Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Which no credible historian considers historically valid.

"One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings.[75] " Whether the gospel authors set out to write novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. If, for example, Rudolf Bultmann was correct, and the gospel authors had no interest in history or in a historical Jesus,[46] then the gospels must be read and interpreted in this light. However, some recent studies suggest that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography.[76][77][78][79][80] Although not without critics,[81] the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today"
Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of curiosity, can you name any historians other than Carrier and Price who agrees with what virtually every credible historian believes (that you are wrong here)? You can look to credible historians worlds away from biblical studies, such as Hutton, Atkenson, or most importantly Grant, let alone classical historians and other experts who all agree that you are uninformed and completely wrong.

Trying to find similarities between historical Jesus (if there even is one) and Biblical Jesus is a waste of time.

Everything is a waste of time from some perspective. However, it so happens that in the entirety of the study of persons from antiquity we have more evidence to do this than virtually anybody else.

 

[steeltoes]

"One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings.[75] " Whether the gospel authors set out to write novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. If, for example, Rudolf Bultmann was correct, and the gospel authors had no interest in history or in a historical Jesus,[46] then the gospels must be read and interpreted in this light. However, some recent studies suggest that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography.[76][77][78][79][80] Although not without critics,[81] the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today"
Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of curiosity, can you name any historians other than Carrier and Price who agrees with what virtually every credible historian believes (that you are wrong here)? You can look to credible historians worlds away from biblical studies, such as Hutton, Atkenson, or most importantly Grant, let alone classical historians and other experts who all agree that you are uninformed and completely wrong.

Well there you go, simply label the gospels as ancient biographies and then proceed to read the gospels as if they are ancient biographies. How brilliant is that? What do we need smoke and mirrors for?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well there you go, simply label the gospels as ancient biographies

I simply quoted wikipedia. I can quote a great deal more and analyze ancient biographies to show their relationship to the gospels if you wish to point out the differences between classical biography and the gospel genre.

and then proceed to read the gospels as if they are ancient biographies.

First I analyze the entirety of genres from antiquity in order to understand them and to categorize them and compare my results to those of thousands of scholars, yes. What's the problem with doing so? And what is your superior method?

How brilliant is that?

Well, I imagine it's better than not being even capable of reading ancient biography, not having read ancient biography, and just as a bonus not even knowing most of the biographers of biographies from antiquity. Would you like to assert you are familiar with both?

 

[roger1440]

If Jesus’s existence can be proven, where is the debate? No one ever debates the existence of George Washington or Julius Caesar. What’s up with that?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If Jesus’s existence can be proven, where is the debate? No one ever debates the existence of George Washington or Julius Caesar. What’s up with that?

Nobody really debates whether Pythagoras existed but plenty argue that the holocaust didn't. The answer to "what's up with that" is that there are large numbers of individuals ignorant of both historical methods and evidence. It's that simple. We also have those who hold that Jesus' lineage continues and other nonsense. Should we lend credence to every idiotic theory just because somebody is literate enough to describe a baseless position?

 

[steeltoes]

Nobody really debates whether Pythagoras existed but plenty argue that the holocaust didn't. The answer to "what's up with that" is that there are large numbers of individuals ignorant of both historical methods and evidence. It's that simple. We also have those who hold that Jesus' lineage continues and other nonsense. Should we lend credence to every idiotic theory just because somebody is literate enough to describe a baseless position?

Oh yes, the holocaust, let's belittle the victims and survivors by asserting that the existence for Jesus is just as strong as the evidence for the holocaust.

 

[steeltoes]

If Jesus’s existence can be proven, where is the debate? No one ever debates the existence of George Washington or Julius Caesar. What’s up with that?

Exactly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mythicism is mostly a mantra chanted by those who confuse agenda-driven pedantic denial with informed skepticism.

 

[steeltoes]

Mythicism is mostly a mantra chanted by those who confuse agenda-driven pedantic denial with informed skepticism.

Where have we read that before?

2 John 1:7
I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oh yes, the holocaust, let's belittle the victims and survivors by asserting that the existence for Jesus is just as strong as the evidence for the holocaust.

My grandfather was a German Jew whose ancestors on his mother's side date back to a German village before Germany existed. His Great-grandfather was the chief rabbi in London, and on that side of the family there had been a rabbi in his immediate ancestors for at least 17 generations. His service in WWII won him a bronze star and several other awards despite joining after graduating with his doctorate from Harvard at 25. After the war he returned to serve his country for 20 years in the "foreign service". My family members were torturted and killed during this war, and yet he (who was an agnostic Jew) acknowledged that few people existed for whom we have more evidence than Jesus during all of antiquity. If you wish to continue your (admittedly unknowing) anti-Semitic rant while insulting one of the foremost authorities of the classical world, go ahead. Just have something other than blind prejudice to do so.

You can start by googling Messing, Pucci, Ahl, Harvard, and Cornell.

 

[steeltoes]

My grandfather was a German Jew whose ancestors on his mother's side date back to a German village before Germany existed. His Great-grandfather was the chief rabbi in London, and on that side of the family there had been a rabbi in his immediate ancestors for at least 17 generations. His service in WWII won him a bronze star and several other awards despite joining after graduating with his doctorate from Harvard at 25. After the war he returned to serve his country for 20 years in the "foreign service". My family members were torturted and killed during this war, and yet he (who was an agnostic Jew) acknowledged that few people existed for whom we have more evidence than Jesus during all of antiquity. If you wish to continue your (admittedly unknowing) anti-Semitic rant while insulting one of the foremost authorities of the classical world, go ahead. Just have something other than blind prejudice to do so.

You can start by googling Messing, Pucci, Ahl, Harvard, and Cornell.

You are the one that insults holocaust survivors by insinuating that there is just as much evidence for Jesus as there is for the holocaust so don't try and turn it around on me and call me anti-Semitic when it is you that brought up the holocaust and your insults towards the victims in the first place. The stupid notion that we have more evidence than Jesus during all of antiquity is unsupported no matter how badly you want everyone to believe that Jesus was historical. The lengths you go to to get people to share in your beliefs is pathetic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are the one that insults holocaust survivors[/

Yes, I insult my family to defend an academic debate. Alternatively, you haven't a clue and I made an apt analogy that have to turn into holocaust denial to a person whose public relation to world war two heros and Jewish ancesors is quite public. Given your almost complete ignorance of historical Jesus studies, it's not hard to determine your willingness to engage in antisemitism rather than academic debate as you have no knowledge of the latter but the former you've aptly demonstrate requires no knowledge, just prejudice.

by insinuating that there is just as much evidence for Jesus as there is for the holocaust

I didn't,. Go ahead and quote what I said to further prove your antisemitic ignorance and willingness to diminish the holocaust for your own personal ignorant biases.

Please: quote EXACTLY what I said so that you can reveal how much you are willing to resort to prejudice when it serves your uninformed, ignorant, antisemitic opinion.

 

[outhouse]

The lengths you go to to get people to share in your beliefs is pathetic.

Its just the opposite and applies to mythicist.

Look at how you refuse academia, we are not refusing academia.

 

[steeltoes]

Its just the opposite and applies to mythicist.

Look at how you refuse academia, we are not refusing academia.

We are discussing the so called evidence for the historical Jesus, try to follow.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We are discussing the so called evidence for the historical Jesus, try to follow.

When have you ever even indicated you are aware of what this consists of? You can't read any of the relevant languages of scholarship other than English, you don't know any of the relevant scholarship, and you (accidentally) accuse a Jewish classical scholar/linguist of antisemitic attitudes (and his grandson as professing the same). Meanwhile, you can't even refer to relevant historical scholarship, relevant historians, or primary sources. Your basis for your opinion is ignorance.

 

[steeltoes]

Which no credible historian considers historically valid. Biblical Jesus is a complete myth. Trying to find similarities between historical Jesus (if there even is one) and Biblical Jesus is a waste of time.

Yes, I see what you mean.

 

[outhouse]

We are discussing the so called evidence for the historical Jesus, try to follow.

You refuse all academia on what that evidence is, and the strength of each piece of evidence.

 

[Quagmire]

Oh yes, the holocaust, let's belittle the victims and survivors by asserting that the existence for Jesus is just as strong as the evidence for the holocaust.

This particular perversion of someone's else's point is too blatant and obvious not to be intentional.

 

[psychoslice]

Some people like the comfort and comradarie of an organized faith. I am not one of those, however I would never tell someone their choice of how to have faith was wrong headed. It's not up to me.

Well we do have our opinion and that is all I gave, I don't really care what they do, as long as it doesn't affect other peoples lives who don't have their beliefs.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The big question.
What makes the bible a credible book?