How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Prophet]

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

Okay. Please do fill in at least a detail or two Legion is egregiously omitting to his advantage. How exactly is Bunyip being misrepresented? Did Bunyip not first claim to be an historian, than backtrack to a claim that he majored in history? In spite of this supposed major, he demonstrates glaringly ignorance of what historians do. How much more do we have to press him to get him to admit that there was no major, but he did take an introductory level college course in it in which he did surprisingly well? How many more after that to find out that he dropped the class after a week?

And now he claims to have some other relevant major to first century intrigue and supports claims on this? I think we have good reason to believe this double major is a product of Bunyip's vivid imagination and lacking scruples.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

Well my field is history.

I majored in ancient history.

espionage is my field of knowledge.

So, what exactly did I misrepresent as you state here:

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

Is Bunyip's "field" history or espionage? Is Bunyip's expertise based on an undergraduate major or is "history" his "field" (or is Bunyip incapable of understanding what it means for something to be one's "field"?).

After only a few pages your inability to accurately report what Bunyip wrote shows incompetence in comprehension

I quoted him above. Feel free to demonstrate how your inability to not only indicate anything remotely resembling relevant knowledge of this topic, but also an inability even to follow the discussion as it has evolved here even more than you have thus far.

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

My pictures here are evidence for some of my training, but my grandfather's involvement with WWII intelligence and counter-intelligence as well as the CIA is now partially a matter of public record. Unlike you, I don't talk out of my *** because I assume that as I don't know wtf I speak of others must not as well. I can refer you to multiple references, from Pucci & Ahl's memorial to my grandfather to 1945 newspaper clippings attesting to his intelligence experience, and I can list and literally depict some of my own training. If your dismissal of my claims rests on equating your inability to substantiate anything you say apart from your arrogant certainty and incapacity to substantiate it forms the bases to question my own claims, you are woefully unequipped. But please, by all means, continue to demonstrate how thoroughly you can not only back up anything you assert, but how your would-be challenges are but the ashes of burnt leaves blowing in the wind (or hot air) you mistake for arguments.

Now, let's see what Bunyip told you

You already failed here. You looked at posts after Bunyip's lies, misrepresentations, and backtracking. These are available for all to see. You also UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY FAILED TO NOTE THAT I ALWAYS AGREED THAT HISTORICAL CLAIMS CAN'T BE PROVEN and that THERE IS ALWAYS UNCERTAINTY. However, apparently your selective reading is so complete that not only can't you follow Bunyip's failures, you can't even follow my posts enough to realize that I made the claims you assert I made recently at the beginning of the discussion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

There are any number of reasons why the legend snowballed. Big fish story or collective elaboration in order to get others to believe. It is possible that it was intentionally orchestrated but I am skeptical.

But it is important to note that theological (and even non-verified historical sources) are not thought to be exact or even trustworthy without having sustained skepticism. Skepticism however is a default position. So even if there isn't a counter argument(though they exist) it wouldn't mean that the theistic explanation would be correct.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That was half a dozen pages ago. AND YOU GOT IT WRONG!

I did get in wrong in that I missed out on the opportunity to expand upon the ways in which you were wrong as I showed in my last post. After showing what I did here, I thought I'd represented fairly well how you had failed to understand not only the subject matter but how it has been addressed in discussions here. I over-estimated your ability to accurately represent what has transpired by leaving out another way in which you have pointed to imagined failures on my part:

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

Let's combine this with a more complete set of claims that our criticized me for stating Bunyip asserted:

Well my field is history

I majored in ancient history.

espionage is my field of knowledge.

Now we add:

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

So espionage is Bunyip's "field of knowledge" thanks to one asserted major in "politics". Bunyip majored in history, but also in ancient history, and his field is history despite no indication that "field" means anything more than lying about undergraduate accomplishment. His "field of knowledge" isn't just an undergrad major; it's an alleged double major in history and politics that somehow also makes Bunyip's "field of knowledge" the field "espionage" and some bunk about "counter-terrorism" that Bunyip is utterly incapable of relating to the first century CE.

You accuse me of elitism because I spent the time and energy to learn about this topic while you simply haven't but nonetheless accuse my studies with some claim to elitist membership. You can't even accurately relate what was said on this forum. Here at least you've read something relevant. When it comes to this topic, you can't even demonstrate that.

 

[`mud]

I find it, what's the word here; rough, tough, forbidding, non-accepting, or simply impossible;
to debate with contextual bytes from the scriptures of the new testament.
None of the thoughts or ideas presented there were from the lips of 'Jesus'.
These words weren't from his hand, or his pen, or quill. He wrote not a word !
NOT ONE WORD did Jesus write, I can't believe that !
~
All we can debate with are 'quotes' and 'plagerisms' of what Jesus supposedly said.
Most of what was written on any form of retentative matter was approximately 30 years after his death.
Mostly from Saul, Matthew, John, Petre, and etc, and those recollections are somewhat plageristic also,
and probably mostly from the writer's memories of what was remembered to be what had been said.
These writings are somewhat inventive in their meanings, not what Jesus would really say, I guess,
most of the writings are almost superlative in their discriptions of miracles and such.
~
So to not go on and on, I don't believe Jesus wrote anything that we read from scriptures.
I would love to read something that he wrote, but that can never happen, sad is that !
So, I will not present any conjecture on what he could have meant, or thought.
Those debates and projections are beyond any possible stretch of imagination anyway.
Although, many people here will try to accomplish those end arguments, and inventions of their minds.
OK...way too long...and accomplishing nothing...
nuff stuff
~
'mud

 

[Shuttlecraft]

There are any number of reasons why the legend snowballed..

"Any number of reasons" is too vague mate, so if you care to narrow it down a bit we can look at your conspiracy-theories one by one..

 

[oldbadger]

..............................I ALWAYS AGREED THAT HISTORICAL CLAIMS CAN'T BE PROVEN and that THERE IS ALWAYS UNCERTAINTY..................

There you go......... now that didn't hurt, did it?
So after all that hot air and waffle, we get to the same conclusion as Bunyip.
We all get there in the end..... some just take longer than others.

 

[oldbadger]

I find it, what's the word here; rough, tough, forbidding, non-accepting, or simply impossible;
to debate with contextual bytes from the scriptures of the new testament.
None of the thoughts or ideas presented there were from the lips of 'Jesus'.
These words weren't from his hand, or his pen, or quill. He wrote not a word !
NOT ONE WORD did Jesus write, I can't believe that !
~
All we can debate with are 'quotes' and 'plagerisms' of what Jesus supposedly said.
Most of what was written on any form of retentative matter was approximately 30 years after his death.
Mostly from Saul, Matthew, John, Petre, and etc, and those recollections are somewhat plageristic also,
and probably mostly from the writer's memories of what was remembered to be what had been said.
These writings are somewhat inventive in their meanings, not what Jesus would really say, I guess,
most of the writings are almost superlative in their discriptions of miracles and such.
~
So to not go on and on, I don't believe Jesus wrote anything that we read from scriptures.
I would love to read something that he wrote, but that can never happen, sad is that !
So, I will not present any conjecture on what he could have meant, or thought.
Those debates and projections are beyond any possible stretch of imagination anyway.
Although, many people here will try to accomplish those end arguments, and inventions of their minds.
OK...way too long...and accomplishing nothing...
nuff stuff
~
'mud

Hi 'mud....
All the above is good.
I am interested in Historical Jesus and although he is so hidden in the mists of time .......... and lies....... I do believe that he does peep through, here and there, as a Galilean Healer who took on too much. That's my take on it.

All the best, Old-B

 

[steeltoes]

Hi 'mud....
All the above is good.
I am interested in Historical Jesus and although he is so hidden in the mists of time .......... and lies....... I do believe that he does peep through, here and there, as a Galilean Healer who took on too much. That's my take on it.

All the best, Old-B

The Son of man is at the core of the Jesus story, he was hidden from the beginning of time and when the end of the ages is near he will be revealed. He will serve as judge when the earth is destroyed, the new place of inhabitance for the righteous men of all nations will be a Jerusalem in heaven, where death will be abolished and the righteous will live with the Son of man forever.

That is the core of the Jesus and Christ story, one can look for an historical Jesus but the Christ and Jesus of that story is a mythical character.

 

[Shad]

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

The point was quoting people with big names talking about God is meaningless when horrible people have done the same thing. Hitler fought against Stalin, he hated communism

 

[Shad]

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... ?

I already said I think he is possible pages ago. The argument for HJ are just very weak.

I am just responding to people already off-topic.

 

[Shad]

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.

Considering other religions which many here think are false were followed by the masses, used in government, etc, Christianity can easily have done the same built on lies or do you think Zeus or Ra are based on real Gods as well?

I am not advocating removal of religion from society nor do I think it is the sole source of any of your points. I just think it happens to be one which is very convincing and easy to abuse due to many of it's followers investing authority into religious institutions. Flip through a history book just to see how it has been abused for political goals and power.

 

[oldbadger]

The Son of man is at the core of the Jesus story, he was hidden from the beginning of time and when the end of the ages is near he will be revealed. He will serve as judge when the earth is destroyed, the new place of inhabitance for the righteous men of all nations will be a Jerusalem in heaven, where death will be abolished and the righteous will live with the Son of man forever.

Proselytizer! Can Mrs B be there as well, please?

That is the core of the Jesus and Christ story, one can look for an historical Jesus but the Christ and Jesus of that story is a mythical character.

That's almost OK..... I say 'almost' because that Galilean hand-worker cum-healer , called Yeshua or close to that was probably a person...... imo. He may have been held in very high local regard, much as Harry Edwards from Leatherhead (circa 1970's) was.....

Now I guess that you might not want to go there, even that far, so I don't want to push it, but if you would acknowledge that my suggestion is 'possible' without any small-print D ) then I would think that to be a very fine position for you to take. ?

 

[oldbadger]

The point was quoting people with big names talking about God is meaningless when horrible people have done the same thing. Hitler fought against Stalin, he hated communism

Fair enough......
I'll agree to that.
I'm not even too interested in quoting scholars with big names talking about history. So many of them have career agendas blah blah....
Individual Investigation of truth..... as far as possible.....

 

[oldbadger]

I already said I think he is possible pages ago. The argument for HJ are just very weak.

I am just responding to people already off-topic.

I'm cool with that.......
As the pages go by I lose touch with who said what...

I look forward to a thread such as 'Could HJ have been probable?' because that would divide the field more evenly and bring on a really hot debate.

 

[oldbadger]

Considering other religions which many here think are false were followed by the masses, used in government, etc, Christianity can easily have done the same built on lies or do you think Zeus or Ra are based on real Gods as well?

I am not advocating removal of religion from society nor do I think it is the sole source of any of your points. I just think it happens to be one which is very convincing and easy to abuse due to many of it's followers investing authority into religious institutions. Flip through a history book just to see how it has been abused for political goals and power.

Of course, I am not a Christian...... but respect Christians.
Ra? I could have been drawn to a religion with Ra within it..... because, being a Deist I see my Deity as everything, and so Suns, better Galaxies, better still Universes, better still multiverses and on...... attract my attention, but sadly I don't see any Deity as being that interested in my pathetic pile of atoms. It might prefer them to be all separated...

 

[steeltoes]

Proselytizer! Can Mrs B be there as well, please?


That's almost OK..... I say 'almost' because that Galilean hand-worker cum-healer , called Yeshua or close to that was probably a person...... imo. He may have been held in very high local regard, much as Harry Edwards from Leatherhead (circa 1970's) was.....

Now I guess that you might not want to go there, even that far, so I don't want to push it, but if you would acknowledge that my suggestion is 'possible' without any small-print D ) then I would think that to be a very fine position for you to take. ?

Many people believe the story to be true, that the Son of God, the redeemer of mankind, really came down and walked the earth.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

we get to the same conclusion as Bunyip.

Wrong. Your inability so aptly demonstrated by your assertions that Bunyip didn't do exactly what I said is once again reinforced by a woefully inadequate capacity to show that you are able to interpret what either of us are saying:
Bunyip claimed that in Jesus' case things like "historicity" weren't "proven". This is indicative of one whose familiarity with historical research is...well, equivalent with one first claims to be an historian and then an expert in espionage. Bunyip's completely incorrect analysis, based upon his trumped up expertise in espionage or ancient history or whatever lie he trumpets next will nonetheless fail to be the conclusion I began with: NOTHING is proven in history or in academia in general outside of formal systems. Only an amateur unfamiliar with research parrots nonsensical and pathetically inept conceptions of historiography that differentiate some sort of "proven" historicity that we lack for Jesus but that we have for anybody else. HISTORY IS NOT EVER PROVEN. Bunyip creates a dichotomy that can't be substantiated but which Bunyip and you seek to somehow render meaningful. That Jesus' historicity isn't proven is no more meaningful than that the moon landing wasn't proven. To pretend otherwise is to demonstrate such a limited understanding of historicity and so little in the way of research that it is no wonder you clearly criticized me for accurately depicting Bunyip's claims, and as typical of those who spout nonsense they can't substantiate with the veneer of objectivity, you readily dismissed clear evidence that my assertions concerning Bunyip's claims were absolutely correct and latched on to the one claim I've never denied and always claimed was true. The difference is that Bunyip and you seem to think that the fact that we can't prove something here is somehow special. It's UNIVERSAL, even outside the humanities.

So congratulations: you demonstrated not just that you are unwilling to do any research simply because you can't be troubled to actually study, but also that you can't even be expected to follow the posts on this forum enough to represent any views accurately. You accused me of misrepresenting Bunyip's crap claims, then claimed a victory of your own because I asserted a position I've maintained before Bunyip was a member.

 

[fantome profane]

If everyone here wants to debate the topic of "Bunyip" then I suggest they start a new thread to debate that topic.

 

[outhouse]

If everyone here wants to debate the topic of "Bunyip" then I suggest they start a new thread to debate that topic.

Debating anything HJ at this site is useless.

Nothing is furthered because those with no education at all! keep the cart mired in feces.