How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[oldbadger]

not certain whatsoever. nothing has been proven beyond doubt that Jesus actually existed. for me the OT and NT are merely fictional stories which are believed by many to be true.

religion, if not taken seriously can be a good thing. however, it can become tarnished by those who believe.

no offense meant to those who do believe.

I'd be interested to know why you do believe what you do as regards to Christianity as I know a teeny bit about it.

Welcome to RF! It's good here.
I look forward to reading your posts.
I'm not a Christian, but lay just over the 'Jesus is historically plausible' side of the fence. That doesn't get me beaten up too badly because I simply cower in any corner and insist that his historicity cannoty be certain!

 

[Desert Snake]

Well said.Very true.

Thanks, just bringing it up. Not saying that you make these mistakes but many do.

 

[steeltoes]

Welcome to RF! It's good here.
I look forward to reading your posts.
I'm not a Christian, but lay just over the 'Jesus is historically plausible' side of the fence. That doesn't get me beaten up too badly because I simply cower in any corner and insist that his historicity cannoty be certain!

I don't know what makes people conclude that there is an historical Jesus, I am not saying that I am ruling it out, just that I don't know what leads people to that conclusion, it is an extraordinary claim.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't know what makes people conclude that there is an historical Jesus, I am not saying that I am ruling it out, just that I don't know what leads people to that conclusion, it is an extraordinary claim.

It is an article of faith, not a historical fact.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know what makes people conclude that there is an historical Jesus, I am not saying that I am ruling it out, just that I don't know what leads people to that conclusion, it is an extraordinary claim.

In what way is it extraordinary?

 

[Prophet]

It is an article of faith, not a historical fact.

Young earth creationist arguments use the phrase "theory of evolution" in a colloquial fashion, stressing use of the word "theory" to discount that it completely explains the evidence we are left with today and has no competing theories which explain the evidence nearly as well. Of course, competing theories do exist. Young earth creationists put forth an unfalsifiable competing theory that God placed all of that evidence for evolution to merely "test their faith". The inability to prove anything outside of a formal system is why science still refers to evolution as a theory, even though informally it makes more sense to call it a fact. It is no different with Bunyip's characterization of the historical Jesus.

 

[Sapiens]

Young earth creationist arguments use the phrase "theory of evolution" in a colloquial fashion, stressing use of the word "theory" to discount that it completely explains the evidence we are left with today and has no competing theories which explain the evidence nearly as well. Of course, competing theories do exist. Young earth creationists put forth an unfalsifiable competing theory that God placed all of that evidence for evolution to merely "test their faith". The inability to prove anything outside of a formal system is why science still refers to evolution as a theory, even though informally it makes more sense to call it a fact. It is no different with Bunyip's characterization of the historical Jesus.

The difference is that evolution has libraries and museums full of data and analysis that mutually supports evolution, the historicity of Jesus has a few scattered phrases of dubious provenance. I find that quite different.

 

[Bunyip]

Young earth creationist arguments use the phrase "theory of evolution" in a colloquial fashion, stressing use of the word "theory" to discount that it completely explains the evidence we are left with today and has no competing theories which explain the evidence nearly as well. Of course, competing theories do exist.

Competing theories to the ToE? Like what? There are no competing theories.

Young earth creationists put forth an unfalsifiable competing theory that God placed all of that evidence for evolution to merely "test their faith". The inability to prove anything outside of a formal system is why science still refers to evolution as a theory, even though informally it makes more sense to call it a fact. It is no different with Bunyip's characterization of the historical Jesus.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Theories are never proven, clearly you do not know what 'theory' even means in science. Theories are explanations and are never proven - they explain the facts. EVOLUTION is a fact,the ToE explains the facts.
Were you super stoned when you wrote that post? Sure looks that way.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is laughable.

 

[allfoak]

It doesn't really matter if Jesus was historical or not, the scriptures are allegorical not literal.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It doesn't really matter if Jesus was historical or not, the scriptures are allegorical not literal.

Presuming you and I are correct about that (which I think we are), it still matters to a lot of people, and they matter. Even though I do think the NT is very full of allegories, the NT itself enforces observance of other points of view. The NT itself becomes meaningless if we do not hold other points of view on level with our own, and I do not mean just tolerating them. They are points of view from other people, other Christians, so they deserve some veneration. Its a subject for a completely different thread, but I'm just saying that is why I still consider this a relevant topic. Its not that I personally feel like its the most important thing to determine whether Jesus was made of skin & bones, but if the NT is to be relevant to me then I have to venerate other points of view. Because of that the conversation is not moot to me whether or not the NT is allegorical.

 

[allfoak]

Presuming you and I are correct about that (which I think we are), it still matters to a lot of people, and they matter. Even though I do think the NT is very full of allegories, the NT itself enforces observance of other points of view. The NT itself becomes meaningless if we do not hold other points of view on level with our own, and I do not mean just tolerating them. They are points of view from other people, other Christians, so they deserve some veneration. Its a subject for a completely different thread, but I'm just saying that is why I still consider this a relevant topic. Its not that I personally feel like its the most important thing to determine whether Jesus was made of skin & bones, but if the NT is to be relevant to me then I have to venerate other points of view. Because of that the conversation is not moot to me whether or not the NT is allegorical.

I agree i'm sorry.
No harm intended.

I would be happy to discuss any point of view.

 

[Prophet]

The difference is that evolution has libraries and museums full of data and analysis that mutually supports evolution, the historicity of Jesus has a few scattered phrases of dubious provenance. I find that quite different.

What Sapiens characterizes as "a few scattered phrases" is 1000s of copies of extant documents. The contents of many of these documents were friendly to Jesus, and some quite hostile, yet all assumed he was a real human being and never even thought to question this. We don't have Jesus' existence questioned until 100s of years later and only then by some agenda-driven fool with a wish to further his claim to be the Christ exclusively.

 

[Bunyip]

What Sapiens characterizes as "a few scattered phrases" is 1000s of copies of extant documents. The contents of many of these documents were friendly to Jesus, and some quite hostile, yet all assumed he was a real human being and never even thought to question this. We don't have Jesus' existence questioned until 100s of years later and only then by some agenda-driven fool with a wish to further his claim to be the Christ exclusively.

Well of course they assumed he was a human being - what else would they assume it could be? That is not evidence for historicity. The unfriendly sources would be more likely to question the miraculous parts of the story than the humanity of its inspiration.

 

[Prophet]

Competing theories to the ToE? Like what? There are no competing theories.

Contrast that with:

Competing theories to the historical Jesus? Like what? There are no competing theories. Bunyip refuses to offer nothing but radical skepticism to cover for the fact that he has no rational explanation to offer for how the evidence for Jesus got there. Bunyip has absolutely nothing better to shoot down the historical Jesus than do creationists have to be skeptical of evolution when they propose stupidity like that God put those dinosaur bones there to test their faith. Apparently, while he was burying those dinosaur bones to test faith of fundie Christians, he was also hard at work planting all this Jesus evidence into history as well to test Bunyip's faith as a fundie atheist.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Theories are never proven, clearly you do not know what 'theory' even means in science. Theories are explanations and are never proven - they explain the facts. EVOLUTION is a fact,the ToE explains the facts.

Note what Bunyip is responding to:

Young earth creationists put forth an unfalsifiable competing theory that God placed all of that evidence for evolution to merely "test their faith". The inability to prove anything outside of a formal system is why science still refers to evolution as a theory, even though informally it makes more sense to call it a fact. It is no different with Bunyip's characterization of the historical Jesus.

Were you super stoned when you wrote that post? Sure looks that way.

Right now in fact. Was Bunyip stoned when he read it? Making Bunyip my mare is still effortless.

 

[Prophet]

Well of course they assumed he was a human being - what else would they assume it could be? That is not evidence for historicity. The unfriendly sources would be more likely to question the miraculous parts of the story than the humanity of its inspiration.

It is HIGHLY unlikely that these supernatural additions to the biography of Jesus (virgin birth, physical resurrection, etc.) happened during the lifetime of his contemporaries.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well of course they assumed he was a human being - what else would they assume it could be?

A demi-god, a deity, or any number of entities we now find strewn across many an "Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman mythology" and the like. That was the norm. The only Greco-Roman gods for whom we have writings by authors who place these figures into a geographic, social, temporal, and cultural context are figures such as Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, & Jesus, and a few others.

That is not evidence for historicity.

Of course it is. The fact that even the ancient Greeks doubted whether Homer ever existed is pretty strong evidence, as it tells us that those who did not have the conceptions of history, biography, culture, myth, religion, etc., such that they had any historical-critical methods upon which to draw still doubted one of "the poets" is evidence of a similar type. That is, even after the dual person had all but died out it, was reserved for "the [two] poets", (meaning Homer & Hesiod) and the works attributed to them were received myth par excellence. Had nobody doubted, this would tell us little by itself. Had we found authors spread out in space and time within the Hellenistic, Romanist, and even late classical eras who wrote polemics against the classical Greek reliance one (Homer) whom they criticized the Greeks for believing was an historical figure, that two would be evidence.

As it is, we have the people who most relied on Homeric epics challenging this Homer themselves, and no real interest in attacking the Greeks for their beliefs in general even after they were conquered.

For Jesus, were it possible for those like Celsus (or even Julian) to refer to traditions that indicated no historical Jesus existed rather than e.g., criticize him for being illegitimate, this wouldn't give us that much (certainly not as much as the utter lack of such critiques amongst the vast piles of anti-Christian polemicist writings that survive). That those such as Celsus affirm Jesus' historicity is more significant. That there is no plausible explanation for only our Christian sources without positing that Jesus was an historical figure, let alone all our sources, would be enough; that the we actually have evidence from not only from a Jewish author Like Josephus but the reports/letters from Pliny, Seutonius, Tacitus and probably more gentile sources (were we to use the standards mythicists apply to non-Christian sources, we'd say "certaintly") is simply icing on the cake: mythicist rely on accepting mainstream historical methods accept when it comes to the historical Jesus, in which case they don't just abandon said methods they dismiss the entirety of the historiographical approach. They don't seek to understand our sources but to explain them away while offering nothing remotely plausible in return.

The unfriendly sources would be more likely to question the miraculous parts of the story than the humanity of its inspiration.

Wrong. Celsus wrote these off as nothing special. Anti-Christian polemicists (at least until Constantine started making Christianity a way into imperial good graces rather than e.g., execution) relied on logical critiques against both Christians and their founder which ranged from alternate traditions for his birth to the impiety of his acts.

 

[steeltoes]

It is HIGHLY unlikely that these supernatural additions to the biography of Jesus (virgin birth, physical resurrection, etc.) happened during the lifetime of his contemporaries.

Take away the supernatural stories and there is nothing left to talk about.

 

[Prophet]

Take away the supernatural stories and there is nothing left to talk about.

Wrong.

 

[Bunyip]

Contrast that with:

Competing theories to the historical Jesus? Like what? There are no competing theories. Bunyip refuses to offer nothing but radical skepticism to cover for the fact that he has no rational explanation to offer for how the evidence for Jesus got there. Bunyip has absolutely nothing better to shoot down the historical Jesus than do creationists have to be skeptical of evolution when they propose stupidity like that God put those dinosaur bones there to test their faith. Apparently, while he was burying those dinosaur bones to test faith of fundie Christians, he was also hard at work planting all this Jesus evidence into history as well to test Bunyip's faith as a fundie atheist.

Nice little rant sparky. There is no historical Jesus to shoot down mate. What 'Jesus evidence'? You have Paul - who spoke only to the ghost Jesus, and a few oblique and contested references in Tacitus and Josephus. You ask how I explain how all of the evidence got there - LOL what evidence?

Note what Bunyip is responding to:





Right now in fact. Was Bunyip stoned when he read it? Making Bunyip my mare is still effortless.

 

[Bunyip]

It is HIGHLY unlikely that these supernatural additions to the biography of Jesus (virgin birth, physical resurrection, etc.) happened during the lifetime of his contemporaries.

So what?