As such, it was fairly effective. Even those who were not persuaded were engaged in the conversation.

So, did Dawkins exaggerate or was he totally upfront?

 

[fantome profane]

From his reply to Lennox, its obvious he knew what he was writing in the book.
He even said "I dont care"
BTW, he still says it the other way around when giving speeches.
You are wrong on that, he knew he misled in the book.

and ad hominems are over exaggerating, they used real historian text.
That sort of data would be allowed in a court of law.
Its real evidence.

Saying he didn't care is not evidence that he deliberately misled. It is only evidence that he considers the question unimportant. If he is still saying this, please provide evidence of that. If you have any evidence to suggest that he knew that what he said was incorrect before he wrote the book, please present that.

And calling him an idiot is an ad hominem. This is what bothers me about these debates about Dawkins (and he has been debated on this board ad nauseam) is that it is about slamming Dawkins personally, not about facts, not about evidence.

If this was about facts and evidence then it would be enough to say that the scholarly consensus is that Jesus did exist. But obviously this is not sufficient for the OP. The first video there needs to personally attack Richard Dawkins.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, did Dawkins exaggerate or was he totally upfront?

First of all:

If the purpose of your thread is to attack/expose Dawkins, why title it "Did Jesus actually exist?" rather than "Did Dawkins actually lie?"​

As for the question:

In my opinion, it was rhetorical overreach, and to insist that it was more than that is little more than ad hominem.​

 

[fantome profane]

First of all:

If the purpose of your thread is to attack/expose Dawkins, why title it "Did Jesus actually exist?" rather than "Did Dawkins actually lie?"​

As for the question:

In my opinion, it was rhetorical overreach, and to insist that it was more than that is little more than ad hominem.​

Speaking of rhetorical overreach, from the second video (the first of the 4 part series) we get the statement "there is much more Jesus's existence than there is for almost any important or famous person of that time." If I was unkind I could call that statement a lie. I won't. It is an exaggeration, a rhetorical overreach.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

First of all:

If the purpose of your thread is to attack/expose Dawkins, why title it "Did Jesus actually exist?" rather than "Did Dawkins actually lie?"​

As for the question:

In my opinion, it was rhetorical overreach, and to insist that it was more than that is little more than ad hominem.​

No, its obvious he lied, just wanted to see what you thought.
Obvious an atheist will still defend him, lmfao...
I used his video to help show what historians said.
There is other reasons I put his video in too,
Its in the other videos on how they show that Jesus existed, by those that lied about his existence.
Sort of like what Dawkins did, adds merit.
Plus in a diff thread, I was asked for the video, so I killed two bird with one stone. :yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

What a jaundiced perception, Gift.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What a jaundiced perception, Gift.

I completely agree.

 

[fantome profane]

Obvious an atheist will still defend him, lmfao...

Textbook example of an ad hominem attack. Thank you.

 

[Scimitar]

Dawkins is an idiot.

He talks about empirical evidence to lend weight to his theories, yet when christians provide empirical evidence for the existence of jesus, he calls it questionable - what a complete nincompoop.

And before you all ask "what empirical evidence"?

well, over the course of history, many documents have been unearthed which attest to his existence.

And some which are not even accepted by the catholic church.

With evidence abundant in the written record, which both, the eastern churches and the catholic ones are in ownership of - it's hypocritical of Dawkins to claim that there no such evidence for the existence of Jesus.

So think, there are two opposing denominations who at odds with the "nature of jesus", and not his existence - why? Why would these two groups make such a fuss over a man if he didn't exist?

And can a non existing man affect global society as much as jesus has done?

Think about that alone - and you'll see that dawkins is a real idiot.

Which leads me to my second point.

By Dawkings standard, he'd want to know where Jesus' body would be - yet christians and muslims alike believe that he is in heaven body and spirit, and will return - so his demands would be unacceptable anyway, but let's for the sake of argument say a body was produced and it was claimed it was jesus - and lets say for arguments sake that this body actually is the body of jesus - you know what dawkins will say next?

"this proves only that this body belonged to a man who was alive 2000 years ago"

So really, why are we even talking to brick walls, I mean, he has ears which don't listen, and has eyes that don't see properly either.

I liken him to a mule. he carries a burden he cannot shed, and so be it, let him wallow in his grayness.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Dawkins is an idiot. …

...what a complete nincompoop.

… you'll see that dawkins is a real idiot.

… I liken him to a mule. he carries a burden he cannot shed, and so be it, let him wallow in his grayness.

According to Wikipedia: "Mules exhibit a higher cognitive intelligence than their parent species." But thanks for sharing.

 

[LuisDantas]

And can a non existing man affect global society as much as jesus has done?

Sure. Lack of actual existence can often be a bonus. It adds to the myth and empowers people to project their own expectations. Sometimes it also creates a resistance to questioning.

Think about that alone - and you'll see that dawkins is a real idiot.

That puts me in good company, then.

Would you happen to have some of that evidence ready at hand? I never heard of any real evidence for Jesus' existence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(and here we go &#8230

 

[Sunstone]

Just out of curiosity, where in The God Delusion does Dawkins say, "it is under scholarly dispute that Jesus did actually exist"? I'd like to see the context for that remark.