posting may be sparse or a bit,. this is the comment section at Secular outpost discussing mjy debate on historical Jesus with Brad Bowen
check out the last two guys
check out the last two guys
Raging Bee • 9 hours ago If this reference to "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" is all the "proof" we have, then we have nothing. All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ." That says absolutely nothing about what Jesus said or did, let alone his alleged divinity. Josephus' paltry references to Jesus aren't worth this many words of response.
Joe Hinman Raging Bee • 2 minutes ago that's ludicrous.He's obviously not talking about some unknown person he;'s stalking that other Jesus of Nazareth who claimed who claimed to be messiah and whose brother James was head of Jerusalem church,maybe that guy was the son of God. maybe it was another son of
god
Bradley Bowen Raging Bee • 4 hours ago see moreRaging Bee said:All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ." That says absolutely nothing about what Jesus said or did, let alone his alleged divinity. Josephus' paltry references to Jesus aren't worth this many words of response.
==================
Response:Sorry about the length of the post; it is difficult to tackle this subject in short order and yet to be concise in my writing. When I discuss this issue in my books on Christianity, I will make an effort to be more concise.The whole issue of this debate is about the existence of an historical Jesus. I realize that there are bigger philosophical and theological questions about Jesus, but whether he actually existed is a very basic and important issue. If Jesus did NOT exist, then there is no point in discussing whether he was divine, or whether he was the savior of mankind, or whether he rose from the dead.Furthermore, for me the question of the existence of Jesus is an important piece of the question "What is the probability that Jesus rose from the dead?" and that question is relevant to answering the theological question "Was Jesus the divine Son of God?". I doubt that anyone can prove that Jesus existed, or prove that Jesus did not exist. But I believe that one can provide a rational argument to show that there is a significant probability that Jesus did NOT exist, say .1 or .2.If it can be shown that the probability that Jesus existed is no greater than .8, for example, then that places an upper limit on the probability that Jesus rose from the dead. If one can then show that the probability that Jesus rose from the dead GIVEN that Jesus existed is no greater than .5, then the combination of these two conclusions implies that the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is no greater than .8 x .5 = .4.That would be a significant thing to prove in the philosophy of religion. If the probability that Jesus rose from the dead is no greater than .4 , then that would put a significant dent in the Christian case for the divinity of Jesus.So, the question of the existence of an historical Jesus is part of the question "What is the probability that Jesus rose from the dead?" and this latter question is clearly relevant to the main theological question at issue: "Was Jesus the divine Son of God?"Raging Bee Bradley Bowen • 2 hours ago First, your probability calculation about Jesus having risen from the dead is bogus. Your figure about Jesus having been a real person isn't much better founded. And even if we can prove Jesus existed, that doesn't increase even one iota the probability that he rose from the dead. (Billions of people exist -- what's the probability that any of them rose from the dead?)And second, if you even admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature, then you're allowing for supernatural factors, so rational calculation simply means nothing. With superstition, all things are possible, at least in a theologian's mind.Bradley Bowen Raging Bee • an hour ago see moreRaging Bee said:And second, if you even admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature, then you're allowing for supernatural factors, so rational calculation simply means nothing.
==============
Response:To fail to "admit the possibility that Jesus has any sort of divine nature" is to beg the main question at issue and to adopt a philosophical/theological position in an unthinking and dogmatic manner. I wish to base my views on facts and evidence, not on dogmatic presuppositions.I don't agree that "allowing for supernatural factors" excludes the use of evidence and probability.For example, in my view the hypothesis that "God exists" provides evidence (if true) that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead. In other words, if God exists, then that makes the resurrection improbable. My reasoning goes like this:Jesus was a false prophet. God, if God exists, is a perfectly morally good person. Thus, God, if God exists, would be very unlikely to raise a false prophet from the dead (because that would involve God in a great deception), and God would also be very unlikely to permit another supernatural being (e.g. Satan) to raise a false prophet from the dead. Therefore, if God exists, then it is very unlikely that Jesus rose from the dead.This is reasoning based on probable inferences from assumptions that are "allowing for supernatural factors", but it is reasoning that leads to a skeptical conclusion about the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
Eric Sotnak Raging Bee • 8 hours ago All Josephus proves is that someone named Jesus existed and was called "the Christ."Isn't that just conceding the conclusion Hinman is arguing for in this debate?
No comments:
Post a Comment