How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what if some were poets, rhetoricians and so on? Did you actually believe that would eliminate them as historians?

Yes. By both the standards of that day and ours, actually.

Are you seriously going to argue that only full time professionals identifying specifically as historians count?

No. The same individual could write drama, history, biography, and letters. Xenophon's Memorabilia & Cyropaedia fall into the category of ancient biography while his Anabasis belongs to the genre of history. However, citing a bunch of names gives us nothing that should have us believe that the fact that some Roman poet or orator didn't write anything which mentions Jesus is meaningful, particularly when we can't actually say they didn't as we don't possess much if any of their work.

You asked how many historians from the first century whose works survive - the answer is 25.

And they are?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Originally Posted by*Bunyip*

So what if some were poets, rhetoricians and so on? Did you actually believe that would eliminate them as historians?

Yes. By both the standards of that day and ours, actually.

Don't be absurd.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Don't be absurd.

Is this a "no" on the request for these 25 historians (and, just to anticipate what I'll ask for also- that we actually have what they wrote to be able to conclude they didn't write about Jesus)?

Also, if we're going to include poets among historians what criterion or criteria do you suggest we employ to distinguish sources we can use (however skeptically) as in some sense historiographical?

 

[`mud]

I'm getting pretty old here, and my memory isn't working as well it used to, so...forgive my ignorance.
Before the letters of Saul(paul) to assorted kings and such, and beside any mention of Jesus after Saul first mentioned Jesus' name,
what else was written about Jesus, remember....the apostle's writings don't count until after Sauls letters.
Forgive my stupidness, it's tough to be on ignore and not have a memory anymore.
And...I don't totally trust Wikki.
What was the first writing about Jesus 'datewise'.
I'm not making myself clear here am I, but I'll read for a while.
~
'mud

 

[Prophet]

I'm getting pretty old here, and my memory isn't working as well it used to, so...forgive my ignorance.
Before the letters of Saul(paul) to assorted kings and such, and beside any mention of Jesus after Saul first mentioned Jesus' name,
what else was written about Jesus, remember....the apostle's writings don't count until after Sauls letters.
Forgive my stupidness, it's tough to be on ignore and not have a memory anymore.
And...I don't totally trust Wikki.
What was the first writing about Jesus 'datewise'.
I'm not making myself clear here am I, but I'll read for a while.
~
'mud

Paul is the earliest source material for Jesus in the Bible. I don't believe he wrote to any kings, but rather in general to the Christians of various cities, or the church. His letters were compiled by Marcion and subsequently adopted by the canonized Bible.

Paul's letters do not include a biography of Jesus, but instead, focus on the underlying message of Jesus' ministry, or the Gospel, and logically expand on many of Jesus' teachings.

 

[`mud]

hey Prophet,
Damned good answer.
thank you, I'll bet I'll get other answers !
~
One furball
~
'mud

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Before the letters of Saul(paul) to assorted kings and such, ...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

First, learn the difference between mythology and history.

First, learn the difference between your criterion, and the criterion that actual historians use to draw historical conclusions, and once you do that, you will find yourself all by yourself, because even the most radical skeptics agree that the Apostle Paul is historical, and that Jesus of Nazareth is historical.

The problem is that you are so deep in your skepticism that even basic stuff like "Paul met with the original disciples" is raised in to question, and if that is the case, there is no wonder why you are not a historian.

Like I said: learn the difference between mythology and history.

I asked you a very specific question; What is your criterion for separating fact from fiction? Very simple question...which has nothing to do with "learning the difference between mythology and history". The question is personal, and it is simple....WHAT IS YOUR CRITERION for SEPARATING fact from FICTION.

Do we have evidence for Paul or any of the other main characters of the NT outside of the NT?

According to wikipedia, we do..



Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:

• Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
• Ignatius of Antioch's letter To the Romans (early 2nd century);
• Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
• The 2nd-century document Martyrdom of Polycarp.

At least 4 external NT sources for Paul. I will predict you will move the goal posts back a step further by asking for contemporary sources for Paul, right?? You see, once your question is answered and/or you are proven wrong, you have no choice but to move the goal posts back..you have to keep the skepticism alive, right?

Did any historians or writers in general of the period take notice of them and write about them?

No, but a former skeptic turned Christian did take notice of them and write about them. His name was Paul.

Surely if at least some of the things attributed to those people in the Christian writings actually occurred, someone would've noticed? Right?

Name me a historian or writer that was around in that region during the exact time of Jesus' ministry.

Which "historians" don't dispute that Paul existed? Bible scholars? In fact, if you type "did Paul exist" into Google, you get atheists and skeptics arguing that he didn't and some Christian sites saying that he did and using the Bible as evidence.

So I will ask again for the third time...what is the criterion for distinguishing fact from fiction? The only reason someone would have doubts of Paul's existence would be because it is attached to Christianity...if it weren't for that, those atheists and skeptics wouldn't have a problem with the existence of a man named "Paul".

Anyone can play the role of a skeptic. Someone can build a case that George Washingon never existed...and if you say "We have so much evidence for GW, those that were alive spoke of him!!" Then I could say "How do we know that they aren't lying"? Then what do you say? You can't prove that they weren't lying, can you? No, you can't.

Color me not convinced.

Eternal life through Jesus Christ isn't for everyone :no: No surprises there.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

The only reason someone would have doubts of Paul's existence would be because it is attached to Christianity...if it weren't for that, those atheists and skeptics wouldn't have a problem with the existence of a man named "Paul"...

Yes, most of these "skeptics" have got their own agenda for attacking Christianity, maybe they're satanists, cultists, fairy-worshippers, perverts, junkies, drunks or commies etc, but they can't get under the Bible's radar..-

"They make a noise like a dog..but thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision" (Psalm 59:6)
Right Lassie?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Paul is the earliest source material for Jesus in the Bible. I don't believe he wrote to any kings, but rather in general to the Christians of various cities, or the church. His letters were compiled by Marcion and subsequently adopted by the canonized Bible.

Paul's letters do not include a biography of Jesus, but instead, focus on the underlying message of Jesus' ministry, or the Gospel, and logically expand on many of Jesus' teachings.

No doubt. Paul's letters are early stuff...with the earliest letter dated 20-25 years after the cross. Also, you mentioned that he wrote to various churches/cities throughout the Empire, which is a testament to how much and how far the word spread, starting from Jerusalem.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, most of these "skeptics" have got their own agenda for attacking Christianity, maybe they're satanists, cultists, fairy-worshippers, perverts, junkies, drunks or commies etc, but they can't get under the Bible's radar..-

"They make a noise like a dog..but thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision" (Psalm 59:6)
Right Lassie?

Yeah, it is a double standard at its best.

 

[Prophet]

Yes, most of these "skeptics" have got their own agenda for attacking Christianity, maybe they're satanists, cultists, fairy-worshippers, perverts, junkies, drunks or commies etc, but they can't get under the Bible's radar..-

While I agree that some radical skeptics are advocating for calling into question things so basic that nothing is demonstrable outside of a formal system, I'm puzzled by the religious right's derision of communism in spite of their prophet.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I'm puzzled by the religious right's derision of communism in spite of their prophet.

Christianity and Communism are poles apart-
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”-Lenin
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country"-Lenin
"He who now talks about the "freedom of the press" goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism"- Lenin
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold:
its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life.
If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
-Joseph Stalin

 

[Prophet]

Christianity and Communism are poles apart-
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”-Lenin
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country"-Lenin
"He who now talks about the "freedom of the press" goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism"- Lenin
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold:
its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life.
If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
-Joseph Stalin

Characterizing Russia as the model for communism, and Lenin and Stalin as its foremost authorities is a rather transparent straw man argument against communism. Russia was and remains an oligarchy where the rich suppress the poor. Socialist governments which are simply taking "from each according to his ability" and giving "to each according to his need" would have no need to silence the press unless this government is, in fact, not socialist, but rather is taking from those who cannot afford it and giving to those whose needs are already cared for, like American capitalism.

 

[Bunyip]

Is this a "no" on the request for these 25 historians (and, just to anticipate what I'll ask for also- that we actually have what they wrote to be able to conclude they didn't write about Jesus)?

Also, if we're going to include poets among historians what criterion or criteria do you suggest we employ to distinguish sources we can use (however skeptically) as in some sense historiographical?

Legion, your approach to debate is just an empty fatuous waste of time. You will use your sole tactic - which is to reduce whatever point is being discussed to the pointless inanity of a long winded epic dissertation on what a word means.

As you did with 'contemporary', 'primary evidence', 'spy' and now are about to do with 'historian'.

So no mate, I am not interested in a million word lecture from you about what 'historian' means. I do however wonder what the attrition rate is amoungst your students - death from boredom must be a regular occurance.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, your approach to debate is just an empty fatuous waste of time.

Well, yes, but that's because my approach has been to present arguments and evidence and ask you to substantiate your claims and your response has been to dismiss what I've said without comment (apart from insults or similar dismissals that don't even so much as indicate you read what I wrote) and to refuse to back-up basically everything you've claimed.

As you did with 'contemporary', 'primary evidence', 'spy' and now are about to do with 'historian'.

You mean, when you presented arguments based upon claims you couldn't substantiate and I called you out, the fact that I did so more than once and in detail makes my arguments "fatuous"? Either it matters that evidence is contemporary or it doesn't. If it does, then your basis for arguing Paul doesn't give us "contemporary evidence" is either idiomatic or inline with historical methods. I showed it was idiomatic, you failed to provide any indication it wasn't. I'll admit the "spy" tangent was my own obsession with accuracy and was totally unnecessary. You offered an explanation for why Nero could blamed the Christians that Tacitus refutes in the relevant section, so I could (and should) have ignored the outlandish claims regarding "intelligence agencies" and I admit that part of it was because you managed to claim I wasn't familiar with Tacitus not simply because you can't read Latin but because you couldn't even be trusted to actually quote Tacitus rather than the translator of the 19th century online source you wrangled up.

Now, you make a very specific claim about how many historians there were and once again we are left without any indication that your basis for this is any better than quote-mining a translation of Tacitus you stumbled upon and failed to realize you were actually quoting the translator, not Tacitus.

So no mate, I am not interested in a million word lecture from you about what 'historian' means.

I'm not interested in what it means. I'm more interested in the fact that you are quite simply wrong by any account from someone with even a fairly decent grasp of first century authors and our surviving sources. It's not so much a matter of which authors wrote what we should or shouldn't call history as it is the specificity of the number despite widely varying views among experts on the matter. Oh, and the fact that whatever names the list you happened upon included wrote works that are mostly if not completely lost to us.

I do however wonder what the attrition rate is amoungst your students - death from boredom must be a regular occurance.

No, actually, quite the opposite. On the other hand, students don't generally dismiss everything their teachers say while simultaneously refusing to give any evidence for their positions. I don't tend to get many papers that consist of "I'm not interested in getting into X issue", even when I taught SAT/ACT classes on the side (and if there were ever classes filled with students who didn't want to be there on a subject matter that wasn't even a subject, it is those classes. Yet still I managed to make it interesting much of the time, and more importantly I wasn't given a bunch of claims followed by excuses as to why they couldn't be defended.

It does get rather tedious, boring, and frustrating to continually be dismissed without argument while being presented with claims lacking any argument or evidence. Dialogue in class is much easier, and here you simply refuse to do more than demand and dismiss making it that much harder.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, yes, but that's because my approach has been to present arguments and evidence and ask you to substantiate your claims and your response has been to dismiss what I've said without comment (apart from insults or similar dismissals that don't even so much as indicate you read what I wrote) and to refuse to back-up basically everything you've claimed.

No. That is false, I gave very good reason to dismiss each of your 'arguments' - they are gibberish, they are fatuous appeals either to authority or to definition. The reason why I tend not to appeal to authority to validate my claims is simply that I have no need to do so - my actual position you have already conceded .

You mean, when you presented arguments based upon claims you couldn't substantiate and I called you out, the fact that I did so more than once and in detail makes my arguments "fatuous"? Either it matters that evidence is contemporary or it doesn't. If it does, then your basis for arguing Paul doesn't give us "contemporary evidence" is either idiomatic or inline with historical methods. I showed it was idiomatic, you failed to provide any indication it wasn't. I'll admit the "spy" tangent was my own obsession with accuracy and was totally unnecessary. You offered an explanation for why Nero could blamed the Christians that Tacitus refutes in the relevant section, so I could (and should) have ignored the outlandish claims regarding "intelligence agencies" and I admit that part of it was because you managed to claim I wasn't familiar with Tacitus not simply because you can't read Latin but because you couldn't even be trusted to actually quote Tacitus rather than the translator of the 19th century online source you wrangled up.

Now, you make a very specific claim about how many historians there were and once again we are left without any indication that your basis for this is any better than quote-mining a translation of Tacitus you stumbled upon and failed to realize you were actually quoting the translator, not Tacitus.



I'm not interested in what it means. I'm more interested in the fact that you are quite simply wrong by any account from someone with even a fairly decent grasp of first century authors and our surviving sources. It's not so much a matter of which authors wrote what we should or shouldn't call history as it is the specificity of the number despite widely varying views among experts on the matter. Oh, and the fact that whatever names the list you happened upon included wrote works that are mostly if not completely lost to us.


No, actually, quite the opposite. On the other hand, students don't generally dismiss everything their teachers say while simultaneously refusing to give any evidence for their positions. I don't tend to get many papers that consist of "I'm not interested in getting into X issue", even when I taught SAT/ACT classes on the side (and if there were ever classes filled with students who didn't want to be there on a subject matter that wasn't even a subject, it is those classes. Yet still I managed to make it interesting much of the time, and more importantly I wasn't given a bunch of claims followed by excuses as to why they couldn't be defended.

It does get rather tedious, boring, and frustrating to continually be dismissed without argument while being presented with claims lacking any argument or evidence. Dialogue in class is much easier, and here you simply refuse to do more than demand and dismiss making it that much harder.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

I imagine that your dialogue in class is much easier simply because you have a captive audience - they have to listen to your awful apologetic epics.

 

[Sapiens]

Characterizing Russia as the model for communism, and Lenin and Stalin as its foremost authorities is a rather transparent straw man argument against communism. Russia was and remains an oligarchy where the rich suppress the poor. Socialist governments which are simply taking "from each according to his ability" and giving "to each according to his need" would have no need to silence the press unless this government is, in fact, not socialist, but rather is taking from those who cannot afford it and giving to those whose needs are already cared for, like American capitalism.

I could not have said it better!

 

[outhouse]

It does get rather tedious, boring, and frustrating to continually be dismissed without argument while being presented with claims lacking any argument or evidence. .

And it stays on ignore for that reason


I tried taking the leash off a few times, I was sorry I did.


he is blatantly trolling a thread he knows I will not respond to him in, for that reason alone.


Says a lot about his character