How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[oldbadger]

... and therein lies the basic problem.
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.

Hi again........ I've seen pictures and films of Stalin's Russia. :yes:
I do understand that some atheists are most angry about various religions.
I am rather more angered by human beings in general.

I have to agree, while I have found many of the exchanges to be unnecessarily acrimonious,

Yes! I thought that all the snobs were supposed to come from England , but I have discovered that there is an academic and intellectual snobbery that matches it....... seemingly from all over. And how the rules get busted on HJ threads!

I think that on balance the point has been made that a HJ is problematical and is a matter of faith rather than scholarship.

Well..... we were debating certainty.....

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, but no hj was good enough for Paul,

...that's what I think....... (FWIW!)

although you could be right, Paul's Christianity may not have survived had it not been for the gospels that allowed for the assumption.

.... I reckon Paul's Christianity could have survived, with or without them.....

 

[oldbadger]

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?

Way to go!
All the distractions, lead-offs, OP separations.... cannot but answer the question.... 'We cannot be certain'.

Speaking as an HJer on the opposite side of the fence to yourself, you nailed this down.

 

[oldbadger]

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.

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.

I think that I might understand RF's position. These HJ threads have been so aggressive for so long that regular posters must surely have become familiar with the cut and thrust of the posts.

I try to focus on the posts, some of which, like yours, seem to me to sometimes be pathetic!

 

[Prophet]

I try to focus on the posts, some of which, like yours, seem to me to sometimes be pathetic!

I find oldbadger's posts pathetic as well, but when I dispatch oldbadger's pathetic arguments, my insult of his pathetically unsubstantiated positions is not my argument in and of itself. Doing such would be a pathetic abuse of classical ad hominem fallacy. In this pathetic post and others, oldbadger is able to dispatch arguments like mine on BASIS of his finding them pathetic and nothing else. The pathetic quote above IS another pathetic abuse of classical ad hominem fallacy.

This is how you DEMONSTRATE that your opponent is pathetic.

 

[outhouse]

I find oldbadger's posts pathetic as well,

Your just feeding the 3 least educated people on this subject, who for some unknown reason refuse REAL education.


We need to put a sign up like the zoo, Don't feed the historical tro%$s.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.....

Were the biography written by an author who knew Washington?

No, of course not. That particular book was written by someone hundreds of years later. Catch my drift?

Sadly we have no such biography of Jesus.

Glady, we do. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

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

The entire genre of history is based on hearsay. I don't know what part of that you people don't understand. Everything that YOU personally know about history, you were told from someone else...whether you heard it from a history teacher, history book, history progam, whatever. Every single thing that happened in the past which exceeds 100 years...you are basing it on hearsay. You weren't there. You can only go by what you were told.

But hearsay cannot support certainty.

Then this whole Resurrection business is no different than any other historical claim.

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

Very certain.

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'.

I like plausible better.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

The Resurrection argument is based on history...and nothing in history is certain.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

I don't know the exact figures but I think at least half (?) of all atheists acknowledge that Jesus existed.
Okay fine, but can they tell us why in their opinion he then went on to become the most famous person in the history of the world?

 

[oldbadger]

Your just feeding the 3 least educated people on this subject, who for some unknown reason refuse REAL education.


We need to put a sign up like the zoo, Don't feed the historical tro%$s.

You are just miffed because I sort you out so easily. I think you are funny. And your insults make me scream with laughter!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You can't use the Bible to prove itself.

The Epistles of Paul and the Gospels are all indepedent books which are included in the "whole" (Bible). 1Corin was written independently by Paul, and it predates both the Bible as a whole, which would include the Gospels...so I am taking this independent account and drawing a logical conclusion..

Again, there is no heavy stuff being laid out here at face value. All he said was he is "passing down" a creed that was given to him by the original disciples. That's it!!! Yeah, you can deny the implications of the creed all you want...but there is absolutely no reason to believe that Paul didn't receive a creed...I mean, is that how high skepticism is on here that even the most simple, basic, naturalistic stuff cannot even be believed. He said he passing down a freakin creed that he received...what is so hard to believe about that???

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?

The vast majority of the general population during that time and that region could not read or write, Saint...nor could they log in to facebook and update their status' by saying "Jesus just turned water into wine, yall!!!" (of course if they did, they would be able to write), nor was Peter able to take pictures of Jesus walking on the water and upload it on Instagram. If you see an amazing sight, and you can't read or write, the only thing you would have been able to do was TELL others what you've saw, which is precisely what happened. Also, again, it isn't as if Jesus was going on worldwide tours. His travels only took him to small remote places (besides Jerusalem) in a vast empire. He didn't do anything that would require attention from the Roman authorities.

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

Which I am still waiting on.

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.

And who would have started this "mystery cult"?

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

You are comparing the origins of Christianity to the origins of another "cult" (your words). Ohhhh did I get it right?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ (God incarnate) dying on the cross for the sins of mankind..and the historicity of his bodily Resurrection is corroboration of this...so in order words, how the heck can Christianity exist without a historical Jesus?

I don't know.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ (God incarnate) dying on the cross for the sins of mankind..and the historicity of his bodily Resurrection is corroboration of this...so in order words, how the heck can Christianity exist without a historical Jesus?

I don't know.

You gonna post part 5 eventually?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You gonna post part 5 eventually?

:yes:

 

[Ingledsva]

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ (God incarnate) dying on the cross for the sins of mankind..and the historicity of his bodily Resurrection is corroboration of this...so in order words, how the heck can Christianity exist without a historical Jesus?

I don't know.

Easily.


How do all the religions of the world exist, - and you think all their Gods false?


Your religion is just another in the list.


*

 

[Sapiens]

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ (God incarnate) dying on the cross for the sins of mankind..and the historicity of his bodily Resurrection is corroboration of this...so in order words, how the heck can Christianity exist without a historical Jesus?

I don't know.

Exactly ... and that's why the truth terrifies you.

 

[oldbadger]

I find oldbadger's posts pathetic as well, but when I dispatch oldbadger's pathetic arguments, my insult of his pathetically unsubstantiated positions is not my argument in and of itself. Doing such would be a pathetic abuse of classical ad hominem fallacy. In this pathetic post and others, oldbadger is able to dispatch arguments like mine on BASIS of his finding them pathetic and nothing else. The pathetic quote above IS another pathetic abuse of classical ad hominem fallacy.

This is how you DEMONSTRATE that your opponent is pathetic.

You made a spelling mistake. :yes:

You spell it EMPATHETIC.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ (God incarnate) dying on the cross for the sins of mankind..and the historicity of his bodily Resurrection is corroboration of this...so in order words, how the heck can Christianity exist without a historical Jesus?

I don't know.

That's only one form of Christianity. There are many forms of it, including Gnostic and esoteric forms that do not require a flesh and blood historical Jesus or a literal savior motif. It's the same as with many forms of Paganism. A belief in the Heroes as literal historical people is not required for practice. It is the stories and the lessons they impart that are paramount. Jesus is simply the main hero of the Christian story, similar to Heracles. But it would cause mainstream Christianity to collapse, yes. That's terrifying to a huge amount of people for obvious reasons.

I still don't see any evidence being offered for the existence of any of the main characters of the NT. Just a lot of silly excuses that fall flat. There were many secular historians active in that region during that period of time and they're quiet. There's no real excuse for that, if Jesus and his entourage did the things the NT says they did: Why Are The Ancient Historians Silent About Jesus?

 

[oldbadger]

It OK.... keep taking the tablets....

No, of course not. That particular book was written by someone hundreds of years later. Catch my drift?

Hundreds? Hundreds? Washington lived 250 years ago.
Jesus lived Two thousand years ago!

Glady, we do. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

I do like G-Mark. But G-Mark cannot produce certainty, as you will write in a bit....... :yes:

The entire genre of history is based on hearsay. I don't know what part of that you people don't understand. Everything that YOU personally know about history, you were told from someone else...whether you heard it from a history teacher, history book, history progam, whatever. Every single thing that happened in the past which exceeds 100 years...you are basing it on hearsay. You weren't there. You can only go by what you were told.

Good! That's what some of us have been telling you for 50 pages.
Hearsay is good for plausibility, or even probability, but certainty? :no:

Then this whole Resurrection business is no different than any other historical claim.

My HJ interest ends before a resurrection, but I do respect your faith.

I like plausible better.

Plausible? Perfect! Certain? :no:

Bunyip nailed this to the floor.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Until atheists can suggest a MOTIVE for anybody making Jesus up, they might as well be whistling Dixie..