Was Jesus real?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are the one that referenced wiki

Yes, and I could do the same with Jesus. I could reference any number of studies on the historicity of Jesus, including Wikipedia. I know because I wrote parts of some that have remained unchanged for years. I referenced wiki to show one specific thing: what type of evidence we usually have (even for an emperor).

Your response was to go to the wiki page and insist that we should trust the authority of wiki that the sources we have used sources that we've never seen. You don't know why, and you can't explain why, because in all your criticisms, misuses of classical fallacies, pathetic knowledge of history and historical methods, and so on, you aren't able to support the assertion that the wiki page makes: the historians used sources we don't have and never did.

Your faith in authority is remarkable. When you want something to be true, you don't care about using logic, reason, or your own standards. You accept a non-authority and dismiss thousands of actual authorities whose works you've never read yet that hasn't stopped you from describing them.

We see how you come to baseless conclusions. Jesus was the primary source? :biglaugh:

If Jesus as mythical, there is no way he could be the primary source. If he as historical, then he'd have to be (no matter how much was altered or changed in our sources).

My conclusions are based on research. I have continually asked you to demonstrate that you have any basic knowledge of this topic through reading primary and secondary (modern scholarship) sources. You haven't been able to. The best you can do is cut and paste from online sources, ignore challenges, be incredibly skeptical when it suits you and unbelievably credulous when it doesn't, and in general dogmatically regurgitate the same unsubstantiated claims you selected from a tiny set of authors about a period you know next to nothing of to support a religious-like faith in mythicist ideology. You accuse me of biases and all sorts of things (you can't even understand fallacies well enough to insult me accurately), yet you have still refused to offer any basis for your position other than repeating ad nauseam the same Mythicist Creed over and over. None so blind...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You have a story, nothing more, so no.

Nothing in the story has to be taken as Jesus is an actual God.

Other people in the Bible are called gods and messiahs and OBVIOUSLY they are not YHVH.

*

*

The story is based on historical evidence and the claims are by people who witnessed the events.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The story is based on historical evidence and the claims are by people who witnessed the events.

That's not true at all... Not one of the Gospels were written by an eyewitness, and that is an undeniable fact. You should do some research if you actually believe that statement...

 

[steeltoes]

Yes, and I could do the same with Jesus. I could reference any number of studies on the historicity of Jesus, including Wikipedia. I know because I wrote parts of some that have remained unchanged for years. I referenced wiki to show one specific thing: what type of evidence we usually have (even for an emperor).

Your response was to go to the wiki page and insist that we should trust the authority of wiki that the sources we have used sources that we've never seen. You don't know why, and you can't explain why, because in all your criticisms, misuses of classical fallacies, pathetic knowledge of history and historical methods, and so on, you aren't able to support the assertion that the wiki page makes: the historians used sources we don't have and never did.

Your faith in authority is remarkable. When you want something to be true, you don't care about using logic, reason, or your own standards. You accept a non-authority and dismiss thousands of actual authorities whose works you've never read yet that hasn't stopped you from describing them.




If Jesus as mythical, there is no way he could be the primary source. If he as historical, then he'd have to be (no matter how much was altered or changed in our sources).

My conclusions are based on research. I have continually asked you to demonstrate that you have any basic knowledge of this topic through reading primary and secondary (modern scholarship) sources. You haven't been able to. The best you can do is cut and paste from online sources, ignore challenges, be incredibly skeptical when it suits you and unbelievably credulous when it doesn't, and in general dogmatically regurgitate the same unsubstantiated claims you selected from a tiny set of authors about a period you know next to nothing of to support a religious-like faith in mythicist ideology. You accuse me of biases and all sorts of things (you can't even understand fallacies well enough to insult me accurately), yet you have still refused to offer any basis for your position other than repeating ad nauseam the same Mythicist Creed over and over. None so blind...

Now I support a mythicist ideology and I'm a mythicist?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Jesus was mentioned twice by Jospehus, once by Tacitus, once by Pliny the Younger, and the crucifixion was hinted at by Mara-Bar-Serapion. All of these mentions were from non-Christian men. Not to mention the fact that James and Paul, two writers of the NT, were not Christians until after the Ressurection due to Jesus' post mortem appearances.

As I mentioned before, the vast majority of historians and NT scholars believe that Jesus lived. The only question is whether or not the Ressurection is a historical fact, but whether Jesus actually existed is not a subject that is debated by historians. If you do not believe that Jesus existed then you are amongst a very small minority of people.

Christian scholars with provide Christian answers yet the irony to your words is that these two individuals especially Josephus were confirmed to occur AFTER Jesus'es death.

If these are your only 2 sources then I pity you because all you have left is Tacitus and I would not put my money on such a fragile claim.

 

[steeltoes]

The story is based on historical evidence and the claims are by people who witnessed the events.

I wouldn't be so willing to take a position one way or the other based on the information that we have. The historical evidence is speculative at best and there were no witnesses to anything other than a risen Christ which was visionary or hallucinatory.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now I support a mythicist ideology and I'm a mythicist?

Yes. I could demonstrate through your quotes, but you denied permission for their use. You claimed I would take them out of context. Of course, if I did, you could easily make this known. But it's safer when you don't have to be confronted with your own statements.

And as for ideology, the fundamentalist nature of yours is evident from the fact that you have not studied ancient history, the primary or secondary sources on this topic, and have no idea what it is you are dismissing when you talk about "massive research" (because your version of research is websites and other sensationalist garbage that you compare to scholarship you've never read).

How many times have I asked you to substantiate your claims? I don't know offhand how many dozens, but I do know that you've never done it. You've never cited any support for anything you claim. Yet the arrogance of fundamentalist dogmatic ideology rears its head through your various claims in multiple posts and threads; all assertions you haven't substantiated or lent any credence to whatsoever. Your dogmatic ignorance (ignorance is a given; nobody can know everything, but claiming things about what one is ignorant of is a different thing altogether) is no different than those who refuse to research topics that challenge their faith, whether it is history or evolution. You quote-mine a few websites and make sweeping claims about research you've never read on sources you are incapable of reading because you can't actually read the languages they were written in (which is also true of most secondary literature) yet you write it all of because you have read some websites.

I've started a thread, linked to post after post after post, and still I haven't ever covered all the different issues I've addressed on this forum or the sources I have read. You haven't done anything but parrot the arguments of others that you can't evaluate because you've never studied ancient history. And after repeated requests that you supply the basis for the position you hold (which anybody can find out by searching through your posts), you still haven't.

 

[outhouse]

My conclusions are based on research. I have continually asked you to demonstrate that you have any basic knowledge of this topic through reading primary and secondary (modern scholarship) sources. You haven't been able to. The best you can do is cut and paste from online sources, ignore challenges, be incredibly skeptical when it suits you and unbelievably credulous when it doesn't, and in general dogmatically regurgitate the same unsubstantiated claims you selected from a tiny set of authors about a period you know next to nothing of to support a religious-like faith in mythicist ideology. You accuse me of biases and all sorts of things (you can't even understand fallacies well enough to insult me accurately), yet you have still refused to offer any basis for your position other than repeating ad nauseam the same Mythicist Creed over and over. None so blind...

Sadly, this sums up 99.999% of all mythicist.


Its threads like these that give 100% credibility to Ehrmans critique's

 

[outhouse]

The story is based on historical evidence and the claims are by people who witnessed the events.

That would be false.

Glad you have poked your nose out of the evolution debates you failed in.


If you would like help understanding history we can help.


Not a single book was written by a direct witness according to most all credible scholars.

If you read these you would know they are Hellenistic Romans and gentiles and God-fearers and Gate Proselytes that wrote these books far removed from the actual events.

Most written after 40 years or more of Jesus death by another culture in the Diaspora. Not Jews in Israel or Galilee.

Galilean Jews are really the only ones who could be witnesses, and they would have wrote in Aramaic not the Koine Greek we see. His real disciples the fishermen were most liely illiterate.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sadly, this sums up 99.999% of all mythicist.

What's a 'mythicist' exactly? I hear you talking about them all the time. Can you tell me exactly what a mythicist is?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There's no historical evidence that Socrates actually has walked the earth, he could've just been a made up, fictional character by Plato.

But the importance of Socrates was the ideas attributed to him, and the same with Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

What's a 'mythicist' exactly? I hear you talking about them all the time. Can you tell me exactly what a mythicist is?

Someone who claims Jesus exist only in literature. Not ever in Human form.

He is/was one of 3 descriptions.

BJ biblical Jesus
HJ Historical Jesus
MJ Mythical Jesus

 

[10see]

more historical evidence of jesus than g.washington.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There's no historical evidence that Socrates actually has walked the earth, he could've just been a made up, fictional character by Plato.

Just so. I always find it so strange when people claim that we have as much evidence for Jesus as for Socrates or Alexander the Great. As if we must assert "Yes" or "No" to the question of every historical figure. It seems to me a fairly simplistic, even primitive, way of viewing historical truth.

But the importance of Socrates was the ideas attributed to him, and the same with Jesus.

I guess. Me, I don't think in terms of heroes. Virtually every idea that Jesus and Socrates had was earlier had by someone else.

 

[Windwalker]

There's no historical evidence that Socrates actually has walked the earth, he could've just been a made up, fictional character by Plato.

But the importance of Socrates was the ideas attributed to him, and the same with Jesus.

Which comes back to the question I asked earlier. Why is it important to disprove Jesus was an actual historical person? What does this hope to accomplish? Can someone answer that?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Someone who claims Jesus exist only in literature. Not ever in Human form.

I see. So anyone who disagrees with you about the historicity of Jesus is an ignorant dumb*ss? Or at least 99.99% of those who disagree with you? They fit the nasty descriptions which Legion has been posting here lately?

I'll tell you what I think. It seems to me that 99.99% of all Jesus Realers are feeling backed up against the wall lately and that's why all the ugliness. People who are confident in their views and education do not speak as Legion speaks to those who oppose him.

 

[Vinayaka]

Which comes back to the question I asked earlier. Why is it important to disprove Jesus was an actual historical person? What does this hope to accomplish? Can someone answer that?

It's impossible to do, but I guess there's hope, because if it were to happen, it would basically be like 'The Leader' episode of The Simpsons. The people would all finally wake up to the idea they had been duped. That hope is what people cling to.

 

[Windwalker]

It's impossible to do, but I guess there's hope, because if it were to happen, it would basically be like 'The Leader' episode of The Simpsons. The people would all finally wake up to the idea they had been duped. That hope is what people cling to.

So, in other words the teachings would become worthless?

 

[Vinayaka]

So, in other words the teachings would become worthless?

Yes, I believe that is the hope. Personally, I wouldn't go on a wild goose chase like that if the chances of finding the goose are at best 0%, but hey, if somebody is that passionate about it, let them go ahead. It's not really harming anyone, and we have the choice to ignore it or not. Certainly, as someone totally detached from Christianity, I don't really care what people want to do with their lives, although I can think of somewhat more productive things to do.

 

[RedJamaX]

There's no historical evidence that Socrates actually has walked the earth, he could've just been a made up, fictional character by Plato.

But the importance of Socrates was the ideas attributed to him, and the same with Jesus.

I give this kind of idea the same response as I gave in another topic...

A significant point of consideration to the claim of who actually existed and who didn't is the profound effect the very existence of that person has on society. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If Homer, Lao Tzu or Sigmund Freud never existed... or they posed as those individuals but they were really Huey, Lewey and Dewy... who cares?? Their existence alone has no effect on society, only their writings, and only in a few aspects of life.

But the very existence of Jesus, Mohammed, or even Horus has a profound influence of the daily lives of a huge portion of society even if it was proven that they were just mentally ill individuals making ridiculous claims. The point is that most people in society are like sheep... you have proof that "some guy", existed in the first Century with the name Jesus, and some group of people followed him as though he were gods son... even if he was just insane.... it doesn't matter... In the eyes of the the bulk of society, you have confirmed the existence of Jesus, the Garden of Eden, Jonah and the Whale, Exodus, The Great Flood.. etc...

The existence of any person in history, who was to be identified as the "Son of God", Messiah, Savior, followed by disciples and all other claims made by the gospels has a profound influence on our society at a global level. This is true even if you remove ALL supernatural claims made by the gospels. This is why the very simple existence of "Jesus" (as identified by the gospels and treated as such), must be verified with extraordinary amounts of evidence that supersede the levels which are required to know if "Plato" was a real person.

If Plato, or Socrates wasn't real... so what, their existence has no detrimental influence on social ideas such as being gay or having an abortion. We still have the books and writing regardless of who actually wrote them. The Idea of the "existence of Jesus" is far more than just the teachings. Thus, currently, there is not enough evidence to suggest that any person identified as the Jesus of the Bible ever existed at all, in any respect (supernatural or not).