How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[outhouse]

has nothing to do with what we are talking about when we are talking about the historical Jesus.

Come on!


It shows he/she quote mines like a creationist, that has to count for something

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why would I do that when it is discussing, The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ

1) Because you quote a line which, in Greek, is clearly differentiated from Jesus.

2) Because you haven't and can't demonstrate any relevancy of the English translation you've relied on.

3) Because Jesus of Damneus was never called "Christ" (just for starters).

 

[oldbadger]

Actually when you come down to it, there isn’t any evidence concerning Jesus.

..... no Primary evidence.
..... no Direct (archaeological) evidence.

Secondary, Indirect and Hearsay evidence...... which means that although HJ existed 'on the balance of probabilities', the OP is still correct in proposing that there is no certainty.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

..... no Primary evidence.

There is vast primary evidence.

..... no Direct (archaeological) evidence.

We have direct archaeological "evidence" for every single deity from antiquity.

Secondary, Indirect and Hearsay evidence......

Is all we have for almost anybody from antiquity. We have nothing but copies of texts supporting the existence of everybody from Pythagoras to Constantine.

which means that although HJ existed 'on the balance of probabilities', the OP is still correct in proposing that there is no certainty.

True. Of course, this is true of evolutionary theory, quantum mechanics, general relativity, etc. Proof requires a closed-discourse framework.

This isn't to equate our evidence for Jesus with evolutionary theory. The latter vastly outstrips the former. It is simply to acknowledge the fallacies involved in ill-conceived and uninformed claims/arguments such as those you made.

 

[oldbadger]

There is vast primary evidence.

..... no Primary evidence.

Please present it.

..... no Direct (archaeological) evidence.

We have direct archaeological "evidence" for every single deity from antiquity.

Deity? Wake up! Please present it for HJ....

..... Secondary, Indirect, Heresay....

Is all we have for almost anybody from antiquity. We have nothing but copies of texts supporting the existence of everybody from Pythagoras to Constantine.

...stick to the subject matter..... We are discussing the certainty of HJ. I couldn't care (just now) what we have for anyone else....

True. Of course, this is true of evolutionary theory, quantum mechanics, general relativity, etc. Proof requires a closed-discourse framework.

Oh Gawd...... let's all wander off and start arguing about the semantics that physicists use...... :biglaugh: .... No.... I'm not going there. Please present your Direct or Primary evidence for HJ.

This isn't to equate our evidence for Jesus with evolutionary theory. The latter vastly outstrips the former. It is simply to acknowledge the fallacies involved in ill-conceived and uninformed claims/arguments such as those you made.

Present your evidence for certainty....... or not. :beach: :sleep:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Please present it.

Most of the NT. I've already covered general, mainstream sources on the definitions of "primary" vs. "secondary" sources here. You aren't familiar with either.

Deity?

The problem is with the idiotic assumption that archaeological evidence can be interpreted as evidence for historical persons by internet mythicists who frequent forums such as these. Countless archaeological remains are no more evidence of UFOs than they are of Caesar, and no more Caesar than of Zeus.

We are discussing the certainty of HJ.

The entire thread is a misnomer, and despite the OP's position one of only ~3 real historians who have doubted Jesus' historicity have contradicted the OP. Most of those familiar with basic historiography (or even basic research period) would laugh at the idea of asking for quantitative measures of historical certainty (as Dr. Carrier does).

Modern physics suggests that reality is fundamentally uncertain. The assertion that Jesus' historicity is uncertain is not just idiotic, it's so elementary, moronically foolish that it takes a special dogmatic adherence to mythicism to say otherwise.

I couldn't care (just now) what we have for anyone else....

You don't know more and thus can't claim anything you can substantiate.

Oh Gawd...... let's all wander off and start arguing about the semantics

When internet amateurs like you demand a level of evidence that they don't even understand, it isn't wandering off. It's recognizing the divide between academic epistemological bases and your use of wiki and the like.

When you don't understand the nature of evidence that academics deal with, how can you be expected to understand the nature of evidence for academic propositions/claims?

No.... I'm not going there.

Well, not with any basis, knowledge, or anything else relevant such that your posts rationally support any point whatsoever.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to--Ingledsva
You did not answer my question
Do you text from the Bible or from historical books
-Now I discuss the topic
You depend on the version of the Greek books
It is written in old Latin aionanih I think
Do you think this version is 100% accurate
You depend on the return to the origin of words
Looking at Aramaic
And do not know anything about the fact that language and why it was in Palestine in the days of Christ
Christ was speaking in Arabic
Hebrew and Aramaic
Aramaic is of Assyrian language
And Chaldean
Because these languages are common origins and history gives you proof on my
I just received word of the Rabbi in the Gospel is the word mean teacher
The word large means Rapa
Here's the proof
Hammurabi
The teacher most
And Christ speaking Aramaic that Aramaic was the Palestine by Jews who returned from the Babylonian captivity last
And taken with them Assyrian language and renamed Aramaic
Because they vihadod unto the Levant and not know the history of any conquests outside these limits
The language of the Assyrians and Chaldeans are dominant in this period of time
And Jews affected and also that Hebrew is of the same joint assets
So Christ was speaking Hebrew and Aramaic also if you study the New Testament properly refer to copies written in Syriac, which is the same as the language name and a slightly different font
There are aldiastron
There are albashtiba
There are copies Sinaiticus
Permission to give a position on the word variation refer to all of these assets
From the Bible
That one word in a book does not mean us a lot
Therefore, I did not think you discovered a great secret
You have a work unique
And who wants to build a theory depends on many sources to prove its theory
Cancel or create an idea

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

English

I do not mean at abuse your knowledge but say what you doing weird and the level of proof in the matter
If you want a discussion only please type the source is from the book historic Greek
Or a copy of the Gospels written in the Greek language
So I can reply you full
No to intolerance, but only for the dissemination of knowledge
Also, as your goal at the same time you also
I am a Christian conservative in faith
I understand Christianity comprehensively
And not a doctrine adopted in kalami
I understand Christianity from multiple areas

The birth of Jesus and wrote about his birthday
Cross of Jesus lockamy books on solid
The deity of Jesus and what work it
And the teachings of Jesus and what work it
I care about the teachings of Jesus
Come and write me the teachings of the highest teachings of Jesus
Please, write me a strong criticism to the teachings of Jesus
I repeat
Wait for the complete dialogue and respond to get you to answer
Is the version of the Evangelical
Or book with all the respect and love

 

[Desert Snake]

Thing is, it isn't as if we KNOW what the original name format was, we know the name, but not the language. I would guess 'Yeshua', haven't studied this however some people who I consider trustworthy in Hebrew (authors and such), have used that version, so, looks good to me.

 

[`mud]

Scripture says that Jesus' body went right out to heaven...right or wrong ?
Who wrote this scenerio...Paul or Matthew ?
Histologically, how many people really witnessed this happening ?
And, what did we say his name was, or did we ?
Why are the scriptures considered to be 'evidence' ?
Quotes of quotes of quotes of......and so on...
Didn't understand it 70 years ago, and I still don't.
Excuse me for the silly interuption, I'll just go back to reading about the uncertainity here.
~
'mud

 

[Desert Snake]

Excuse me for the silly interuption, I'll just go back to reading about the uncertainity here.
~
'mud

Christians aren't uncertain, it's all in the Bible. It's a matter of faith, if you have belief, you read the Bible as fact, if not, it's a confusing mess. Everything 'question' regarding theology etc. is actually answered in the NT, it just has to read and understood properly, I suppose.

 

[Desert Snake]

Scripture says that Jesus' body went right out to heaven...right or wrong ?
Who wrote this scenerio...Paul or Matthew ?

~
'mud

Yes, ascended into Heaven.

Not sure, I think Paul compiled writings/notes from writings of Matthew, though I guess it's up for "opinion",.

 

[`mud]

hey Disciple,
Hey again, I understood all of what you just said, and it still doesn't make much sense to me.
As to the NT, I have read it, and I understood most of it. A body in heaven...amazing.
~
'mud

 

[steeltoes]

Scripture says that Jesus' body went right out to heaven...right or wrong ?
Who wrote this scenerio...Paul or Matthew ?

Acts of the Apostles, believed to have been written by the same author as gLuke.



Acts 1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.


10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”






The historical Jesus went bodily into heaven. hmmmmm.

 

[steeltoes]

Most of the NT. I've already covered general, mainstream sources on the definitions of "primary" vs. "secondary" sources here. You aren't familiar with either.



The problem is with the idiotic assumption that archaeological evidence can be interpreted as evidence for historical persons by internet mythicists who frequent forums such as these. Countless archaeological remains are no more evidence of UFOs than they are of Caesar, and no more Caesar than of Zeus.


The entire thread is a misnomer, and despite the OP's position one of only ~3 real historians who have doubted Jesus' historicity have contradicted the OP. Most of those familiar with basic historiography (or even basic research period) would laugh at the idea of asking for quantitative measures of historical certainty (as Dr. Carrier does).

Modern physics suggests that reality is fundamentally uncertain. The assertion that Jesus' historicity is uncertain is not just idiotic, it's so elementary, moronically foolish that it takes a special dogmatic adherence to mythicism to say otherwise.


You don't know more and thus can't claim anything you can substantiate.



When internet amateurs like you demand a level of evidence that they don't even understand, it isn't wandering off. It's recognizing the divide between academic epistemological bases and your use of wiki and the like.

When you don't understand the nature of evidence that academics deal with, how can you be expected to understand the nature of evidence for academic propositions/claims?



Well, not with any basis, knowledge, or anything else relevant such that your posts rationally support any point whatsoever.

It's okay legion, no one is doubting your supreme knowledge of the historical Jesus, just ignore those naysayers and everything will be okay.:angel2:

 

[oldbadger]

Most of the NT. I've already covered general, mainstream sources on the definitions of "primary" vs. "secondary" sources here. You aren't familiar with either.

Primary is 1st hand witness-to-written testimony. Anything else is either secondary or hearsay. Since oral tradition carried the reports for 30+ years you have not actually covered any Primary evidence.

The problem is with the idiotic assumption that archaeological evidence can be interpreted as evidence for historical persons by internet mythicists who frequent forums such as these. Countless archaeological remains are no more evidence of UFOs than they are of Caesar, and no more Caesar than of Zeus.

You just can't stay on topic, can you.... So no Direct evidence for HJ either.

The entire thread is a misnomer, and despite the OP's position one of only ~3 real historians who have doubted Jesus' historicity have contradicted the OP. Most of those familiar with basic historiography (or even basic research period) would laugh at the idea of asking for quantitative measures of historical certainty (as Dr. Carrier does).

Crazy! Absolutely Crazy! The Thread title is the thread title!
How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
Debate it.......... Directly..... not this indirect rubbish type of post......

Modern physics suggests that reality is fundamentally uncertain. The assertion that Jesus' historicity is uncertain is not just idiotic, it's so elementary, moronically foolish that it takes a special dogmatic adherence to mythicism to say otherwise.

..... so you cannot provide Direct or Primary evidence. That makes HJ plausible, and I feel that HJ the person is probable, but you are waffling for certainty...... idiotic posts.....

You don't know more and thus can't claim anything you can substantiate.

Your sentences get crazier. Show Primary or Direct evidence, or you fail to substantiate certainty for HJ.

When internet amateurs like you demand a level of evidence that they don't even understand, it isn't wandering off. It's recognizing the divide between academic epistemological bases and your use of wiki and the like.

Your insults just show your posts' ineptitude with regard to claiming certainty without Primary or Direct Evidence. When it comes down to evidence folks like me eat posts like yours for breakfast.

When you don't understand the nature of evidence that academics deal with, how can you be expected to understand the nature of evidence for academic propositions/claims?

Gotcha! Gotcha! You are so easy! You just clobbered yourself! I knew I wouldn't have to wait long. You're an amateur at this stuff.......
There is evidence for propositions and claims! But there is no evidence for certainty! :biglaugh:

Well, not with any basis, knowledge, or anything else relevant such that your posts rationally support any point whatsoever.

I'm just the guy to nail your posts. Too easy......

 

[fantome profane]

The historical Jesus went bodily into heaven. hmmmmm.

The thing is that it seems that the two sides in this discussion are talking about two completely different concepts.

It is like one side is talking about snow, and the other side says that is ridiculous because Santa Claus is a myth.


Not much point in trying to debate a topic when we can't even agree on what the topic is.

 

[steeltoes]

Primary is 1st hand witness-to-written testimony. Anything else is either secondary or hearsay. Since oral tradition carried the reports for 30+ years you have not actually covered any Primary evidence.

You have to convince yourself that we are dealing with primary sources if you want to be certain of Jesus' historicity, that is how the game is played.

BTW, oral tradition did not carry the reports, that is the Jesus of the gaps theory that has been abandoned since the 50's. The tradition has been shown to draw from OT sources.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, the 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman army garrison saw him strutting his stuff for three long years, that's a lot of eyeballs..

 

[steeltoes]

The thing is that it seems that the two sides in this discussion are talking about two completely different concepts.

It is like one side is talking about snow, and the other side says that is ridiculous because Santa Claus is a myth.


Not much point in trying to debate a topic when we can't even agree on what the topic is.

The problem is that we only have the narrative about the Son of God that came to earth to redeem mankind. If one wishes to claim that the Son of God story is based on an actual historical figure that's fine, if that is what you believe.