How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[oldbadger]

You have to convince yourself that we are dealing with primary sources if you want to be certain of Jesus' historicity, that is how the game is played.

...... don't they wriggle when you squeeze 'em? Then they waffle...... Then they distract..... And if that don't work they insult..........
I do wish I had a debating bulldozer....

BTW, oral tradition did not carry the reports, that is the Jesus of the gaps theory that has been abandoned since the 50's. The tradition has been shown to draw from OT sources.

Well, you know I like the probability of a real HJ....... we usually take opposing positions in such debates. Whilst I accept that much of the evangelical momentum has adjusted reports to fit with OT prophesy etc etc...... I like the straight and simple reports of J's mission from G-Mark. And I like the proposal that illiterate folks passed the tales of Jesus down for a generation or two before it all got written...... in G-Mark. I don't take masses of notice of the other books.

 

[oldbadger]

Topic title: How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, the 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman army garrison saw him strutting his stuff for three long years, that's a lot of eyeballs..

11 months. Where d'ya get three years from?
So which eyeballs wrote testimony about what they saw?
Galilean peasants didn't write.

I support a real HJ as probable. Show where there might be any Primary or Direct evidence....

 

[oldbadger]

Topic title: How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, the 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman army garrison saw him strutting his stuff for three long years, that's a lot of eyeballs..

Hang on........!
Roman Army garrison?
1. There was no Roman Army garrison in Galilee
2. Jesus was only in Jerusalem for one week

 

[Shuttlecraft]

11 months. Where d'ya get three years from?..

AARGH that's the third new consp-theory to surface today, let me just make a note and add it to my collection- "Jesus only gigged for 11 months, not three years"

Fact is the Gospel of John describes 3 Passovers during Jesus's touring, that covers at least 3 years..

 

[`mud]

five million ?????
Where'd they sleep, and eat, and.........
~
boy....I love mythology !!
~
'mud

 

[outhouse]

AARGH that's the third new consp-theory to surface today,

You could actually read the book and understand what your debating here.

There are contradictions


1 to 3 years is typical depending on what book you open.

One trip to Jerusalem in others, and in John multiple trips.


wiki

The three Synoptic gospels refer to just one passover during his ministry, while the Gospel of John refers to three passovers, suggesting a period of about three years

 

[Shuttlecraft]

So which eyeballs wrote testimony about what they saw?
Galilean peasants didn't write.
There was no Roman Army garrison in Galilee

Ooh I need a cup of hot sweet tea and a lay down to recover from all the consp-theories that are flying around..

1- Matthew was an educated ex-taxman and therefore a maths whizz, Peter's family ran a fishing business and had employees under them, Luke was a doctor, and Paul was an ex-bounty hunter in charge of a posse!

2- Based in Jerusalem, the Roman garrison will have followed standard military procedure by marching around Israel to collect taxes and stuff and will have heard of Jesus and his thousands of followers, but they left them alone because they weren't packing AK47's.

 

[oldbadger]

AARGH that's the third new consp-theory to surface today, let me just make a note and add it to my collection- "Jesus only gigged for 11 months, not three years"

Fact is the Gospel of John describes 3 Passovers during Jesus's touring, that covers at least 3 years..

Nah....... John was on the mushrooms, mate.
G-Mark shows it was about 11 months. I like G-Mark.

 

[outhouse]

1- Matthew was an educated ex-taxman and therefore a maths whizz, Peter's family ran a fishing business and had employees under them, Luke was a doctor, and Paul was an ex-bounty hunter in charge of a posse!

2- Based in Jerusalem, the Roman garrison will have followed standard military procedure by marching around Israel to collect taxes and stuff and will have heard of Jesus and his thousands of followers, but they left them alone because they weren't packing AK47's.

Stop posting about things you know nothing about.

Apologetic garbage is not historical or credible. In this thread we are dealing with what is and is not historical


You add no value in any part of your reply. Matthew did not write the book either, the author is unknown.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

five million ?????
Where'd they sleep, and eat, and.........
boy....I love mythology !!

Nah mate, the 5 mill had their own homes, but the Jesus Boys simply pulled into diners and motels on the road..

"And Jesus went about all the cities and villages" (Matt 9:35)

 

[oldbadger]

Ooh I need a cup of hot sweet tea and a lay down to recover from all the consp-theories that are flying around..

Sweet tea? Yuk! Does yer teeth in. Whisky or Gin is acceptable.

1- Matthew was an educated ex-taxman and therefore a maths whizz, Peter's family ran a fishing business and had employees under them, Luke was a doctor, and Paul was an ex-bounty hunter in charge of a posse!

Nah....... Mat was probably a publican. My guess is that he was a Lake Fisheries publican, which is how he got so thick with Zebedee's mob. Wise old guy.... Zebedee.
Nah..... Peter's (Simon's!)family did not run a fishing business. He left his family to with his bro to work with Zebedee...
Nah...... Luke never knew Jesus.
Nah.... Paul never knew Jesus.

2- Based in Jerusalem, the Roman garrison will have followed standard military procedure by marching around Israel to collect taxes and stuff and will have heard of Jesus and his thousands of followers, but they left them alone because they weren't packing AK47's.

Nah....... The Roman garrison was based at Caesarea with a small force at the fort in Jerusalem for big events.
Nah....... The Romans did not collect taxes...... their 'go-fors' did that,...
Nah....... Jesus's crew might well have been packing...... daggers, short swords, whips, the lot.

 

[oldbadger]

Oh my Gawd.........

You reckon Jesus rode a Triumph? A bloody Triumph?


Jesus - rode - an - Indian!

Some folks knows nuffin'.

EDIT...... I copied the wrong pic there, didn't I....

 

[Ingledsva]

Why would I do that when it is discussing, The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ

1) Because you quote a line which, in Greek, is clearly differentiated from Jesus.

2) Because you haven't and can't demonstrate any relevancy of the English translation you've relied on.

3) Because Jesus of Damneus was never called "Christ" (just for starters).

1 and 2 - And you again, are being disingenuous.


YOU mentioned a second text.


I asked if you meant the "Jesus son of Damneus" text.


YOU responded with a Greek sentence fragment.


I responded by posting the WHOLE TEXT that included your fragment, and then underlined the "Jesus son of Damneus" to show that I was correct.


This Jesus does not die. He is made High Priest.


3. Christos just means anointed.


Kings, Priests, Special people were "anointed."


Num 3:1 These also are the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day that the LORD spake with Moses in mount Sinai.

Num 3:2 And these are the names of the sons of Aaron; Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

Num 3:3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests which were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office.


1Ki 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.


Psa 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:


Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;



*

 

[Shad]

Blessings of the Fonzie upon you all. Eyyyy

 

[outhouse]

3. Christos just means anointed.

No.


he has you there.



It depends on context and which book is using said statement. many books anointed specifically refers to jesus the Christ


Jesus son of Damneus (Greek: Ἰησοῦς του Δαμναίου, Hebrew: ישוע בן דמנאי, Yeshua` ben Damnai) was a Herodian-era High Priest of Israel in Jerusalem, Iudaea Province.[1]

In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the Just.[2] Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

While the authenticity of some passages in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews has been subject to debate, the overwhelming majority of scholars consider the discussion of the death of James in Section 9 of Book 20 to be authentic.[3][4]

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, Jesus the son of Damneus is distinct from the reference to the biblical "Jesus called Christ", who is mentioned along with the identification of James.[5] John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context

 

[steeltoes]

Well, you know I like the probability of a real HJ....... we usually take opposing positions in such debates. Whilst I accept that much of the evangelical momentum has adjusted reports to fit with OT prophesy etc etc...... I like the straight and simple reports of J's mission from G-Mark. And I like the proposal that illiterate folks passed the tales of Jesus down for a generation or two before it all got written...... in G-Mark. I don't take masses of notice of the other books.

Look for your real HJ if you like but I am not referring to OT prophesy, I am referring to scenes in the gospels taken from the OT such as the crucifixion scene that is lifted from Psalm 22 line for line. This rules out oral tradition.

 

[steeltoes]

No.


he has you there.



It depends on context and which book is using said statement. many books anointed specifically refers to jesus the Christ


Jesus son of Damneus (Greek: Ἰησοῦς του Δαμναίου, Hebrew: ישוע בן דמנאי, Yeshua` ben Damnai) was a Herodian-era High Priest of Israel in Jerusalem, Iudaea Province.[1]

In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the Just.[2] Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

While the authenticity of some passages in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews has been subject to debate, the overwhelming majority of scholars consider the discussion of the death of James in Section 9 of Book 20 to be authentic.[3][4]

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, Jesus the son of Damneus is distinct from the reference to the biblical "Jesus called Christ", who is mentioned along with the identification of James.[5] John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context

Bull ****, Josephus' readers would not know who James the Just was. There wasn't a single non-Christian reference to the gospels until well into the second century.

 

[Ingledsva]

Topic title: How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, the 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman army garrison saw him strutting his stuff for three long years, that's a lot of eyeballs..

We don't have their testimony of such.



*

 

[Desert Snake]

Bull ****, Josephus' readers would not know who James the Just was. There wasn't a single non-Christian reference to the gospels until well into the second century.

The bible explains the silence, when Jesus was 'gone' read either resurrection, or survived the cross, the guards etc. knew they had to keep it on the mum or the authority from Rome would be on their case, if you're an unbeliever, best chance scenario is that the early Xians didn't allow the crucifixion, or took Jesus down from the cross who knows, do you really think Romans are going to write about that embarrassing event if it occurred?

Either way...
1. Islam believes..Jesus wasn't crucified
2. Xianity believes Jesus was resurrected
3. Romans are silent on the matter, as explained in the Bible, 'bribed' possibly?

Noticing a pattern here?

 

[Bunyip]

Topic title: How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, the 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman army garrison saw him strutting his stuff for three long years, that's a lot of eyeballs..

Shame none of them left a note. Indeed if any of those 5 million witnesses left some kind of record, you may have had a point.