How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Seriously Legion, that was the worst, most asinine rebuttal I have ever encountered in ten years of debate.

Wow. That means something, coming from an historian. Or rather someone who majored in history. No, wait...an expert in espionage. Oh yes, I recall: you majored in politics or something and based on you expertise in logic you LITERALLY quoted a 19th century individual claiming you were quoting Tacitus from a volume never written.

Then there's you general inability to produce the slightest hint you are familiar enough with argumentation and logic for your insults (which you began this thread with a promise to refrain from ) is based on a familiarity with either.

Sure Legion, there is more evidence for the historicity of Augustus and many other important figures in the Roman world than there is for the historicity of Jesus.

I know you aren't familiar with historical methods, research, logic (in the formal sense) or the rest of what might make your arguments more than ad hominem attacks and playing the victim, but just for the record asserting that there are "other important figures" you can't be bothered to name and the fact that you have yet to defend our evidence for Julius Caesar indicates a rather complete lack of any possible relevancy to anything you say here (apart from indications that you are determined to demonstrate how far you are willing to contradict yourself and indicate how little you know about what you propose to).

You are refuting your own position and supporting mine

Wrong. I'm demonstrating you don't have a position. Unlike you, I can answer all the challenges I've presented for the historicity of Julius Caesar or August. I don't have to depend on real historians when it suits me. You do. You can parrot criticisms for Jesus' historicity you picked up online the way you did "Tacitus' volume" never written and the quote that wasn't a translation, but when it comes to defending the actual evidence historians have to gauge you can but appeal to them or deflect.

how bad my scholarship is

My bad. I didn't mean to imply that you ever produced scholarship. Let me be clear: your utter inability to engage in scholarship or even indicate you are aware of what constitutes scholarship is the problem.

Yes mate, there is more evidence for the historicity of Augustus AND Julius than there is for JC

More dogma. It's actually fascinating to watch you continue to make contradictory claims, fail to substantiate that which you clearly stated you could, and lately to offer examples of persons for which we have more evidence than Jesus but without any ability whatsoever to evaluate this evidence as historians do so as to answer the kind of mind-numbingly tired, worn-out, anachronistic, and otherwise mistaken "criticisms" you've proffered for our evidence for Jesus.

how you thought that was a rebuttal I can only assign to alcohol.

That's because your knowledge of logic and history is reflected in your citation of Tacitus which mistook the translator for Tacitus and referenced a volume Tacitus never wrote. Not to mention your various claims as an expert that have all turned out to be lies.

When you must identify a Roman Emperor as a first century God

...then I am repeating what was said of him at that time and later. If you are so unfamiliar with primary sources you didn't know this, then read a book. If you do know this and are acting like I am arguing that Augustus really was rather than demonstrating that your arguments fall flat as such criticisms and others apply to others you claim are so assured with respect to their historicity, then that's simply pathetic.

you Legion have clearly reached the limits of both your integrity and rhetorical ability.

Oh my. I've been insulted (again) by an expert in espionage who started this thread with a promise not to insult and to be honest (then lied repeatedly).

 

[oldbadger]

Oh my. I've been insulted (again) by an expert in espionage who started this thread with a promise not to insult and to be honest (then lied repeatedly).

...... Insulted? Your posts might deserve such treatment.
This was an interesting and pleasant debate for pages and pages, but post 91 foreshadowed the nastiness to come...
91

You demonstrate an unfamiliarity with anything remotely resembling the sources you use. Otherwise, you'd know that you conflate two different passages.

This was replied to with polite humour, thus:-
92

No worries mate. You have covered your views on my knowledge very thoroughly.

...and then you started to launch your usual rude and insulting rubbish, thus:-
93

And you have done nothing but to indicate my views on your ignorance are anything but correct (unless, of course, I overestimate the extent to which you do not know of what you speak).

I quoted the relevant Greek in Josephus. Can you analyze it (or any Greek in Josephus)? Can you indicate the faintest degree of familiarity with textual criticism? Can you name the extant Josephus manuscripts? Can you present any argument that isn't based upon
1) ignorance of Josephus' language
2) ignorance of Josephan manuscripts
3) ignorance of the Greek language
4) inability to either recognize or apply basic logic?

No.

Rude, personal insults...... as soon as you arrived!! :yes:

And now you have used one of Bunyip's qualifications as an instrument of attempted humiliation in your endeavours...... to achieve what? Your posts are useful to me because I discover the hangers on with no qualification or true education at all, but they are rapidly becoming despicable.

If your posts cannot put a strong point without insults...... best to leave them in your head. Please don't refer me to Bunyip's defences, rather that you read his every post up until you arrived...... that's about ten pages. He kept his promise until you provoked him to leave it behind. :yes:

And whilst you do all this, members like Ingledsva stole the show.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

...... Insulted? Your posts might deserve such treatment.

"God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty."

I never pretended to be an historian like Bunyip did, and more importantly I never lied by claiming things like:

I can guarantee to be polite, accountable and honest

or claimed to be an historian, a specialist in espionage, to have majored in history and then later to have majored in other topics, or in general made any claims I can't substantiate.

You previously responded to a small demonstration of Bunyip's reliance on ad hominem and insults when I posted this.

What you couldn't do was indicate any reason there exists something other than insults and lies to defend Bunyip's claims. Yet once again, you criticize me for calling out a liar whose insults began before mine and whose arguments depend upon such insults without reference to my arguments or Bunyip's UTTER inability to address these.-

This was an interesting and pleasant debate for pages and pages

During which the OP maligned, misrepresented, and insulted those who disagreed. Basically, you're are asserting that everything was pleasant until people disagreed with the OP. Again, I gave you a sample of irrelevant attacks here. When I did, you defended such insults and attacks by asking why I would bring them up. Now, you show how utterly biased you are by referring to my alleged reliance on such arguments despite the fact that
1) I NEVER made any claim that I would be "polite" only to systematically demonstrate how fatuous and dishonest this pledge was
&
2) The fact that the one insulting has repeatedly lied.

, but post 91 foreshadowed the nastiness to come...

You mean it was after the OP had dismissed me as a drunk, insulted my intelligence, and contradicted himself?

And now you have used one of Bunyip's qualifications

Bunyip has lied about his qualifications. He has claimed that he is an expert in fields he later denies even having an undergraduate education in. An admin here has a doctorate in this field and he nonetheless reported this individual because he was unable to recognize the basics of historical research despite having just claimed that his "field" was "history".

If your posts cannot put a strong point without insults

I did. I even adhered to Bunyip's absurd notions about fallacious arguments from authority such that I wrote several posts without doing so and without insult only to be insultingly dismissed without anything I wrote being addressed.

Please don't refer me to Bunyip's defences

He offers none.

The fact that you criticize me for quoting his insults and then criticize me for using insults speaks wonders.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

...

You are a patient man.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Bunyip has lied about his qualifications. He has claimed that he is an expert in fields he later denies even having an undergraduate education in. An admin here has a doctorate in this field and he nonetheless reported this individual because he was unable to recognize the basics of historical research despite having just claimed that his "field" was "history".

You reduce yourself to a fourth rate con artist Legion. I made no false claims - that you must invent these lies and repeat them ad naseum is proof of your dishonesty and your ineptitude. If you could attack the argument instead of the person, you would be doing so.

Legion, you are a gutless, pompous coward. You hide behind the anonymity of online exchanges to fling the insults and accusations that you would fear to voice in person.

 

[outhouse]

The fact that you criticize me for quoting his insults and then criticize me for using insults speaks wonders.

he is more in the dark then ole bun bun


he is ranting with bun bun because he runs from modern scholarship too, as its views through education and knowledge do not match his.

 

[Bunyip]

he is more in the dark then ole bun bun


he is ranting with bun bun because he runs from modern scholarship too, as its views through education and knowledge do not match his.

And you are trolling in the third party because you are unable to make a logical argument if your life depended on it.

Legions shameless dishonesty and your pointlessly infantile trolling are not as good an argument for the historicity of Jesus as you appear to imagine. In fact, it demonstrates better than I ever could that you have NOTHING.

 

[outhouse]

You will have to stop posting from emotion, its obvious.

 

[Bunyip]

You will have to stop posting from emotion, its obvious.

Love how you have me on ignore, but can not resist responding.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Again, we have more archaeological evidence for mythical deities than for any historical person from antiquity. They are depicted on coins, they survive as graffiti in brothels, there statues and depictions litter temples dedicated to them, and like the Caesars they were worshipped widely (although their worship wasn't as monitored or enforced as strictly).

Every kind of archaeological evidence that we have for Julius Caesar exists in spades for mythological deities or demigods.

LOL And then of course I ask Legion for an example of one of these 'mythical deities' for whom we have 'more archeological evidence than for any historical person from antiquity' - and who do you pick?

Augustus Ceaser!

Who apparently, according to you Legion is a mythical deity! WOW!

Hmmm.........so all of those silly historians who thought he was a historical figure -Gaius Octavius, born to the wealthy Patricians, the Octavians. Who died in Nola on the 19th of August 14 AD are wrong because he was in fact mythical? ROLFMAO.

Fantastic buddy - so Augustus Ceaser, is in your mind a mythical deity for whom we have more evidence than for any historical person from antiquity?

And that actually made sense to you?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Tell you what...you keep identifying 'first century mythological deities'(Well established roman emperors) to add to your idea that the historicity of Jesus is better established than...........


Perhaps when you get to a dozen or so 'first century mythological deities' (Emperors), you will see the flaw in your reasoning?

Or peraps two dozen 'first century mytholigical figures' (Emperors)?

As I said pages ago - but you ignored; Why not concede that we have better cases for all of the Roman Emperors than we have for Jesus? That appears to be what you are attempting now (albeit apparently accidentally).You are arguing FOR a point I made pages ago.

(As you supply subsequent examples of Emperors to further validate the point I was making in the OP, feel free to repeat whatever silly accusations you care to prosecute. I will focus on the counter examples you are submitting.)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

so all of those silly historians who thought he was a historical figure -Gaius Octavius

...also regard as trash your argument that there is some reason to suppose Jesus was never an historical person.

Perhaps I've been unclear. I'm not arguing that Augustus or Julius Caesar didn't exist. I'm arguing that you can't defend their historicity except by appeals to historians which you made above. I'm also calling you out on your blatant double standard: you refer to what "historians" believe when it comes to Augustus, but demand evidence you are incapable of evaluating (and in most cases even reading; I'm actually now curious, knowing you don't know either Greek or Latin, whether you know any languages in which modern scholarship on this topic has been and continues to be written?).

The "silly historians" you sarcastically refer to are those that you have summarily dismissed. When confronted with the fact that your knowledge of historical Jesus scholarship is nil and your capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion of the topic basically non-existent, you cry victim, rely on insults, or otherwise deflect. Your double standard is evident even were it not for your various lies about your specialty and backtracking about e.g., Tacitus and your inability to realize you were citing somebody from the 19th century when you were attempting (and failing) to cite an author ~1,000 years earlier.

Fantastic buddy - so Augustus Ceaser, is in your mind a mythical deity for whom we have more evidence than for any historical person from antiquity?

No. Because unlike you I don't use double standards. You regard references to historical scholarship as fallacious yet rely on some nebulous group of "historians' when it suits you. Your veneer of integrity and honesty is so transparently ridiculous you cannot even recognize the ways in which your quote-mined and misinformed understanding of historical Jesus scholarship relies upon the very logic, methods, and work behind historians' knowledge of Augustus' historicity.

And that actually made sense to you?

It makes as much sense as your baseless assertions about our evidence for Jesus. You can regurgitate criticisms you've quote-mined to marshal a would-be argument against our evidence for Jesus (or concerning the proper evaluation of it), but because there aren't vast numbers of amateurs promoting garbage and publishing fiction as "history" for you to depend on when it comes to other figures of antiquity, you're left with what you have: an incapacity to evaluate ancient sources, an inability to evaluate our evidence as actual historians do, and the ad hominem you decry. I can answer my challenges to Julius Caesar and Augustus' historicity. You can't, as you are not only unaware of the nature of our evidence but the methods historians use.

So you can question our sources for Jesus because you assume things about historical methods and sources, but when it comes to defending other individuals you resort to the very appeal to authority you endlessly claimed to be fallacious along with the insults you promised to refrain from.

 

[Bunyip]

So Augustus and..........

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So Augustus and..........

Julius Caesar & Jesus. When you are able to understand that your "skepticism" for our sources for the historical Jesus apply to those whom you defer to historians for confirmation (while ignoring the same for Jesus), or can use real knowledge of our sources here, then we can talk. Until then your argument is:

"Historians all agree the we have plenty of evidence for Roman emperors like Augustus, so I shouldn't have to answer any challenges to these".

"We have reasons to doubt there was any historical Jesus for reasons that undermine our evidence for Roman figures including emperors".

You appeal to historians when it suits you, ignore them and make claims about them you can't substantiate when it suits you, an are in general unwilling and incapable of mounting an argument which gives us reason to believe the evaluation of our evidence by historians is trustworthy when it comes to "deities" like Julius Caesar and Augustus but not when it comes to Jesus.

 

[Bunyip]

Let's make a list.

 

[Bunyip]

We have all the Ceasers, I assume many of thier relatives also.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You regard references to historical scholarship as fallacious yet rely on some nebulous group of "historians' when it suits you. Your veneer of integrity and honesty is so transparently ridiculous you cannot even recognize the ways in which your quote-mined and misinformed understanding of historical Jesus scholarship relies upon the very logic, methods, and work behind historians' knowledge of Augustus' historicity.

Precisely. Well said.

 

[oldbadger]

...also regard as trash your argument that there is some reason to suppose Jesus was never an historical person.
..........................................................
The "silly historians" you sarcastically refer to are those that you have summarily dismissed. When confronted with the fact that your knowledge of historical Jesus scholarship is nil and your capacity to engage in any meaningful discussion of the topic basically non-existent, you cry victim, rely on insults, or otherwise deflect. Your double standard is evident even were it not for your various lies about your specialty and backtracking about e.g., Tacitus and your inability to realize you were citing somebody from the 19th century when you were attempting (and failing) to cite an author ~1,000 years earlier.

No. Because unlike you I don't use double standards. You regard references to historical scholarship as fallacious yet rely on some nebulous group of "historians' when it suits you. Your veneer of integrity and honesty is so transparently ridiculous you cannot even recognize the ways in which your quote-mined and misinformed understanding of historical Jesus scholarship relies upon the very logic, methods, and work behind historians' knowledge of Augustus' historicity.

It makes as much sense as your baseless assertions about our evidence for Jesus. You can regurgitate criticisms you've quote-mined to marshal a would-be argument against our evidence for Jesus (or concerning the proper evaluation of it), but because there aren't vast numbers of amateurs promoting garbage and publishing fiction as "history" for you to depend on when it comes to other figures of antiquity, you're left with what you have: an incapacity to evaluate ancient sources, an inability to evaluate our evidence as actual historians do, and the ad hominem you decry. I can answer my challenges to Julius Caesar and Augustus' historicity. You can't, as you are not only unaware of the nature of our evidence but the methods historians use.

So you can question our sources for Jesus because you assume things about historical methods and sources, but when it comes to defending other individuals you resort to the very appeal to authority you endlessly claimed to be fallacious along with the insults you promised to refrain from.

OK......... feeling better now?
Good.....

........ hang on......... something's coming through here...... Oh no!

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

Oh......

 

[oldbadger]

Legion

Tell you what...you keep identifying 'first century mythological deities'(Well established roman emperors) to add to your idea that the historicity of Jesus is better established than...........

Bunyan.......... you know that it can't be......

A Baptising...
A Demo in the Temple.....?
An execution.........
A referral by Paul to a living brother....?

As in comparison to, say, Caesar.
What we know about, for instance Julius Caesar, is a rather huge list.......
I know that this is not a debating hall, where people will vote 'Yes' or 'No' to your question, but let's take any 100 members, and guess the counts in favour of the Ayes and Nays, and what do you think the Nays will number? 90+? More? More...... As other members have agreed, we cannot be certain....

That's it....... leave it....... you're ahead!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Tell you what...you keep identifying 'first century mythological deities'(Well established roman emperors)

Are you denying that our sources unambiguously state that Julius Caesar and Augustus were deities?

Or are you simply incapable of differentiating between your own biases regarding claims about Jesus vs. those for the emperors claimed to be "gods" you believe to be historical because you rely on real historians (as opposed to experts in "espionage", or whatever field you happen to lie you are a specialist in at whatever time)?

Legendary claims were made of Jesus in our sources for him. This is true of persons from Herod the Great and Nero to Constantine and Theodosius II. However, you have thus far failed to engage either in scholarship on the subject or primary sources. In fact, so incapable are you of any real contributions to this topic that you have continually failed even to distinguish a 19th century quote from a translator whom you relied on to cite a "volume" Tacitus never wrote.

So how about this: you keep making so elementary a mistake as quote-mining a translator, referring to the logic underlying historical research illogically, and pretending you're unbiased and interested in the truth rather than insults when you rely on insults and offer no arguments, and I'll continue to demonstrate how your knowledge of historical methods and research is so utterly lacking you can't defend Augustus or Julius Caesar's historicity using historical methods.

Perhaps when you get to a dozen or so 'first century mythological deities' (Emperors), you will see the flaw in your reasoning?

You mean, I'll realize that just because myths and legends exist about some person doesn't make them myth or legend? Hm. That's what I've argued to begin with. You reliance on appeals to authority and general ignorance here simply assures you can't differentiate between historical figures such as Augustus or Alexander the Great about whom legends and myths quickly grew and our sources for Jesus.

Why not concede that we have better cases for all of the Roman Emperors than we have for Jesus?

Because we don't. Take Nero. Despite the fact that you can't be trusted to actually understand when you are quoting a translator (let alone when you are referring to an historical volume), Tacitus is one of our main sources for Nero. He also refers to Jesus. Nero, however, has nothing like our sources for Jesus.