How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Bunyip]

I think one simply has to make the choice, a conspiracy, a made up character, or references are legit from Josephus and others. I really think people are getting sidetracked with the religious aspect of Jesus.

Why would anyone need to make that choice? And wouldn't it be entirely arbitrary to do so? Wouldn't it make more sense to think that it is a little truth, a little myth and a lot of time?

Certainty is misplaced, there is no certainty in ancient historical textual analysis.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For god's sake man, the claim is in YOUR POST #224.

In which I directly reference three Greek words with the express position that they are not only distinct from the Hebrew the texts quoted were translated from (giving us another word) but also with the usage of the two Greek verbs distinct from the Greek word "Christ", all three of which I actually provided in the Greek alphabet in that post (thus not counting the implicit differences between the forced translations from Hebrew into Greek).

Were you capable of demonstrating I made any such claim about "two words" as you obviously and incorrectly stated I did, you would have and could. You can't, as the level of you dishonesty and willingness to rely on ad hominem while playing the victim of such arguments apparently knows no bounds.

Put up or shut up. What "two words"?

 

[Desert Snake]

Why would anyone need to make that choice? And wouldn't it be entirely arbitrary to do so? Wouldn't it make more sense to think that it is a little truth, a little myth and a lot of time?

Certainty is misplaced, there is no certainty in ancient historical textual analysis.

This depends on where one looks. One finds mythic elements in church tradition, not so much in straight Xianity, for early Xians, (think before established churches in Europe), there wasn't time for mythic development, there wasn't culture for mythic pantomime, that's all later European stuff dude.
THAT is the Xianity we look at to see if it's 'real', that is why we go to early references of Xians. It helps to understand the nature of Xianity at it's inception, it is not a misty conglomerate of temple myth elements, it is rather an organic, simple, faith. The 'outlying' parameters of belief are strict Judaic adherence, the Xians were going away from that strictness however the theology and traditions were still enmeshed with Judaic Scripture, remember monotheistic as well, no room for 'foreign' deities to sneak in.
This...leaves us with a fairly, imo, clear indication that Jeshua was real. The 'writings' of certain later Xians, I can take with a grain of salt, some looks legit, some might be influenced by paganism. However, the 'Jesus era', and it's resulting Xian church looks real to me.

 

[Bunyip]

This depends on where one looks. One finds mythic elements in church tradition, not so much in straight Xianity, for early Xians, (think before established churches in Europe), there wasn't time for mythic development, there wasn't culture for mythic pantomime, that's all later European stuff dude.

There are plenty of mythic elements in Christianity - rebirth and resurrection for example.

THAT is the Xianity we look at to see if it's 'real', that is why we go to early references of Xians. It helps to understand the nature of Xianity at it's inception, it is not a misty conglomerate of temple myth elements, it is rather an organic, simple, faith. The 'outlying' parameters of belief are strict Judaic adherence, the Xians were going away from that strictness however the theology and traditions were still enmeshed with Judaic Scripture, remember monotheistic as well, no room for 'foreign' deities to sneak in.
This...leaves us with a fairly, imo, clear indication that Jeshua was real. The 'writings' of certain later Xians, I can take with a grain of salt, some looks legit, some might be influenced by paganism. However, the 'Jesus era', and it's resulting Xian church looks real to me.

 

[Bunyip]

In which I directly reference three Greek words with the express position that they are not only distinct from the Hebrew the texts quoted were translated from (giving us another word) but also with the usage of the two Greek verbs distinct from the Greek word "Christ", all three of which I actually provided in the Greek alphabet in that post (thus not counting the implicit differences between the forced translations from Hebrew into Greek).

Were you capable of demonstrating I made any such claim about "two words" as you obviously and incorrectly stated I did, you would have and could. You can't, as the level of you dishonesty and willingness to rely on ad hominem while playing the victim of such arguments apparently knows no bounds.

Put up or shut up. What "two words"?

Just read your post 224 Legion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just read your post 224 Legion.

I have. I note that, in addition to referencing the different languages used, I refer to three specific words in Greek alone.

So, again, which "two words" did I describe as you state? Surely, if all that is needed is to read a single post, you could simply quote me.

However, you can't. You either lied or misunderstood and are now stuck (again) and so have relied first that I am/was drunk, then that I can't understand my own posts, and not that all I need do is look to the very post that you quoted from which you can't use to support a simple claim.

Your inability to admit when you are wrong despite overwhelming evidence is staggering. Everybody can see how simple the claim you made is, and you yourself have pointed to the very post you claim supports you. Yet it requires nothing other than elementary literacy to see that nowhere did I make claims about "two words" as you said, and your repeated insults and diversions have done nothing to change this.

 

[Desert Snake]

There are plenty of mythic elements in Christianity - rebirth and resurrection for example.

I think you're going to need more than that. Just remember, religions have a tendency to merge when they meet culturally or geographically.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

A special topic in the text submitted by the
But until now has not been installed on this text
Because there are other references that lie this source
Provided references are enough to demonstrate that this text is not reliable

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Translate

English

I talk to all the sceptics in the presence of Jesus
And who say that the Jesus myth and say that Jesus is not history, that Jesus was not the son of God
And that Jesus had BROTHERS and sisters, he was married
And to all these theories
And also that says analtorth not promising and the wonders of Jesus is not valid
I tell them things also
To DIGEST it before all else
Would you be able to challenge the teachings of Jesus
Do you you make a moral mbdaa better than Jesus
You can upgrade your characters today over the ethics of Jesus written
Do your teachings will be able to determine good and evil as did Jesus
Yes, Jesus is a myth history
For a man like him was able to rotate the world around his teachings 2000 years
If that man a liar continue its call with the same strength
Does kraetm in the history of the human love is equal to the love of God

Do you provide human on Earth teachings are easy to DIGEST them as human mind and heart
Do you know that Jesus re-formed the morality of Nations
Do you know that the human Jesus was able to fine tune the morality of Nations
Yours and please write any book
History holds the morals of Jesus
I laanzer to Jesus welaanzr God Jesus child but see to learn of Jesus
Were you able to Nations by Jesus of the uplifted me morals and teachings
Was Rome's greatness carries ten teachings of Jesus
Or Babylon and Assyria in their grandeur with the ethics of Jesus
Or do you have any other religion the teachings of Jesus
With the exception of the Torah as it is also the source of the teachings of human
More abetadalaalm about Jesus is not terrorism

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The author here has some books and thinks it is savvy enough to write a theme
But he writes without any conclusive proof
These libraries and manuscripts
All lie
Only you are right because your hands one phrase and even this phrase be unable to prove
Because you do not know the difference between the Syriac and the Aramaean and Assyrian Chaldean and Greek and Hebrew
But only one text destroys faith
You are wrong
Whatever Jesus and whatever Jesus
And whatever any Muse Muse
Went
Do you know why
Because the ten commandments are the most prestigious humanitarian concepts
Do you know that without the law don't kill in the Torah, that your life means the forest animals
Do you know that Canon latzni written before 5000 years
And the law that made the man knows that the difference between him and the animal is to control the sexual desires and organized better and the finest of animal
The merit of Jesus in guiding human ethical transcendence
Are the finest and greatest thing in Jesus, greetings to you

 

[Desert Snake]

Why would anyone need to make that choice? And wouldn't it be entirely arbitrary to do so?

Dude you're the one who started the thread.

 

[Prophet]

just read your post 224 legion.

What two words?! PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

NOTE: Apparently, anytime anyone else wants, too. I guess I should feel jealous to watch Bunyip's hunger for abuse get satisfied while dad here is away.

 

[outhouse]

I guess I should feel jealous to watch Bunyip's hunger for abuse get satisfied while dad here is away.

You only feeding his with every reply.

Negative attention is still attention

 

[Prophet]

You only feeding his with every reply.

Negative attention is still attention

I assume that I am fulfilling some sort of subconcious need Bunyip has for my abuse, but on the surface Bunyip seems to retreating from forums I regularly haunt so he can spew forth his bile without the impediment of my reasoned objections. I took him at his word that he was taking the weekend off. I should've known better. Thankfully Legion did.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

One thing is for sure: Jesus did not exist as he is portrayed in the New Testament. That is clearly mythological. No one went around doing miracles

Please provide evidence for this claim of knowledge.

, raising the dead or coming back to life after rotting in a tomb for 3 days.

Please provide evidence for this claim of knowledge.

That just didn't happen.

Please provide evidence for this claim of knowledge.

Other than that, sure - it's possible that there was a person who is the "seed" for stories. But it really doesn't matter because we'll never be able to figure out who that person was, since they're buried under mythology and revisions.

Please provide evidence for this claim of knowledge.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please provide evidence for this claim of knowledge.



Please provide evidence for this claim of knowledge.



Please provide evidence for this claim of knowledge.



Please provide evidence for this claim of knowledge.

You need to provide evidence that those things happened. And I don't mean offering mythology as "evidence". It's you Christians that are making all these astonishing claims.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Christianity didn't grow quickly. Even when Constantine came on the scene, only about 10% of the Empire was Christian, at most. Early Christianity did go through short periods of persecution, apparently due to anti-social behavior that was disturbing the peace, but I don't think it was ever flat out outlawed, as Judaism was at times.

That is incorrect. Christianity was already out of control and sweeping through the Roman Empire by the 60's AD, and the letters of Paul date to the 50's AD...which was 20-25 years after the cross. He was writing to the Churches throughout the Empire, which means that the Christian movement was already pretty much all over the map by the 50's AD.

Wow. I guess you refused to stop at just being inaccurate (flat out wrong) when it came to homosexuality in the bible...now you are moving your inaccuracies to other areas such as history.

I guess next it will be philosophy, and then science :yes:

That still doesn't answer the other, much more important, glaring issues I pointed out.

Also, I don't know if there ever was a Jesus or not and don't take a solid stance, either way. I leave room for that possibility although I find the mythicist argument to be quite compelling. But I certainly don't believe that the Jesus that the New Testament describes existed. That is completely ruled out for the reasons I explained.

To deny the historicity of Jesus is to deny history..PERIOD.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You need to provide evidence that those things happened. And I don't mean offering mythology as "evidence". It's you Christians that are making all these astonishing claims.

Nooo, you made a statement of knowledge, you said explicitly that those things didn't happen...and I'd like to know: How do you know that they didn't happen?

You see, a more modest approach would be to say "I don't believe that those things happened"...modest enough..but to just flat out say "those things didn't happen"...I'd like to know how you can make such absolute statements like that and think you don't have to back it up.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is incorrect. Christianity was already out of control and sweeping through the Roman Empire by the 60's AD, and the letters of Paul date to the 50's AD...which was 20-25 years after the cross. He was writing to the Churches throughout the Empire, which means that the Christian movement was already pretty much all over the map by the 50's AD.

Wow. I guess you refused to stop at just being inaccurate (flat out wrong) when it came to homosexuality in the bible...now you are moving your inaccuracies to other areas such as history.

I guess next it will be philosophy, and then science :yes:



To deny the historicity of Jesus is to deny history..PERIOD.

Sorry, I'm talking about REAL history, not pseudo-historical apologetics crap you learn in Sunday school. Seems that you're on a mission to be wrong about everything.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nooo, you made a statement of knowledge, you said explicitly that those things didn't happen...and I'd like to know: How do you know that they didn't happen?

You see, a more modest approach would be to say "I don't believe that those things happened"...modest enough..but to just flat out say "those things didn't happen"...I'd like to know how you can make such absolute statements like that and think you don't have to back it up.

There's no evidence for dead, rotting corpses coming back to life, among many other things, so I'm going to go with that it didn't happen.