How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[`mud]

WOW!
Quite a bit of nothing here, Caesar and cousins and such....did someone mention Plato or Tutankhamen ?
~
I only have one sort of a big problem here, trying to get a date.
Simple question: When was the first time in written form that the name of "Jesus" was written down in any form or fashion ?
And who wrote it down, and in what language....I guess that's two questions...but I have more...maybe later.
~
OK...I'm done...go back to your quarrel about the roman leaders and such....and Zeus !
~
'mud

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

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

Oh......

Talk about childish …

 

[oldbadger]

WOW!
Quite a bit of nothing here, Caesar and cousins and such....did someone mention Plato or Tutankhamen ?
~
I only have one sort of a big problem here, trying to get a date.
Simple question: When was the first time in written form that the name of "Jesus" was written down in any form or fashion ?
And who wrote it down, and in what language....I guess that's two questions...but I have more...maybe later.
~
OK...I'm done...go back to your quarrel about the roman leaders and such....and Zeus !
~
'mud

Hi 'mud!

I don't think that we know for sure.
So it's all about estimates and guesses.
Damn.... we don't know for sure which year Jesus died....
I'm going to place my guess for first known writing at CE55-60

Now...... watch out for fireworks!

 

[oldbadger]

Talk about childish …

Out of the mouths......

Is it better to put a point with humour, or vituperation?
Which might be retained in memory?

But you avoided the point. This point:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi View Post
........................ .......................... . I ALWAYS AGREED THAT HISTORICAL CLAIMS CAN'T BE PROVEN and that THERE IS ALWAYS UNCERTAINTY.

......................................

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Originally Posted by*Bunyip*

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

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

Which is of course an argument I have not made.

Your primary point seems to be that the historicity of what you call 'mythological deities' like Augustus Ceaser can only be established by appeals to authority and so on as is the case for Jesus.

A point which is truly absurd. No Legion - for Augustus we have artifacts, we have primary evidence, WE HAVE NAMES AND DATES for the historicity of his family. Love your idea that Augustus was mythological - did you write that with a straight face?

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

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 threir 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?).

Your point here is WRONG Legion.No we do not need to rely on the same appeals to historians as you do for Jesus. We have ARTIFACTS, PRIMARY EVIDENCE and other corroborating sources for Augustus and Julius that is FAR, FAR more extensive and reliable than the case for a histprical Jesus. The case for the historicity of Julius amd Augustus Ceaser is much more certain that that for Jesus, your describing them as 'mythological deities' was just excruciatingly disengenuous Legion.

 

[Prophet]

...your describing them as 'mythological deities' was just excruciatingly disengenuous Legion.

Legion is not attempting to press that the emperors were mythological deity, but rather is highlighting that Bunyip transparently rules out evidence with a double standard for Jesus, describing Jesus similarly as a mythological deity to bureaucratically strike evidence for Jesus off the table while essentially accepting "Duh!" as an answer to questioning the historicity of emperors. Were Bunyip's standard for evidence was actually that, a standard, he should be striking out any and all evidence which praises Caesar as deity. Bunyip fails to demonstrate these kind of scruples.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion is not attempting to press that the emperors were mythological deity

His rebuttal was that we have more evidence for the hostoricity of FIRST CENTURY MYTHOLOGICAL DEITIES - and his example of a first century MYTHOLOGICAL DEITY was Augustus Ceaser. So yes Prohet - he was indeed defining Augustus as a MYTHOLOGICAL DEITY, which is laughable.

, but rather is highlighting that Bunyip transparently rules out evidence with a double standard for Jesus, describing Jesus similarly as a mythological deity to bureaucratically strike evidence for Jesus off the table while essentially accepting "Duh!" as an answer to questioning the historicity of emperors.

That doesn't even make sense Prophet. There is a far superior body of evidence for the histpricity of Augustus than there is for Jesus, I have no double standard - Legion is equivocating two vastly different cases. (And hilariously had to pretend that Augustus was mythological to do so).

Were Bunyip's standard for evidence was actually that, a standard, he should be striking out any and all evidence which praises Caesar as deity. Bunyip fails to demonstrate these kind of scruples.

That doesn't make sense either. If you struck out all evidence for Augustus that praised him as a deity that would make no difference. We would still have a substantial body of primary and archeological evidence supperior to that for Jesus.

I guess that's why you stick to trolling.

 

[Prophet]

His rebuttal was that we have more evidence for the hostoricity of FIRST CENTURY MYTHOLOGICAL DEITIES - and his example of a first century MYTHOLOGICAL DEITY was Augustus Ceaser. So yes Prohet - he was indeed defining Augustus as a MYTHOLOGICAL DEITY, which is laughable.

That doesn't even make sense Prophet. There is a far superior body of evidence for the histpricity of Augustus than there is for Jesus, I have no double standard - Legion is equivocating two vastly different cases. (And hilariously had to pretend that Augustus was mythological to do so).

That doesn't make sense either. If you struck out all evidence for Augustus that praised him as a deity that would make no difference. We would still have a substantial body of primary and archeological evidence supperior to that for Jesus.

I guess that's why you stick to trolling.

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.

This body of evidence for Augustus which Bunyip touts as authoritative (abuse of appeal to authority) loses a lot of its superiority if we bureaucratically rule out evidence by the same standard which Bunyip has used for Jesus. Legion has demonstrated time and time again that Bunyip is incapable of adhering to such a standard. Thus, Bunyip carries a double standard transparently set against the historicity of Jesus.

 

[Bunyip]

This body of evidence for Augustus which Bunyip touts as authoritative loses a lot of its superiority if we bureaucratically rule out evidence by the same standard which Bunyip has used for Jesus.

Nope. I never claimed that the case for Augustus was authoritative - just that it is vastly superior. I am not ruling out ANY of the evidence for Jesus - that is a fabrication of yours and Legions. It is a rather silly fabrication you and Legion appear set on repeating in the absence of a logical response I presume.

Legion has demonstrated time and time again that Bunyip is incapable of adhering to such a standard. Thus, Bunyip carries a double standard transparently set against the historicity of Jesus.

 

[Prophet]

Nope. I never claimed that the case for Augustus was authoritative - just that it is vastly superior.

Bunyip seems ignorant to the fact that there is little to no logical difference between claiming that the case for Augustus is vastly superior coupled with a refusal to substantiate that claim and claiming that the case for Augustus is authoritative (which it actually is, but he can't admit this without opening himself up to attacks on the Jesus front) without any will or ability to demonstrate it. Both are abuses of appeal to authority.

I am not ruling out ANY of the evidence for Jesus - that is a fabrication of yours and Legions. It is a rather silly fabrication you and Legion appear set on repeating in the absence of a logical response I presume.

Paul.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip seems ignorant to the fact that there is little to no logical difference between claiming that the case for Augustus is vastly superior coupled with a refusal to substantiate that claim and claiming that the case for Augustus is authoritative (which it actually is, but he can't admit this without opening himself up to attacks on the Jesus front) without any will or ability to examine it for himself. Both are abuses of appeal to authority.



Paul.

LOL That was just gibberish.The case for Augustus is superior to that for Jesus - it is certainly MORE authoratitive.

You are just ranting.

 

[Prophet]

LOL That was just gibberish.The case for Augustus is superior to that for Jesus - it is certainly MORE authoratitive.

You are just ranting.

And Bunyip is just making claims substantiated by nothing but ad hominem.

 

[Bunyip]

And Bunyip is just making claims substantiated by nothing but ad hominem.

I can certainly substantiate that - no worries. But you are not contesting that point. Are you stoned now?

 

[Prophet]

WOW!
Quite a bit of nothing here, Caesar and cousins and such....did someone mention Plato or Tutankhamen ?
~
I only have one sort of a big problem here, trying to get a date.
Simple question: When was the first time in written form that the name of "Jesus" was written down in any form or fashion ?
And who wrote it down, and in what language....I guess that's two questions...but I have more...maybe later.
~
OK...I'm done...go back to your quarrel about the roman leaders and such....and Zeus !
~
'mud

Sorry to bore you, but Roman leaders are highly relevant to a debate of Jesus' historicity when Jesus mythers use a transparent double-standard to bureaucratically rule out swathes of evidence in the case of Jesus by making up rules that don't apply elsewhere. It must be pointed out that these standards are not uniformly applied. The historicity of Roman leaders contemporary to Jesus becomes a tool for comparison to highlight this double-standard. It is more than a little disheartening to watch those who hold this double-standard accuse those who expose it of being dishonest. For example,

...your describing them as 'mythological deities' was just excruciatingly disengenuous Legion.

 

[Prophet]

I can certainly substantiate that - no worries. But you are not contesting that point. Are you stoned now?

We've all seen Bunyip claim to be able to substantiate his claims, and he's even go so far to say he'd be happy to substantiate his claims. However, when pressed to actually do so, Bunyip's go-to cop out is to deflect and spew more ad hominem in transparent attempts to put a smoke-screen over the weakness of his positions.

Were I stoned and Legion drunk, it'd be to our credit and his discredit that we so easily destroy his specious arguments without the benefit of a sober mind.

 

[oldbadger]

Sorry to bore you, but Roman leaders are highly relevant to a debate of Jesus' historicity when Jesus mythers use a transparent double-standard to bureaucratically rule out swathes of evidence in the case of Jesus by making up rules that don't apply elsewhere. It must be pointed out that these standards are not uniformly applied. The historicity of Roman leaders contemporary to Jesus becomes a tool for comparison to highlight this double-standard. It is more than a little disheartening to watch those who hold this double-standard accuse those who expose it of being dishonest. For example,

Prophet writes about 'swathes of evidence in the case of Jesus', but the scholarly consensus of opinion seems to (mainly) support J's baptism, temple demonstration and execution.

It would be interesting to review a more extensive list, amounting to 'swathes of evidence', if Prophet could actually present this.

 

[`mud]

hey Prophet, (I guess you aren't one)
Same question as last blog...
I only have one sort of a big problem here, trying to get a date.
Simple question: When was the first time in written form that the name of "Jesus" was written down in any form or fashion ?
And who wrote it down, and in what language....I guess that's two questions...
~
Quote Badger: "I'm going to place my guess for first known writing at CE55-60"
~
So no-one ever mentioned 'Jesus' before this time ?
Who told Saul (Paul) about this name that he could write it down.
Is someone telling me that Jesus told him ?
~
'mud

 

[oldbadger]

Quote Badger: "I'm going to place my guess for first known writing at CE55-60"
~
So no-one ever mentioned 'Jesus' before this time ?
Who told Saul (Paul) about this name that he could write it down.
Is someone telling me that Jesus told him ?
~
'mud

Hey! Good point, 'mud! :yes:
So Paul was mentioning Jesus Christ in his letters to Christian groups, maybe circa CE35-38??

But I am more interested in the Gospel of Mark for the story of Yeshua the man, the healer, from Galilee. I don't take much interest in what Paul writes ........ although he did meet Cephas, and might have learned a little from him.

 

[fantome profane]

hey Prophet, (I guess you aren't one)
Same question as last blog...
I only have one sort of a big problem here, trying to get a date.
Simple question: When was the first time in written form that the name of "Jesus" was written down in any form or fashion ?
And who wrote it down, and in what language....I guess that's two questions...
~
Quote Badger: "I'm going to place my guess for first known writing at CE55-60"
~
So no-one ever mentioned 'Jesus' before this time ?
Who told Saul (Paul) about this name that he could write it down.
Is someone telling me that Jesus told him ?
~
'mud

Hey! Good point, 'mud! :yes:
So Paul was mentioning Jesus Christ in his letters to Christian groups, maybe circa CE35-38??

But I am more interested in the Gospel of Mark for the story of Yeshua the man, the healer, from Galilee. I don't take much interest in what Paul writes ........ although he did meet Cephas, and might have learned a little from him.

The earliest written document we have is 1st Thessalonians. And I think mud is closer, I might put it a little earlier, maybe 52.

We do have evidence that there were earlier written documents, but they have not survived.