How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

...... Yes..... we know. But that cannot help this thread's question, which is:-

How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

And I would answer that question by saying: We are certain because the Resurrection hypothesis is the most plausible explanation based on the evidence that we have.

Cephas or James would have needed to write their own testimony for Primary evidence to exist

I vividly recall in the 6th grade reading a biography about George Washington. I guess I wasted my time reading it, since George Washington didn't write the account, right? So all the biographies that fill an average library needs to be taken off of the shelves, correct?

........ both of them, really, because one testimony might not push it to certainty.

Or we can just go with oral tradition, which is exactly what the Jewish community did, considering there were no camcorders or audio cassettes which you could use to physically hand off from one generation to the next...and the vast majority of all people living during that time could not read or write...which is why the manuscripts were so carefully preserved...and also why oral tradition were handed down in the form of creeds, which is exactly what form 1Corin 15:3-7 is in.

 

[oldbadger]

And I would answer that question by saying: We are certain because the Resurrection hypothesis is the most plausible explanation based on the evidence that we have.

Very good! Yes! Plausible HJ could be debated more strongly, although some members would contest even that. BUT i like plausible.
So you and I are still a long way from Certainty.....

I vividly recall in the 6th grade reading a biography about George Washington. I guess I wasted my time reading it, since George Washington didn't write the account, right? So all the biographies that fill an average library needs to be taken off of the shelves, correct?

Were the biography written by an author who knew Washington? Sadly we have no such biography of Jesus.

Or we can just go with oral tradition, which is exactly what the Jewish community did, considering there were no camcorders or audio cassettes which you could use to physically hand off from one generation to the next...and the vast majority of all people living during that time could not read or write...which is why the manuscripts were so carefully preserved...and also why oral tradition were handed down in the form of creeds, which is exactly what form 1Corin 15:3-7 is in.

Yes! Good! So we have 'hearsay', which although cannot produce certainty can push 'possible' thru 'plausible', even as far as probable.
But hearsay cannot support certainty.

the thread question is:
How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

If you want to declare 'religious certitude' then do so. I can respect that, just as I can respect faith, but I'm asking you to respect my opinion that we cannot 'historically' reach closer to HJ than 'probable'.

 

[Sapiens]

Probable without a numerical value implies "likely," which I expect maybe a bit stronger than you are looking for. If I had to put a probability value to it I'd suggest that HJ hovers down about 0.1 and that resurrection (of anyone) is so improbable that secondary sources (and worse) can not even get the concept up on the chart ... only blind faith will serve for that.

 

[oldbadger]

Probable without a numerical value implies "likely," which I expect maybe a bit stronger than you are looking for. If I had to put a probability value to it I'd suggest that HJ hovers down about 0.1 and that resurrection (of anyone) is so improbable that secondary sources (and worse) can not even get the concept up on the chart ... only blind faith will serve for that.

OK....... Resurrection is a religious faith issue. Obviously most HJ debaters tend to tread fairly gently with 'faith' and 'religious certitude' Christians.

I perceive the present state of HJ research to be at the low-probability level, simply because I think that there is much more to be unraveled........

Bunyip's question has taken us for over 50 pages, with no HJ certainty shown by any, so obviously he should feel that this has been a most successful thread.

 

[Sapiens]

OK....... Resurrection is a religious faith issue. Obviously most HJ debaters tend to tread fairly gently with 'faith' and 'religious certitude' Christians.

... and therein lies the basic problem.

I perceive the present state of HJ research to be at the low-probability level, simply because I think that there is much more to be unraveled........

I don't know how much more or less there is to be discovered. The issue is that without a historical Jesus there is not Christianity, so anyone with a stake, or a rice bowl or a belief system has to line up with the HJ view no matter how paltry the evidence.

Bunyip's question has taken us for over 50 pages, with no HJ certainty shown by any, so obviously he should feel that this has been a most successful thread.

I have to agree, while I have found many of the exchanges to be unnecessarily acrimonious, I think that on balance the point has been made that a HJ is problematical and is a matter of faith rather than scholarship.

 

[Bunyip]

Sapiens

I don't know how much more or less there is to be discovered. The issue is that without a historical Jesus there is not Christianity, so anyone with a stake, or a rice bowl or a belief system has to line up with the HJ view no matter how paltry the evidence.

Says it all.

 

[steeltoes]

The issue is that without a historical Jesus there is not Christianity, so anyone with a stake, or a rice bowl or a belief system has to line up with the HJ view no matter how paltry the evidence.

I am not so sure, Christianity got this far without any certainty of an historical Jesus so I don't see why it couldn't continue.

 

[Bunyip]

If it is a distinction, it is a distinction without a difference. Paul's resurrected Jesus is the same Jesus that the others saw in the flesh. The distinction that we make between the 'real' historical Jesus and the resurrected Jesus is an artificial one, at least for Paul.

Paul isn't dismissive of those who saw Jesus -- he does need to legitimize himself because his audiences knew that he did not see Jesus in the flesh, which is why in Galatians he talks about meeting Peter and John, who also saw the resurrected Jesus.

In any case, the earliest account of the Last Supper is in 1 Corinthians, where the 'real' Jesus appears with the 12.

In terms of establishing historicity the difference is very important - a testimony of interacting with a spirit is not evidence for historicity. It is an article of faith.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Paul's testimony counts because he met with people that WERE eyewitnesses. We are talking about the ORIGINAL disciples here. Mafia boss John Gotti has been dead for over 10 years, but his former underboss Sammy Gravano is still alive today..in fact, he "testified" against his former boss and the prosecution used him as an "eyewitness" on the stand. So if you interviewed Sammy for an article you are writing about Gotti, that would make your article contemporary, because your source is/was contemporary.

Paul met with the disciples, including Peter and James, brother of Jesus. That is...contemporary. So all of the "it happened hundred of years later" crap just doesn't fly here.

You can't use the Bible to prove itself. If Paul, Jesus and the rest of the gang were real people who did even half of the things attributed to them in the NT, surely someone else from the same time period would've noticed and written about it? Why the silence?

All you are doing is moving the goal posts.

I'm not moving any goal posts. I'm clarifying because you asked me what criteria I would accept.

Sooo, what do you call historians today that write books or articles and are looked at as authorities on subjects which predate them by hundreds and thousands of years??

They're examining evidence, not making up stories.

Ohh, so what is the alternative explanations for the emergence of Christianity?

There's multiple possibilities. I think it probably started out as a mystery cult and Jesus was used as a sort of device for passing on spiritual knowledge and an archetype to follow as a spiritual hero. That's my best guess, anyway.

Okkkk.

I doubt you know what I'm talking about, anyway.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The issue is that without a historical Jesus there is not Christianity, so anyone with a stake, or a rice bowl or a belief system has to line up with the HJ view no matter how paltry the evidence.

Christianity can exist without an historical Jesus. It would just be in a different form. It would be more Gnostic.

 

[Sapiens]

I am not so sure, Christianity got this far without any certainty of an historical Jesus so I don't see why it couldn't continue.

It got this far with an assumption (if I may use the term) of a HJ.

 

[steeltoes]

-- he does need to legitimize himself because his audiences knew that he did not see Jesus in the flesh,

That is simply not true. He claims that he once persecuted those from the church of God and that is why he has a need to legitimize himself.

 

[steeltoes]

It got this far with an assumption (if I may use the term) of a HJ.

Yes, but no hj was good enough for Paul, although you could be right, Paul's Christianity may not have survived had it not been for the gospels that allowed for the assumption.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually no. I said that Paul was not contemprary evidence of Jesus

Yes, later. First, you claimed he wasn't contemporary. I've quoted you, word for word, saying this. I've also quoted you claiming you never said this. Nor have you ever substantiated anything regarding what "contemporary" means according to historians you claim agree with you (and you originally claimed to be).

And yes, my qualifications are in counter terrorism.

Which isn't intelligence or "espionage." I've trained with special operation forces and I'm writing a biography on my grandfather who served as a CIC agent before joining the CIA. This tells me NOTHING useful about first century military and socio-political dynamics, and you've now claimed you're an expert in yet another field. First you were an historian, then you majored in history, then you were an expert in "espionage", not it's "counter terrorism."

So, what does your expertise in counter-terrorism enable you to do (other than quote-mine a 19th century source you mistook for Tacitus despite the fact that you quoted the translator and couldn't even recognize what book of Tacitus you actually quoted)?

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, later. First, you claimed he wasn't contemporary. I've quoted you, word for word, saying this. I've also quoted you claiming you never said this. Nor have you ever substantiated anything regarding what "contemporary" means according to historians you claim agree with you. and you originally claimed to be).

Don't reduce yourself to a petty liar Legion. I have specifically addressed this false accusation more than a dozen times now - along with the absurd claims about ' contemporary'. I never misused the word 'contemporary', and I never claimed that Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus - I said that he was not contemporary EVIDENCE of Jesus. Why you repeat such petty frauds ad naseum I can only imagine.

Are you really so intellectually bankrupt that repeating something that has been addressed so many times is all you can think to do?

Which isn't intelligence or "espionage." I've trained with special operation forces and I'm writing a biography on my grandfather who served as a CIC agent before joining the CIA. This tells me NOTHING useful about first century military and socio-political dynamics, and you've now claimed you're an expert in yet another field. First you were an historian, then you majored in history, then you were an expert in "espionage", not it's "counter terrorism."

Yes Legion , I did a double major one in history and politics (specifically the history of espionage) the other in counter terrorism. Attacking my character is a weak substitute for debate Legion - as are your silly accusations. And if you can not grasp the link between espionage and counter terrorism, then you are a fool. And if you can thino of nothing better than raising the same dishonest accusations and attacking me personally - then you are trolling.

So, what does your expertise in counter-terrorism enable you to do (other than quote-mine a 19th century source you mistook for Tacitus despite the fact that you quoted the translator and couldn't even recognize what book of Tacitus you actually quoted)?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You are trolling me because you know that you can not refute the OP. We are NOT certain that Jesus was historical. It is not something that we can be sure about - it is the most plausible explanation of the evidence, nothing more.

Read the OP and see if you can respond to it. Do you disagree that the historicity of Jesus is plausible, but not certain?

Yes or no?

 

[Bunyip]

Call of the Wild

And I would answer that question by saying: We are certain because the Resurrection hypothesis is the most plausible explanation

A plausible explanation does not render certainty - it renders plausibility.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, but no hj was good enough for Paul, although you could be right, Paul's Christianity may not have survived had it not been for the gospels that allowed for the assumption.

'Messiah' means real person, afaik, so the inference is there.

 

[Prophet]

Call of the Wild



A plausible explanation does not render certainty - it renders plausibility.

And when no other competing plausible explanations can made for the evidence, it renders HISTORICITY.

 

[Prophet]

Don't reduce yourself to a petty liar Legion. I have specifically addressed this false accusation more than a dozen times now - along with the absurd claims about ' contemporary'. I never misused the word 'contemporary', and I never claimed that Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus - I said that he was not contemporary EVIDENCE of Jesus. Why you repeat such petty frauds ad naseum I can only imagine.

One wonders if moderators even bother to read Bunyip's reports of his unfair victimization anymore, since by now they must know full well that gems like this will emerge when they take the time to read the exchange.

Are you really so intellectually bankrupt that repeating something that has been addressed so many times is all you can think to do?

There is only one honest way to address the situation when one has been exposed as a liar and that is a contrite concession, as opposed to Bunyip's typical concession which consists of victorious gloating.