How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[outhouse]

The point is that it is not necessarily referring to Christians and that is a later inference. So people are going around pushing a tampered with translation that translates as "Christians" when that's not what the original said. Actually, we don't know what the original said since we don't have it.

I think there is confusion over when and where the different terms of Christian or christ or christos.

We tend to follow it started out as a negative term that, that later ment something else as mythology grew.

And as this happened it does not mean all people or communities were in sync here. It took hundreds of years to become orthodox

 

[outhouse]

I was just pointing out that the author of gMark relied on references to the OT rather than a supposed oral tradition, that's all.

Ignoring the written traditions he used as well?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Attested to by...? In a period in which there were no police, in which you could murder and there was no crime unless a suit was brought forth (and you were a citizen), and in an area so alien to the Roman empire that letters to the emperor after Nero's death by Pliny indicate that the uppermost echelon of Roman authority was largely ignorant of the nature/essence (and most relevant details) of not only Christianity but the Jewish matrix out of which it grew, you assert that Nero had some "intelligence agency"? Based upon what?

Based upon the fact that all Emperors throughout all of time have had intelligence gathering agencies. Rome was a hotbed of intrigue, corruption and competing political agendas, like all leaders Nero employed intelligence gatherers.

As to a citation - well you have been rather grandly posturing about your expertise in Tacitus to St Frank, but apparently have not read it. Tacitus, volume 3 book XVI specifically refers to Nero's spies.

 

[Bunyip]

BOOK XVI.

Srcr. I. Nero is amused with hopes of finding great stores of hidden treasure in Africa; one Cesellius Bassus, deluded by his dreams, communicated the secret, and thence the wild prodigality of the prince—IV. The quinquennial games; Nero contends for the victory in song and eloquence; he mounts the public stage; Vespasian (afterwards emperor) in danger from*Nero’s spies*stationed in the playhouse—VI.

 

[Bunyip]

Since you doubt all the written evidence about the earthly ministry of The Lord Jesus Christ, then you must have stronger written evidence against it.

What? That doesn't make sense. Hostorians can only find evidence FOR historicity, not against it. There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

This written evidence that you have, can I see it or can you prove it that they were more authentic than the one you are refuting? Thanks

How would you challenge “the historicity of The Lord Jesus Christ” with “the historicity of Julius Caesar” if your “position is that nothing in history is certain”? Please explain.

Simply by demonstrating that for J Ceaser we have a far greater body of primary evidence. Whilst the historicity of J Ceaser is still uncertain, we have a far strojger case than we do for Jesus.

 

[Sapiens]

What? That doesn't make sense. Hostorians can only find evidence FOR historicity, not against it. There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

Except, I guess, when it comes to Biblical Scholarship, where the normal rules of the universe seem to be waived.

 

[Bunyip]

Except, I guess, when it comes to Biblical Scholarship, where the normal rules of the universe seem to be waived.

It is hilarious to me just how desperate the apologists are in this regard. Most of them have moved on from creationism, and appear to be making some sort of desperate faith based last stand on the question of historical certainty.

 

[Sapiens]

What I do not get is why on earth anyone would decide that once can call a secondary source a primary source just because there are no actual primary sources to be found. It's like permitting me to use a lower statistical probability when I'm working underwater in the arctic because the water is so cold! Laughable!

 

[Bunyip]

What I do not get is why on earth anyone would decide that once can call a secondary source a primary source just because there are no actual primary sources to be found. It's like permitting me to use a lower statistical probability when I'm working underwater in the arctic because the water is so cold! Laughable!

I know. That was Legions principle crutch. Secondary sources magically count as primary sources when you have no primary sources.

And even more hilarious is the further notion that the thousands of people in the ancient world that we DO have primary evidence for are somehow less historcally established, because there is no primary evidence for Jesus.

There is more evidence for the historicity of Jesus than there is for almost any other person in the ancient world, if you pretend that there is no primary evidence for them becasue there is none for Jesus.

Thank god for apologetics, if it weren't for apologetics all we would have to rely on is reason and knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

What I do not get is why on earth anyone would decide that once can call a secondary source a primary source just because there are no actual primary sources to be found. It's like permitting me to use a lower statistical probability when I'm working underwater in the arctic because the water is so cold! Laughable!

Then nothing becomes historical.

Different methods apply to time periods that leave little written or physical evidence.

It is not special pleading in any form. It just requires more cultural and social anthropology.

It is also why those ignorant of these studies fail so badly not understanding what little evidence we have, and how to use said evidence in context.

 

[Bunyip]

Then nothing becomes historical.

Different methods apply to time periods that leave little written or physical evidence.

It is not special pleading in any form. It just requires more cultural and social anthropology.

It is also why those ignorant of these studies fail so badly not understanding what little evidence we have, and how to use said evidence in context.

No. It all remains historical, you just need to understand that history does not offer certainty.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You're not that interested in really listening to anyone in general. What you are doing has more in common with preaching than debating.

Don't know the difference? Your ignorance isn't surprising. Here's a clue: In debate, we listen to our opponent's arguments and offer counter arguments that address our opponent's arguments with a demonstration of what makes our own claims superior. In what you pass for debate... or preaching, you ignore your opponent's argument and posit something contrary that never actually even attempts to address the arguments you wish to void. Bereft of any real strength in their position, preachers like you lean on feigned certainty, ad hominem, playing the victim, moving the goalposts, and the abuse of every other classical fallacy they can blindly stumble upon to intentionally stunt themselves intellectually and against all reason perpetuate a belief that they are correct.

I'm not interested in your trolling babble. You should take my advice and take a break since you're not able to discuss this subject in a civil manner. That's the last thing I'm going to say to you. Bye-bye.

 

[Prophet]

No. It all remains historical, you just need to understand that history does not offer certainty.

Historicity has never implied certainty. Historicity has always been granted to that which explains the evidence at hand and has no competing explanations which explain the evidence nearly as well.

The question voiced by the topic can be thus rephrased, "How certain are we that Jesus' real existence explains the evidence at hand with no competing explanations which explain the evidence nearly as well?" And until Bunyip or anyone else offers up a myther theory that explains the evidence nearly as well as Jesus' real existence, the answer to his question is... extremely.

 

[Bunyip]

Historicity has never implied certainty. Historicity has always been granted to that which explains the evidence at hand and has no competing explanations which explain the evidence nearly as well.

Exactly. That was of course my original point. I appreciate you conceding it so comprehensively.

The question voiced by the topic can be thus rephrased, "How certain are we that Jesus' real existence explains the evidence at hand with no competing explanations which explain the evidence nearly as well?" And until Bunyip or anyone else offers up a myther theory that explains the evidence nearly as well as Jesus' real existence, the answer to his question is... extremely.

I'm not a myther buddy. But thanks for admitting that I was right all along.

Must have been difficult to admit to, um - pwning? yourself.
As to an alternative explanation that explains the evidence just as well - that is too easy, here it is;

The available evidence suggests that Jesus may well have been based upon one or more real historical figures.

Cheers.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Write you words attributed to the world grinli the scientists accept the writings of the ancient Greek classics although the copy written after writing the original version by a thousand years or more
It is clear we rely on what we have from the New Testament today with great confidence
This is moved from a scientific book
The Greek versions I wrote after a year of writing the original version
But there are copies of the Bible older than the Greek
So the question is too large
And also the area where too large error
This keeps the topic here isn't complete lack of proof theory
And also hitatmd one text while the older texts which contradict this
With all due respect aktbbhasb my knowledge and reading

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Thread Starter supports Greek text
Or some ancient Greek literature
But we must know antarikh proof of the date depends on the
1. ancient manuscripts by date written in
2-archaeology and archaeological discoveries
Therefore a manuscript with the place means health history
For example
The Bible says that Abraham left ur of the Chaldeans
The ur is the ancient ruins in Iraq
It is located in the South of Iraq in Nasiriya on Wednesday, near the Imam Ali bin Abi Taleb air
And when you speak the way albablillihod Torah
We see the oldest Jew in Iraq, is the tomb of Nahum in city of Alqosh in northern Iraq near Mosul
And also mdnmhmh the Torah can be determined by the exact place
Sometimes not enough permission to draw event of book only
But you should know the Geography also
And then we can devise provisions and theories

 

[Prophet]

Exactly. That was of course my original point. I appreciate you conceding it so comprehensively.

Historicity has never implied certainty is Bunyip's original point? I would remind Bunyip that his topic reads, "How certain are we that Jesus was historical?", a question rendered inane by the fact that historicity does not confer certainty. The OP question then would mean, "How certain are we that we are semi-certain (implied by historicity) Jesus existed?" Nonsensical.

I'm not a myther buddy. But thanks for admitting that I was right all along.

I have already summarized my view on Bunyip's denialist myther position.

The only difference in the propositions here is that the mythicist and denialist positions is the former is the intellectually honest position between the two. Denying the historicity of Jesus without submitting an alternative to mainstream interpretation of the evidence is a rather transparent attempt to recruit the strength of all possible mythicist positions without having to demonstrate the plausibility of even one. In this way, a denialist is able to gain all the the appearance of strength of submission of an alternate interpretation with none of its responsibility.

I must apologize if this summary of Bunyip's position is outdated, as he is cowed into equivocating his weak positions on a regular basis. Now Bunyip seems to grant historicity while pressing us to switch gears as if we were talking about certainty and not historicity this entire time. The topic of the thread is here this entire time testifying against his dishonesty. The topic of the thread plainly does not say, "How certain are we that Jesus existed?"

 

[Bunyip]

Historicity has never implied certainty is Bunyip's original point?

Correct. And thanks for conceding it. The rest pf your comment is just babble.

I would remind Bunyip that his topic reads, "How certain are we that Jesus was historical?", a question rendered inane by the fact that historicity does not confer certainty. The OP question then would mean, "How certain are we that we are semi-certain (implied by historicity) Jesus existed?" Nonsensical.



I have already summarized my view on Bunyip's denialist myther position.



I must apologize if this summary of Bunyip's position is outdated, as he is cowed into equivocating his weak positions on a regular basis. Now Bunyip seems to grant historicity while pressing us to switch gears as if we were talking about certainty and not historicity this entire time. The topic of the thread is here this entire time testifying against his dishonesty. The topic of the thread plainly does not say, "How certain are we that Jesus existed?"

 

[oldbadger]

For the same reason that I often nod off during tiresome and inarticulate reruns. I've been here for a while, I've participated in numerous HJ/MJ threads, and this is easily one of the least substantive and more absurd.

Rubbish. It's been very instructive.
I'll bet that you didn't know that HJ rode out on a Triumph 6T with 'the boys'.

These HJ threads are attracting more and more members.
Anything that is popular must surely be good for RF?
This thread has remained in the first couple of 'thread pages' since it was posted.
And once in a while something new pops up.

 

[Bunyip]

Rubbish. It's been very instructive.
I'll bet that you didn't know that HJ rode out on a Triumph 6T with 'the boys'.

These HJ threads are attracting more and more members.
Anything that is popular must surely be good for RF?
This thread has remained in the first couple of 'thread pages' since it was posted.
And once in a while something new pops up.

Yeah, I find it fascinating also. It addresses a very common set of misconceptions.