RE: Objective evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ?
March 31, 2015 at 11:42 pm
(This post was last modified: March 31, 2015 at 11:44 pm by DeistPaladin.)
I treat religious propaganda with greater skepticism than I treat political propaganda.
Historists will complain that our knowledge of nearly everyone in the ancient world is sketchy and relies upon biased sources. This may be true but testimony that comes to us from religious tracts ought to be treated with a higher standard of skepticism for two important reasons:
1. The problems of pseudo-epigraphy and outright deception abounded with religious tracts from the ancient world. If you wanted to advance a religious idea, simply "discover" a letter from an older authority like Paul (half of his missives are considered by scholars to be "inauthentic"). These tracts were further subject to changes as theology changed, most notably in the resurrection story of Mark 16.
2. Political propaganda is always, on some level, rooted in real events in the real world. If I were marooned on a desert island with only Fox "News" as my source of information for the last 6 years, I would have a distorted view of the world but at least I would be in command of certain basic facts. I would know that Obama was president, for example. Religious propaganda, by contrast, has no such restriction. It could be completely made up bullshit and most likely is anyway, since the main topic at hand is imaginary deities, magic and fairy tales.
Besides, this entire argument from Historists essentially boils down to "Aw, gee whiz, whaddya want. It's not like we have any information on anyone from ancient times who wasn't an emperor." This is what I like to call a "yes but" answer. "Yes, we have no information on The Historical Jesus but we don't have much on anyone else either."
So we have no information on The Historical Jesus then?
"Yes, but we have no information on anyone else either."
So we have no information on The Historical Jesus then.
Hence I'm a Jesus Mooter. If The Historical Jesus, whatever that even means, existed, we'll never know anything about him, certainly not enough to be able to separate fact from fiction with any degree of reliability.
I'm keen to know what we have within 20 years.
Historists will complain that our knowledge of nearly everyone in the ancient world is sketchy and relies upon biased sources. This may be true but testimony that comes to us from religious tracts ought to be treated with a higher standard of skepticism for two important reasons:
1. The problems of pseudo-epigraphy and outright deception abounded with religious tracts from the ancient world. If you wanted to advance a religious idea, simply "discover" a letter from an older authority like Paul (half of his missives are considered by scholars to be "inauthentic"). These tracts were further subject to changes as theology changed, most notably in the resurrection story of Mark 16.
2. Political propaganda is always, on some level, rooted in real events in the real world. If I were marooned on a desert island with only Fox "News" as my source of information for the last 6 years, I would have a distorted view of the world but at least I would be in command of certain basic facts. I would know that Obama was president, for example. Religious propaganda, by contrast, has no such restriction. It could be completely made up bullshit and most likely is anyway, since the main topic at hand is imaginary deities, magic and fairy tales.
Besides, this entire argument from Historists essentially boils down to "Aw, gee whiz, whaddya want. It's not like we have any information on anyone from ancient times who wasn't an emperor." This is what I like to call a "yes but" answer. "Yes, we have no information on The Historical Jesus but we don't have much on anyone else either."
So we have no information on The Historical Jesus then?
"Yes, but we have no information on anyone else either."
So we have no information on The Historical Jesus then.
Hence I'm a Jesus Mooter. If The Historical Jesus, whatever that even means, existed, we'll never know anything about him, certainly not enough to be able to separate fact from fiction with any degree of reliability.
(March 31, 2015 at 11:33 pm)Nestor Wrote: When you look at what constitutes our historical understanding of other figures based on written testimony, Josephus, Tacitus and dozens of various Christian works, all within 100 years of the supposed events, some within 20 years, it doesn't look that bad to me.
I'm keen to know what we have within 20 years.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
