Whether Jesus Existed?

[Peter Kirby]

Whether Jesus Existed?

Objection 1. It seems that Jesus did exist; because if an offense against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment, we would be altogether destroyed. But the word "Jesus" means that He is both God and man, and capable of taking on an infinite punishment in the stead of man. If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men. Therefore Jesus did exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a single impressive Man has been produced by the imaginations of many. But it seems that everything we see in the Gospels and Christian literature can be accounted for by divine principles, supposing Jesus did exist. For all silences can be reduced to one principle, which is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence;" and all perspicuous positive statements can be reduced to one principle which is the divinity of Jesus Christ, as with God all things are possible. Therefore there is no need to suppose Jesus's non-existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of Bertrand Russell: "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him."

I answer that, The non-existence of Jesus can be demonstrated in five ways.

...[help me out here]...

Reply to Objection 1. [You know you can do it!]

Reply to Objection 2. [LOL, again, help me write the proofs]

[anthrosciguy]

Whether Jesus Existed?

Objection 1. It seems that Jesus did exist; because if an offense against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment, we would be altogether destroyed. But the word "Jesus" means that He is both God and man, and capable of taking on an infinite punishment in the stead of man. If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men. Therefore Jesus did exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a single impressive Man has been produced by the imaginations of many. But it seems that everything we see in the Gospels and Christian literature can be accounted for by divine principles, supposing Jesus did exist. For all silences can be reduced to one principle, which is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence;" and all perspicuous positive statements can be reduced to one principle which is the divinity of Jesus Christ, as with God all things are possible. Therefore there is no need to suppose Jesus's non-existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of Bertrand Russell: "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him."

I answer that, The non-existence of Jesus can be demonstrated in five ways.

...[help me out here]...

Reply to Objection 1. [You know you can do it!]

Reply to Objection 2. [LOL, again, help me write the proofs]

Sounds to me like a number of completely unsupported statements with generous helpings of assumptions, like there being a god (for one). I don't see any response being needed other than pointing out that proof needs to come from the people who claim something or someone existed, rather than those who say there is no such proof so far.

[Toto]

Whether Jesus Existed?

Objection 1. It seems that Jesus did exist; because if an offense against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment, we would be altogether destroyed.

But this is an infinitely merciful god. Can he be both infinitely merciful and infinitely vengeful?

But the word "Jesus" means that He is both God and man, and capable of taking on an infinite punishment in the stead of man.

Jesus had a bad weekend. How does that compare to Prometheus pushing the stone up the hill to have it fall back down? Now there's an infinite punishment.

If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men. Therefore Jesus did exist.

Where is this salvation? Just look around you.

Objection 2. ...

Sorry, I can't follow this.

[Peter Kirby]

Sounds to me like a number of completely unsupported statements with generous helpings of assumptions, like there being a god (for one). I don't see any response being needed other than pointing out that proof needs to come from the people who claim something or someone existed, rather than those who say there is no such proof so far.
It's a parody of the debates over Jesus put into the format of Aquinas's Summa; as such...

[Peter Kirby]

Sorry, I can't follow this.
"Jesus Did It" is the easier/simpler answer to the origins of Gospels and Christian literature. (A riff on Aquinas's proto-Occamite razor argument against a God.)

[Peter Kirby]

This link (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm) has the Summa for those who need a refresher.

I'll take a stab at the first way.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from death. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are alive. Now whatever is alive is brought to life by another, for nothing can be alive except it is alive before; whereas a thing lives inasmuch as it continues to live. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once alive and dead in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually alive cannot simultaneously be potentially alive; but it is simultaneously potentially dead. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both resurrectionist and resurrected, i.e. that it should raise itself. Therefore, whatever is alive must be sustained in life by another. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that there is no man who was brought to life who was at the same time already dead; and this everyone understands to be Jesus.

[Peter Kirby]

I'll take another stab, this time at the fourth.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in men. Among men there are some more and some less good, honest, noble and the like. But "more" or "less" are predicated of different men, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the mean, as a thing is said to be hotter as it more distantly resembles that which is the coldest known; so that there is nothing in humanity which is best, completely honest, entirely noble and the like; for those things that are greatest in aesthetic and moral virtue are scantiest in empirical reality, as it is written on the bathroom wall, "all men are pigs." Therefore there must also not be some man which is to all other men the most perfect example of virtue and noble quality, and this we call Jesus.

[Peter Kirby]

Stabbing now at the fifth...

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the church. We see that things which lack divine grace, such as religious leaders, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to ensure optimum chances of survival on the world stage. Hence it is plain that their behavior does not divinely, but humanly, achieve survival. Now whatever lacks divine grace cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with entirely human motive and intelligence; as the election is won by the shrewd politician. Therefore there is no divine being by whom all church things are directed to their end; and this being we call Jesus.

[judge]

Whether Jesus Existed?

Objection 1. It seems that Jesus did exist; because if an offense against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment, we would be altogether destroyed. But the word "Jesus" means that He is both God and man, and capable of taking on an infinite punishment in the stead of man. If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men. Therefore Jesus did exist.

Although the Jesus of the gospels never posited the existence of such a god (as the one described above).

[Peter Kirby]

Although the Jesus of the gospels never posited the existence of such a god (as the one described above).
No, but if I understand it correctly, it is the argument of Athanasius for the existence of the incarnate Word.

[Ted Hoffman]

If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men.
Provide an objective definition of what "salvation of men" means (and salvation from what exactly?). Then after that, provide verifiable evidence that "salvation of men" exists.
It is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a single impressive Man has been produced by the imaginations of many.
This statement presumes, without any basis, that Christianity can be adequately accounted for "by a single impressive Man."
Yes, Paul was a single impressive man. But the Cephas and the others had the visions first.
Or did you mean Jesus was the single impressive man? Is that why most Christians are non-Jews and Judaism does not agree that he was the messiah? Wait, that makes sense, Jesus was an impressive man just like Mithras?
Oh, oops, or was Constantine the impressive man who made a divided, multi-headed sect the state religion in the Roman empire?

[spin]

Peter, Thomist ontological commitments died with the necessity for epistemology, ie it's a crock of shite to conceive ontologies without having means to demonstrate the ontologies. It is only mental masturbation, for you can conceive of whatever you like, but the conception need not reflect anything real.

(And the basis of this thread is certainly not for BC&H.)


spin

[Dean Anderson]

How does that compare to Prometheus pushing the stone up the hill to have it fall back down? Now there's an infinite punishment.

Pssst... Sisyphus was the one with the stone. Prometheus had is liver torn out every day...

[Peter Kirby]

Peter, Thomist ontological commitments died with the necessity for epistemology, ie it's a crock of shite to conceive ontologies without having means to demonstrate the ontologies. It is only mental masturbation, for you can conceive of whatever you like, but the conception need not reflect anything real.
Okay, and what is Thomist about the endeavor besides the manner of writing?

(And the basis of this thread is certainly not for BC&H.)
As practiced, BC&H has been a subforum of GRD. Until and unless we are willing to give up all that entirely, the parody will have a place here.

And to Toto and Ted, it would please to put your response in the form of a reply that suits the style of exposition used.

And to those who believe in Jesus Christ, please suggest better objections to the proposition, "Jesus did not exist." I am in eminent danger of presenting strawmen.

[Clivedurdle]

for nothing can be alive except it is alive before;

We have moved a long way from that assertion - we understand the non living chemical basis of life and are not very far from creating life - we can get all the building blocks by putting electricity into molecules.

[spin]

Okay, and what is Thomist about the endeavor besides the manner of writing?
As my cursory reading indicated ontologies without concomitant epistemology is not a useful practice. Salvation is accepted without epistemological basis. No live is brought into the world except through life is accepted without epistemological basis (this has the lurid smell of first cause). And the others fall foul of mere conception without epistemological basis.

As practiced, BC&H has been a subforum of GRD. Until and unless we are willing to give up all that entirely, the parody will have a place here.
I think it is clear that it should be "was", as BC&H now has a different mandate.

And to those who believe in Jesus Christ, please suggest better objections to the proposition, "Jesus did not exist." I am in eminent danger of presenting strawmen.
Yup.


spin

[Peter Kirby]

As my cursory reading indicated ontologies without concomitant epistemology is not a useful practice. Salvation is accepted without epistemological basis. No live is brought into the world except through life is accepted without epistemological basis (this has the lurid smell of first cause). And the others fall foul of mere conception without epistemological basis.
Every argument has premises that can be identified, and if identified, identified as being those "without epistemological basis."

I think it is clear that it should be "was", as BC&H now has a different mandate.
When did it change, in your account?

[Solo]

Okay, and what is Thomist about the endeavor besides the manner of writing?

Well, the "fourth way" actually looks like a pastiche of St.Anselm, with "nobler/worthier/etc." substituted for "greater".

Jiri

[Johann_Kaspar]

If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men. Therefore Jesus did exist.exitiabilis superstitio

Salvation from what?

[Johann_Kaspar]

Therefore there must also not be some man which is to all other men the most perfect example of virtue and noble quality, and this we call Jesus.A murderer? :banghead:










'

[gupwalla]

Whether Jesus Existed?

Objection 1. It seems that Jesus did exist; because if an offense against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment, we would be altogether destroyed. But the word "Jesus" means that He is both God and man, and capable of taking on an infinite punishment in the stead of man. If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men. Therefore Jesus did exist.



Reply to Objection 1. [You know you can do it!]



I am going to slightly rephrase your syllogism:

Prove Jesus existed:

Step 1: Assume God...

And there, I must object. God is an awfully, awfully big assumption, and I'm not prepared to cede quite so much ground up front. I require proof. So, I say, go back and work some more.

And this time, fewer assumptions!

[aa5874]

This link (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm) has the Summa for those who need a refresher.

I'll take a stab at the first way.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from death. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are alive. Now whatever is alive is brought to life by another, for nothing can be alive except it is alive before; whereas a thing lives inasmuch as it continues to live. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once alive and dead in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually alive cannot simultaneously be potentially alive; but it is simultaneously potentially dead. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both resurrectionist and resurrected, i.e. that it should raise itself. Therefore, whatever is alive must be sustained in life by another. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that there is no man who was brought to life who was at the same time already dead; and this everyone understands to be Jesus.


And we can go on and on and on. Someone brought Jesus to life, and someone else brought that someone who brought Jesus to life and someone else brought that someone else who brought someone else who brought Jesus to life...............someone else........

Peter, the Jesus described in the NT is unknown externally. Nothing, except in your imagination.

[Peter Kirby]

I think 50% of my readers failed to notice that the thrust of the O.P. and its addendums is that Jesus Christ did not exist.

Such is the price paid by the equinamous Thomistic format.

[spin]

Every argument has premises that can be identified, and if identified, identified as being those "without epistemological basis."
What value does a premise have which has no epistemological basis? If you can't know how you know, then what you know functionally means nothing, doesn't it?

When did it change, in your account?
I'd guess it had something to do with the chosen name, biblical criticism and history. Which of these is the thread dealing with?


spin

[Peter Kirby]

Spin,

I bow to your buddha nature.

Toto et al.,

Please move this to GRD.

[Amaleq13]

Done.

[Peter Kirby]

[Note to the reader: please pay attention to who is making the two objections (hypothetical believers) and what the thread of the argument actually is. I have modified the original posts to make a better presentation. If you believe that Jesus Christ did exist, please present further objections to the proposition that he did not.]

Whether Jesus Existed?

Objection 1. It seems that Jesus did exist; because if an offense against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment, we would be altogether destroyed. But the word "Jesus" means that He is both God and man, and capable of taking on an infinite punishment in the stead of man. If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men, as Christianity declares. Therefore Jesus did exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a single impressive Man has been produced by the imaginations of many. But it seems that everything we see in the Gospels and Christian literature can be accounted for by supposing Jesus did exist. For all silences can be reduced to one principle, which is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence;" and all perspicuous positive statements (as to his heavenly nature) can be reduced to one principle which is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no need to suppose Jesus's non-existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of Bertrand Russell: "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him."

I answer that, The non-existence of Jesus can be demonstrated in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from death. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are alive. Now nothing can be alive except it is alive before or is brought to life from elementary parts; whereas a thing lives inasmuch as it continues to live. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once alive and dead in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually alive cannot simultaneously be potentially alive; but it is simultaneously potentially dead. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both resurrectionist and resurrected, i.e. that it should raise itself. Therefore, whatever is alive must be sustained in life by another. Moreover, if a man has died, he is never brought back to life, and it is not possible for a man to be brought to life from elementary parts, except that he is born in the womb. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that there is no man who was brought to life who was at the same time already dead; and this everyone understands to be Jesus.

[...second and third ways pending...]

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in men. Among men there are some more and some less good, honest, noble and the like. But "more" or "less" are predicated of different men, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the mean, as a thing is said to be hotter as it more distantly resembles that which is temperate; so that there is nothing in humanity which is best, completely honest, entirely noble and the like; for those things that are greatest in aesthetic and moral virtue are scantiest in empirical reality, as it is written on the bathroom wall, "all men are pigs." Therefore there must also not be some man which is to all other men the most perfect example of virtue and noble quality, and this we call Jesus.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the church. We see that things which lack divine grace, such as religious leaders, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to ensure optimum chances of survival on the world stage. Hence it is plain that their behavior does not divinely, but humanly, achieve survival. Now whatever lacks divine grace cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with entirely human motive and intelligence; as the election is won by the shrewd politician. Therefore there is no divine being by whom all church things are directed to their end; and this being we call Jesus.

Reply to Objection 1. Christianity is false.

Reply to Objection 2. These ways have shown the non-existence of Jesus Christ, and so we cannot rely on an explanation of the Christian writings that posits a god-man at the origins of them.

[Febble]

[Note to the reader: please pay attention to who is making the two objections (hypothetical believers) and what the thread of the argument actually is. I have modified the original posts to make a better presentation. If you believe that Jesus Christ did exist, please present further objections to the proposition that he did not.]

Whether Jesus Existed?

Objection 1. It seems that Jesus did exist; because if an offense against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment, we would be altogether destroyed. But the word "Jesus" means that He is both God and man, and capable of taking on an infinite punishment in the stead of man. If, therefore, Jesus did not exist, there would be no salvation of men; but there is salvation of men, as Christianity declares. Therefore Jesus did exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a single impressive Man has been produced by the imaginations of many. But it seems that everything we see in the Gospels and Christian literature can be accounted for by supposing Jesus did exist. For all silences can be reduced to one principle, which is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence;" and all perspicuous positive statements (as to his heavenly nature) can be reduced to one principle which is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Therefore there is no need to suppose Jesus's non-existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of Bertrand Russell: "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him."

I answer that, The non-existence of Jesus can be demonstrated in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from death. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are alive. Now nothing can be alive except it is alive before or is brought to life from elementary parts; whereas a thing lives inasmuch as it continues to live. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once alive and dead in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually alive cannot simultaneously be potentially alive; but it is simultaneously potentially dead. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both resurrectionist and resurrected, i.e. that it should raise itself. Therefore, whatever is alive must be sustained in life by another. Moreover, if a man has died, he is never brought back to life, and it is not possible for a man to be brought to life from elementary parts, except that he is born in the womb. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that there is no man who was brought to life who was at the same time already dead; and this everyone understands to be Jesus.

[...second and third ways pending...]

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in men. Among men there are some more and some less good, honest, noble and the like. But "more" or "less" are predicated of different men, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the mean, as a thing is said to be hotter as it more distantly resembles that which is temperate; so that there is nothing in humanity which is best, completely honest, entirely noble and the like; for those things that are greatest in aesthetic and moral virtue are scantiest in empirical reality, as it is written on the bathroom wall, "all men are pigs." Therefore there must also not be some man which is to all other men the most perfect example of virtue and noble quality, and this we call Jesus.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the church. We see that things which lack divine grace, such as religious leaders, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to ensure optimum chances of survival on the world stage. Hence it is plain that their behavior does not divinely, but humanly, achieve survival. Now whatever lacks divine grace cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with entirely human motive and intelligence; as the election is won by the shrewd politician. Therefore there is no divine being by whom all church things are directed to their end; and this being we call Jesus.

Reply to Objection 1. Christianity is false.

Reply to Objection 2. These ways have shown the non-existence of Jesus Christ, and so we cannot rely on an explanation of the Christian writings that posits a god-man at the origins of them.


The fourth is good.