Jesus: It Seems Had A "Wife" After All.

#51
#51
chatt-townVOL said:
Interesting you specifically would point out in your "example" that Socrates trained the guy who trained Aristotle. Unless of course now you don't believe (or in TRUT terms "never said") Aristotle was real.
Click to expand...

1. It was an exegetical example to demonstrate how writing, specifically how syllogistic writing, ought to proceed. I could have used unicorns, as well. Or, if you like, here's an example of a syllogism: P1: If Jesus was the son of God, Jesus was divine; P2: Jesus was the son of God; C: Jesus was divine. Yet, I do not believe that Jesus existed, but I not only can offer that as an example, I have offered that exact example to students to whom I have taught logic.

2. To posit something is to declare it as true. Amazingly, I do believe that Socrates did exist, yet I don't declare, "Socrates existed" as true. Why? Because I do not know if he existed. I cannot confidently assert that my belief is true, thus I cannot posit that Socrates existed. I can assume; I can hypothesize; I can guess. But, I do not know, and thus I do not posit.

3. Herein lies the distinction: Christians don't merely assert that they believe Jesus existed, they posit his existence as truth. When someone questions this truth-claim, then they say that the burden of proof is on the questioner. No, it is not. I someone declares they know something to be true, then they are claiming that they possess a justified, true belief; not merely a belief; not merely a justified belief. As such, the burden is on them to present the justification, if they are claiming knowledge of truth.

4. I have no argument for Socrates's existence. But, I don't really care if he existed or not; i.e., I don't care if my belief is false. Because, I have nothing staked on the belief. If Socrates never lived; if Plato never lived; if Aristotle never lived; I would not be in the least bit concerned. If the works bearing the names of Plato and Aristotle were not actually written 2,500 years ago, but were in fact written in the late 1970s, just before I was born, this would not bother me one bit. Why? Because it is not important to me who wrote those works; it is important what is written in those works. The arguments are great arguments; the questions are great questions. If it turned out that a monkey pounding random keys on a typewriter was able to spit out a random string that just happened to be The Republic, great!

5. The problem is that Christians do have a stake in whether or not Jesus existed. In fact, they think they stake their entire life and after-life on this claim. Thus, they don't question whether the belief is true or not; further, they immediately ask for proofs of anyone who does question it. And, that is ass backwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#52
#52
Wow TRUT, I've been trying to get in better shape lately, I'm going to plug that (unnecessary and irrelevant) run around the track you just took me on into myfitnesspal and see how many calories we just burned.

I would, however, like to address this:

. Herein lies the distinction: Christians don't merely assert that they believe Jesus existed, they posit his existence as truth. When someone questions this truth-claim, then they say that the burden of proof is on the questioner. No, it is not.
Click to expand...

Quite the generalization. My argument for the existence of Jesus is not "You can't prove he didn't exist!" Personally I think that's a very poor argument, no offense to any of my fellow Christians. Surely somewhere within the fascinating saga known as "The Adventures of therealUT and His Quest to Disprove Jesus" you've encountered other arguments besides the one you just assigned to the entire demographic known as "Christians."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#53
#53
TRUT, Do you consider the writings of Flavius Josephus as being credible?
 
#54
#54
chatt-townVOL said:
Quite the generalization. My argument for the existence of Jesus is not "You can't prove he didn't exist!" Personally I think that's a very poor argument, no offense to any of my fellow Christians. Surely somewhere within the fascinating saga known as "The Adventures of therealUT and His Quest to Disprove Jesus" you've encountered other arguments besides the one you just assigned to the entire demographic known as "Christians."
Click to expand...

I have to agree. It's somewhat disappointing to read that logic train and find a giant strawman waiting at the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#56
#56
GAVol said:
I have to agree. It's somewhat disappointing to read that logic train and find a giant strawman waiting at the end.
Click to expand...

Do you assert that it is true that Jesus existed? If so, feel free to provide the proof.
 
#57
#57
chatt-townVOL said:
Wow TRUT, I've been trying to get in better shape lately, I'm going to plug that (unnecessary and irrelevant) run around the track you just took me on into myfitnesspal and see how many calories we just burned.

I would, however, like to address this:



Quite the generalization. My argument for the existence of Jesus is not "You can't prove he didn't exist!" Personally I think that's a very poor argument, no offense to any of my fellow Christians. Surely somewhere within the fascinating saga known as "The Adventures of therealUT and His Quest to Disprove Jesus" you've encountered other arguments besides the one you just assigned to the entire demographic known as "Christians."
Click to expand...

Provide your argument for the truth of his existence. By the way, I have no quest to prove Jesus did not exist. I don't believe he existed and I don't assert that it is true he did not exist. That is, there is a wide gulf between the propositions: I don't believe Jesus existed and I believe Jesus did not exist.
 
Last edited:
#59
#59
As a believer and imho this has no impact whatsoever. He was born a man. I could completely see the church hiding that fact.
 
#60
#60
coug said:
As a believer and imho this has no impact whatsoever. He was born a man. I could completely see the church hiding that fact.
Click to expand...


Why do you think the church would hide Jesus being married ? Being married is a very honorable thing per the Bible.
 
#62
#62
Gramps said:
May I ask why ?

I consider him a very credible 1st century writer.
Click to expand...

There are a variety of sources that question whether the references to Jesus found in his writings are authentically his or whether they were added later, well after the 1st Century.
 
#63
#63
GAVol said:
Over the years, I've seen Catholic TRUT and I've seen Philosopher TRUT. I know better than to take the bait from either.
Click to expand...

Damn, after pointing out the obvious straw-man (and, yes, you are correct in asserting that I ended with a straw-man and a massive generalization), I was hoping you would follow it up with an incredible proof. :hi:
 
#64
#64
Gramps said:
Why do you think the church would hide Jesus being married ? Being married is a very honorable thing per the Bible.
Click to expand...

I couldn't say exactly as I'm not one of those that would view it as a problem. I could only offer two guesses. One being that as the son of God some followers might not take him as seriously if he were to "concern" himself with women and not completely dedicate all of his time to his followers.
The second guess goes along the same lines with clerical celibacy.
 
#65
#65
coug said:
I couldn't say exactly as I'm not one of those that would view it as a problem. I could only offer two guesses. One being that as the son of God some followers might not take him as seriously if he were to "concern" himself with women and not completely dedicate all of his time to his followers.
The second guess goes along the same lines with clerical celibacy.
Click to expand...

Clerical celibacy does not become Catholic Doctrine until the tenth and eleventh centuries.
 
#66
#66
therealUT said:
Clerical celibacy does not become Catholic Doctrine until the tenth and eleventh centuries.
Click to expand...

I know the term is Catholic in origin but I was using it in more of a general sense. I'm not a religious historian by any means but I doubt that Catholicism was neither the first nor the only religion to adopt/practice such an idea.

Phrasing it differently, it makes him more "human" than others would like.
 
Last edited:
#68
#68
aredfox28 said:
Ahhhh.. I don't buy into religion, i mean, do I believe one man created everything. . Nope.. if you tell someone some of the stories that are in the bible, and you replaced jesus, with the name Oltare or something, people would have you committed to the nut ward.. now, do I believe in satan??. Lol.. hell no, just don't believe in that stuff.. now I know people are gonna crucify me for what I just said...
Click to expand...
Interesting choice of forms of punishment for somebody that doesn't buy into religion. :question:
 
#69
#69
therealUT said:
Provide your argument for the truth of his existence. By the way, I have no quest to prove Jesus did not exist. I don't believe he existed and I don't assert that it is true he did not exist. That is, there is a wide gulf between the propositions: I don't believe Jesus existed and I believe Jesus did not exist.
Click to expand...

That's not the point of this thread. And we've been down that road several times already, it's not exactly a short discussion.
 
#70
#70
coug said:
As a believer and imho this has no impact whatsoever. He was born a man. I could completely see the church hiding that fact.
Click to expand...

That's about the way I feel. So what if he was married? I wouldn't make me question my faith in the least, but of course I have faith in the divine and not the church.
 
#71
#71
Gramps said:
Why do you think the church would hide Jesus being married ? Being married is a very honorable thing per the Bible.
Click to expand...

I think the Catholic church has hidden many contradictory texts and artifacts.
 
#74
#74
Gramps said:
Why do you think the church would hide Jesus being married ? Being married is a very honorable thing per the Bible.
Click to expand...

Because we are all Puritans at heart and think somehow that sex is sinful, even in a marriage. Since Jesus was a sinless person, he would have to be a virgin and not driven by the same lusts as everyone else.

Also, if he was married, then that leaves the possibility of an heir (ala, The Da'Vinci Code), which, unless the heir was semi-divine, that would put into question the whole fully man, fully God issue.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it and would put it down as Jesus experiencing all the pain of the world along with the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
YorkVol said:
Because we are all Puritans at heart and think somehow that sex is sinful, even in a marriage. Since Jesus was a sinless person, he would have to be a virgin and not driven by the same lusts as everyone else.

Also, if he was married, then that leaves the possibility of an heir (ala, The Da'Vinci Code), which, unless the heir was semi-divine, that would put into question the whole fully man, fully God issue.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it and would put it down as Jesus experiencing all the pain of the world along with the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top