Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[bhsmte]

If archaeologists were to one day find the remains of a man they had confidently identified as Jesus of Nazareth, that would indeed provide strong evidence for Jesus' historicity. But it would also undermine claims concerning his divinity. Establishing the historicity of Jesus does not automatically establish his divinity, even though the case for the latter depends on the former.

In this case, some folks would leave Christianity, but others, would simply adjust their beliefs and claim Jesus received a new body, when he was resurrected.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree.

So why discuss the historicity of Jesus? Obviously, you don't consider their existence as evidence for the supernatural claims.

 

[bhsmte]

The only reason I'm asking you why you're bringing this up, is I don't particularly care about Ehrman...I doubt his intellectual honesty. He commits some rather massive logical errors, like the ones I pointed out, and when these are shown to him...he ignores or repeats them. He seems well researched, except when it comes to Jesus mythicism...in his book on that he looks rather idiotic.

I understand why too...he's made a living writing to christians about Jesus. To accept where current scholarship is going on this would be the same as admitting he's been wrong all these years.

Also, why do you keep bringing up that he isn't christian? You do realize that kind of intellectual honesty only goes one way...right? Any christian scholar who comes to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist probably won't be a christian for very long lol.

The one thing about Ehrman, he has shown an ability to change his view point and in a big way. Going from evangelical Christian (and pastor), to a moderate Christian, to a liberal Christian, to an agnostic, proves he accepts new information, when it is compelling to him.

Now, in regards to the whole Jesus historicity, there may be some pride involved with admitting the evidence is not as strong as he has claimed, but there may be a day where he changes course on this, if he follows his previous path and discovers new compelling evidence and or arguments.

 

[anonymous person]

So why discuss the historicity of Jesus? Obviously, you don't consider their existence as evidence for the supernatural claims.

I don't consider Jesus' existence as evidence for His supernatural claims either. I see it as evidence that there was a historical figure who was said to have done amazing things, who is recorded as having spoken with authority, made Himself equal with God, died under Pontius Pilate at the instigation of the jealous religious leaders of His time, and was witnessed alive by hundreds of people after having been buried. We even have record of His enemies affirming His body was not in the tomb, but missing.

There is no gospel apart from a living, breathing, dying, and rising Christ. Christianity rests on God becoming incarnate and living among men. Dying in their stead, and rising for their justification. If only in this life we have hope of the resurrection we are among men, most to be pitied.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't consider Jesus' existence as evidence for His supernatural claims either. I see it as evidence that there was a historical figure who was said to have done amazing things, who is recorded as having spoken with authority, made Himself equal with God, died under Pontius Pilate at the instigation of the jealous religious leaders of His time, and was witnessed alive by hundreds of people after having been buried. We even have record of His enemies affirming His body was not in the tomb, but missing.

We also have witnesses who saw the Golden Tablets in the possession of Joseph Smith, and yet you probably don't accept the stories as true. Stories are not evidence.

There is no gospel apart from a living, breathing, dying, and rising Christ. Christianity rests on God becoming incarnate and living among men. Dying in their stead, and rising for their justification. If only in this life we have hope of the resurrection we are among men, most to be pitied.

It also rests on God being both moral and omnipotent, both of which I have shown to be false.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't consider Jesus' existence as evidence for His supernatural claims either. I see it as evidence that there was a historical figure who was said to have done amazing things, who is recorded as having spoken with authority, made Himself equal with God, died under Pontius Pilate at the instigation of the jealous religious leaders of His time, and was witnessed alive by hundreds of people after having been buried. We even have record of His enemies affirming His body was not in the tomb, but missing.

There is no gospel apart from a living, breathing, dying, and rising Christ. Christianity rests on God becoming incarnate and living among men. Dying in their stead, and rising for their justification. If only in this life we have hope of the resurrection we are among men, most to be pitied.

Seems like you have moved past discussing whether Jesus was a historical figure or not in this post and are now discussing what Jesus is supposed to have said and did.

I would imagine, you don't want to use Bart Ehrman, to discuss the historical credibility, in regards to what the gospels claim Jesus said and did?

 

[anonymous person]

The one thing about Ehrman, he has shown an ability to change his view point and in a big way. Going from evangelical Christian (and pastor), to a moderate Christian, to a liberal Christian, to an agnostic, proves he accepts new information, when it is compelling to him.

Now, in regards to the whole Jesus historicity, there may be some pride involved with admitting the evidence is not as strong as he has claimed, but there may be a day where he changes course on this, if he follows his previous path and discovers new compelling evidence and or arguments.

One thing God is working on me with is me treating people the way I would like to be treated and just loving people.

In my life I have sometimes seen Christians when talking with atheists, tell them that they were too proud, and that their pride was what was keeping them from becoming a Christian.

Sadly I myself have insinuated this before and outright said it.

I realize now that it is not my place to do this. If I were to disagree with someone, I would not want them to say of me that I did not agree with them because I was too proud. I would want them to be charitable to me and say rather, that we disagreed because we both had reasons that were compelling to us and we chose rather than speaking disparigingly of one another, to respectfully disagree and remain open to follow the truth wherever it leads.

I get nowhere accusing people who disagree with me of being too proud to "see the light" so to speak.

Even if I have good reasons to think someone is hindered from accepting my views because they are too proud to admit they are wrong, I choose to keep such views to myself and to remain charitable as I would want someone to be to me.

 

[Davian]

One thing God is working on me with is me treating people the way I would like to be treated and just loving people.

In my life I have sometimes seen Christians when talking with atheists, tell them that they were too proud, and that their pride was what was keeping them from becoming a Christian.

Sadly I myself have insinuated this before and outright said it.

I realize now that it is not my place to do this. If I were to disagree with someone, I would not want them to say of me that I did not agree with them because I was too proud. I would want them to be charitable to me and say rather, that we disagreed because we both had reasons that were compelling to us and we chose rather than speaking disparigingly of one another, to respectfully disagree and remain open to follow the truth wherever it leads.

I get nowhere accusing people who disagree with me of being too proud to "see the light" so to speak.

Even if I have good reasons to think someone is hindered from accepting my views because they are too proud to admit they are wrong, I choose to keep such views to myself and to remain charitable as I would want someone to be to me.

Rather than presuming what others think, and telling them, you will just keep it to yourself.

Will that make you less wrong?

 

[anonymous person]

Rather than presuming what others think, and telling them, you will just keep it to yourself.

Will that make you less wrong?

Wrong is wrong in God's eyes. It is my earnest desire not to fall into the trap of judging myself by some "sliding scale" of right and wrong. It is definitely, to be sure, easy to do.

Rather, I seek to remain moment by moment under the all seeing eye of God so that He might judge me and show me any wrong way in my thinking.

I desire to see Jesus' command to remove the speck from the eye as applying first and foremost to myself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well you see, it's not just Ehrman saying that the historicity of Jesus is a sure as any other person from antiquity. His view on the historicity of Jesus is representative of a consensus of relevant scholars.

In other words, the vast majority of scholars, atheists included, do not deny that Jesus was a historical person.

In other words we have atheists saying this.

The fact that we do would rebut the idea that the only people who defend the historicity of Jesus are Christians.

That's all I'm saying really.

I have never argued that the veracity of the two sources in question is not debated. It is debated by a few people.

Rather, I am telling you that it is a fact that there are scholars who are not Christians who affirm Tacitus and Josephus are reliable extra biblical sources for the historicity of Jesus.

This fact does NOT support your claim that the only historians who want to believe in a historical Jesus want to believe that Tacitus got this information from Roman records which he would have had access to.

Unless you want to argue that every atheist scholar who thinks Tacitus used Roman records thinks this because they want to believe in a historical Jesus. This is a view I would love to see you defend if it is one you hold.

This is funny...you just mentioned how you don't like appeals to popularity. Now you're making them.

In spite of your attempts to characterize this otherwise, more than "a few" scholars have doubts about the passage, both it's usefulness as evidence and it's status as genuine.

When did I make this absurd claim you're attributing to me? That only historians who want to believe in a historical Jesus believe in the Tacitus passage?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well notice, i am not concerned at the moment with arguing that the claims in the gospels are true. I am simply highlighting the fact that there are scholars who are not Christians that affirm that there are good reasons to think Tacitus did indeed use reliable sources when writing about Jesus.

This is a fact.

Just as there are scholars who are christians who believe the passage is entirely fake.

That is a fact.

You aren't going to address my argument are you?

 

[Davian]

Wrong is wrong in God's eyes.

I am still not clear on what is right or wrong in your theology. Does it not boil down to, anything goes, as long as you believe?

It is my earnest desire not to fall into the trap of judging myself by some "sliding scale" of right and wrong. It is definitely, to be sure, easy to do.

In the absence of some sort of objective morality, that is where you find yourself.

Rather, I seek to remain moment by moment under the all seeing eye of God so that He might judge me and show me any wrong way in my thinking.

And that feedback has been withheld prior to now?

I desire to see Jesus' command to remove the speck from the eye as applying first and foremost to myself.

What brought about this sudden change?

 

[anonymous person]

Just as there are scholars who are christians who believe the passage is entirely fake.

That is a fact.

You aren't going to address my argument are you?

Right.

And my point behind all of this is that this fact which you acknowledge is a fact, DOES NOT support your claim that historians who believe Tacitus used Roman records are those who believe this because they want to believe in a historical Jesus.

In the debate, you contrasted Roman records with hearsay from Christians as possible sources Tacitus would have used. No doubt you think the Christian hearsay would have been unreliable as opposed to the Roman records which you think would have been reliable.

You said that historians who want to believe in a historical Jesus want to believe Tacitus used these Roman records.

Did you not say that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Right.

And my point behind all of this is that this fact which you acknowledge is a fact, DOES NOT support your claim that historians who believe Tacitus used Roman records are those who believe this because they want to believe in a historical Jesus.

Where did I make this claim?

 

[anonymous person]

I am still not clear on what is right or wrong in your theology. Does it not boil down to, anything goes, as long as you believe?

In the absence of some sort of objective morality, that is where you find yourself.

And that feedback has been withheld prior to now?

What brought about this sudden change?

The Holy Spirit.

 

[anonymous person]

Where did I make this claim?

Did you not say this:

"Historians who want to believe in a historical Jesus want to believe that Tacitus got this information from Roman records which he would have had access to."

in the opening of the second round of our debate?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you not say this:

"Historians who want to believe in a historical Jesus want to believe that Tacitus got this information from Roman records which he would have had access to."

in the opening of the second round of our debate?

That's not the same claim as you've said...I'm certainly not speaking about all historians who believe in a historical Jesus nor am I speaking about all historians who believe the passage is genuine.

The point of fact is, that passage has no citation or source listed. That is a fact.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did you not say this:

"Historians who want to believe in a historical Jesus want to believe that Tacitus got this information from Roman records which he would have had access to."

in the opening of the second round of our debate?

Are you going to address my argument or not?

It certainly looks like you're avoiding it because you can't find fault in it.

 

[Davian]

The Holy Spirit.

How do you know this?

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know this?

How do I know what?