Jesus Had a Wife?

[BlueRidge]

What should you read?

Well if you want to read something that will validate and enhance the views you already have, then this would be good: The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life (by Jesse Bering)

If you want to consider a religious view of faith then Alvin Plantinga's book which I linked to a review of above: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

Or if you want something that will annoy you, read the book by the atheist who wrote the above review of Plantinga: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (by Thomas Nagel)

[PRlady]

What should you read?

Well if you want to read something that will validate and enhance the views you already have, then this would be good: The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life (by Jesse Bering)

If you want to consider a religious view of faith then Alvin Plantinga's book which I linked to a review of above: Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism

Or if you want something that will annoy you, read the book by the atheist who wrote the above review of Plantinga: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (by Thomas Nagel)

Uh, since we sorta know each other, can't I just borrow them from you?

[BlueRidge]

Uh, since we sorta know each other, can't I just borrow them from you?

sorta?

I don't have all of them yet. I was hoping I could borry them from you after you get them.

[cruisin]

So do I. I wonder what I should read about this....[usual wonky reaction]

Perhaps the sense/need for divinity was really a way of establishing human hierarchy when society settled down and started to diversify economically and then stratify. In other words, the Divine Right of Kings was a pretty early idea...and let's face it, those kings had some excellent publicists. Why is that guy king? Because the gods made him one, of course!

And, of course, if you consider religion to be mythology, to explain natural phenomenon that was beyond "scientific" understanding.

The various mythologies also should have served the in-group purpose, uniting a tribe against its adversaries because each tribe had its patron god(s). Unfortunately that us vs them characteristic of religion still obtains.

That is the most unfortunate aspect of organized religion. I understand the concept that if you believe and have faith, that it is difficult to accept that others believe differently. And, I even can comprehend the need to persuade. The operative word being persuade, not bully. But, to consider anything different from your beliefs to be justification for violence - NEVER!

[MacMadame]

Because you can't prove there is no G-d anymore then you can prove there is one..... so you simply, on faith, choose to believe one or the other ;-)

Not really. If there was a God, then God could make his existence completely obvious. Until He/She/It does, it is logical to assume there is none and it takes faith to believe there is a God.

Otherwise you are saying that it is a leap of faith to not believe that my next-door neighbor isn't secretly an alien from another planet or that the Abdominal Snowman doesn't exist.

IOW believing something doesn't exist when there is no prove it exists is not a faith-based belief.

[BlueRidge]

The Abdominal Snowman exists!

[MacMadame]

The Wikipedia article I linked to doesn't say if you don't think Jesus is historical you're an idiot, in fact I didn't see any place that said that.

It was Eric B. who said that. The Wikipedia article started out by pointing to the writings that everyone points to as proof but aren't contemporary. I didn't get much further than that because I found the writing kind of turgid and I didn't see anything new to make it worth slogging through.

It's not that I believe Jesus absolutely can't be an historical figure, btw. I just think the evidence is weak and I think that's interesting. Because all my younger life when I was told that this was indisputable by people who used this supposedly indisputable fact to bolster their arguments for believing a lot of other stuff that, if some religion they thought was made up believed it, they'd laugh hysterically at how stupid those people were. And then I find out that it really isn't all that indisputable. Maybe the mainstream scholars have stopped disputing it, but even they agree with the facts that the people who do dispute it use to make their arguments.

In this sense, not believing Jesus was an historical figure is very different from not believing in evolution and instead believing in Intelligent Design. Because to disbelieve in evolution and believe in Intelligent Design, you have to disbelief in established facts and ignore the scientific method. But to not believe Jesus was an historical figure, all you are saying is that you don't think the evidence that is out there meets a certain burden of proof. You don't have to explain away anything or twist established facts like you do if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old or that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.

To get back to the original subject of this thread... if Jesus was indeed an historical figure, then I think he absolutely had a wife.

[milanessa]

The Abdominal Snowman exists!

And he is churning!

[BlueRidge]

It's not that I believe Jesus absolutely can't be an historical figure, btw. I just think the evidence is weak and I think that's interesting. Because all my younger life when I was told that this was indisputable by people who used this supposedly indisputable fact to bolster their arguments for believing a lot of other stuff that, if some religion they thought was made up believed it, they'd laugh hysterically at how stupid those people were. And then I find out that it really isn't all that indisputable. Maybe the mainstream scholars have stopped disputing it, but even they agree with the facts that the people who do dispute it use to make their arguments.

So part of your motivation for doubting that Jesus is historical is because it runs counter to what some religious believers have said to you?

In this sense, not believing Jesus was an historical figure is very different from not believing in evolution and instead believing in Intelligent Design. Because to disbelieve in evolution and believe in Intelligent Design, you have to disbelief in established facts and ignore the scientific method. But to not believe Jesus was an historical figure, all you are saying is that you don't think the evidence that is out there meets a certain burden of proof. You don't have to explain away anything or twist established facts like you do if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old or that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.

It is however, very similiar to how climate change deniers approach information on climate change. Not enough evidence. That's valid. I don't think there is ultimately enough evidence for any knowledge. Speaking as a skeptic.

[gkelly]

The Abdominal Snowman exists!

And he is churning!

Here's the evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoNHgHwwMHQ

[PRlady]

sorta?

I don't have all of them yet. I was hoping I could borry them from you after you get them.

Lend me the one(s) you have and we'll make a deal.

[BlueRidge]

jeez did I actually type "borry"? That's abdominal.

[Vagabond]

People can believe what they want obviously, but arguing for the non-existence of Jesus is the intellectual equivalent of birtherism.

Once again, you have dragged a thread into the gutter with insulting comments and by ignoring the issue at hand, in this case the absence or sufficiency of neutral, direct, contemporary evidence of that Jesus was an actual, living person.

As far as I can tell, no one here is arguing that the existence of Jesus can be disproved. I, for one, don't think it can be.

But you obviously have your own agenda.

BlueRidge, you asked me a question some time back. If other posters' responsies didn't answer it to your satisfaction, feel free to send me a Private Message.

[BlueRidge]

No thank you. I'd rather have a public discussion.

[milanessa]

Here's the evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoNHgHwwMHQ

[heckles]

If there was a God, then God could make his existence completely obvious. Until He/She/It does, it is logical to assume there is none and it takes faith to believe there is a God.

The greatness of Charo is proof that God exists.

[agalisgv]

Once again, you have dragged a thread into the gutter with insulting comments and by ignoring the issue at hand, in this case the absence or sufficiency of neutral, direct, contemporary evidence of that Jesus was an actual, living person.

There are no neutral sources--particularly in antiquity. To assume there was displays a staggering ignorance of the time period and historiography in general.

Do you believe in the existence of Alexander the Great?

Julius Caesar?

Yes or no?

As for my agenda, it's battling anti-intellectualism. I'm quite passionate about that.

For IA, I'll get back to your question later tonight.

[snoopy]

vagabond is relatively new and may not realize that agal is a religious studies professor or department chair of some sort.

[DAngel]

The Abdominal Snowman exists!

And he is churning!

Here's the evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoNHgHwwMHQ

I'm so immature...

[PRlady]

There are no neutral sources--particularly in antiquity. To assume there was displays a staggering ignorance of the time period and historiography in general.

Maybe there's just a misunderstanding here. A neutral source, to me, would be a tax or census record, and those certainly existed in antiquity. If you mean all the writers whose writings have survived have an agenda, well, that hasn't changed in 2 or 3000 years.