RE: Ask one of Jehovah's Witnesses
June 10, 2015 at 8:38 pm
(This post was last modified: June 10, 2015 at 8:45 pm by Randy Carson.)
(June 10, 2015 at 9:41 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Historical Jesus' existence doesn't get you anywhere....just a reminder
(June 10, 2015 at 9:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Quick comment...and I'm late to work!
Considering you're posting from a PC and 2 hours ago you said you need to leave in 15 minutes, hell yea you're late.
Heh. Yeah, today I went to my office...then came home for a quick bite to eat and another quick post...then went to my other office for the day.
I understand how that could look confusing.
(June 10, 2015 at 11:05 am)robvalue Wrote:(June 10, 2015 at 9:35 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Rob-
Quick comment...and I'm late to work!
I spent a couple of hours reading all of the threads in which Tim O'Neill has posted. Every post.
I have to say, he covered a lot of ground and answered a lot of questions that pop up here over and over and over...some were yours, of course.
If you have not reviewed that recently, it might be interesting for you to go back and re-read all of that again.
He's an atheist. No question about that. But he argues for the historical Jesus brilliantly.
Yes, I did just that when he turned up and I made an ass out of myself the other day. He does generally make a good case, and I remember now that it was him who convinced me there was something to the HJ case. Before that I thought there was absolutely nothing to it. I don't agree with everything he says, but he made some valid points.
Cool!
(June 10, 2015 at 11:38 am)whateverist Wrote: Rob, can you explain to me why the question of Jesus having been a historical person from around that time should make any difference to me? I'm willing to concede that so that we can get on to the more interesting question of what reason there is to subscribe to the divinity claims.
(June 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't think it should make any difference to you at all
I mean, I suppose if you don't accept there ever was a single person who the story is based on, then there can't also be a magical version of that person either. But conceding a historical person makes no difference towards the supernatural claims, other than to stop the squabbling over this moot point. I guess this is why christians fight so hard to make this case, because it is a requirement... but then they often stop, as if establishing a historical Jesus is enough to just believe the rest of the drivel.
The story seems to me to be almost entirely mythical in nature, so to say it is "based on" a real person means almost nothing. It may as well not be. "Inspired by" would be more accurate! We can confirm a handful of facts, at best. The rest of the gospels are just hearsay rumour-mill talk.
That is my take on it all anyway! I'm even willing to concede Jesus said and did everything as described in the bible for the sake of argument, except the supernatural stuff. It all makes no difference. That last hurdle is impossible. Personally, to conclude that the whole story didn't at some point borrow elements from another real person seems very difficult, but I don't need to worry about that when facing supernatural arguments. I can hand over everything else, just as I did in the reliability of the NT thread.
Well, hang on...
If Jesus is PURE myth, then there is no reason for anyone to pay another moment's attention to him, agreed?
But if He was a real person, then you have to ask what we do and do not know of him, and you have to consider the possibility, however remote, that there was some reason for the disciples to believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Why did they do this?
There might be an explanation that does not require magic...but then you need to know what that explanation is...in light of ALL the best arguments and evidence. Simply arguing against the weakest claims of Christianity won't do at all.
If, and I know this is truly a long shot, but if you cannot come up with a reasonable alternative to magic, well, magic it is.
