Historical Evidence For the Existence of Jesus

[Bunyip]

What I meant was, there were plenty of people in the New Testament that seemed pretty hard won or conspicuously steadfast, the writing itself seems to indicate a resistance, in turn indicating simply that plenty of doubt existed. In a simulation of an actual Jesus in 1st century Palestine somehow I doubt it would have been as the gospels proclaim it, if someone actually came down here and performed magic tricks people would stop what they were doing, I think. Maybe that's something for a thread topic.

Thankyou for going to the trouble of expanding. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. My apologies.

 

[steeltoes]

Thankyou for going to the trouble of expanding. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. My apologies.

Here is an example of the resistance and doubt that the faithful encountered;

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.

By the time the Gospel of John was written, "mythers" had made their doubts known. They were called deceivers and the antiChrist and to this day doubters are met with scorn, accusations of being uneducated, and so on.

 

[outhouse]

Here is an example of the resistance and doubt that the faithful encountered;

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.

By the time the Gospel of John was written, "mythers" had made their doubts known. They were called deceivers and the antiChrist and to this day doubters are met with scorn, accusations of being uneducated, and so on.

This was a common belief we all know about including you.

These people believe he came down as god and was all divine, it does not on any way form a basis for some who thought he was a mythical creation.

New Living Translation
I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body. Such a person is a deceiver and an antichrist.

They still believed in everything written with a different body because he was so divine, so god like.


International Standard Version
For many deceivers have gone out into the world. They refuse to acknowledge Jesus the Messiah as having become human. Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.


Gnostic teachers in no way help you prove your case. Its misdirection on your part.

 

[outhouse]

What I meant was, there were plenty of people in the New Testament that seemed pretty hard won or conspicuously steadfast, the writing itself seems to indicate a resistance, in turn indicating simply that plenty of doubt existed. In a simulation of an actual Jesus in 1st century Palestine somehow I doubt it would have been as the gospels proclaim it, if someone actually came down here and performed magic tricks people would stop what they were doing, I think. Maybe that's something for a thread topic.

Excellent point on your part. Resistance.

It does show that these Hellenist were combatting Jewish people who did not follow it, and did not think of him as messiah.

It shows resistance against the gnostic belief as well.

It shows resistance to those who wished a more Jewish version of the movement.

This all plays into context. And context is key understanding the cultural anthropology.


This link gives the best over view to date.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

 

[JoStories]

LOL No, you put e on ignore because I exposed the utterly laughable idea you continuosly espouse that there should be ancient records of stuff that didn't happen. And that claiming that because you have no records of Jesus not existing, therefore he must have existed. A claim which cracks me up every time.

But there are many sources of historical importance that do point to a man similar to Jesus. Whether or not he was actually named Jesus is in question. The historcity does, however, point out that someone did who gave birth to the Christian religion. The texts of the NT do exist. They do have historical importance and cant just be denied. Other writers cannot either. Are you claiming that all of those documents are fabricated?

 

[steeltoes]

But there are many sources of historical importance that do point to a man similar to Jesus. Whether or not he was actually named Jesus is in question. The historcity does, however, point out that someone did who gave birth to the Christian religion. The texts of the NT do exist. They do have historical importance and cant just be denied. Other writers cannot either. Are you claiming that all of those documents are fabricated?

From scriptures to texts, to documents, my oh my.

 

[Bunyip]

Here is an example of the resistance and doubt that the faithful encountered;

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.

By the time the Gospel of John was written, "mythers" had made their doubts known. They were called deceivers and the antiChrist and to this day doubters are met with scorn, accusations of being uneducated, and so on.

Thanks. But why are you giving me examples of this? What is the context?

 

[Bunyip]

But there are many sources of historical importance that do point to a man similar to Jesus.

Sure, several men in fact.

Whether or not he was actually named Jesus is in question. The historcity does, however, point out that someone did who gave birth to the Christian religion. The texts of the NT do exist. They do have historical importance and cant just be denied. Other writers cannot either. Are you claiming that all of those documents are fabricated?

Well yes of course the NT is fabricated, it is a compilation of many different books. I'm not sure what you mean. As to the origins of any of those books that form the NT we don't know who wrote them, nor do we have any way to gauge their accuracy.
I agree with you that the Jesus if the NT is likely to have been based upon one or more real men. That is very different from having established his historicity however, for that we need to know which man. We would need to find evidence of that specific person.

 

[outhouse]

Tearing down what you have no clue of, or no knowledge will not help your cause.

There was no reason to fabricate a character, and a fabricated character cannot be explained with the text we have.


Its why mythicst lose in all this, no replacement hypothesis.

 

[Bunyip]

Tearing down what you have no clue of, or no knowledge will not help your cause.

There was no reason to fabricate a character, and a fabricated character cannot be explained with the text we have.


Its why mythicst lose in all this, no replacement hypothesis.

There were many good reasons to fabricate a character, and the texts can be explained perfectly well if Jesus was an amalgam.
There are many superior replacement hypothesis of course - the most sound being the hypothesis that Jesus is likely to have been based upon one or more real people. It is a far more sound hypothesis than the hopelessly optimistic notion that Jesus must have existed.

And another far more sound replacement hypothesis: It is possible that Jesus existed historically.

Another: The evidence is not conclusive either way.

All of the above replacement hypothesis are more sound than the frankly ludicrous hypothesis that Jesus historicity has been established.

 

[outhouse]

This link gives the best over view to date.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

YOU need to understand this to understand the current state of study and context, and why they say is historical.


Anyone can refuse evidence and academia, YEC do it daily.

 

[Bunyip]

YOU need to understand this to understand the current state of study and context, and why they say is historical.


Anyone can refuse evidence and academia, YEC do it daily.

Which would make sense were there any evidence to refuse.

 

[JoStories]

Sure, several men in fact. Well yes of course the NT is fabricated, it is a compilation of many different books. I'm not sure what you mean. As to the origins of any of those books that form the NT we don't know who wrote them, nor do we have any way to gauge their accuracy.
I agree with you that the Jesus if the NT is likely to have been based upon one or more real men. That is very different from having established his historicity however, for that we need to know which man. We would need to find evidence of that specific person.

Why do we need to prove that specific person? Look, it's clear that for you, there was no person named Jesus, nor any validity to the Bible. Ok. I accept that. It's your opinion. I guess my question to you would be why do you care? You're not vested in the faith. What difference does it make if you have no horse in this race? Are you trying to dismantle the Christian faith for some unknown reasons?

 

[JoStories]

From scriptures to texts, to documents, my oh my.

Ok, you don't believe. As I said to Bunyip, why do you care? Why not just disbelieve and let those who do be? They don't affect you, or do they?

 

[Bunyip]

Why do we need to prove that specific person?

Well I don't think you do - in fact I don't think it is particularly relevant to Christianity. I am simply addressing the false claim that his historicity has been established.

Look, it's clear that for you, there was no person named Jesus, nor any validity to the Bible.

You must have confused me for somebody else my friend. I have stated many times (including on this thread) that I believe it is possible that Jesus was based upon one or more real people.

Ok. I accept that. It's your opinion.

No it isn't, you are mistakenly ascribing to me somebody else's opinion.

I guess my question to you would be why do you care?

Because it is an interesting topic - and a common misconception that I am addressing.

You're not vested in the faith. What difference does it make if you have no horse in this race?

I do have a horse in this race, everyone is affected by religion.

Are you trying to dismantle the Christian faith for some unknown reasons?

No, as I said - you have simply confused me for another member.

 

[outhouse]

I am simply addressing the false claim that his historicity has been established.

Then supply sources.

Opinions are plentiful and some have less then no value.

 

[Bunyip]

Then supply sources.

Opinions are plentiful and some have less then no value.

Sources for what?
You dismiss any opposing view a priori, whoever I cite you will simply dismiss. According to you any scholar who agrees with you is legitimate, and any who does not is illegitimate. So providing citations to you is an exercise in futility.

 

[outhouse]

Your claim----------------- I am simply addressing the false claim that his historicity has been established.

Supply credible sources.

 

[Bunyip]

Your claim----------------- I am simply addressing the false claim that his historicity has been established.

Supply credible sources.

LOL 'Credible' as in ones that agree with you. Not playing that infantile game with you again.

Besides which, I am the source of that claim. If you could challenge it you would.

 

[outhouse]

LOL 'Credible' as in ones that agree with you. Not playing that infantile game with you again.

That is because you have no sources.

So your position or statement remains unsubstantiated rhetoric.