How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than troll? Either present an argument, or go away. No one's interested in reading your one-liners.

Present something worthy of a counter-arument and I'll gladly confront it.

 

[ZooGirl02]

Most scholars do believe that Jesus was a real historical person. Also, Josephus wrote about him as a real person. A Roman historian named Tacitus also mentioned him. We also have the testimonies of the early Church which sincerely believed that He existed. His disciples lived along with him during His life and they believed in Him so much that they died for their faith in Him. Based on these evidences and others, I sincerely believe that Jesus Christ was a real person. Also, here are some good articles that argue that He really did exist:

The Real Jesus Christ :: Catholic News Agency

Catholic Truths: Ecumenical Apologetics, Jesus Evidence

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Early Historical Documents On Jesus Christ

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Present something worthy of a counter-arument and I'll gladly confront it.

I've provided many posts worthy of being rebutted. If you don't want to bother, then don't reply to me at all. Put me on ignore so both of us won't waste our time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've provided many posts worthy of being rebutted.

Rubbish.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Whatever, Jay. I see that you have nothing of substance to say so I'm moving on.

 

[outhouse]

Whatever, Jay. I see that you have nothing of substance to say so I'm moving on.

His point sadly is that there is credible history a scholar can pull from text compiled from written and oral traditions, despite the mythological core.

Social anthropology can be as telling as physical anthropology, in some places more. It can give us proper context of lost phrases..

 

[Bunyip]

Most scholars do believe that Jesus was a real historical person. Also, Josephus wrote about him as a real person. A Roman historian named Tacitus also mentioned him. We also have the testimonies of the early Church which sincerely believed that He existed. His disciples lived along with him during His life and they believed in Him so much that they died for their faith in Him. Based on these evidences and others, I sincerely believe that Jesus Christ was a real person. Also, here are some good articles that argue that He really did exist:

The Real Jesus Christ :: Catholic News Agency

Catholic Truths: Ecumenical Apologetics, Jesus Evidence

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Early Historical Documents On Jesus Christ

Absolutely Zoogirl, and your sincere belief in this case can be adequately justified. The point of this OP was simply to correct the misperception that it is a historical fact, certainty or axiom.

There is indeed evidence for a historical Jesus, and you are entitled to take it to be sufficient.

 

[oldbadger]

Nope..
If the Romans invented Christianity, why did they go around killing Christians?

Did Stalin kill communists?

And Rome was a violent military state, so why on earth would they invent Christianity which tells its soldiers "thou shalt not kill" ?

Because a non-violent compliant pacified mob was easier....

 

[oldbadger]

I don't get it. Either way you look at it, you have to believe that Jesus existed as a historical person for you to become a Christian.......there is no "I believe Jesus died for the sins of the world, but he never existed". What?

OK.... Faith is cool.
But there can't be many historians that declare certainty for HJ. See OP.

Silly excuses falling flat? What???? You asked "If Jesus was so cool, how come no one wrote about him during his lifetime"....and I answered by saying, "BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL POPULATION COULD NOT READ OR WRITE".

That's cool. So there was good Oral Tradition. Which is hearsay.
So there can't be many historians that declare certainty for HJ. See OP.

If someone can't read or write, that seems to me to be a pretty good reason why they aren't writing anything. Just saying. And this isn't just some apologetic answer, this is based on knowledge of 1st century Palenstine.

That's cool........ So..... you're getting the message....

 

[oldbadger]

Plenty of people figured this out. Consider how many religions there are and how many used religious authority to dictate marriage, banking, social class, politics, etc, to the masses and nation. Its not unique it just the masses have no caught on for centuries and probably never will. The next person to come along selling a lemon just needs to be convincing and people will buy into the product.

That's fine...... so a group of folks figured it out together, changed policies, re-instructed ops..... no probs....

But if you think that a society without religion would be a society without dictation, coercion, indoctrination, suppression..... then you could one day be in for a very sad series of shocks.

Back to the OP? There can be no certainty that HJ existed...... more like plausibility.

 

[oldbadger]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. - Hitler, Mein Kampf page 60.


[/SIZE][/FONT]

Psychosis ........ personified.
But then Stalin was no sweetheart and he was fighting for Stalin

 

[oldbadger]

"You're my friends if you follow me. I don't call you servants, but I call you friends"- (John 15:15)

Like the hair-styling!
He looks very...... western?
Where did he get his teeth sorted? Not the NHS, for sure.
Looks a bit too well fed.

 

[oldbadger]

I see plenty of Christians controlling other Christians. Kings, Queens, Emperors, Popes, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. Did you skip your history classes to often?

The whimps are those Christians which are not one of the above. After all you need religious authorities to tell you what verses mean, which books are canon, etc. You require authority of religious institutions to validate the text which itself grants these people the authority to valid the text. Self-authenticating authority is the bases of all religion as none one outside the religion grants this authority to the level in which religious views are accepted as reality. Circular reasoniong is circular...

Oh Gawd....... far from the OP, which is 'How certain are we that Jesus was historical?'

So....... Do you think that HJ could have been certain?.... or possible? or... ?

 

[oldbadger]

Guess there are an awful lot of untrue Christians in the world. I'd guess the majority of them.

I was a commercial detective for most of my working life, and I gotta say that the majority of humans can be untrue, some when in fear, some under pressure, some for gain, some for convenience and some for fun. :yes:

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not moving any goalposts. It's just that Paul has no historical grounding, either.

OMG......... You might need to open a thread on that one, or this thread will be deluged......

 

[oldbadger]

Hi...

Most scholars do believe that Jesus was a real historical person.

Yes...

Also, Josephus wrote about him as a real person. A Roman historian named Tacitus also mentioned him. We also have the testimonies of the early Church which sincerely believed that He existed.

Yes....

His disciples lived along with him during His life and they believed in Him so much that they died for their faith in Him. Based on these evidences and others, I sincerely believe that Jesus Christ was a real person. Also, here are some good articles that argue that He really did exist:

Yes....

We can believe that there was a Historical Jesus.
Historical certainty is always a tough goal.

 

[oldbadger]

His point sadly is that there is credible history a scholar can pull from text compiled from written and oral traditions, despite the mythological core.

Social anthropology can be as telling as physical anthropology, in some places more. It can give us proper context of lost phrases..

That wasn't a bad post, for you.
You have actually picked up a fair bit from RF etc after all.
Very good.
Well done.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Don't reduce yourself to a petty liar Legion. I have specifically addressed this false accusation more than a dozen times now

You've addressed it, yes. Here's how:

First you claimed they weren't contemporary. Then you claimed that they were contemporary and you never claimed they were. Then you claimed that when you claimed they weren't contemporary, you meant that Paul wasn't contemporary evidence, a claim you didn't make and a notion that is as irrelevant to historical research as any ad hoc definition that is both inconsistent with specialist literature and indefensible either by common parlance or technical can be.

Basically, you said one thing very clearly: the two aren't contemporary. After doing everything from selectively quoting from an online dictionary to dismissing specialist reference material historians use, you then claimed that what you really meant was that they were contemporary but that Paul couldn't provide contemporary evidence for Jesus because they didn't meet. You have still to provide the slightest indication that this conception of "contemporary" or this definition of "contemporary" is anything other than your own invention, still less relevant to real historians. You have, however, first claimed that history was your field, then that you simply majored in history, and most recently that your specialty is "espionage". Your appeals to your own authority, your implicity appeals to historical scholarship you have prove utterly incapable of demonstrating exist, as well as your pathetically inept contradiction to your own definition of fallacious arguments by citing first citing a quote from a translator of Tacitus you mistook for Tacitus and then citing scholarship you are completely unable to evaluate (as you can't even read the relevant languages) regarding the dynamics of military, socio-political, and how individuals could fulfill official or unofficial roles in relation to these).

What you haven't done is shown how when you concisely, specifically stated that Paul and Jesus were contemporaries, you did so meaning that they were contemporaries as you later claimed, just that you backtracked and supported a new definition you invented because everything from basic dictionaries to specialist references demonstrated you were obviously wrong.

I never misused the word 'contemporary'

You haven't yet used it correctly.

and I never claimed that Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus - I said that he was not contemporary EVIDENCE of Jesus.

You backtracked later, yes. However, this:

Paul never met Jesus, and neither he nor Josephus are contemporary.

says nothing about evidence. It clearly states that you said Paul was not contemporary with Jesus. However, it really doesn't matter, as your invention of "contemporary evidence" is a meaningless as your claim that "history" is your field.

Why you repeat such petty frauds ad naseum I can only imagine.

Because I'm tired of being insulted by someone

1) who plays the victim of ad hominem, claims to desire only honest dialogue free from pettiness and insult, but slings insults and ad hominem arguments left and right
2) who states that they are an historian. Then that they simply majored in history. Then that they are an expert in "espionage". And despite all such appeals to their own authority, can't do better than mistakenly cite a translation and contradict their own arguments regarding what constitutes a fallacy by an appeal to scholarship that is so inadequate it does nothing but demonstrate the hypocrisy of claiming that the use of scholarship is fallacious. You cite scholarship when you think it supports you, and when it doesn't, you claim it is fallacious.
3) who makes claims about what historical research involves but can't substantiate that such claims are true and will argue that any who cite historians and historical scholarship which demonstrate that your claims about historical methods are almost completely inaccurate are appealing to authority. You refer to authority to substantiate your arguments, such as your ridiculous arguments about "contemporary", but as you lack the expertise to know how historians actually conduct research you can't support such an assertion and rely on a misuse of a classical fallacy
4) who refers to logic and argumentation that undergrads with a course or two in logic would spot as blatantly flawed
5) who has repeatedly offered to substantiate claims than dodged all requests to do so
6) who doesn't bother to address arguments other than via insults and ad hominem because it is easier to dismiss than to address
&
has in general failed to substantiate not only their claims, but the basis for them (from methods to logic).

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

If you could stop contradicting yourself you might be able to actually address what I have repeated. As is, the closest you've come is claiming something about "contemporary evidence" you differentiate from "contemporary" because that's what historians do, unless of course one is familiar with what historians do and what historical research consists of, in which case you're simply an individual who first claimed to be an historian and has sense claimed to be an expert in espionage (who may or may not have majored in history) and who is reduced to quote-mining a translator because your capacity to understand sources is so limited you can't tell the difference between Tacitus and the 19th century "historian" you quote-mined.

Yes Legion , I did a double major one in history and politics (specifically the history of espionage) the other in counter terrorism.

I double majored in classical languages and psychology/sociology with a minor in cognitive sciences. That was undergrad work. At best it teaches how academic research can work. What you've done is deny that the ways in which every single academic field progresses is anything other than appeals to authority, as references and citations are the scaffolding upon which the entirety of scholarship is built.

However, being utterly out of your depth (and having no training or experience, apparently, with formal systems), you must rely on denying that the central mechanism by which ever field progresses is anything other than a fallacy.

Attacking my character is a weak substitute for debate Legion

1) You have repeatedly referred to my sobriety to dismiss me, you've insulted my knowledge of Tacitus because you misunderstood a translation you quote mined, and have in general relied on insults and dismissals so much so that one who agrees with you had to ask what the point was in quoting your reliance on maligning my character. You yourself, rather than address the heaps of insults you've resorted to, defended your use of these (despite your claims that you wish to avoid any such dialogue) with the flimsy defense that they were deserved.

I'm not attacking your character; I'm attacking your capacity to engage in the subject matter and the methods you've used to avoid doing so via a combination of ad hominem, playing the victim, appeals to authority, claims that appeals to authority are fallacious, etc.

And if you can not grasp the link between espionage and counter terrorism, then you are a fool.

Let's see. I've trained with counter-terrorist specialists from IDF to (formerly) SEAL team six operatives. My grandfather's role in the development of modern intelligence is, thanks to declassification, in no small part a matter of public record but doesn't get into the details of the materials I have. I can grasp the link between the two, but unlike you I know how utterly futile, useless, and otherwise pointless the application of "espionage and counter-terrorism" in modern studies is when applied anachronistically to antiquity.

And if you can thino of nothing better than raising the same dishonest accusations and attacking me personally

You rely on insults and accusations. You can't cite scholarship. You refer to such citations (except when you make them) as fallacious. You've yet again appealed to your own authority that you can't even relate to antiquity and is contradictory to your original appeal, and despite your various insults- from dismissing me as drunk to claiming arguments I never made were specious and foolish so as to avoid addressing those I actually made- I have spent multiple posts detailing various arguments completely independent of your claims. You have simply relied on dismissing claims, ignoring them, misrepresenting them, backtracking, and refusing to substantiate your own claims.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We are NOT certain that Jesus was historical.

What are we certain of? Surely, as someone who has first claimed their field was history, then admitted that this was but a major, and then claimed that they were an expert in "espionage" only to qualify this claim has something to say on the matter of epistemology & ontology? In particular, given especially the Kantian contributions to epistemology via (among other things) the distinctions between "that which is" (ontology" and that which is perceived erects an impenetrable barrier between any certainty and what we perceive and conceptualize as reality. Hume's radical skepticism furthered this, as did the development of the philosophy of language and modern cognitive linguistics and the cognitive sciences, not to mention the interpretation of physical systems in QM an extensions thereof.

I've never said we can be "certain that Jesus was historical" because unlike you my background and work is in the sciences and here it has been shown that there are no really certain epistemic claims. This alone, though, gives us as much reason to doubt that we're in the matrix as that Jesus was historical. In reality, we have much better reason to doubt that Jesus existed than that we're in the Matrix. However, this absurd, inaccurate, simplistic, and fundamentally inadequate notion of "certainty" you level at historical Jesus claims isn't just equally applicable to all historical claims but the entirety of virtually all knowledge.

Basically, saying we can't be certain that Jesus was historical is as meaningful as saying we can't be sure that there are not alternative explanations for any theory in academia. Your critique is a radical skepticism bereft of the substance from Kant, Hume, Kuhn, Derrida, etc., but nonetheless radically critical. It asserts things about certainty you couldn't defend in the sciences or the humanities but which you meaninglessly determine applies here.

 

[oldbadger]

.............. You have, however, first claimed that history was your field, then that you simply majored in history, and most recently that your specialty is "espionage".

You cannot even accurately recall what Bunyip told you. Your lack of attention to detail gives you away.

who states that they are an historian. Then that they simply majored in history. Then that they are an expert in "espionage".

This is a misrepresentation.......... Very innaccurate.

an individual who first claimed to be an historian and has sense claimed to be an expert in espionage

After only a few pages your inability to accurately report what Bunyip wrote shows incompetence in comprehension............ and severe lack of attention to detail.

I double majored in classical languages and psychology/sociology with a minor in cognitive sciences.

........ should be more accurate in your descriptions of other's words.

Let's see. I've trained with counter-terrorist specialists from IDF to (formerly) SEAL team six operatives.

If I had a tenner for every person who ever told me that they worked/trained/served with our SAS I would be able to take my wife on a cruise, a luxury cruise....... a long distance luxury cruise. :sleep:

Now, let's see what Bunyip told you:-

Yes Legion , I did a double major one in history and politics (specifically the history of espionage) the other in counter terrorism.

That was half a dozen pages ago. AND YOU GOT IT WRONG!
Now.......... just agree with us that 'we cannot be certain about HJ' and then we can go to a thread to debate plausibility or possibility or probability.