did jesus exist?

[outhouse]

This sums it up, theres no need to argue

Is any of this evidence of his existence?.....Possibly

You have gray middle ground leaning your way when looked in a positive light, on the negative a religious myth.

even in the positive light, historical jesus is still a myth compared to what the christians have made him out to be.

If you want to agree to dissagree thats fine

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This sums it up, theres no need to argue




even in the positive light, historical jesus is still a myth compared to what the christians have made him out to be.

If you want to agree to dissagree thats fine

I don't disagree. I think we could be talking about two possible Jesus' here. The one of the gospels is a god/man. Looking past all of the magic and you're not left with anyone special. His message was nothing new and had already been said before.

So what are we arguing here about? Truth be told...I'm not really sure. We've come to a conclusion that the turning water into wine, walking on water and feeding the multitude are most like highly exaggerated stories. In fact, none of these supposed "supernatural" events were ever recorded other than the bible. This, to me, means these events either never happened or were blown up by followers. But on the other hand, for me, there is a strong possibility the man never existed.

 

[Oberon]

And this is still where most of the information comes from, to base allot your non biblical sources even according to you by the statement below, your contradicting yourself. you loose credibilty

What you fail to recognize is that the whole point of critical analysis of sources is to determine via historical methods (which includes methods incorporated from other disciplines) what is most likely accurate and inaccurate within your sources. This holds true whether one is analyzing platonic dialogues, historical narratives from Xenophon, or the gospels. A source does not have to be completely reliable, or even mostly reliable, to yield important historical data.

 

[Oberon]

Deleted by author

 

[Oberon]

So the way this game is played is to take the real tools used by the other historians that were designed to be used to analyse and explain the primary evidence, the known facts, and to use these tools to try to find some facts.

So when HJ scholars use normative tools of historians they are a little like children play doctors and nurses with real medicines and needles, only children at least know what the medicines and needles they have furtively acquired are to be used for.
Games Historical Jesus Scholars Play « Vridar

I got about this far in the article before realizing the author simply has no clue:

"Some of these tools are quite sophisticated. One is cross-cultural studies, particularly in sociology and anthropology. These can include studies in epic story telling among certain peoples in the Balkans and parts of Africa. Another is economic modeling, including studies of peasant unrest and class tensions, and shifting socio-economic stresses with new urban developments, and geographical studies. There are also a host of psychological and medical studies into everything from the nature of memory to the various genetic mutations of the plague. And statistics. Always hosts of statistics of raw data....
Historical Jesus historians use the same tools, but the problem is they don’t have any on-the-field known facts to start with. They have lots of stories and treatises (a real mix of church rules, fiction, theology, myth, real names and places) but the problem is to sift through that data to find out what is really a fact of history and what is not. So instead of using those historical tools to analyse facts (they don’t know what the facts of Jesus’ life are yet) they mis-use those tools by applying them to unsubstantiated story narratives thinking that by doing so the conceptual tools will somehow perform more like the archaeologist’s trowel and dig up some historical facts.
"

Jesus research uses sociology, statistics, psychological research, archaelogy, anthropology, and much, much more, with often excellent results. For example, Baukham recently incorporated psychological research on memory in his investigation of the transmission of the Jesus tradition (as well as a statistical analysis of names from using Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity as a data set). Examinations on the nature of religious movements (how they compare with other religious groups, how they grow, are formed, etc) are all over Jesus research. Literary studies abound, and I have cited several on this thread.

Again, you would be much better served reading information on the field by people who have some idea of what they are talking about.

 

[outhouse]

I got about this far in the article before realizing the author simply has no clue:

"Some of these tools are quite sophisticated. One is cross-cultural studies, particularly in sociology and anthropology. These can include studies in epic story telling among certain peoples in the Balkans and parts of Africa. Another is economic modeling, including studies of peasant unrest and class tensions, and shifting socio-economic stresses with new urban developments, and geographical studies. There are also a host of psychological and medical studies into everything from the nature of memory to the various genetic mutations of the plague. And statistics. Always hosts of statistics of raw data....
Historical Jesus historians use the same tools, but the problem is they don’t have any on-the-field known facts to start with. They have lots of stories and treatises (a real mix of church rules, fiction, theology, myth, real names and places) but the problem is to sift through that data to find out what is really a fact of history and what is not. So instead of using those historical tools to analyse facts (they don’t know what the facts of Jesus’ life are yet) they mis-use those tools by applying them to unsubstantiated story narratives thinking that by doing so the conceptual tools will somehow perform more like the archaeologist’s trowel and dig up some historical facts.
"

Jesus research uses sociology, statistics, psychological research, archaelogy, anthropology, and much, much more, with often excellent results. For example, Baukham recently incorporated psychological research on memory in his investigation of the transmission of the Jesus tradition (as well as a statistical analysis of names from using Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity as a data set). Examinations on the nature of religious movements (how they compare with other religious groups, how they grow, are formed, etc) are all over Jesus research. Literary studies abound, and I have cited several on this thread.

Again, you would be much better served reading information on the field by people who have some idea of what they are talking about.

I actually agree in your assumption, this still shows facts that are true though in the whole proccess and that not all scholars have all the facts.

this can and does get argued blue in the face on all sides.

 

[outhouse]

I don't disagree. I think we could be talking about two possible Jesus' here. The one of the gospels is a god/man. Looking past all of the magic and you're not left with anyone special. His message was nothing new and had already been said before.

So what are we arguing here about? Truth be told...I'm not really sure. We've come to a conclusion that the turning water into wine, walking on water and feeding the multitude are most like highly exaggerated stories. In fact, none of these supposed "supernatural" events were ever recorded other than the bible. This, to me, means these events either never happened or were blown up by followers. But on the other hand, for me, there is a strong possibility the man never existed.

healers and magicians were a norm for the time, and jew worth his salt was able to do this. Jesus/rabbi gathered tricks from many im sure if he existed and as you say there may have been 1 or 2 or none. Hard to say, there were many jesus type deity's of the time the story could have came from. so far the connection from those and NT jesus havnt been made.

I agree the myth was taken from another religion/cult, it matches so close its highly likely.

since the jesus myth gained steam much after his death the orgination becomes clouded and hidden from historians

 

[Oberon]

this still shows facts that are true though in the whole proccess and that not all scholars have all the facts.

What does the above even mean?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology

That's the key.

I've said over and over again that the entire point of the effort to study / reconstruct a historical Jesus is to separate the "historical Jesus" from the "theological/mythical Jesus."

So scholars must create tools to weed out the historical Jesus from the mythological one.... or more precisely, identify the myths, remove them from our understanding of an historical Jesus, and then see what we have left. About 150 years ago, or perhaps earlier, the interest in a historical Jesus lead scholars to identify and remove these myths. For current scholars, that's done already, so we're taking what's left and applying every thing we can know about the ancient world to sharpen the image(s) of historical Jesus(s).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

healers and magicians were a norm for the time, and jew worth his salt was able to do this. Jesus/rabbi gathered tricks from many im sure if he existed and as you say there may have been 1 or 2 or none. Hard to say, there were many jesus type deity's of the time the story could have came from. so far the connection from those and NT jesus havnt been made.

Forgive me, but I can't tell if you're joking here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*kicks dead horse*

 

[Oberon]

*kicks dead horse*

Beating a dead horse might have no effect, but it sure is better than beating a live one. That's just wrong!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Beating a dead horse might have no effect, but it sure is better than beating a live one. That's just wrong!

If done correctly, it brings satisfaction to the kicker.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Heck, we can do more than demonstrate Jesus' existence, but we can tell you what foods he ate, the languages he spoke, the quality of his education, the complexities of the interrelationships between Jew and Empire.... and on and on

 

[outhouse]

Heck, we can do more than demonstrate Jesus' existence, but we can tell you what foods he ate, the languages he spoke, the quality of his education, the complexities of the interrelationships between Jew and Empire.... and on and on

This is simply absurd

Its not even a far reach with what is actually know.

There is a spectrum involved that goes from your side of thinking to myth.

In no way is your thinking anything but a very pro christian scholars view.

 

[dogsgod]

That's the key.

I've said over and over again that the entire point of the effort to study / reconstruct a historical Jesus is to separate the "historical Jesus" from the "theological/mythical Jesus."

So scholars must create tools to weed out the historical Jesus from the mythological one.... or more precisely, identify the myths, remove them from our understanding of an historical Jesus, and then see what we have left. About 150 years ago, or perhaps earlier, the interest in a historical Jesus lead scholars to identify and remove these myths. For current scholars, that's done already, so we're taking what's left and applying every thing we can know about the ancient world to sharpen the image(s) of historical Jesus(s).

That's doing science backwards. Assuming there is an historical Jesus to begin with and then proceeding to take away the mythical evidence to view him is to put the horse before the cart. A starting point would be to take a neutral approach, assess the information and allow the information to lead where it may. Obviously, right off the bat we see mythology, so work on the mythological aspects and allow it to lead to a deeper understanding of the mythology at hand, and if something suggests some historical aspects at work, see where that leads rather than assuming to know where it leads or where you believe it should lead. Otherwise, in this sort of field, people will simply find what they are expecting to find due to their preconceived notions of what it is they are looking for.

 

[Oberon]

That's doing science backwards. Assuming there is an historical Jesus to begin with and then proceeding to take away the mythical evidence to view him is to put the horse before the cart.

This isn't assumed, and often even in recent works the issue will be addressed. Theissen and Merz textbook Der historische Jesu has a nice summary on historicity and evaluation of sources for why we should take Jesus as historical and how much more we can know. And often enough those sources that don't spend much time on it will still address the point in some way: "Such references [rabbinic, josephus, tacitus, seutonius] are important if only because about once every generation someon reruns the thesis that Jesus never existed and that the Jesus tradition is a wholesale invention. But they provide very little hard information..." Jesus Remembered

A starting point would be to take a neutral approach, assess the information and allow the information to lead where it may.

The thing is, assessing the information includes assessing two centuries worth of scholarship. And the mythicist hypothesis has been run into the ground enough.

 

[dogsgod]

This isn't assumed, and often even in recent works the issue will be addressed. Theissen and Merz textbook Der historische Jesu has a nice summary on historicity and evaluation of sources for why we should take Jesus as historical and how much more we can know. And often enough those sources that don't spend much time on it will still address the point in some way: "Such references [rabbinic, josephus, tacitus, seutonius] are important if only because about once every generation someon reruns the thesis that Jesus never existed and that the Jesus tradition is a wholesale invention. But they provide very little hard information..." Jesus Remembered








The thing is, assessing the information includes assessing two centuries worth of scholarship. And the mythicist hypothesis has been run into the ground enough.

Of course it has been run into the ground, we're dealing with religion.

 

[outhouse]

The archetypal Jewish hero was joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua, ben nun (‘Jesus of the fish&#8217. Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.


You had these as well, that the top two are BC and the rest AD. This is just a small list to show it was a common name of trouble making jesus'


Jesus ben Sirach
Jesus ben Pandira
Jesus ben Ananias
Jesus ben Saphat
Jesus ben Gamala
Jesus ben Thebuth

we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

when your doing history based on a religion ALL factors need to be taken into account its highly fiction, not just a little here and there.

 

[outhouse]

The thing is, assessing the information includes assessing two centuries worth of scholarship. And the mythicist hypothesis has been run into the ground enough.

I belive were only interested in the few years AD not 200, with religion shorter the better