Did Jesus actually exist as a historical figure?

[Bunyip]

And the 12 disciples (personification for the 12 legions of angels (12 cranial nerves around the brain) were not present during the internal conversation of reasoning because the mind was separated from thought and still, allowing the pure conscious/spirit of the human to work.

Just a reminder - maybe read the OP, you are waaaaaaaay off topic.

 

[Unification]

Just a reminder - maybe read the OP, you are waaaaaaaay off topic.

Thank you for the reminder, friend. Many blessings to you.

 

[psychoslice]

That is a theological position.

Not a historical one.


You don't need a historical position, but the OP asked a historical one, not a theological one.

Yes I said we need the right answer, meaning if its historical or not.

 

[leibowde84]

Nobody that wrote about Jesus actually met the guy.

That is true.

 

[leibowde84]

Its not.

Only uneducated apologist tend to think the books of theology are historically accurate.

And only the uneducated think the books are absent of historical events.



Yes. Copies of copies of hearsay.



Wrong.

A decade and half later Paul writes. And he speaks about other existing traditions already in place all over the Diaspora.




As written yes it is. But that is not what historians are proposing.

They state that a martyred man died, and theology and mythology generated after his death.

There is no credible or logical hypothesis that explains the hearsay evidence we have.

And remember people will or can actually hang on hearsay alone. It is credible evidence in a court of law.

Hearsay is only admissible in very specific circumstances, usually only when the actual declarant is unavailable during the trial. The vast majority of hearsay statements are not admissible because they are hearsay, though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The vast majority of hearsay statements are not admissible because they are hearsay, ...

 

[leibowde84]

Do you disagree?

 

[1robin]

Hearsay is only admissible in very specific circumstances, usually only when the actual declarant is unavailable during the trial. The vast majority of hearsay statements are not admissible because they are hearsay, though.

Legal experts who have forgotten more about hearsay than most modern lawyers ever know accept biblical testimony even if it is borderline hearsay. Two of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst) as well as thousands of lesser legal minds grant the testimony the NT contains. If many of histories greatest legal minds grant biblical testimony it must be challenged by authority just as competent and not ruled out as hear say by laymen.

 

[leibowde84]

Legal experts who have forgotten more about hearsay than most modern lawyers ever know accept biblical testimony even if it is borderline hearsay. Two of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst) as well as thousands of lesser legal minds grant the testimony the NT contains. If many of histories greatest legal minds grant biblical testimony it must be challenged by authority just as competent and not ruled out as hear say by laymen.

First of all, I am a lawyer, so I do have some knowledge about hearsay. And, the two legal minds that you cited don't provide any kind of relevant evidence to back up your position, as they died in the mid-1800s before much of our current understanding of the history of the Gospels was attained. Further, at that point, hearsay had not developed as a legal bar nearly as much as today. Citing them on hearsay is like citing Darwin about the modern theory of evolution. While I'm sure that they were well-versed for the time, a lot of progress has been made since them in regards to legal and historical understanding.

 

[leibowde84]

Legal experts who have forgotten more about hearsay than most modern lawyers ever know accept biblical testimony even if it is borderline hearsay. Two of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst) as well as thousands of lesser legal minds grant the testimony the NT contains. If many of histories greatest legal minds grant biblical testimony it must be challenged by authority just as competent and not ruled out as hear say by laymen.

Are there any relevant sources that you can point me to that are more modern. I think that we should aim for views from the 21st century, as a lot of historical knowledge has been gained even since the year 2000 in regards to the history of the Bible.

 

[1robin]

First of all, I am a lawyer, so I do have some knowledge about hearsay. And, the two legal minds that you cited don't provide any kind of relevant evidence to back up your position, as they died in the mid-1800s before much of our current understanding of the history of the Gospels was attained. Further, at that point, hearsay had not developed as a legal bar nearly as much as today. Citing them on hearsay is like citing Darwin about the modern theory of evolution. While I'm sure that they were well-versed for the time, a lot of progress has been made since them in regards to legal and historical understanding.

Legal opinions are subjective. They are not artifacts buried in the ground that gain accuracy over time. The views of the 1500s are just as valid as todays. They are simply opinions that vary over time and no objective criteria exists to say which is correct. Their legal opinions have no evidence by which to validate them. This is not an evidentiary issue. It is an issue about the veracity of testimony (that is not the same as the historical accuracy of the claim). If your a lawyer then you do have expertise in the field but until you can show why your opinion trumps the opinions of the best legal minds in history it is just your opinion. I am not debating whether the NT is historically accurate but merely that it is valid to consider it reliable testimony according to the methods of legality. I am not qualified to invalidate or accept their testimony legally but if many histories greatest experts in testimony accept them then they cannot be merely rejected.

 

[1robin]

First of all, I am a lawyer, so I do have some knowledge about hearsay. And, the two legal minds that you cited don't provide any kind of relevant evidence to back up your position, as they died in the mid-1800s before much of our current understanding of the history of the Gospels was attained. Further, at that point, hearsay had not developed as a legal bar nearly as much as today. Citing them on hearsay is like citing Darwin about the modern theory of evolution. While I'm sure that they were well-versed for the time, a lot of progress has been made since them in regards to legal and historical understanding.

Legal opinions are subjective. They are not artifacts buried in the ground that gain accuracy over time. The views of the 1500s are just as valid as todays. They are simply opinions that vary over time and no objective criteria exists to say which is correct. Their legal opinions have no evidence by which to validate them. This is not an evidentiary issue. It is an issue about the veracity of testimony (that is not the same as the historical accuracy of the claim). If your a lawyer then you do have expertise in the field but until you can show why your opinion trumps the opinions of the best legal minds in history it is just your opinion. I am not debating whether the NT is historically accurate but merely that it is valid to consider it reliable testimony according to the methods of legality. I am not qualified to invalidate or accept their testimony legally but if many histories greatest experts in testimony accept them then they cannot be merely rejected.

 

[1robin]

Are there any relevant sources that you can point me to that are more modern. I think that we should aim for views from the 21st century, as a lot of historical knowledge has been gained even since the year 2000 in regards to the history of the Bible.

That is completely irrelevant in this context. I am not making historical claims that become more certain over time. The legal validity of NT testimony is a subjective determination that does not become more certain with evidence. The historical reliability of the NT is affected by new discoveries and evidence but that was not the point I made. I simply said that by the rules of testimony and evidence the NT is acceptable (not that this makes it true).

 

[leibowde84]

Legal opinions are subjective. They are not artifacts buried in the ground that gain accuracy over time. The views of the 1500s are just as valid as todays. They are simply opinions that vary over time and no objective criteria exists to say which is correct. Their legal opinions have no evidence by which to validate them. This is not an evidentiary issue. It is an issue about the veracity of testimony (that is not the same as the historical accuracy of the claim). If your a lawyer then you do have expertise in the field but until you can show why your opinion trumps the opinions of the best legal minds in history it is just your opinion. I am not debating whether the NT is historically accurate but merely that it is valid to consider it reliable testimony according to the methods of legality. I am not qualified to invalidate or accept their testimony legally but if many histories greatest experts in testimony accept them then they cannot be merely rejected.

My point is that the testimony in the Bible would surely not be admissible in court today. It would not even be a consideration, as it is clearly not simple hearsay, but it contains multiple levels of hearsay. If, for example, we assume that the Gospel of Luke was based on the Gospel of Mark, which was written by John Mark who got it verbally from St. Peter who claims to have heard Jesus speak the words himself, there would be 3 levels of hearsay. Peter's testimony regarding Jesus' actual words would be hearsay. Then we would have to assume that Mark correctly wrote down the words that Peter told him. Finally, Luke's claims that his words were accurate would be based on the hearsay of Mark re: Peter.

To me, that seems like far too long of a string of hearsay statements to be admissible in any court.

 

[outhouse]

Legal experts who have forgotten more about hearsay than most modern lawyers ever know accept biblical testimony even if it is borderline hearsay. Two of the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst) as well as thousands of lesser legal minds grant the testimony the NT contains. If many of histories greatest legal minds grant biblical testimony it must be challenged by authority just as competent and not ruled out as hear say by laymen.

Those two people are not scholars, and are worthless for any aspect of Jesus historicity.

 

[outhouse]

Hearsay is only admissible in very specific circumstances, usually only when the actual declarant is unavailable during the trial. The vast majority of hearsay statements are not admissible because they are hearsay, though.

You know the same 2 rules I do

rule #1 and #2

#1 There is always an exception #2 refer to rule #1

Your probably not going to get excited utterance to stick here, agreed. And that is one of the stronger exceptions.


BUT.

My point was it is still evidence, even if weak evidence. And from this time period there are almost no sources what so ever to draw on, so we have to deal with what we have, as they are factually not devoid of historical details.

 

[leibowde84]

That is completely irrelevant in this context. I am not making historical claims that become more certain over time. The legal validity of NT testimony is a subjective determination that does not become more certain with evidence. The historical reliability of the NT is affected by new discoveries and evidence but that was not the point I made. I simply said that by the rules of testimony and evidence the NT is acceptable (not that this makes it true).

Anything in the Gospels is "Double-Hearsay", defined as the following (from Wikipedia)

Double hearsay is a hearsay statement that contains another hearsay statement itself.

For example, a witness wants to testify that "a very reliable man informed me that Wools-Sampson told him." The statements of the very reliable man and Wools-Sampson are both hearsay submissions on the part of the witness, and the second hearsay (the statement of Wools-Sampson) depends on the first (the statement of the very reliable man). In a court, both layers of hearsay must be found separately admissible. In this example, the first hearsay also comes from an anonymous source, and the admissibility of an anonymous statement requires additional legal burden of proof.

I think that the only way that one could legitimately admit any of the Gospels as evidence would be to assume (erroneously) that the Gospels were written by the men they were named for. In the early 1800s, I think this would have been a common mistake. Now, it is a view not held by most Secular Biblical Scholars (unbiased scholars). That is why I think there would be a specific issue with any of Jesus' supposed quotes.

 

[outhouse]

The historical reliability of the NT is affected by new discoveries and evidence but that was not the point I made

Your factually in error.

The historical reliability has always been in question as the authors wrote in rhetorical prose being far removed from any actual event.

And factually no new discovery has changed this fact.

 

[leibowde84]

You know the same 2 rules I do

rule #1 and #2

#1 There is always an exception #2 refer to rule #1

Your probably not going to get excited utterance to stick here, agreed. And that is one of the stronger exceptions.


BUT.

My point was it is still evidence, even if weak evidence. And from this time period there are almost no sources what so ever to draw on, so we have to deal with what we have, as they are factually not devoid of historical details.

I guess, but I think it would be unrealistic that there would 1. ever be a circumstance where Jesus' actual quotes would be in question legally; and 2. that evidence containing unverifiable double-hearsay would be admissible even if it was.

 

[outhouse]

My point is that the testimony in the Bible would surely not be admissible in court today.

And that point is 100% factual for the NT.

People writing decades after the fact who never witnessed anything, will not prove anything.


Scholars today will never prove anything either. But that doesn't mean they cannot pull historicity of certain events out of the books.

Here the burden is plausibility, not proof.