haaa,, basically

how does stephen king put it in 'dreamcatchers'? SSDD

There is evidence. It has been recorded. That is more evidence than some other kings have, don't you think? I mean, do you believe that every king that ever existed has been recorded? The recordings are all we have for any of them. Some can be cross-referenced by other historical writings, and some not. There were almost certainly some kings that did exist of whom we have no record of.



The onus is on you to show me how the reasoning that I've offered is invalid. Quote the line of reasoning, quote the conclusion that followed and then show me the error.



This is not my argument. However, there is evidence which supports all three claims. It is just not the kind that you're willing to accept. The evidence that is avaliable for 3 can, and has been put in valid form. Which you also did not accept, despite it's being valid, despite it being exactly what you asked for.



Validity measures how the facts and opinions have been put together in order to draw a conclusion. I suggest our getting the facts straight first.

If it seems to you that I am claiming that King David does not exist, I am sorry, that is not my intention.

This is my personal belief. This is not a claim.

My only claim is that I do not believe he existed because of the lack of valid evidence. My aim is that anyone who seeks valid evidence of the same, and does not find it should, logically conclude the same thing, or at least admit that their belief is based on faith in that unsupported claim.




If 1 and 2 are true, and King David or Abraham did not exist the entire thing falls apart including the New Testament's claim that Jesus was related to King David.

But lets assume that Jesus did exist and 1 and 2 are false. Then what is the motive for the false lineage to King David and all the stories that followed? Who was Jesus really related to?

The entire story supporting Jesus would have to be rewritten and a completely new religions would likely be born around the new discovery of who Jesus was.

That would be just fine with me if it leads to the truth.



Perhaps that is correct, but if King David was proven to be fictitious, some one has got a lot of 'splaining to do.

I'm sure the powers in charge of religious fiction and propaganda will come up with something that some people will believe.

Let's just hope they don't start executing the non-believers when and if that happens.

Why would you conclude that they don't exist? It would seem, in that case, that you simply lack evidence in either direction.

Evidence is, strictly speaking, not necessarily a matter of validity. Valid evidence comes in one form... the use of logic. If the reasoning offered is being used as evidence and it is valid, then the reasoning offered constitutes being "valid evidence". If the premisses are true and the form is valid, then the argument is sound. However, premisses can be false and the form still be valid. So, my point here is that I could give you many an argument that was valid, and none of them be true. I have already given reason for assent to a belief that Jesus existed, it seems that you're seeking something more, more like hard material evidence.

By the way, everyone's belief system is grounded upon faith if we go back far enough.



Are you saying it must be all or nothing? Every word is true, or every word is false?



Let's think about this...

Are the teachings of Jesus dependent upon his being related to David in order for them to true, or useful? I find that whether or not he is related to David has nothing to do with that.



Why is that? Wisdom stands upon it's own two feet, so to speak. It need no lineage. The Bible undoubtedly - on my view - has recorded mistakes of man. There is also much wisdom

First things first... "Evidence comes in more than one form. Reason is but one kind of evidence."

"Hard" empirical evidence is another kind.

Creative, Your evidence:



I agree.



Why should we use the principle of charity and grant the possibility that he existed before any valid evidence is offered?



Okay. This I have done. (At one time I did believe that Jesus existed.)



Creative: "Many different people claimed to have known him personally(historical fact)"

Not really a historical fact. It could be just another fictional story.

Creative:
"and this is recorded within the gospels(empirical fact)."

.. the gospels --which are the very things that are on trial here.

So it follows that if the gospels are on trial, they cannot be used as evidence to support an alleged "historical fact."

That would be like saying "The Bible is true because the Bible says so."



If the existence of King David were disproved, the gospels would all come under suspect and that would include the followers whose names have been attributed to writing them.



This is all supported by the writings which are on trial here.
Do you believe that fiction and plays and stories and myths were not a part of that culture? Why take anything as true that can't be verified elsewhere with valid evidence?

People and authors even today claim a personal relationship with Jesus. (Empirical and historical Fact).

No one today that I know of has proof that Jesus is still walking around having personal relationships with people.



I am not asking for DNA evidence of anyone living 2000 years ago.




Why would anyone accept the existence of Zeus or any other mythical character without valid evidence? There are stories of saviors of mankind and sons of God all over history. Why would anyone give more weight to Jesus than any of the others?




If you want everyone to assume that Jesus existed, (charity) then why not the rest?

<cut and pasted:>

Chrishna of Hindostan.
Budha Sakia of India.
Salivahana of Bermuda.
Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.
Odin of the Scaudinavians.
Crite of Chaldea.
Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.
Baal and Taut, "the only Begotten of God," of Phenicia.
Indra of Thibet.
Bali of Afghanistan.
Jao of Nepaul.
Wittoba of the Bilingonese.
Thammuz of Syria.
Atys of Phrygia.
Xaniolxis of Thrace.
Zoar of the Bonzes.
Adad of Assyria.
Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam.
Alcides of Thebes.
Mikado of the Sintoos.
Beddru of Japan.
Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids.
Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls.
Cadmus of Greece.
Hil and Feta of the Mandaites.
Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico.
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls.
Ischy of the Island of Formosa.
Divine Teacher of Plato.
Holy One of Xaca.
Fohi and Tien of China.
Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece.
IxiOn and Quirinus of Rome.
Prometheus of Caucasus.
Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia.

These have all received divine honors, have nearly all been worshiped as Gods, or sons of God; were mostly incarnated as Christs, Saviors, Messiahs, or Mediators; not a few of them were reputedly born of virgins; some of them filling a character almost identical with that ascribed by the Christian's bible to Jesus Christ; many of them, like him, are reported to have been crucified; and all of them, taken together, furnish a prototype and parallel for nearly every important incident and wonder-inciting miracle, doctrine and precept recorded in the New Testament, of the Christian's Savior. Surely, with so many Saviors the world cannot, or should not, be lost.

</end of cut and pasted>




Again I say that you do not know the half of "my beliefs" or to what criterion I hold them.

My beliefs change according to information, evidence, reason etc.

In any case they are personal. I am not peddling them to the masses and calling them "gospel"

1. Most of Jesus' recording were destroyed by the Huns
2. The Huns only destroyed true information
3. The Huns destroyed everything that they found
4. Everything about Jesus that was destroyed by the Huns was true.(from 1,2)
5. Recordings of non-existent man cannot be true
C. Jesus existed(from 4,5)


There is a valid argument for the existence of Jesus. Now, do you see why your asking for only "valid evidence" does not really help you to figure out what is true or not?

If a man is on trial for murder and the three witnesses who were going to testify against him are murdered and the evidence is destroyed, you may believe he is guilty but you cannot conclude he is guilty.

You cannot in good faith, vote that he is guilty if there is no evidence to prove that even if you do chose to believe it.

By your way of reasoning, you accept (on charity) that Jesus existed.

By my way of reasoning, I do not.

If the Bible has fictional stories, that does not mean that they are all fictional. But it does mean that they are all suspect.

If they are suspect, they require valid believable evidence.

If that is not forthcoming, it is reasonable to dismiss it as true.

If the people who founded Christianity and put the Bible together were attempting to create "consistency" between the old Hebrew law and God, they might create a fiction connecting a real person (Jesus) to their old testament.

If in their scripture.. OT, King David is fiction, and Abraham is fiction, then that connection between Jesus and the OT is broken.

Then they lose their old laws and their God of Abraham.

Then they must admit that Jesus was just a man, did not exist, or is the son of a different God.

so then was Jonah swallowed by a big fish or whale?

My guess is that it was an alien under-sea vessel or the submarine of an advanced civilization.

If it even happened.
He was abducted by sea-people or mermaids.

so is Balaams donkey making waffles in the morning at Shreks crib?

It is required for an unbiased, honest, sincere, and genuine search.

If one holds that there is no possibility that Jesus existed, then their mind is already made up. Excluding all possibility is the act of an unshakable conviction. That is bias at work. If one has unshakable conviction in their pre-existing belief, then no amount nor quality of evidence will possibly change their mind. To put it another way...

If one is rooting around looking for something, then his/her actions clearly show that they believe that it is possible for that thing to be there. Are you rooting around, or just pretending to?



I made no claim about whether or not any particualr story is/was true. You've missed the point. It is an historical fact that many people claimed to have known him personally. It is an empirical fact that those stories still exist. It is an empirical fact that those stories are a matter of written history.



So, let me get this straight...

We're assessing whether or not it makes sense to deny the existence of Jesus. You've put it forth that there is little to no evidence outside of the Bible. Now you're saying that because the recordings of his life are in the NT., we should throw them out?



No, it's not. It was the only known recordings of Jesus' life and mission as told by those who knew him. These are historical and empirical facts. The evidence available has been broadened, and now there are other writings outside of the Bible that have been found and corroborate many of the stories in the NT. That clearly suggests that the man lived. It is also to make a point to say that to believe otherwise would require holding the belief that it was/is all a lie. Every mention, a lie. Every word, a lie. Every story, a lie. The amount of evidence that is required in order to provide support to that line of thinking is much greater, and assumes much more of a burden of proof than the simple belief that the man existed.



1. Non-existence cannot be proven. You cannot prove that King David did not exist.
2. The authorship of the gospels has nothing to do with King David.



Who said anything about proof? Here you go again holding others to a criterion that your own beliefs cannot meet. It is an empirical fact that people have claimed, and still do, that they have had or do have a personal relationship with Jesus.



What does that have to do with whether or not Jesus lived?



Are we assessing the rest? I thought that we were assessing whether or not it is reasonable to assent to a belief that a man named Jesus existed.



I need only to know what has been expressed here in this thread. Those beliefs have been clearly expressed several times over. You've asked for "valid evidence" to believe that Jesus existed, but you've offered no "valid evidence" for your own beliefs that you have put forth.

Why argue over historical "proofs" of whether or not these religious figures ever existed?

That's a total waste of time.

Why not simply argue for what is reasonable?

Creative should like that, he seems to be obsessed with reason.

So here we have a story of a man who was supposed to be the "Son of God"

He's crucified to pay for the sins of man and he dies. He's resurrected and then flies off to a spiritual world.

Fine.

Then he supposedly reveals himself to Saul/Paul who was persecuting Christians to get him to stop that and see the light.

Fine.

So now tell me why this same deity who can reveal himself even to a non-believer such Saul, could not also reveal himself to two CHRISTIAN MONKS who were writing the Malleus Maleficarum to be supported in the name of Christianity?

As far as I'm concerned that's totally unreasonable right there.

These are clearly nothing more than myths and superstitious rumors that have no credence in anything real.

1. Most of Jesus' recording were destroyed by the Huns
2. The Huns only destroyed true information
3. The Huns destroyed everything that they found
4. Everything about Jesus that was destroyed by the Huns was true.(from 1,2)
5. Recordings of non-existent man cannot be true
C. Jesus existed(from 4,5)

That is a valid argument. It constitutes valid reasoning. Valid reasoning is being put forth as evidence. Thus, you've been given exactly what you asked for... valid evidence.

The fact that you do not know the reasons why event X happened does not make event X unreasonable, James.

In this context it does.

Because in this context I'm being asked to believe that these are the actions and behavior of a loving benevolent God.

Therefore I've already been given the CRITERIA of what is reasonable in this context by default.

I wrote this earlier in this blog, and no one touched it ????
Any responses ????

Creative,

I do not argue that some people believe the stories in the Bible that some other (unknown) people may have written and claimed that they have had a personal relationship with Jesus, the man. After all it is written.

But is it true or fiction? That is the question. That it is written, does not make it true in the slightest.

I also do not argue that there are people living today who make the same claims that they have a personal relationship with Jesus. But is that true? Or what do they even mean by that?

Neither am arguing about what people wrote, or what people believe is true. That someone wrote it, and that many believed it does not make it true and does not count as valid evidence for it being true.




I don't hold that there is "no possibility" that Jesus existed and my mind is not 100% made up.

I have looked at this question from both sides. The side that favors that the entire story is fiction, he did not exist, and neither did King David has more support in the form of reason, logic, evidence and motive for the fiction.

Excuse me for giving the other side of the argument an opportunity to present their evidence.

How dare I question the status quo!

How dare anyone question the status quo given the overwhelming amount of so-called written stories.

Rejected scripture:
And what of the scriptures that have been rejected by (insert who-ever did it) and deemed that it was not true or not consistent with current beliefs or the desired doctrine?

Why not bring all of that hidden evidence out to the general population?

I think it is a perfect example.