God & The Burden of Proof

You betcha . . .


Dog bless you, Sister Eppie . . .


Ahem . . .

have no reason to believe that the putative Jesus ever existed--nor any to deny that he ever existed. I do think it improbable, as for someone so controversial, and arousing such emotion a century after he allegedly lived and died, it is a bit much to think that he aroused insufficient remark in his own lifetime not to have had at least a mention in someone else's contemporary account.

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Therefore, if one suggests, as others have done here, that the nasty old god of the old testament and his laws no longer apply because of the "new covenant," one is restricted to that scriptural canon to know what the will of the putative god would be. Therefore, one is left with no objection to homosexuality, because there is no mention of it in that particular scriptural canon.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Once again you prove my case and point. Thanks Chumly.

It's all good fun, and it's good for the old brain, it's always a pleasure chatting with you.

The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and its authenticity has been the subject of debate since the 17th century. The other passage concerns James the brother of Jesus; its authenticity is also disputed.

sakhi wrote:

I dont know about legislation..but there;s one major difference between Hinduism and Christianity/Islam. (let me clarify here that I believe in neither of them).. Hinduism does not claim to be the ONLY way to God and does not term others as infidels. Hinduism issues no final and binding statements. There are no "conversions" to Hinduism and no baptism...

You may accuse the religion of being pretty vague and open to too many interpretations but Voltaire said "Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous".

If this is the case, why do Hindus assault Muslims in India, why do they attack mosques?

That's pretty pathetic, Revel. There are volumes written on the probability of interpolation in Josephus--and thousands of pages online, so i'll let your search that for yourself. But it is really pathetic for two other reasons, the first from the Wikipedia source you reference, which you disingenuously failed to quote:

Wikipedia wrote:

The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum, and its authenticity has been the subject of debate since the 17th century. The other passage concerns James the brother of Jesus; its authenticity is also disputed.

The second reason it is pathetic ought to be obvious. The Antiquities of the Jews was published in 93 CE--this is more than 60 years after the putative Jesus would have died, based upon the calendrical caculation in the papacy of Gregory, which established the dates of his life as 4 BCE--28 or 29 CE--as Flavius Josephus lived from 37 to 100 CE, he therefore does not constitute a contemporary. There are two biographies of Charlemagne from his own era--one by Anselm, who was raised and educated in his court at Aachen, being born when Charlemagne was in his forties--but he can reasonably be considered a contemporary biographer. The other was a German monk known as Nottker the Stammerer--who was born after Charlemagne had died, and whose account is not recorded until his own death, nearly a century after Charlemagne--meaning he is not contemporary, at best he is to be considered "near-contemporary." You usually do better than that.

A good deal of the post to which you refer concerns itself with the objections to any portion of what is called the new testament other than the four gospel scriptural canon, because of the influence and impositions of Saul of Tarsus and others--the point i was making to Miss Eppie, is that given their corruption of the original Jewish cult, one can only rely on the four gospel canon for an approximate notion of what the putative Jesus might have said.

Quoting epistles to the Corinthians therefore does not count--it does not constitute a portion of the four gospel canon. That was very sloppy work on your part--i'm surprised.

Implicator wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Although providing proof may not be that simple in certain circumstances, it makes complete sense to leave the burden of proof with the individual putting forth an assertion.

I did not say it did not make sense to place the burden of proof on the individual making the assertion. But the recipient of the assertion may suspend their requirements. The reasons for this might be: for the sake of argument, if it is understood to already be agreed, or if it is common knowledge.

Here is what you said:

Quote:

As far as the common position that the burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion, it is nowhere near that simple, nor should it always be the case.

You indicated that it should not "always be the case" that the "burden of proof must always fall on the owner of the assertion." Yet in this post you claim you didn't say that at all. What am I missing here?

Chumly wrote:

Implicator wrote:

I challenge you right now to give me reason (without question begging) as to why it will get light in the *daytime tomorrow (*by "daytime" I assume those hours of the day that it typically gets light).

I accept the challenge, I up the ante & bet you 100 million dollars. I will prove it tomorrow morning.

The challenge was to prove that it will get light in the daytime (that was your wording), not that it did. To prove that something will happen in the not-yet-experienced future carries quite a burden, as you are basically claiming to know the future. Can you do it?

Chumly wrote:

Implicator wrote:

You realize this is an assertion you are making, right? Can you back it up?

As mentioned I cannot prove a negative but I can say I am not aware of any evidence or anyone putting forth verifiable evidence, plus I just asked god for some evidence and he did not comply.

Does the burden belong with the one making the assertion? If so, then have at it. And your "besides" is beside the point, entirely irrelevant as to whether there is such evidence out there.

Chumly wrote:

Implicator wrote:

Yet those who believe in the Christian god probably would not agree with you that he is ill-defined.

They may well not agree with me that the Christian god is ill-defined, but millions of people over thousands of years have murdered each other over the definition of a Christian god.

Indeed they have, yet that is not even anecdotal evidence of an "ill" definition.

I

I have not had time to respond properly , but I surely will in the next few days, sophistry notwithstanding. I will say however, before I respond more fully, that some of your points/questions while not without merit, are phrased in such a fashion as to preclude the relative and prioritize the absolute, and given the context of this thread and my opening remarks, that's a high expectation, not that I won't try:

"I know it's a bit rambly but I was having fun"

hephzibah wrote:

Setanta, I respect your point of view, even if we may not always agree. So, can you please help me understand what you mean by this?

And . . .

hephzibah wrote:

Actually let me clarify that...

It is not so much that I don't understand what you mean as I would like to understand where you are coming from on this. However, if this is a topic that needs to be dropped I am also willing to do that. I must head out to work now. I will catch up with you all later.

First, thank you for your kind remark.

I have no reason to believe that the putative Jesus ever existed--nor any to deny that he ever existed. I do think it improbable, as for someone so controversial, and arousing such emotion a century after he allegedly lived and died, it is a bit much to think that he aroused insufficient remark in his own lifetime not to have had at least a mention in someone else's contemporary account. I think, rather, that the putative Jesus is an avatar, an embodiment of the mystico-spiritualistic Jewish cult known to history as the Essenes. It is, of course, possible that this alleged Jesus is a badly corrupted account of the life of a single Essene, who was not, in fact, politically controversial, and was not crucified by the Romans.

Because, in fact, very specific tenets of the most popular cult in Rome in the era of Saul of Tarsus--that cult was the cult of Mithras--entail an allegation of a virgin birth, from a mother impregnated by god, and a painful death followed by a resurrection, and celebrated by adherents in a "cannibalistic" ritual in which the symbolic body and blood of "the son of god" were consumed. These are tenets without precedent or referrent in Jewish scripture and mysticism. Therefore, whenever one looks at any account other than the four orthodox gospels of the new scriptural canon, one cannot with any certainty assert what may have been an original teaching of this individual (if such individual ever existed), and what is a subsequent interpolation, Pauline or otherwise. One can only refer to the four gospel scrpitural canon for what is only a vague idea of what the teaching of this individual may have been. Given contradictions between these accounts, they are themselves of dubious value. Finally, individuals such as Origen and Eusebius winnowed the existing accounts or gospels to these four gospels, and edited and "corrected" them--this we know because they recorded as much in their own writings.

Therefore, if one suggests, as others have done here, that the nasty old god of the old testament and his laws no longer apply because of the "new covenant," one is restricted to that scriptural canon to know what the will of the putative god would be. Therefore, one is left with no objection to homosexuality, because there is no mention of it in that particular scriptural canon.