The Historical Jesus vs. the historical...?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I've participated in more threads on the historical Jesus than I care to remember, but there is something interesting that holds for all such threads. Namely, many participants are judging the evidence for Jesus against what they believe the evidence should be. That is, precious few have ever relied on our evidence for historical figures or history in general when it comes to antiquity.

I am curious, then, how any of those who have addressed in some sense the matter of the so-called "quest for the historical Jesus" have also looked at other persons from antiquity. If they have, what such persons and what is out evidence?

 

[Bunyip]

Well the difference is fundamental - nobody is relying on the historicity of Alexander or anyone else. We see no claims about any other figure like; "No scholar disputes the historicity of (such and such)", nor do we see notions like Julius Ceaser Mythicism.

Sure, Alexander may or may not have existed - have at it. Any scholar with a case is free to logde it.
But suggest that Jesus may or may not have existed and you have broken some unspoken covenant of universal consensus.

So the reason why people do not question the historicity of Alexander, but do question the historicity of Jesus is because the historicity of Alexander can be freely disputed, and the historicity of Jesus can not.
Nobody has made the comparison, because nobody has made the argument that Alexander is more historically evidenced than any other figure in ancient times, as has been so often claimed for the historicity of Jesus.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well the difference is fundamental - nobody is relying on the historicity of Alexander or anyone else

Which would matter, if I had asked about evidence for some religious figure. I didn't. Try again.

We see no claims about any other figure like; "No scholar disputes the historicity of (such and such)", nor do we see notions like Julius Ceaser Mythicism.

We do. We have, for example holocaust deniers. And of course the fact that you don't have any idea regarding primary sources has once again demonstrated you are incapable of showing you are familiar with this topic. In fact, another member just recently claimed that scholarship allows us to question Jesus as we do for reasons absolutely contrary to any formulation of an historical Jesus. So within discussion board you are clearly proven false.

Sure, Alexander may or may not have existed - have at it.

A tautology. Have you anything other than illogical conclusions or conclusions that are by your own definitions true?

Any scholar

...would note that you have lied about your expertise and haven't displayed that you are aware of what scholars are or what scholarship is.

 

[redpolk]

Which would matter, if I had asked about evidence for some religious figure. I didn't. Try again.



We do. We have, for example holocaust deniers. And of course the fact that you don't have any idea regarding primary sources has once again demonstrated you are incapable of showing you are familiar with this topic. In fact, another member just recently claimed that scholarship allows us to question Jesus as we do for reasons absolutely contrary to any formulation of an historical Jesus. So within discussion board you are clearly proven false.


A tautology. Have you anything other than illogical conclusions or conclusions that are by your own definitions true?



...would note that you have lied about your expertise and haven't displayed that you are aware of what scholars are or what scholarship is.

Could you clarify just what you are asking?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Could you clarify just what you are asking?

I wasn't asking anything. I have debate this topic here and elsewhere for many years, and you need not but search for my username "historical jesus" to find what I have said.

 

[seeking4truth]

Wait a few weeks. The tomb being unearthed in Macedonia is causing a lot of excitement!

As for the historical Jesus, if you look at primary sources for his titles rather than just his name then there is much more evidence that he existed, taught and effected the people who accepted him.

 

[oldbadger]

I've participated in more threads on the historical Jesus than I care to remember, but there is something interesting that holds for all such threads. .........................................

Come on............ be honest....... you're suffering from the withdrawal effects of no HJ threads in many many days.

And you've got to admit it, you do love telling Bunyip that he's not a scholar, and worse!

Before you start on me, 'I am not a scholar'.... OK?
But I am a deadly gatherer and compiler of evidence and opinions from scholars, students and from RF members,. and in a little over two years I have gathered enough 'ideas' about HJ to come to my own opinion about the Gospel reports of his mission year.

So you could call me an opinionated non-scholar, but since you could list the 'agreed consensus of scholarly opinion' about HJ onto a large stamp, there has got to be opinion, ideas, belief and faith about this man..... or these men.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Come on............ be honest....... you're suffering from the withdrawal effects of no HJ threads in many many days.

This does appear to be common cold of RF.

 

[oldbadger]

This does appear to be common cold of RF.

I was beginning to snuffle and sneeze a bit, myself.

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

In My opinion, there was the alleged Biblical Jesus, and maybe the alleged historical Jesus.

I do not believe in supernatural miracles, so I don't believe in the Biblical Jesus.

But, there might have been a historical Jesus, that the Biblical Jesus was based off of.

For example, it would not surprise Me if there was a guy named Yeshua, and he claimed to be the Messiah in ancient times.

But, I do not believe that Jesus went around performing miracles.

So, the Biblical Jesus is nonsensical to Me, but maybe there was a non-supernatural historical Yeshua that claimed to be the Messiah.

~PEACE~

 

[godnotgod]

So, the Biblical Jesus is nonsensical to Me, but maybe there was a non-supernatural historical Yeshua that claimed to be the Messiah.

~PEACE~

Yes, the Essenes call him 'The Teacher of Righteousness', and claim he was a Nazarene (Nazarean), which is a sect of the Essenes. His Aramaic name was Yeshu, whose teachings did not include those of a virgin birth, blood sacrifice for sin redemption, nor bodily resurrection. The idea is that the doctrines of blood sacrifice and bodily resurrection were overwritten onto those of Yeshu as a clever device to lure tens of thousands of pagans into Paul's new Church, who already had the promise of eternal life in Mithra*. Hyam Maccoby**, Talmudic scholar, tells us that the myth of the modern Jesus was brilliantly synthesized from three elements: that of the descending Logos, come to Earth to teach man, from the Gnostics; that of a dying and resurrected god-man, from the mystery religions in which Paul had been brought up in Tarsus, and Jewish history, to lend credibility to the myth. Yeshu's mystical teachings had little appeal for the common man, as this entailed difficult inner spiritual work, teachings that had come from the East. Rome wanted a method of instant conversion that was simple, and which the common man would not question, nor who had to actually know anything. This doctrine is found in:

John 14:6
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. ... "

All one had to do was to accept 'Jesus' as one's personal Lord and Savior, and one was instantly saved, a no-brainer, and a method by which Rome could control it's populace.

The Church used much the same device in Mexico, when it claimed as its own the Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo, who, in actuality, was the Aztec Goddess of Fertility, Tonantzin, as a means of luring millions of indigenous Indios into the Church. The Indios simply followed where their Goddess dwelt.

*Paul and the Mystery Religions

**The Problem of Paul

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, the Essenes call him 'The Teacher of Righteousness', and claim he was a Nazarene (Nazarean), which is a sect of the Essenes.

Evidence?

 

[godnotgod]

Evidence?

As I stated, that the Nazarenes were a sect of the Essenes is an Essene claim, as follows:

At the time of Jesus, there were three distinct Essenian groups that played important roles in his life, and their religious practices and spiritual theology mirror in his teachings. They were:

• The Theraputae of Egypt; where the infant Christ and his family fled during Herods rein.
  
  
• The Essenes of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), the strict, celibate monastery of which John the Baptist was a part.
  
  
• The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel, the cooperative family village where Jesus lived and studied.

source: Nazarene or Nazareth?

However, we do have a Biblical reference to the Nazarenes as being a sect:

In the New Testament book of Acts, Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:

"We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5)

What is a Nazarene

 

[Prophet]

I've participated in more threads on the historical Jesus than I care to remember, but there is something interesting that holds for all such threads. Namely, many participants are judging the evidence for Jesus against what they believe the evidence should be. That is, precious few have ever relied on our evidence for historical figures or history in general when it comes to antiquity.

I am curious, then, how any of those who have addressed in some sense the matter of the so-called "quest for the historical Jesus" have also looked at other persons from antiquity. If they have, what such persons and what is out evidence?

I'm starting to believe you get the same egoic rise out of publicly pounding fundamentalist imbeciles that I do, despite your more restrained style.

 

[oldbadger]

I do not believe in supernatural miracles, so I don't believe in the Biblical Jesus.

But, I do not believe that Jesus went around performing miracles............................
~PEACE~

Hi........ I think that many of the miracles shown in G-Mark were real events that got exaggerated.

 

[Sapiens]

Well the difference is fundamental - nobody is relying on the historicity of Alexander or anyone else. We see no claims about any other figure like; "No scholar disputes the historicity of (such and such)", nor do we see notions like Julius Ceaser Mythicism.

Sure, Alexander may or may not have existed - have at it. Any scholar with a case is free to logde it.
But suggest that Jesus may or may not have existed and you have broken some unspoken covenant of universal consensus.

So the reason why people do not question the historicity of Alexander, but do question the historicity of Jesus is because the historicity of Alexander can be freely disputed, and the historicity of Jesus can not.
Nobody has made the comparison, because nobody has made the argument that Alexander is more historically evidenced than any other figure in ancient times, as has been so often claimed for the historicity of Jesus.

That's 'cause there is no industry for separating the public from its cash based on the existence of Alexander.

 

[Desert Snake]

In My opinion, there was the alleged Biblical Jesus, and maybe the alleged historical Jesus.

I do not believe in supernatural miracles, so I don't believe in the Biblical Jesus.

But, there might have been a historical Jesus, that the Biblical Jesus was based off of.

For example, it would not surprise Me if there was a guy named Yeshua, and he claimed to be the Messiah in ancient times.

But, I do not believe that Jesus went around performing miracles.

So, the Biblical Jesus is nonsensical to Me, but maybe there was a non-supernatural historical Yeshua that claimed to be the Messiah.

~PEACE~

'Historical Jesus' has nothing to do with religion. You are basically taking the side of the historical Jesusists.
All that other stuff you're talking about is off topic to the debate.

 

[redpolk]

I wasn't asking anything. I have debate this topic here and elsewhere for many years, and you need not but search for my username "historical jesus" to find what I have said.

So what is the point of this thread?

 

[Bunyip]

Which would matter, if I had asked about evidence for some religious figure. I didn't. Try again.



We do. We have, for example holocaust deniers. And of course the fact that you don't have any idea regarding primary sources has once again demonstrated you are incapable of showing you are familiar with this topic. In fact, another member just recently claimed that scholarship allows us to question Jesus as we do for reasons absolutely contrary to any formulation of an historical Jesus. So within discussion board you are clearly proven false.


A tautology. Have you anything other than illogical conclusions or conclusions that are by your own definitions true?



...would note that you have lied about your expertise and haven't displayed that you are aware of what scholars are or what scholarship is.

Sadly repeating the same pathetic personal digs is all you were able to muster as a response.

 

[Bunyip]

All I see here is an overused and ancient apologetic strawman.

When somebody points out the fragility of the evidence for a historical Jesus, the first line of defence is to employ the strawman Legion is tilting at in the OP.
Basically, all the apologist does is complain that these nasty, ignorant 'mythicists' doubt the historicity of Jesus - but do not doubt the historicity of other figures in the ancient world for whom we have (arguably) similar evidence.

Of course it is just a diversion, doubt the historicity of any other figure all you like - it will not make the missing evidence for Jesus appear.

In previous interactions Legion you have attacked my certainty that other ancient figures were historical, whilst ignoring the fact that I have no such certaintly. No matter how often I point out that I have no such certainty - you simply repeat the same accusation ad naseum. (Which is why you now tend to resort to simply posting long comments to me repeating the same silly digs over and over again).

This is how this strawman goes - the person questioning the historicity of Jesus is mocked for having such certainty over the historicity of other ancient figures, a certainty that the person has not claimed, relied on or in any other way indicated that they possess.


Why are some people so certain that other ancient figures were historical? A: They aren't.