How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[oldbadger]

There exists some sort of special dispensation for Biblical Scholarship that appears to permit the "scholars" to raise the value of each of their sources by one rank, thus hearsay becomes tertiary, tertiary becomes secondary, and secondary becomes primary, all because there are no primary sources. I'd like to apply for a similar dispensation for my underwater work in the Arctic ... it is so cold and so hard that I don't think I should be held to the same level of proof as my colleagues here in Hawaii (who think my request is the height of absurdity).

You must run a thread about your work in the Arctic...... or are you joking?

The sad 'thing' about all this that there are a lot of unanswered questions and possibilities, and if these are mentioned then words like 'idle speculation' and such get chucked about.

I think that the Gospel reports (G-Mark) might be about two Jesus's, for instance.

 

[outhouse]

If, as is the case for the Historicity of Christ, there were only a few scrawny strands of evidence I'd say yes ... but there are many, thick, robust and mutually supporting lines of evidence that the Earth is much older than 10K years. These taken together, destroy the YEC argument.

The same can be said here.

Paul alone is great evidence.

There is a reason he is writing about a man who walked the earth and died for your sins.

That reason is evidence, not great first hand evidence, agreed. But it is factual evidence. That evidence then has to be placed into context and studied to determine the possible conclusions.

Dismissal is YEC trash with no value.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Wot? He went to Caesarea?
Israel? There was a place called Israel then?
3 years?
5 million folks? When did 5 million folks 'clock' him? YOu're thinking of five thousand on a Lakeside hill! And a large crowd at his execution (ask outhouse).

He was too BIG to be a myth..
He didn't skulk in some underground hideout-
“I've spoken openly to the world..I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20)
And-
"Large crowds from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him" (Matt 4:25),
and he pulled crowds of over 4000 and 5000 at two gigs alone (Matt 15:32, Matt 14:13)

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

 

[outhouse]

I think that the Gospel reports (G-Mark) might be about two Jesus's, for instance.

Based on ignorance, but it hasn't stopped your guesses yet.

 

[outhouse]

He was too BIG to be a myth..

No he was not to big to be myth. We know most of what we have is myth.


You have no business in here in this thread with only apologetic's to guide you

He didn't skulk in some underground hideout-
“I've spoken openly to the world..I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20)
And-
"Large crowds from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him" (Matt 4:25),
and he pulled crowds of over 4000 and 5000 at two gigs alone (Matt 15:32, Matt 14:13)

Fictional rhetoric to compete with the divinity of the Emperor who was FIRST called "son of god"

 

[oldbadger]

Therefore you are sure that he didn't know anything. Excellent.

No! Wrong!
You haven't got the trick of this yet. Ready?
.... therefore Paul has not written anything that causes me to feel certain about HJ.
Now you need to look at the thread title....

How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

There you go....... now you're on to it......

 

[oldbadger]

The same can be said here.

Paul alone is great evidence.

....... Not bad hearsay, Secondary evidence :yes:

There is a reason he is writing about a man who walked the earth and died for your sins.

.... if you say so....

That reason is evidence, not great first hand evidence, agreed. But it is factual evidence. That evidence then has to be placed into context and studied to determine the possible conclusions.

I love it. I agree. Not Primary evidence, but leading to possibilities.
Good.

So:-

How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

..... possible, plausible, probable ........ ONLY!

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Fictional rhetoric to compete with the divinity of the Emperor who was FIRST called "son of god"

Nah mate, no peloton of phoney 'sons of god' can live with Jesus on the high cols, he's been out in front for 2000 years and still going strong..

Jesus said - "I've beaten the world" (John 16:33)

 

[oldbadger]

He was too BIG to be a myth..

I agree with most of G-Mark, so I believe that Yeshua the Healer from Galilee really did exist.

He didn't skulk in some underground hideout-
“I've spoken openly to the world..I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20)

OK...

And-
"Large crowds from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him" (Matt 4:25),
and he pulled crowds of over 4000 and 5000 at two gigs alone (Matt 15:32, Matt 14:13)

...... same gig, mate..... but.... no probs.

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

Not too many probs with that...

AND THEN YOU STICK HIM ON A BLOODY TRIUMPH! I'M TELLING YOU HE RODE AN INDIAN! HERESY. HERESY!

 

[oldbadger]

Based on ignorance, but it hasn't stopped your guesses yet.

Diplomacy lesson number 1509.....
Based on lack of information. But it hasn't stopped my speculations.

 

[Sapiens]

You must run a thread about your work in the Arctic...... or are you joking?

No, I'm quite serious, but I'm starting to think that I should not be held to the same standard as temperate or tropical scientists.

The sad 'thing' about all this that there are a lot of unanswered questions and possibilities, and if these are mentioned then words like 'idle speculation' and such get chucked about.

I think that the Gospel reports (G-Mark) might be about two Jesus's, for instance.

They might be about 100 Jesus for all anyone seems to know.

The same can be said here.

Paul alone is great evidence.

There is a reason he is writing about a man who walked the earth and died for your sins.

That reason is evidence, not great first hand evidence, agreed. But it is factual evidence. That evidence then has to be placed into context and studied to determine the possible conclusions.

Dismissal is YEC trash with no value.

Paul alone is not evidence to speak of, like I said, accidental ergot consumption resulting in a psychiatric breakdown is a rather more probable cause (taking both from ignorance, of course).

Nobody died for my sins, in fact, there is no such thing as "sin" in the sense that you use the word.

What you're not getting is that if it is not "first hand" evidence it is not "factual" evidence. So what is required, therefore, are multiple, strong, interlocking, secondary sources that are perfectly consistent. It just ain't happenin'.

He was too BIG to be a myth..
He didn't skulk in some underground hideout-
“I've spoken openly to the world..I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20)
And-
"Large crowds from Galilee, the Ten Cities, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him" (Matt 4:25),
and he pulled crowds of over 4000 and 5000 at two gigs alone (Matt 15:32, Matt 14:13)

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

If he was such a rock star why are there no primary sources? Why are the secondary sources so weak?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..why are there no primary sources? Why are the secondary sources so weak?

27 separate history books were written about Jesus, then bound together in one volume as the New Testament, how many more do you need?..

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sorry, it'd take two contemporaneous sources ... there are none.
Four unsupported claims and one fallacious one.
None are contemporaneous.
A shaky claim that rests on part on a question as to was it an "e" or an "I" that was written or was it later edited ... give us all a brake, that's the best you can offer up?
Non contemporaneous, and (not that it matters) I count three (without Josephus).
You said it.
That's quite a jump.
Links in and of themselves are meaningless, it is the quality of the source and none of the sources rise (in reality) to the rank of a primary source.
You have a strange way of showing it ... both stubborn and irrational.
You think you have intellectually spanked anyone? Guess again.

You should apologize to every other person who claims to be a Christian.

This post is about as useless as the "s" in Island.

 

[Shad]

Petty ad hominem ridicule of biblical scholarship does not make you look smart, only petty.

No his view is actually true. A number of Bibles contain known forgeries or omit information regarding these forgeries. I have a 3 by 7 foot bookshelf just with Bible translations alone but only 8 I can think of even mention these additions. All but one puts in a disclaimer stating the additions are accepted as "divine inspiration". It does not seem to matter if many of Paul's letter were not written by him so long as it is accepted on a religious basis. So in many cases scholarship includes faith and religious ideology as accepted fact, toss in a "praise Jesus" for good measure. Religious ideologies have a firm grasp in Biblical scholarship and cloud the field. Since many of these ideologies include ideas founded on forgeries people are already taught the ideology as fact rather than an academic view. The field might as well be divided between academic scholarship and religious scholarship.

The same thing happened with Biblical Archeology. Now only a fringe with religious ties even try to put the whole Bible as historic fact. Most of the old ideas of the Bible presented by past work has been refuted by students of the works authors.

 

[Sapiens]

Petty ad hominem ridicule of biblical scholarship does not make you look smart, only petty.

You clearly know nothing about the field, you should disqualifiy yourself from further comment as a demonstrated uninformed individual with nothing useful to add.

 

[oldbadger]

27 separate history books were written about Jesus, then bound together in one volume as the New Testament, how many more do you need?..

Yeah...... and almost all of the accounts were based on secondary and hearsay evidence.

Ergo...... Jesus is possibly/probably a true historical character. But no certainty.

 

[Sapiens]

Not a single primary source there. The Bible is not considered to be a historical document except by the most fringe wing-nuts.

 

[oldbadger]

The Bible is not considered to be a historical document except by the most fringe wing-nuts.

I like Paul's letters for genuine.... ergo, of historical importance, and I like G-Mark for some historical content. But that's me..... I won't go to war over my belief based upon historical plausibilty.

But I only go as far as HJ........ not Christianity, so Paul's stuff leaves me cold.

 

[Sapiens]

I like Paul's letters for genuine.... ergo, of historical importance, and I like G-Mark for some historical content. But that's me..... I won't go to war over my belief based upon historical plausibilty.

Could be, might not be, I don't known ... but the Paul tall tale strikes me as slightly less real than that other Paul, Paul Bunyan.

 

[Sapiens]

This post is about as useless as the "s" in Island.

Gottcha, eh? That's the least verbose answer you've ever posted. What skilful analysis and repartee. Come on, you can do better than that! If you can't I'll likely put you on ignore ... 'cause your useless, even to your own cause.