Quote:After all there is the modern shared experiences of tens of thousands of "new Christians", who although having never met have certainly had similar life changing revelations which they claim to have experienced via the man himself. This in the world today is potentially more reliable than ancient historical record.
Horseshit--that is what is known as "hear-say" evidence, and it is justifiably ignored in venues of serious investigation.
Quote:I would argue that intelligent, informed faith, or faith based on personal experience, is valid. Since it is our perception and interpretation of the world that is valid for our own personal experience.
That you are willing to "argue" a point of view for which you cannot advance any evidence is no good reason to accept the validity of said argument. What is "valid" for your own personal experience doesn't mean squat if you intend to convince others who are not privy to your shudderings and alleged epiphanies.
Quote:Finally, I thought it worth a mention that a factual TV documentary I saw recently showed physical evidence that the Romans did nail people to crosses rather than just tying them.
It is first worth noting that "factual TV documentary" can almost always be shown to have been an oxymoronic description. Apart from that, your inferential suggestion that the putative Jesus was executed by being nailed to a "cross" implies that the Romans anticipated such an execution in coming to Jerusalem. Not only is there no good reason to assume that, there is no historical basis for assuming that the Romans executed anyone at any time because the local wild-eyed religious mucky-mucks told them to. You are either naive about, or willfully disingenuous about what constituted authority as between Roman imperial officials and high priest of a two-bit local temple, the high priests of which were appointed by Romans from a short list provided by a secular ruler.
Setanta wrote:
That you are willing to "argue" a point of view for which you cannot advance any evidence is no good reason to accept the validity of said argument. What is "valid" for your own personal experience doesn't mean squat if you intend to convince others who are not privy to your shudderings and alleged epiphanies.
Setanta
I'm new at y2k, and felt like contributing. Particularly since I had just read 20 pages. Also I am only just learning how to debate.
Do I beieve Jesus existed? probably not, in almost all world views. It's possible though in the way that ANYTHING is possible. But I really do not care, the salvation that he is reported to offer is not for me.
A word to the wise - My whole life and my whole world view are based on the experiences I have personally had. They are not based on any form of pre-recorded history before my first memory. I use education and what I read to debate, approached properly, the ability to debate is an essential skill. I am just learning.
A compliment for you - I have read your posts on many topics and could not begin to match your level of knowledge or the was you put yourself forward. That is a fact.
A comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization - This is the ONLY meaning of epithany I can relate to.
Baph wrote:Setanta
I'm new at y2k, and felt like contributing.
Everybody was new here once.
Quote: Also I am only just learning how to debate.
Don't let that bother you none; practice is what it takes, and while there's no prizes here, its free and there's plenty to practice with - at all levels of competition. Once in a while, we even get a decent debate going - for a few posts anyhow.
Quote:A compliment for you - I have read your posts on many topics and could not begin to match your level of knowledge or the was you put yourself forward.
Careful now, not too much of that - Set'll hafta buy his ego a new case if folks keep feeding it.
Oh, and BTW, while it wasn't all that common, and it wasn't done in the manner held by Christian tradition, the Romans from time to time
did use nails[/i]. Real rare for every-day crucifxions, though - mostly just for special occasions, usually as a headline act in a full card of rousing stadium entertainment. Big crowdpleaser.
Baph, i don't post to get stroked by people, and although i thank you for your kind remarks, it is important to recall that i am often retailing my opinion and why i prefer it to the opinion of others.
I have no problem with the observation that you, as is the case with absolutely everyone else, can only rely upon what one has learned through personal experience, whether or not that experience was of an intentionally pedagogic nature. However, i was making a distinction between what people claim to have learned through experiences such a epiphanies, and what they learn from external sources for which one may make an educated judgment of the provenance. So, if someone tells me that they believe the putative Jesus existed because that is simply what they wish to believe, or because they had a personal, internal experience which they are convinced came from said individual, my response is going to be conditioned by incredulity. If, however, someone says that they are so convinced because of circumstantial or inferential evidence--and plenty of comments to that effect have been made at this site--then there will be matters for debate, and one will have the opportunity to make a reasonable judgment about the value of the evidence upon which such contentions are based. Earlier, Coastal Rat and I discussed this topic at length, and he advanced plausible arguments--i don't agree with the substance of his arguments, but will at the very least do him the courtesy of discussing his arguments in the detail in which they have been advanced. If someone, however, appeals to vague an nebulous personal experiences, such as an epiphany, or simply to what they wish to believe as an article of faith, i am likely to give such an argument short shrift as being founded on no solid basis. That's life, and it is pretty much how online debate works. If this were soley a christian site, we could all enjoy the experience of preaching, each one of us, to a receptive choir. That is not the case however, and vague personal experience is not likely to attract universal approbation.
So i don't disparage you for relying upon your personal learning experiences. I would disparage you, however, if you attempted to insist that vague personal experiences have as much value as evidence as honest attempts to arrive at the truth through the examination of the historical record.
Setanta wrote:Baph, i don't post to get stroked by people.
The technologies not in the public domain yet.
Setanta wrote:However, i was making a distinction between what people claim to have learned through experiences such a epiphanies, and what they learn from external sources for which one may make an educated judgment of the provenance.
Valid point. I did not originally notice your distinction.
Quote:I have no problem with the observation that you, as is the case with absolutely everyone else, can only rely upon what one has learned through personal experience,
Your acknowledgement of that truth is appreciated.
Quote:whether or not that experience was of an intentionally pedagogic nature.
An individuals natural bias often affects this.
Quote:So, if someone tells me that they believe the putative Jesus existed because that is simply what they wish to believe, or because they had a personal, internal experience which they are convinced came from said individual, my response is going to be conditioned by incredulity.
Me too. Although I sometimes like to listen to their lines of logic and hear examples of their experience of synchronicity.
Quote:If, however, someone says that they are so convinced because of circumstantial or inferential evidence--and plenty of comments to that effect have been made at this site--then there will be matters for debate, and one will have the opportunity to make a reasonable judgment about the value of the evidence upon which such contentions are based.
I agree, and as you imply there are often multiple interpretations.
Quote:If someone, however, appeals to vague an nebulous personal experiences............simply to what they wish to believe as an article of faith, i am likely to give such an argument short shrift as being founded on no solid basis.
Again I agree, since said personal experiences have one or many "mental links" that caused the person who experienced them to draw whatever conclusions they did. In many cases those conclusions will be biased by previous experience, and always down to individual interpretation.
Quote:If this were soley a christian site, we could all enjoy the experience of preaching, each one of us, to a receptive choir.
If this were
solely a Christian site I would not be here.
Quote:I would disparage you, however, if you attempted to insist that vague personal experiences have as much value as evidence as honest attempts to arrive at the truth through the examination of the historical record.
I would deserve disparaging, and agree with you for the reasons mentioned earlier.
All in all, thank you for taking the time to put me straight on a few points. I will stick around and try to put better construct into future arguments. :wink:
Once again, you are courteous and generous in thanking me for my "effort," but i would point out that this is, at least in theory, why we come here to discuss topics
Baph wrote:Again I agree, since said personal experiences have one or many "mental links" that caused the person who experienced them to draw whatever conclusions they did. In many cases those conclusions will be biased by previous experience, and always down to individual interpretation.
I would like to point out that people are also biased by preconceived notions of the constitution of the cosmos or of society which represent "received wisdom," often alleged to be a product of "revealed truth," of which the most obvious example is theism. A person's experience cannot, in fact, be biased more strongly than by a dedicated adherence to a religious or political ideology which is learned and then employed to color all of the judgments made by the individual in question--which is a significant point i have been attempting to get across.
I am at least of the opinion that the existtence of a Hstorical Jesus has as much merit as the "Legends: of Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. Meaning no disrespect but, the Gospels themselves have different foci and appear to have tangential reference to each other but a full of "new tales" each and "unique interpretations" that , if arragnged chronologically (instead of Matthew first) they would present an appearance of "taller tales piled upon tall tales".
The records of a Jesus are all "post event" . That always presents a problem for me in evaluating data. The Roamns were as anally retentive data keepers as were the folks of the Third Reich. No compelling records .
Judaism was in a major seachange during this period. The transition from a Temple center to a rise in a "Rabbi culture" had record of a number of itinerant rabbis that preached tothe masses. Was a Jesus character an attempt at melding the rise in the rabbi culture with a newer religion that wanted concrete fullifillment of the Prophets , but like NOW?
In other words, if Jesus didnt exist, would they have to create him?
That's a good point, FM, which i have made before. The Essenes were a radical rabbinical sect, with an almost paranoid dedication to secrecy and an insistence upon adherence to the law, comcommitant with an essentially mystical message. Were there a member of the Essenes named Joshuah who was considered a rabbi, a teacher, and who had moved among first century Jews teaching a populist version Essene mysticism, ditching the secrecy, and faithful to the supremacy of the Law, you have a ready made figure from who to create the Jesus character. The "gospels" serve little more purpose than to present a confused version of this mysticism, which exhorts the listener to find god and heaven within--and then the gospel writers lard the story will all sorts of retrospective absurdities and contradictions, as well as displaying a marvelous ignorance of history, geography and Roman imperial administrative systems.
Or, closer to what you are saying, the Jesus character could simply have been an avatar, a representative character in an extended "parable" used to deliver the mystical message, which fictional character was then elevated to the status of real dude doin' miracles and showin' the true way to eternal salvation. That's why i consider it a fifty-fifty shot that the putative Jesus actually existed.
