Brilliant, but unfortunately, it went over many heads.

Personally I don’t feel this was that far over my head.

This was a survey by a popular British newspaper that is definitely not renowned for the standard and accuracy of it’s reporting. My point in my last posting here, was that stupid children can be found anywhere.

The argument runs thus :-

1 There are some rather stupid children who believe that Winston Churchill was a fictional character.

2. He was not. They are wrong.

3. Some people believe that Jesus Christ was a fictional character.

4. Therefore (through some very faulty logic) we are invited to believe that THEY are wrong.


However ;-

We could use exactly the same kind of syllogism in this manner ;-

1. Some idiotic juveniles believe that Sherlock Holmes was an historical character.

2. He was not. They are wrong.

3. Some people believe that Jesus Christ was an historical character.

4. I am sure you can see where this one leads.

What that tells me is that people should look at things critically. If you critically look at Jesus, you can't help but conclude that Jesus existed. You can deny Jesus was God, but you cannot logically deny that Jesus existed, because that would fly in the face of the historical evidence.

When I said that, I wasn't talking about you.

I quite disagree. Although personally I believe that Jesus existed, I don't feel that it would be definitively illogical to believe that he did not exist.

To claim that anything supported by "historical evidence" (first problem: good luck getting people to agree on what constitutes historical evidence) must be believed by any logical person is a stretch. Consider the battle of evolution vs. creation, or dinosaurs before or during human habitation. There is plenty of evidence that dinosaurs existed, and also plenty of evidence that they existed far before humans did. Yet, there are many who say they co-existed. Additionally, there is a wealth of information on evolution, yet a vast number of people do not believe in it.

There are rules and methodology to how archeology and history are studied. Those rules aren't arbitrary and they aren't up for debate or vote. Anyone can deny that Jesus existed, but the evidence we have today, when looked at from an archeological perspective and/or a historic perspective, the existance of a man named Jesus who lived and taught around 30 AD is undeniable. There are people who claim that the earth is flat, people who deny that Jesus existed are on the same level of crediblity.

I understand that there are many scientifically valid systems set up to verify the authenticity of such historical things. But my point is that there are also scientifically sound ways of showing that man evolved. Is it your contention that people who don't believe in evolution are necessarily illogical for failing to believe the historical evidence?

As a non-Christian with a strong interest in history, archeology, and anthropology, I have to say that there is enough non-Biblical evidence that Jesus did live and die.

While there is no non-biblical evidence of the killing of all children under 2 at his birth, and you would think an event like that would make it's mark on history, it is a known historical fact that he was executed as the Bible say.

There are many many witnesses of that time....that when Moses wen to Pharoah and said all the first born would be killed....think of all the people that were around.....that is proof....Also think of all the other people who marked the door with blood to let God know to pass by those homes.....witnesses everywhere......so I am afraid that all scripture is truly backed up with witnesses.

But without proper documentation, those witness accounts are relied on only by faith, not logic.

Science is composed of two basic peices of knowledge. Objective knowledge called "Evidence" and subjective knowledge called "conclusions". The two are not the same. Creationists have the same objective knowledge as Darwinists, but have used that knowledge to come to different subjective conclusions. Christians offer different interpretation of the objective knowledge, which they use to support their claims for different subjective knowledge. Any Christian who rejects objective knowledge will be attacked by other Christians. Look on most apologetics sites and you will find refutations for theorys presented by other Christians. Christian apologists don't deny the objective knowledge, they question the subjective knowledge...the conclusions, which are drawn from the objective knowledge.

Anyone who states that Jesus didn't exist isn't offering a different interpretation of the objective knowledge that Jesus existed, they are rejecting it. People who say that the earth is flat are ignoring objective evidence that the earth is a sphere. People who say that Jesus never existed are ignoring documentary evidence from dozens of different sources. We can argue over if Jesus was God or not, but the objective knowledge we have from that time clearly shows that Jesus lived.

By the same reasoning, I could argue that the civil war never happened. Or that Lincoln never existed. Many historical facts are based on a single source (Jesus' life is not). The only information we have about the Trojan War is from a poem by Homer, but archeologists have confirmed that the war happened. In history, the number of sources has no relavance in if the account is accepted or not. Bias is always assumed, but the account will be taken as at least partially accurate.

And you are entitled to that belief.....I don't agree with it....as the Bible is full of history backing it up very nicely.....

archeology also has many many things to back up biblical scripture..I have done many a thread on this also......

Spider.......How are you?.......

Well put, I understand the distinction that you're trying to make now.

Feralcatlady - I was not personally opining that Jesus didn't exist, I agree that he did. I was debating the premise that anyone who doesn't believe that he existed was illogical. As above, spider did a good job clarifying the difference between my viewpoint and his (which is yours too it seems), and although there seem to be some fringe elements of disagreement, I do believe that he explained the point clearly and reasonably and I am now inclined to agree.

Nice Bike

Art

Of course. But, no one gave their lives in order to teach that Mr. Holmes was real. It is so funny to me.

If we can forget the reality of Churchill that quick, I do now understand how these guys can make the claim. I mean people quote Herodotus, no one thinks he did not exist. There is the Bible account in the gospels. Matthew wrote in the early sixties. Acts covers the the rest of the years, and the apostle John through the first century. Then there are eyewitness to John, and those who passed down the accounts and history from then on. It amazes me.

Art

He was making a point.

Kat