Another funny thing is the dating of the records. Skeptics are constantly telling us that we shouldn't trust the gospels because they were written 30-60 years after the earthly life of Jesus. For the Ionians philosophers (and indeed for almost all other ancient figures) the information that we have about them comes from documents written several centuries after their death. Why, then, should we trust the information about them if we can't trust the gospels?
Presumably because the Ionians were a large group of people with more supporting evidence than a few pieces of text written in hindsight. Similarly, no one doubts the existence of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and other Biblical tribes and places - there is independent evidence supporting their existence 2000 years ago. But for specific people for whom there is only second- or third- hand evidence written after the event, such as Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Jesus, there is sufficiently poor evidence for us to be sceptical of their existence.Another funny thing is the dating of the records. Skeptics are constantly telling us that we shouldn't trust the gospels because they were written 30-60 years after the earthly life of Jesus. For the Ionians philosophers (and indeed for almost all other ancient figures) the information that we have about them comes from documents written several centuries after their death. Why, then, should we trust the information about them if we can't trust the gospels?
Is this a serious question? Because you almost had me there.Another funny thing is the dating of the records. Skeptics are constantly telling us that we shouldn't trust the gospels because they were written 30-60 years after the earthly life of Jesus. For the Ionians philosophers (and indeed for almost all other ancient figures) the information that we have about them comes from documents written several centuries after their death. Why, then, should we trust the information about them if we can't trust the gospels?
Presumably because the Ionians were a large group of people with more supporting evidence than a few pieces of text written in hindsight. Similarly, no one doubts the existence of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and other Biblical tribes and places - there is independent evidence supporting their existence 2000 years ago. But for specific people for whom there is only second- or third- hand evidence written after the event, such as Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Jesus, there is sufficiently poor evidence for us to be sceptical of their existence.
It's all about the evidence. Jesus just doesn't have any.
Indeedy.
There are documents claiming Alex the G was a ruler over certain territories - we have evidence of that.
There are documents claiming Alex the G was a god - we do not have evidence of that.
There are documents detailing how certain people thought Captain James Cook was a god.
Carl Sagan proposes spontaneous evolution in Ionia (Thales) and on the island of Samos (Pythagoras).
He states that prior to Thales, science did not exist, but then suddenly, for no reason, miraculously, science spontaneously evolved in Ionia.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sagan, the Ionians including Thales believed in souls, gods, and daimons.
But for specific people for whom there is only second- or third- hand evidence written after the event, such as Socrates, Alexander the Great, and Jesus, there is sufficiently poor evidence for us to be sceptical of their existence.
It's all about the evidence. Jesus just doesn't have any.
Another funny thing is the dating of the records. Skeptics are constantly telling us that we shouldn't trust the gospels because they were written 30-60 years after the earthly life of Jesus. For the Ionians philosophers (and indeed for almost all other ancient figures) the information that we have about them comes from documents written several centuries after their death. Why, then, should we trust the information about them if we can't trust the gospels?
I am more sceptical of their existence than I am of Queen Victoria, insofar as there is less evidence for them than Queen Victoria. For Al', I'm satisfied that he did indeed exist. For Socrates and Jesus, I'm on the fence.You are skeptical that Socrates and Alexander the Great existed? Really?
No, I'm saying there is little to no evidence that a man corresponding to the Biblical Jesus (in geography, chronology, etc) actually lived.There is non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. A man that lived, preached, and was executed in 1st Century Palestine. As good as or better than for individuals whose existence we don't question, i.e. Pilate.
So, there is evidence outside the gospels for the existence of Jesus. And, of course, the gospels count as evidence for that. What I hope you are trying to say is that there is no extrabiblical evidence for Christ -- Jesus as divine.
And I didn't: I specifically said that some parts of the Bible are trustworthy, such as Egypt, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Pharaohs, the Jews, etc.Now, AlexBP has a point. We can't completely dismiss the gospels as history -- including the religious parts -- without invoking Special Pleading. You can list the reasons you doubt the historicity of the gospels -- including the religious parts -- but you cannot categorically proclaim them false.
No, I'm saying there is little to no evidence that a man corresponding to the Biblical Jesus (in geography, chronology, etc) actually lived.
Though you're right, there's no extrabiblical evidence for Jesus' divinity, and I would argue there's little precedent in the Bible either
And I didn't: I specifically said that some parts of the Bible are trustworthy, such as Egypt, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Pharaohs, the Jews, etc.
I disagree with this assertion.I am saying there is evidence that a man corresonding to Jesus actually lived. There is non-Christian evidence for the existence of Jesus.
As much or more than is present for people whose existence we accept.
Not really. There could, potentially, be non-Christian sources that just so happen to support his divinity - ten sources that each corrborate a particular miracle, for instance. The problem isn't the nature of evidence, its the nature of divinity - just what ideal document could be presented that substantiates the divinity of Christ?Let me modify that. There is extrabiblical evidence. There's no "non-Christian" evidence for divinity. But here we are faced with a Catch-22: anyone accepting evidence for Jesus' divinity is going to be Christian!
It's an interpretation of a religious text using the presuppositions of an amendment to said text - you hold the New Testament in one hand, look back on the Talmud, and suddenly find all these hitherto unnoticed references to a future Messiah. Isn't that somewhat suspect? How do you know you're not falling for confirmation bias? Jews had a foretold Messiah, sure, but it's always struck me as just a little too contrived when Christians find 'evidence' of the Trinity, of Jesus, etc, in the Jewish texts.Well, wait a minute. That's not true, either, come to think of it. In the Talmud there is the acknowledgement that Jesus performed miracle healing. That would be evidence for divinity. The authors attribute the power to do the healing to "the Ineffable One" and not God, but that is an interpretation of the evidence.
Indeed - a man, of God, born of a young woman, by the name of Immanuel.I agree that there is little precedent in the Bible for Jesus in particular. There is precedent in Isaiah that at some point there would be a divine human.
Indeed. And as I've said in my past two posts, things like Jerusalem and Bethlehem have independent, corroborating evidence. We don't doubt the Bible is right that those places exist, because there is independent evidence. It's a stunning coincidence that no supernatural claims are corroborated, however...Now we get into another problem. You are saying that the Bible is trustworthy in terms of non-divinity statements. In order to say the Bible is not trustworthy for statements about God, we have to come up with an independent criteria to do that. Otherwise, we are in the position of dismissing evidence for something only because it is evidence for something.
The human hand was an invention?This isn't evolution, this is invention.
No; they don't. Name one Ionian invention.Humans do invent things, including ideas
And he is very very wrong to do so. Carl Sagan's revisionist mythology is prejudiced by evolutionist dogma and blatant ignorance of Egyptian and Babylonian science. In actual reality, Egyptians and Babylonians were practicing science before there was a Greek alphabet. For example, Imhotep aka Vizier Joseph, was practicing the science of neurosurgery among other things in the time of Pharaoh Djoser I.So Sagan is proposing that science was invented at that place and time.
I don't believe in human inventions so yes they would have to be miraculous!Do you really think inventions are miraculous?
And Sagan is very very wrong.Thales and Pythagoras are the first documentation of the mode of thought that we recognize as "science". Sagan says as much:
"As it turned out, Ionia was the place where science was born. Between 600 and 400 B.C., this great revolution in human thought began. The key to the revolution was the hand." -- Carl E. Sagan, pseudoscientist, Cosmos, 1980
Are you skeptical that Socrates and Alexander the Great possessed telescopes and went SCUBA diving? Really?You are skeptical that Socrates and Alexander the Great existed? Really?