How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[psychoslice]

Of course he was historical, I think you would have to be someone with a great imagination to think all that happened, come on, get real.

 

[Prophet]

LOL Indeed. You know that I have stated outright that I am not a mythicist, but claim that I am one anyway.

And you apparently think that is 'owning'. ROFL

Yes, I am quite aware that Bunyip has stated outright that he is not a mythicist. He has also stated that he is an historian, later equivocating to having majored in history, later editing this to having some odd double major making him an expert in ancient espionage. In all of these fields Bunyip has claimed personal authority in, he has been humiliated time and time again in this thread. Bunyip has demonstrated that his claims don't really mean anything. He claims to be an expert, but this is repeatedly shown to not be true.

Now I am repeating my accusation that he is a lower form of mythicist who won't commit to any position, or what I call a denialist. I am accusing Bunyip of aggrandizing his hidden mythicist position by refusing to commit to any one hare-brained theory, but rather combining the strength of an unlimited number of hare-brained theories with his commitment to radical skepticism in the case of anything he needs to deny.

Bunyip thinks merely denying being a denialist is a sufficient defense, but, in actuality, Bunyip unintentionally supports my case against him.

 

[Sapiens]

I am not a mythicist.

I am not a denialist.

I am not an expert.

It does not take one to see that the data is inadequate to the task of proving historicity.

They mythicists make a much more probable case, but don't reach the level of proof either.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, I am quite aware that Bunyip has stated outright that he is not a mythicist. He has also stated that he is an historian, later equivocating to having majored in history, later editing this to having some odd double major making him an expert in ancient espionage. In all of these fields Bunyip has claimed personal authority in, he has been humiliated time and time again in this thread. Bunyip has demonstrated that his claims don't really mean anything. He claims to be an expert, but this is repeatedly shown to not be true.

Now I am repeating my accusation that he is a lower form of mythicist who won't commit to any position, or what I call a denialist. I am accusing Bunyip of aggrandizing his hidden mythicist position by refusing to commit to any one hare-brained theory, but rather combining the strength of an unlimited number of hare-brained theories with his commitment to radical skepticism in the case of anything he needs to deny.

Bunyip thinks merely denying being a denialist is a sufficient defense, but, in actuality, Bunyip unintentionally supports my case against him.

Attacking me is not a case little buddy.

 

[Prophet]

Attacking me is not a case little buddy.

Demonstrating that Bunyip has a history in making demonstrably false claims to his benefit is most certainly pertinent to damaging Bunyip's credibility as to whether his claims should be taken as serious or whether his claims should be investigated further. I am still well aware that Bunyip is claiming to not be a mythicist/denialist. My case is that his claim cannot be demonstrated to be anything close to reliable, as he has repeatedly claimed to be an expert authority in fields and has repeatedly been shown to be inept. Bunyip has demonstrated expertise in nothing but the use of dishonesty and ad hominem.

 

[Bunyip]

Demonstrating that Bunyip has a history in making demonstrably false claims to his benefit is most certainly pertinent to damaging Bunyip's credibility as to whether his claims should be taken as serious or whether his claims should be investigated further. I am still well aware that Bunyip is claiming to not be a mythicist/denialist. My case is that his claim cannot be demonstrated to be anything close to reliable, as he has repeatedly claimed to be an expert authority in fields and has repeatedly been shown to be inept. Bunyip is an expert in nothing but the use of dishonesty and ad hominem.

Attacking me still isn't a case mate.

Have never claimed to be an authority in any field by the way, but keep 'owning'.

 

[Prophet]

Attacking me still isn't a case mate.

Have never claimed to be an authority in any field by the way, but keep 'owning'.

Bunyip is being dishonest again. Perhaps Bunyip did not use the word authority to describe his status, but Bunyip certainly not only claimed to be an authority in the posts recently dug up by Legion, but subsequently made claims which rested on fallacious appeals to his own authority.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip is being dishonest again. Perhaps Bunyip did not use the word authority to describe his status, but Bunyip certainly not only claimed to be an authority in the posts recently dug up by Legion, but subsequently made claims which rested on fallacious appeals to his own authority.

No mate, I have never made any appeal to my own authority or claimed to be an authority on anything.

 

[Prophet]

No mate, I have never made any appeal to my own authority or claimed to be an authority on anything.

Bunyip is putting on a visceral display of how advanced denialism works.

 

[Sees]

 

[Prophet]

I have to disagree. This thread pretty much started with dishonesty in the form of a disingenuous pledge by the OP to not engage in exactly the type of behavior that has become his trademark.

 

[oldbadger]

I have to disagree.

.......Prophet Disagreeing? Never!

This thread pretty much started with dishonesty..........

No it did not. Prophet cannot see that this thread started with the question:-

How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

.......in the form of a disingenuous pledge by the OP to not engage in exactly the type of behavior that has become his trademark.

.... Prophet does not know that this thread ran for pages, and scores of posts, before Bunyip was insulted.....

Prophet might benefit from discarding his ego and admitting that:-
We cannot be 'certain' that Jesus was historical.
Although plausible, we cannot be certain that only one man was included in the Jesus story.

 

[`mud]

So much tripe, about so little !
Simple question: "Is there human flesh in this so called heaven " ?
Doesn't ancient flesh ever rot, in "heaven", and did he, (Jesus), take his sandles with him ?
Oh....who pulled the nails from out Jesus' hands and feet, or are they still in the pole ?
What covered Jesus' body as he ascended to "heaven", is he still covered by that robe ?
~
And on and on and on....what crap...and why is there any discussion at all,
it never happened !
Any of it !!!!
~
'mud

 

[Sees]

I think Legion should make one of these over the weekend, so we can find out once and for all.

Can use my Chihuahua for the test run.

 

[outhouse]

I am not an expert.

It does not take one to see that the data is inadequate to the task of proving historicity.

.

Which almost sums up this thread.


Those who remain ignorant to the evidence at hand, can dismiss it willy nilly.


People perceive the evidence differently. And those who are experts, see the evidence in context, which has stood for the last 100 years. and everyone against historicity has been completely refuted.

Every argument that could have been brought forth has been refuted, but in this thread it has been 99.9% mythicist going NUH UH, just denial.


Legion has done a great job of poking holes in the lack of proper methodology used in this thread.

 

[Prophet]

.......Prophet Disagreeing? Never!

No it did not. Prophet cannot see that this thread started with the question:-

Bunyip made this thread to imply that his opponents are exclusively to blame in that these debates he has all eventually devolve into exchanges of ad hominem, yet when he has encountered strong disagreement, Bunyip has not only used the ad hominem he decries in Legion and me which is hypocrisy in and of itself, but goes further and uses ad hominem in its stronger fallacious form as the main basis for his arguments against us.

Rather than defeating our ideas rationally, Bunyip would rather talk about my marijuana use or Legion's use of alcohol. The OP was a hypocritical ruse.

.... Prophet does not know that this thread ran for pages, and scores of posts, before Bunyip was insulted.....

Seeing as he made this thread as a referendum on the hostility of Legion and me, it makes perfect sense that he began the thread feigning civility, but what are we seeing from Bunyip now? The same thing we see every time.

Prophet might benefit from discarding his ego and admitting that:-
We cannot be 'certain' that Jesus was historical.
Although plausible, we cannot be certain that only one man was included in the Jesus story.

The only thing that will get me to say this is one of you sacking up and putting out an alternate explanation of the evidence that is remotely plausible, rather than par for the fundie idiot course of relying on radical skepticism to defeat any idea you find distasteful.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's like me trying to get new species status with nothing more than a cast if a print.

It is nothing whatsoever like this. Your analogy simply portrays (again) how thoroughly your admission:

I am not an expert.

encapsulates your ability to even contribute to any discussion on this topic.

Again, the entirety of your arguments, whether they concern historical Jesus studies or historical methods, have at best rested upon anonymous persons you claim are experts such that these few individuals you refuse to name are supposed to amount to evidence. Not just evidence, though, but basic historical methods which standard textbooks and graduate reference material that I've cited are inferior to your appeals to anonymous authorities.

You choose to believe all the pompous hand waving and humanities based "analysis."

You choose to form opinions about a subject you know nothing of and have demonstrated how utterly, completely, and thoroughly ignorant you are not only of historical Jesus studies but historical research in general simply by your appeals to anonymous "experts" whose views cannot be found in any expert literature.

I'm a scientist and a bit more hard headed.

I don't doubt it. I'm a scientist. My research in biblical studies was a side-effect of my dislike of reading anything in translations as well as an obsessive nature. However, your experience as a scientist should give you some semblance of a logical foundation for your opinion here rather than utter ignorance of historical methods, historical scholarship of subjects in and around Jesus' day, and a rather pathetic inability to even hint that you are aware of the scholarship you dismiss.

As a scientist, I find such ignorant dismissals not just sadly pathetic, but depressingly prophetic: are your arguments from ignorance to be the foundation for scientific research?

As I've observed before, the field of Biblical Whatever

...is something you are utterly ignorant of. You have yet to indicate you have even the faintest conception of what historical research of antiquity entails or really even what historical research is, let alone some foundation from which you could conclude anything based upon observations made from a position of complete ignorance.

 

[`mud]

An aside from the thread, I've noticed several posters on here that refer to themselves as being scientists.
In real life, I'm a retired electrical engineer.
I've met thousands of people that are in every manner of stature imaginable,
But I can't remember any of them refering to themselves as being scientists.
Can anyone else ?
~
Just a thought !
~
As to the thread....Saul (Paul) was a con man !
That's nuff
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can anyone else ?

I don't usually have to. Everybody in my circles is (at least in general) my field and what "science" is (as opposed to the mythical "The Scientific Method". However, I need not hide behind claims (see e.g., here)

 

[oldbadger]

An aside from the thread, I've noticed several posters on here that refer to themselves as being scientists.

Hi 'Mud!
It's part of the new class system of America, maybe?
The higher one's claims for IQ, Tertiary Education, especially scientific success, the better one might feel about oneself, maybe?

In real life, I'm a retired electrical engineer.

No probs there.

I've met thousands of people that are in every manner of stature imaginable,
But I can't remember any of them referring to themselves as being scientists.

Hang around on RF....... it's just amazing.

Can anyone else ?
~
Just a thought !

I do begin to feel that it is all about intellectual snobbery...... it took many months for me to get used to it!

~
As to the thread....Saul (Paul) was a con man !
That's nuff
~

....Yes..... he was. A manipulating, bullying control freak.

But I still think that historic Jesus is a plausible proposal.....
'mud