Subject:
|
Re: Heads up, atheists
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:17:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1137 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
I’m surprised that this is going to court, honestly.
|
Agreed. Kinda like the Scopes trial in reverse;-)
|
I suspect that Jason Robards won’t be starring in the film version of this one,
though.
| |
| |
How can you prove that
someone didn’t exist ~2000 years ago? The best you can do, IMO, is show
that the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion that he existed.
|
He sets up a classic error-- he has so-called proofs that he has written
about that Jesus didn’t exist-- he claims it is up to the other side to prove
him wrong.
|
That’s not always unreasonable, except when the necessary disproof is so
burdensome that it becomes practically impossible. If I asserted that my height
prooves that I’m taller than your house, you could pretty easily disprove it
(unless you live in my freshman-year apartment)!
on edit: “proove” means “to really, really prove.
| |
| |
AFAIC, the Gospels are themselves adequate evidence to conclude that Jesus
the man did exist, since it’s hardly an extraordinary claim.
|
Even moreso the historian Josephus’ mention of Jesus (even without all of the
later embellishments).
|
I think that Josephus is often considered a tainted (that is, non-independent)
source because he’s quite late and was very possibly influenced by the Gospels
and derivative writings. Still, that doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t exist, but
it’s also a mistake to list Josephus as “proof” of Jesus’ divinity. You
haven’t done that, but several modern apologists make that error.
| |
| |
Of course, even if he is shown to have existed, that doesn’t do anything
to prove his parentage...
|
lol Reminds me of the book, The DaVinci Code. Have you read any of Brown’s
pulp fiction?
|
No! I read “Holy Blood/Holy Grail” by Baigent (et al) about a decade ago, and
it’s a fantastic adventure story with, ultimately, some fatal errors. Brown’s
book borrows heavily from HBHG.
Also, a close friend has read several of Brown’s novels, which he describes as
reading any one of Brown’s novels several times. I’ll pass, thanks!
A much, much, much better (as far as I can tell) treatment of a similar
topic is Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum. It’s a weighty tome but well worth
slogging through if you’ve the gumption. It even refers, somewhat dismissively,
to HBHG. They should make a movie of Eco’s book instead of Brown’s!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Heads up, atheists
|
| (...) Agreed. Kinda like the Scopes trial in reverse;-) (...) He sets up a classic error-- he has so-called proofs that he has written about that Jesus didn't exist-- he claims it is up to the other side to prove him wrong. (...) Even moreso the (...) (19 years ago, 6-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
