Peanut Gallery thread -- Formal Debate on the Existence of the Historical Jesus

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Topic: Is there or is there not enough evidence to reasonably believe in an Historic Jesus.

Formal Debate thread is located here:
Formal Debate on the Existence of the Historical Jesus

 

[essentialsaltes]

I hope this is a good 'un.

I'm a little sorry I missed the announcement until the parties were already set. I'm not one for formal debates, but I might have thrown my hat in the ring, and an Ana v essentialsaltes debate on this topic would have been interesting, I think.

 

[Resha Caner]

Subscribing.

 

[Davian]

 

[Resha Caner]

I hope this is a good 'un.

I'm a little sorry I missed the announcement until the parties were already set. I'm not one for formal debates, but I might have thrown my hat in the ring, and an Ana v essentialsaltes debate on this topic would have been interesting, I think.

Really? You would take the pro position? That would be interesting.

 

[Arcangl86]

Really? You would take the pro position? That would be interesting.

Why? You can believe that there was a historical person named Jesus of Nazareth without believing that he is God or a prophetic figure.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why? You can believe that there was a historical person named Jesus of Nazareth without believing that he is God or a prophetic figure.

Sure. That's not what would make such a debate interesting. Rather, it would be interesting to see how he interprets the available information to come to that conclusion. What does he accept as confirming evidence? What does he reject? How does he approach a fellow atheist who doesn't accept that information? How do their assumptions and definitions differ such that they are coming to different conclusions?

In a debate between a believer and an unbeliever the elephant in the room is bias. One side often accuses the other of accepting evidence a posteriori ... "You accept that evidence because you're already religious" or "You reject that evidence because you're already an atheist". Then the retort is, "No I believe (or don't believe) because of the evidence."

It would be much more difficult to make that kind of rhetoric stick when the discussion occurs between 2 atheists.

 

[Arcangl86]

Sure. That's not what would make such a debate interesting. Rather, it would be interesting to see how he interprets the available information to come to that conclusion. What does he accept as confirming evidence? What does he reject? How does he approach a fellow atheist who doesn't accept that information? How do their assumptions and definitions differ such that they are coming to different conclusions?

In a debate between a believer and an unbeliever the elephant in the room is bias. One side often accuses the other of accepting evidence a posteriori ... "You accept that evidence because you're already religious" or "You reject that evidence because you're already an atheist". Then the retort is, "No I believe (or don't believe) because of the evidence."

It would be much more difficult to make that kind of rhetoric stick when the discussion occurs between 2 atheists.

Very true. That would have been pretty interesting to see.

 

[Cuddles333]

In debates on this subject we learn more about all the circumstantial evidence available. One piece that I find interesting is found in the Jerusalem Talmud. In (Abodah Zarah 2.2) and in a different passage (Hullin 2.22-23) We learn from Jewish writers that the miracles from Pentecost had still been on going.

 

[bhsmte]

Subscribing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

First post should be up soon.

 

[Saverio]

Why? You can believe that there was a historical person named Jesus of Nazareth without believing that he is God or a prophetic figure.

But then that would make Jesus a liar because he claimed he is the Son of God.

 

[bhsmte]

But then that would make Jesus a liar because he claimed he is the Son of God.

Or the anonymous authors, made stuff up.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But then that would make Jesus a liar because he claimed he is the Son of God.

Yeah, so?

(Actually, of course, he is only reported to have said that, and mainly by John.)

 

[Resha Caner]

Hmm. Ana usually puts up a good fight. I was expecting something better.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmm. Ana usually puts up a good fight. I was expecting something better.

Lol that's a vague critique...it's the opening statement. What exactly were you expecting?

 

[Resha Caner]

Lol that's a vague critique...it's the opening statement. What exactly were you expecting?

I suppose going second has its negatives, but I would think going first is hardest. And the limited number of rounds makes these debates difficult - you have to be spot on. So I can appreciate the challenges, but it's as if you didn't know what you wanted that first post to be. As a result you bounced around between several different approaches without really establishing any of them, and then it appeared to me to devolve into circular arguments and contradictions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I suppose going second has its negatives, but I would think going first is hardest. And the limited number of rounds makes these debates difficult - you have to be spot on. So I can appreciate the challenges, but it's as if you didn't know what you wanted that first post to be. As a result you bounced around between several different approaches without really establishing any of them, and then it appeared to me to devolve into circular arguments and contradictions.

Well, obviously I don't see the circular arguments or contradictions...but we'll find out soon enough how effective my opening statement was.

 

[Davian]

"You don't think I have any evidence to support my position? Rather than present such evidence, I will ask you to tell me why you think that I lack such evidence".

Did he just ask for Ana to provide evidence for the absence of something?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, anonymous has wasted a round. Nothing substantive, and the only question asked of Ana was already answered in Ana's post:

You'll find mention of Jesus from different historians like Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus and others. What do these men have to say about the real Jesus? Nothing. None of these figures ever met Jesus, nor did they meet anyone who met Jesus, nor did they live when Jesus was alive. The passages where they mention Jesus are of this sort...

"There's a group of people called christians who follow a man named Jesus."

You can deny it, refute it, explain it away... but it doesn't do much good to ask your opponent to repeat it for you.