Do we also extend this argument to The Buddha? Muhammad? Solomon? Moses? Do we have any concrete, reliable evidence that these people also existed?
It is every bit as reasonable as walking on water and raising the dead. You are right on track. Almost as reasonable as pigs flying out of my butt.
Yes. Your perception of my reasonableness is directly related to how firmly you are grounded in reality. If you are willing to entertain the idea of three thousand year old men in blazing chariots but unable to entertain the possibility that they don’t exist then your perception of reality is really off.
I don’t recall asking you what you thought of ZEV. I asked what you thought of three thousand year old men in blazing chariots. Are you telling me that it is unreasonable for me to deny the existence of a three thousand year old man?
But Zev also said
To which you replied
So, not only did Zev give an explanation that Maimonides’ statement had been misinterpreted, but you seemingly accepted the explanation, and that the statement did not mean what you initially stated it meant. Now you’re back to claiming that the statement in fact does mean that the Jews believe their Messiah will subjugate the rest of the nations.
So, do you merely have anterograde amnesia, or are you a troll?
Mr. Buckner, I don’t wish to appear as a troll. I don’t have much use for religious fanatics. There are people here asking about proof of Jesus and Messiahs. I merely would like to interject some real world logic into the realm of blazing chariots, the living dead, walking on water, etc. These kinds of things are quite foolish to me and lots of others. Zev did attempt to explain away the subjugation comment but it is still quite a contradiction for him to deny that he ever said it, then back track and say he did. This thread ask for proof. I don’t see any. I would like to dispute the notions of three thousand year old men as presented by Zev. If I am out of line just tell me and I will excuse myself.
Question Judaism all you like. My point is, Zev already gave an explanation of his words which not only seemed perfectly reasonable to me, but more to the point is one which you accepted at the time. If you had merely persisted in saying “But Maimonedes said ‘subjugation of the nations’–huh huh huh!” and refused to accept Zev’s explanation of what the phrase means, it would, I would personally say, be a rather tiresome argument. The point is, though, that you seem to be changing your story in mid-stream, in ways which prolong the argument for the sake of prolonging the argument.
And we all know what that sort of behavior is, don’t we?
zev:
Just walk away. Let Sweet Willy troll in his own way. He is doing absolutely nothing here except hijacking a rather interesting thread. This isn’t a debate anymore, it is a blind contradiction and an exercise in trolling. Just walk away.
Sweet Willy:
First, stop trolling. It is very unbecoming and will only get you flamed or banned.
Second, small words, so you can understand. Maimonides is one of the top Jewish rabbis of all time. Nitpicking his religious opinions are the same as nitpicking the Popes or St. Paul or Martin Luther.
Lastly, Jewish converts, the world over (basically including the government of Israel) except for a narrow sect of Reform Judaism, require halacha (Jewish law) and ritual bath and circumcision for males. Reform Judaism is the exception. It is interesting that even though the State of Israel was largely founded by non-religious Zionists, they still adopted halacha as the standard of Jewish practices (including conversion) for the State of Israel.
So if you want to be Jewish as recognized by the vast bulk of World Jewry, you need an halachic conversion, or you need to be Jewish by ancestry. The narrow sect of Reform Judaism is an aberration and doesn’t count anywhere outside of Reform Judaism.
To the OP:
I was raised Orthodox Jewish, but now I consider myself atheist. I have gone through the gamut, from Conservative -> Reform/Reconstructionist -> optimistic agnostic -> atheist. As a scientist, I demand evidence. A Jewish messiah will fulfill a very specific prophecy, and be foretold by wonders like Elijah’s return. Jesus, if he comes back (or comes for the first time or whatever), will also be accompanied by many signs and wonders. It won’t be hard to tell.
I ask for something very simple in the messiah, or in proof of a deity. I ask for enough evidence to accrue such that Occam’s Razor now includes God in the theory of most parsimony. It wouldn’t be hard to do – just one or two things here or there. Unexplained wonders, a Big Giant Voice hearable by all, the Rapture of the Church. In Judaism, some of the sects believe that the Third Temple will one day just appear on Temple Mount. If we awoke tomorrow to find a shining new temple on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, I may become a believer relatively quickly.
Oh, and IIRC a bizarre little tidbit I once heard is that the Moshiach (Jewish messiah) will be named Menachem.
Ack didn’t see MEBuckner’s post on preview. I retract that bit about Sweet Willy’s trolling as it seems that higher powers are on it.
Also, let me add in here that “proofs of religion” like the Revelation at Sinai and the Resurrection of Jesus will not be so valid in today’s information age. Even that thing that happened in the 1920s in Spain where 100 people saw the sun moving backwards would not fly in today’s world. Today we have more mass hysteria and mob mentalities clearly refuted by objective reporting, scientific method, etc. etc.
What this means is what may have passed for the messiah or the Messiah 2000 years ago (or perhaps even 80 years ago) probably won’t cut the mustard today. Miracles will not only have to be witnessed by a large amount of people, but also produce independent verifiable data. An ingathering of the Jewish people no longer means Jews of a limited section of the Middle East, it now means Jews all over the planet.
Specifics, please? And are you sure that they are actual historians? In point of fact, virtually every author who claims that Jesus never existed is not a historian by training.
Then with all due respect, I don’t think you’ve studied the matter sufficiently. The vast majority of historians DO agree that Jesus existed – or at the very least, that he probably existed. In fact, many history book present this as fact. In that light, I think it would be most extraordinary to claim that there is absolutely no reliable evidence of his existence – and the burden of proof would rest on the person making that claim.
In fact, Cecil himself weighed in on this claim, and he agreed with the majority historical opinion. We might not have ABSOLUTE proof of his existence – just as we don’t have absolute proof for the overwhelming majority of ancient historical events – but that hardly means that there’s no reliable evidence whatsoever.
Mr. Buckner, I am aware of Zevs explanation of his comments. I am also aware that he initially denies having said them. I am not retracting my understanding of his clarification. I am pointing out his contradictions of himself.
Good advice. This thread ask for proof, not silly claims with no evidence or support. As long as you assert your religious claims without proof I will be here to ask more questions.
First, why do call it trolling? We have someone making claims of three thousand year old men in flaming chariots, raising the dead, etc. I want proof of such statements just like you. There are people reading this who might just believe this silliness if no one reels 'em back into the real world. I think we have more than enough people believing this stuff already. It causes lots of problems.
Thanks for the small words. I also happen to enjoy nitpicking these other guys too. They are all in denial of the reality of our world.
BTW Edwino, you do realize that Zev, doesn’t believe you are an athiest right? Jewish law doesn’t allow you to be one. They think you are a liar.
No, they don’t. The Orthodox Jews that I’ve met all believe that I am an atheist Jew. They just think that I am misguided. Kind of like Christians who choose to witness. Judaism is not a proselytizing religion, but observant Jews will try to get other non-observant ones back into the flock.
As has been explained to you countless times in the past: there are two independent criteria for being Jewish, ancestry and belief. Ancestry, as we say in genetics, is epistatic to belief, i.e. ancestry trumps belief. I am Jewish by ancestry. I had no choice in the matter. This is completely independent of my beliefs. I do not believe in God. Since descent trumps belief, I am still Jewish.
If someone does not have Jewish ancestry, to be Jewish they need to have Jewish beliefs. This is measured in a very simple way by the vast majority of World Jewry: halachic criteria of conversion. So, if you don’t have ancestry then you must have belief as measured by Jewish Law.
The reasons for this are relatively straightforward. IMHO Judaism was originally designated by belief, just like any religion. It is unfortunate that Judaism, by ascription of a racial status mostly by European anti-Semites over the past 2000 years, has now become a defined by descent. The horrors committed on the Jewish people over the past few hundred years had little to do with belief – they had to do with descent. Modern Jewry and Zionism recognizes this. The State of Israel exists to prevent it from happening again (which is why they will shelter the non-halachically-Jewish families of Jews). The State of Israel and Modern Jewry would be remiss if they didn’t address the fact that Jews have been treated as members of a different race. So descent comes first.
You want to be Jewish without descent (presumably) and without belief (presumably). Can’t you see how you are basically trolling that question?
One other thing. For myself, I demand proof. But I don’t make fun of other people’s beliefs. I don’t laugh incredulously if zev tells me he believes in Elijah coming down or if a Christian tells me they believe in the Rapture of the Church.
We could get into a debate on epistemology, we could get into a debate on how evidence can be interpreted, how we can interpret reality, etc. etc. ad infinitum. But the conclusions would all be the same: just because I have all the “evidence” doesn’t necessarily make me more right, it just makes me more right within the narrow set of rules that I have defined as my reality.
Other people have other evidence which makes them right in their narrow sets of rules which they define as their reality. Welcome to relativism.
What do I believe? People need to do what makes them happy at a minimum of cost to others’ happiness. Basic tenet of life. People need to live self consistently within a framework of rules. Basic tenet of life. There are many ways to accomplish this, there are many paths around us to take. We pick and choose as we see fit.
I get some benefits for being atheist in my reality. Take kashrus, a set of laws in Judaism proscribed by God and are generally not to be questioned. I don’t follow them obviously because I don’t believe in God. Self-consistency. My benefit is Vietnamese BBQ Pork Vermicelli. zev sacrifices this (admittedly small) benefit for some other benefit in his life, which I can only assume would come through his belief in God. Self-consistency. I see nothing wrong with either approach, just that I’ve tried zev’s route (to a certain extent) and it wasn’t working for me. zev to the best of my knowledge pursues his own happiness at a minimum of cost to my own. Basic tenet of life.
I was going to finish reading this thread but remembered it was time to shine the Golden Calf.
Well, each case is different, of course. There is nothing to suggest that just because we have no evidence for one character we have no evidence for another. Evidence in favour of Buddha’s historicity does exist if I remember correctly, but as far as I know the case may not be closed (interestingly, the question does not bother most Buddhists). Mohammed, on the other hand, was a definite historical figure who set up a religion and an empire, and his exploits and person have been documented. I seem to recall something similar of Zarathustra, but to a lesser extent.
Some other religious figures, including Jesus, do not have the same kind of historical support.
Well, take Earl Doherty for example, although the fast-talking, loose-playing author of this article you posted thinks Doherty “has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar”. Speaking of discipline, I don’t know if we should look for information on historical topics concerning religion from a site that bills itself as “Building blocks for Christian Faith”! Hardly an objective source to consider a leading authority on the subject.
All “evidence” that I know of in favour of the existence of the character Jesus Christ is hearsay. If you know of an historian with proof to the contrary, I’d love to read up on it. I went through the link you provided and I can’t say I agree with the approach. That piece basically says “this is called the fallacy of authority; please subscribe to it or you need to get help” (I’m not kidding).
As usual, I am pressed for time. I’ll just try to hit the more prominent points in the article, because at times Holding waffles on without saying anything much, preferring instead to make snide, unscholarly, and mocking remarks about a position he thinks is “bizarre” (this being the position that places value on objective proof rather than proof-less consensus).
1. Among historians, consensus is good enough to base this sort of discussion on; Holding specifically says that consensus without evidence is technically not good enough to reach a decision, but in the next few lines comes out with the precise opposite. I don’t follow this reasoning (“evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus”) and, since it sounds like wishful thinking (speculative consensus replacing evidence) I’ll ignore it for now.
2. Quote: If proponents of the “Jesus-myth” were either qualified historians or had equivalent knowledge, then their counter-consenus position might deserve to be taken more seriously.
Well, they must all be ignorant since they don’t support Jesus’s existence. I wouldn’t dream of using such an argument even on Creationists, and goodness knows they deserve a few stiff beltings. Holding’s argument smells like blind reliance on a body of authority: “Jesus existed in spite of the fact that all we have on the topic are unsubstantiated myths incorporated into a religious system, and that’s because we think so”.
3. Quote: Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed.
Interestingly, the author then goes on to not give us any evidence at all.
4. Quote: *Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. *
Sidetracking in an egregious manner while bitching about the damn Pagans all in the same breath! The point here is not the comparable historicity of X, Y, and Z–this is not a history contest after all–but rather the proof we have of Jesus’s existence. Who would not dare to argue that certain famous pagan personages were mythical? Which personages? Is he talking about figures for whom we do have evidence? Obviously that is different case from figures for whom we have no substantive evidence, such as Jesus.
5. Quote: *Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. *
It depends on what aspect of Alexander’s life you want to talk about: the student of Aristotle, the economic reformist, the simple soldier and great general, the idealist seeking integration of ethnic groups, the patron of science, the ruthless conqueror, the founder of several cities, the executioner, the guy whose name coins bore around the world for decades, etc. These are aspects of his life that are documented in spite of Meier’s disingenuous assertion. Moreover, Alexander swept over a chunk of the planet and (to put it mildly) left his mark; Jesus did not, following more along Buddha’s footsteps and in fact preaching quite a few of the same things. It is the ideas and the system generally credited to Jesus that travelled the world, not their alleged originator. Therefore we know very little about Jesus apart from what the later edited Christian tradition itself claims (a conflict of interest, and also a problem given the redactional establishment of Christian dogma).
6. The author then quotes James Dunn:
"The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. "
This is probably the strongest argument in the paper, but it is by no means water-tight. Thirty or forty years seems sufficient time for popular sets of myths to become established, especially those as appealing to the grass-roots as the doctrines of the meek inheriting the Earth, equality for all, peace, forgiveness, etc. We’ve certainly seen similar things happen in slightly more recent times with all the Shirley MacLaine nonsense, the Dianetics/Scientology idiocy, and to a lesser extent the New (Dark) Age (crystal power, magick, auras and the rest of the claptrap).
In fact, take a look at Cecil’s answer to the question Why did Christianity become so popular? and you can see Cecil discussing why the religion was attractive from its early days, and why it enjoyed such growth. Note that no “complex and speculative analyses” are required to account for the success of Christianity, and given 40-150 years of proselytising I imagine a “coherent and consistent complex of traditions” based on an already established religion and established body of myths could easily develop.
Lastly on this quote, I find it astounding that Dunn can state with a straight face that, rather than consider the process of myth-making in a foreign-occupied oral tradition society, it is simpler to assume that Jesus did exist and that he did what the first three Gospels attribute to him. I guess it is simpler to accept myths at face value rather than question and distil them, but it seems a little disturbing when historians take this approach.
I find nothing else worth addressing in the article. I am slightly offended by the author’s handling of Occam’s razor and the law of parsimony, which he wields to decide in favour of the more complex theory.
I know that the majority of historians agree that Jesus existed–I stated so in my previous e-mail, although perhaps the second time it was presented ambiguously. But, to move on, it doesn’t matter what history books present as fact, because it is perfectly possible for history books to be wrong–particularly when there exists no actual evidence for the topic. From your quote above you seem to imply that because there is a consensus among historians and also in the books written by historians, the burden of proof ought to rest on the persons, such as me, who disagree. It doesn’t, because I am not making the claim that Jesus absolutely did not exist; I am simply pointing out that there is no reliable evidence to support the claim that the Jesus of the Bible existed. The burden of proof is on those making the claim that there was a Jesus of the Bible, and not a rather different man, or four Jesuses, or a guy whose name was Brian, or no guys at all.
I’ve criticized that particular column a number of times, and I think it’s about time Cecil injected his characteristic hot poker into the matter instead of playing it safe. All Cecil is saying is A) there is indeed no evidence, B) he probably did exist because historians generally assume he did, and because 40 years doesn’t seem enough time to fashion a Jesus from nothing. That is speculation—I mean, we’re talking about a lifetime or more in which to hear and make up stories. I’m guessing Hubbard’s friends laughed at him fairly hard when he decided to found a religion single-handedly; nonetheless he did it in a few years, and in a society that had both an excess of religions and a highly educated modern population.
I’d love to see it if it exists because I am honestly not aware of it. Anyway, we do not have absolute proof of his existence; nor do we have partial proof of his existence. In fact, we have no reliable proof of his existence whatsoever apart from some suspect sources (not just in terms of bias and credibility, but also of accuracy and level of information). All the items presented as evidence thus far seem indications at best, speculation at worst. Evaluating the historicity of an established historical figure, such as Alexander the Great, is not the same thing as evaluating the historicity of a primarily mythical figure such as Jesus. For one we actually have information, for the other we must work solely on myths.
Again, I am not implying that Jesus did not exist, but that it is incorrect to claim we have proof–not suggestions–when in fact we do not. It’s perhaps more a scientific point of view rather than an historical one, but it seems more valid than establishing historicity by fallacy of the majority.
edwino, It is my understanding that Jewish law does not alow for athiest Jews. I have already been over this point. If the orthodox Jews you have met believe you are truely an athiest then they must be non observant because if they truely believe the Jewish law they can’t acknowledge your existence. It is an enigma.
This another whole can of worms. The Jews are alot like the Masons in claiming that they don’t proselytize. Do a search on Jewish conversion and see what is out there. Plenty of Jews out there encouraging conversion.
http://www.maxpages.com/gerus
These guys tag line; “We teach and support converts”
http://www.convertingtojudaism.com/
converting to judaism.com? you must be joking.
http://www.convertingtojudaism.com/Conversion-al-Judaismo.htm
gotta make sure they get the message out in other languages too.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/judaism/judaism.html
http://uahc.org/outreach/becom.shtml
Get this; The Union of American Hebrew Congregations has an “outreach” department. Guess that doesn’t sound anything like proselytizing to you?
http://www.choosejudaism.org/guide.html
choosejudaism.com. That doesn’t sound like encouragement huh?
http://www.convert.org/infant.htm
This one is about converting infants and children. No need to proselytize them, just do it before they can object.
http://www.beingjewish.com/conversion/becomingjewish.html
This site “applauds” the goal of conversion.
http://www.converttojudaism.org/
There is even an institute of conversion.
If you want to see more just do a search on conversion and keep hitting the next button.
No that is not it. Belief alone does not constitute being Jewish. A person can believe for all of his life and never be Jewish. You know this. Why do attempt to state otherwise? Are being misleading on purpose? And who wrote the “ancestry trumps belief law”? Never heard of it. Got any evidence of such a claim? I would tend to believe the opposite. If you don’t believe you are Jewish, your ancestry doesn’t mean anything to you.
Now you blame Jewish laws about descent on anti - semites? You should get together with the Jewish scholars and let them know about the anti - semites that helped write the Jewish laws.
Edwino, you are twisting the truth. Jewish people decided to use descent as a criteria for being Jewish. Many people see this type of policy as racist. Are you really suggesting that the whole descent idea did not come from the Jews?
OK, so it is ok for me to find happiness at the expense of someone elses happiness. That is a selfish way to go my friend.
So all of this wealth of evidence that Jewish organizations are supporting and encouraging conversion is part of your evidence that Jews don’t accept conversion?
Your version of reasonable and rational continues to surprise me.
No.
That was a lie. It doesn’t surprise me at all.
Willy, one thing on the reasonable and rational thing. If you think you are, you are wrong. If you want to whine and yammer about how reasonable you are, fine. Most reasonable and rational people don’t have to whine and yammer on that subject.
Tris
When did I ever say that they don’t accept converts? They won’t accept me as a non observant convert. If they found out that I have Jewish ancestry however, I would be Jewish instantly. Same person as I was before I found out about some of the depression adoptions in my family. Only difference is that before I wouldn’t be accepted as a Jew at all but now I can’t be anything but a Jew. I never said they didn’t accept converts. I said the conversion process is in debate and is not accepted by every one on the same criteria. It is the point of my entire problem with Judaism. A year ago no one would have ever accepted me to convert to Judaism. With the information I have today, Jewish law doesn’t allow me to be anything but Jewish. I am the same person dude. So you think I am unreasonable or is there someone or something else that is unreasonable?
How is a non observant convert a convert in any way? What is it that you find unreasonable about the fact that your stated intention of pretending to convert is unacceptable to people who hold their faith to be a matter of great importance?
I know you are incapable of sustaining the subtle concept that to “be a Jew” is two different things, even in a single individual. Tribal descent does create the state of being a member of the tribe. It’s kind of simple, really. Conversion creates the state of being a member of a congregation of believers.
Pretending to convert, or converting to a “non observant Jew” is gibbering nonsense. Being incensed that someone might find that to be ridiculous simply demonstrates that your idiocy is more sincere than your religious conversion.
Endlessly yammering about the fact that you can’t become a Jew unless you really become a Jew, and insisting that this complaint is somehow relevant to something other than your own intentional obtuseness doesn’t offer evidence that you are a reasonable, or logical participant in a debate. It is entirely consistent with the possibility that you are a mindless troll, trying to offend people, in order to feel important.
:wally
Tris
edwino:
It’s not all that bizarre; anyway, that statement might just mean that Menachem, “comforter” in Hebrew, will be a title of his, a name that he acquires through his deeds, not necessarily the one he’s born with.
Sweet Willy:
You are unreasonable.
Boy, sometimes the simplest questions come up on this message board…