Posted by
Andrews on Friday, September 04, 2009 9:29:53 PM
I found a terribly interesting debate on whether or not Jesus existed. It is not interesting because oft he quality of arguments, in fact the arguments against historical existence are rather weak, but because the argument is so characteristic of all those I have heard before. What makes it very interesting is, by the arguments presented, one could argue very convincingly that Siddhartha, Socrates, and my father all don't exist, as all are represented entirely by works from the hands of others, most of which give no evidence (or conflicting evidence) concerning their personalities, not to mention that none of the three appear in prominent historical records. (In fact, until this mention, I am not sure if any written work mentioned my father at all.)
So, go and read
these comments, starting with "NO PROOF OF JESUS", as it is a very amusing debate. When I feel a bit better, critiquing this silly argument will be my first undertaking. (I also recommend reading "
Bad Theses", "
Materialist Arrogance", "
Atheism's Circular Reasoning" and "
Strange Double Standard", as they provide a good foray into the weak arguments generally made in the realm of religion.)
POSTSCRIPT
Regular readers are aware of this, but for newcomers let me make clear I am not a Christian and thus have no dog in this fight. However, the historical evidence offered against Jesus here is very weak, while the evidence for his existence, sparse as it is, has stood the test of time rather well. Granted, every few years some "hot shot" historian will announce he disproved Josephus, but every time that will prove about as successful as the regular discovery of a gene causing autism or schizophrenia or the announcements throughout the 90's of cold fusion. For, at the time, a very minor historical figure, it is a miracle any record survives of Jesus at all outside of his disciples, but there is a record, and that record seems authentic enough to convince me proving he did not exist will take some solid proof, not just a few weak speculations. So, before any new readers dismiss my argument as the partisan rant of a devout Christian, understand I have no interest one way or the other in proving his historical existence, but the evidence of which I am aware is pretty convincing proof that he did exist. What and who is was is clearly up to the individual to decide, but his existence is a historical question, and the evidence is pretty persuasive he did exist.