How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not that it matters but Caesar was worshipped as a god

Fine. But my comment was based upon what I'VE SEEN, which is what you asked.

and I've been to a Ptolemy's b-day party, but that's with a much smarter crowd than I normally run with.

Sounds like a rave.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You cannot even accurately recall what Bunyip told you. Your lack of attention to detail gives you away.


This is a misrepresentation.......... Very innaccurate.


After only a few pages your inability to accurately report what Bunyip wrote shows incompetence in comprehension............ and severe lack of attention to detail.


........ should be more accurate in your descriptions of other's words.


If I had a tenner for every person who ever told me that they worked/trained/served with our SAS I would be able to take my wife on a cruise, a luxury cruise....... a long distance luxury cruise. :sleep:

Now, let's see what Bunyip told you:-


That was half a dozen pages ago. AND YOU GOT IT WRONG!
Now.......... just agree with us that 'we cannot be certain about HJ' and then we can go to a thread to debate plausibility or possibility or probability.

Well, well , well...looky what we have here; Looks like Bunyip has his very own apologist.

Impressive :yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, it doesn't. At the very least, that claim has yet to be proven.

What claim? Paul's claim that he met the original disciples and they passed down to him a creed? Man I swear if the same criterion that is used for the history of Christianity was used for anything else in antiquity, history wouldn't even be a subject.

The stories of the Old Testament have been pretty much shown to be mythological. There was no Adam and Eve, global Flood, Noah, Abraham, enslavement of Jews in Egypt, Exodus from Egypt, Moses, Solomon, Job, etc. It's known that much of the OT is rewritten Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Levantine mythology. I'm simply holding up the New Testament to the same scrutiny. The same goes for any other religious claims when they claim historicity for their mythology.

There is a difference in someone claiming those things to be myths and someone actually showing why they are myths. I haven't seen the "why" part yet, so please enlighten me on that part of the equation.

I'm not moving any goalposts. It's just that Paul has no historical grounding, either.

Why not? He was there!!!! His account was contemporary!!!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

OK.... Faith is cool.
But there can't be many historians that declare certainty for HJ. See OP.

The only way you can be "certain" about history is if you where there...and you weren't there, were you?

That's cool. So there was good Oral Tradition. Which is hearsay.
So there can't be many historians that declare certainty for HJ. See OP.

Someone told you that Columbus sailed the oceans...that is hearsay, too. Do you believe that? If you do, then you are relying on hearsay. You weren't there. You don't know.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, well , well...looky what we have here; Looks like Bunyip has his very own apologist.

Impressive :yes:

Just 'cos you ain't got one!
You're jealous! :biglaugh:

But honestly......... some seemed frightened to just answer a simple question straight. Some wrote whole pages of drivvle, others threw insults, others preened 'emselves in their fine educations .......... Damn but that was funny.

All ended up by having agree with Bunyip. That was such a laugh.

 

[oldbadger]

The only way you can be "certain" about history is if you where there...and you weren't there, were you?

So you do agree with Bunyip that the answer to the thread's question is : No, we cannot be certain..... 2000 years ago, and no single written testimony by any witness. Ergo, no primary evidence. And no direct evidence of any kind

Ain't that great, us all agreeing with each other..... Good. :yes:


The rest of your post? :sleep:

 

[paarsurrey]

For some time I have been wanting to,challenge what I see to be a grossly overstated claim:

That the historicity of Jesus has been established. And that only denialists doubt the historicity of Jesus. It is often claimed that the historicity of Jesus is better evidenced than is the historicity of Julius Caeser and it it these over stated claims that I would like to challenge.

My position is that nothing in history is certain, and that the historicity of Jesus has not been adequately established. There is yet to be any evidence to connect the stories with a specific time, place and person.

I would love to discuss/debate this with any other members, but seem to get responses only from those who tend to stick to ad hominem attaks and false accusations. I can guarantee to be polite, accountable and honest, I can and will follow the argument and try to have a fun exchange if you will do the same.

All I ask is an honest discussion without the endless accusations, insults, deceptions and so on.

My position is that nothing in history is certain

I agree with you.
I will add however, if a person has no historicity, that does not mean that that person has not existed as a real person.

Reality is not a function of history. Reality existed even if history could not have recorded it.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

One thing is for sure: Jesus did not exist as he is portrayed in the New Testament. That is clearly mythological. No one went around doing miracles, raising the dead or coming back to life after rotting in a tomb for 3 days. That just didn't happen.

Other than that, sure - it's possible that there was a person who is the "seed" for stories. But it really doesn't matter because we'll never be able to figure out who that person was, since they're buried under mythology and revisions. So he might as well not exist.

Jesus did not exist as he is portrayed in the New Testament.

Well said.
I agree with you.

Regards

 

[oldbadger]

I agree with you.
I will add however, if a person has no historicity, that does not mean that that person has not existed as a real person.

Very good!
We are not disclaiming Jesus's historicity of course. We're just slowly guiding the slow coaches to agreeing that due to no primary or direct evidence that there is no certainty about the historians' claims.

This helps your position enormously, because a couple of us are even considering whether one of the Jesus's was not executed, but got clear away.

Reality is not a function of history. Reality existed even if history could not have recorded it.

Yes. Our knowledge of what really happened is tiny. :yes:

Regards

And to you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Thanks. Great point, I'm sure that many others agree with you that knowledge of historicity is not essential to faith. I would hazzard a guess that Jesus would have most wanted people to focus on what he said, not where his birth certificate got to.

knowledge of historicity is not essential to faith

I agree

Regards

 

[fantome profane]

Gospel of Mark agrees with you.......
The historians mostly agree with you......

But Jesus's name is used so often, connecting him with Nazareth, that it seems reasonable to wonder about..... to speculate about the circumstances of his birth.

The low NT era Nazareth Archaeology, the Sepphoris incident, the date, the travelling couple, the possibility of the tented camp later used for Antipas's workers (maybe slightly too far away?) all offer us an opportunity to wonder....... how events might have happened.

It's not a point worth arguing heatedly over, more like just discussing.

Yes, I would also grant that it is reasonably likely that he came from Nazareth. But the "traveling couple" is too much speculation for my tastes. Especially when the stories have such clear evangelical intent.

 

[fantome profane]

That he was born to Joseph and Mary is the only historical element of Jesus' story before he had met John the Baptist. And by historical, I mean a plausible explanation for the evidence for which no competing explanations exist.

I think it is likely that his mother's name was Mary. I am not so sure that we can say with any certainty what his father's name was. The name Joseph comes only from those infancy stories that are not historical.


(and please everyone, let's make a real effort to lay off on the personal comments, they add nothing to the discussion. Before you hit that submit button, go back and edit them out)

 

[outhouse]

Yes, I would also grant that it is reasonably likely that he came from Nazareth. But the "traveling couple" is too much speculation for my tastes. Especially when the stories have such clear evangelical intent.

Fiction it is as written.

But there may be a historical core. Sepphoris was leveled about the time of his birth.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well said.
I agree with you.

Regards

Neither do I believe he existed as the Qur'an portrays him. So don't think I'm on your side, either.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What claim? Paul's claim that he met the original disciples and they passed down to him a creed? Man I swear if the same criterion that is used for the history of Christianity was used for anything else in antiquity, history wouldn't even be a subject.

Nah, it's just a matter of separating fact from fiction.

There is a difference in someone claiming those things to be myths and someone actually showing why they are myths. I haven't seen the "why" part yet, so please enlighten me on that part of the equation.

You want me to explain the process of how myth forms to you?

Why not? He was there!!!! His account was contemporary!!!

You don't have any evidence of that.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, I would also grant that it is reasonably likely that he came from Nazareth. But the "traveling couple" is too much speculation for my tastes. Especially when the stories have such clear evangelical intent.

OK...... but....... I can't stop thinking about the Sepphoris incident, and that date, and the likelihood of refugees during that time.

Next...... refugees do align with the birth story, sort of....

Next..... Some evangelical momentum does deserve to be edited out, but I do feel that some momentum is hyperbole, such as in the miracles of G-Mark, and possibly in the refugee story.

I can't push what I don't prove, but I would still keep the 'early years' in mind.

 

[outhouse]

and possibly in the refugee story.

the authors are to far removed from any actual events to say one way or another.


We do not know is the best answer, leaving the possibility open, yet as written profane is right in that it is probably fictional from trying to force fit OT prophecy into this mythology.

 

[fantome profane]

OK...... but....... I can't stop thinking about the Sepphoris incident, and that date, and the likelihood of refugees during that time.

Next...... refugees do align with the birth story, sort of....

Next..... Some evangelical momentum does deserve to be edited out, but I do feel that some momentum is hyperbole, such as in the miracles of G-Mark, and possibly in the refugee story.

I can't push what I don't prove, but I would still keep the 'early years' in mind.

Have you ever read the infancy gospel of Thomas? You might find it entertaining. Not historical, but entertaining.

 

[oldbadger]

Have you ever read the infancy gospel of Thomas? You might find it entertaining. Not historical, but entertaining.

No...... Will do

 

[paarsurrey]

That he was born to Joseph and Mary is the only historical element of Jesus' story before he had met John the Baptist. And by historical, I mean a plausible explanation for the evidence for which no competing explanations exist.

Oldbadger is putting out some very interesting Jesus fan fiction which seems largely ignorant of the differences between the historical Jesus and the embellished Jesus of the Bible, here clearly putting forth the ignorant assumption that the virgin birth and other such magical claims are something real historians should bother considering. This is, of course, because he is an agenda-driven imbecile.

It is for this that Quran identifies real Jesus with son of Mary.

Regards