Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[jerry mcmasters]

But every other god invented by the human imagination did?  That's why I call it special pleading.  Osiris was a myth but not jesus.  Marduk was a myth but not jesus.  Quetzlcoatl was a myth but not jesus.

We have no actual evidence for any of them.  None.

BTW, I think mohammed was a human invention too.  Islam is as big a pile of shit as jesusism.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that other gods had humans as the original inspiration and then the exageration machine went crazy and then much later you have a "Hercules."  We just can't expect evidence for such things as they were so long ago.  It's possible Quetzlcoatl or some of the Aztec gods were inspired by the actions of a real person or two.  Though it's unlikely; whereas the Jesus story seems much more likely to have had a human in it.

You are misapplying the concept of "special pleading."  Special pleading is when you make exceptions to one thing that is more or less like the others for no good evidential reason, or without any justification.  Here I am literally suggesting, with justification, that Jesus is not like "other gods" lost to the mists and mysteries of the past.  I think the evidence of the NT is sufficient to say there was at the very least a real Jesus who wandered around the communities of Gallilee, did goofy stuff, then got ahead of his skis and got himself crucified in Jerusalem.  You don't have to accept my justification, but it's not "special pleading," the circumstances really are unique to the Jesus situation.  YOU YOURSELF noticed that (as I have pointed out a couple times, somehow it continues to escape your attention) that Jesus flipped tables in the temple while "real gods" did insane crazy godly shit...almost as if...it were something a dumbass wannabe prophet would do, before getting himself nailed to a cross.  (I have ZERO expectation of you addressing this, your rep with me at this point is a lightweight cherry-picker)  By your "special pleading" rule Barack Obama must have been white, because all the other presidents are white, it matters not a lick if, you know, there is any evidence that Obama wasn't white.

You are saying there is "no actual evidence" for my position by ruling out, arbitrarily, what I see as evidence, i.e., those parts of the NT that clearly show evidence of a very human guy.  That's your problem, not mine.  I daresay I would call that "special pleading."

All this said, yeah, you and the "Jesus mythicist" crowd might be right, it's an interesting question.

Those parts of Hindu literature that tell stories about Krishna's childhood aren't evidence.  The difference?  Some people presume that the stories about Jesus are historical, and some people presume that the stories about Krishna are mythical.  If the only difference between the two is the presumption, then it's special pleading.  To my eye, you haven't pointed out any actual difference.  Until you do, I think the charge of special pleading holds.  Stories are just stories.  Stories about real people don't announce themselves particularly any differently than stories about people who aren't real.  If you think they do, I'd be interested in somebody explaining to me how to tell whether a story is one or the other, historical or fictional, based on the story alone.  (And inb4 Josephus et al, those are just people repeating what people believe and aren't really evidence of anything either.  They come up relevant to the argument from silence, but since this isn't such an argument, I don't think they're of any help.)

There really were wandering prophets and wonder-workers and charlatans and apocalyptic kooks in and around Judea during the time of question, I think that can be corroborated with non-biblical sources (though it's unfair to rule out the bible as evidence for at least that; the OT is full of them).  So that's not just "oh well stories are stories," these types existed.   Is the context similar for Krishna? I admit I don't know, but it would be easier to make the case for Krishna being cut from whole cloth (no actual human) if there were no context that we know of (in that time and place) of humans going around trying to pass themselves off as...whatever Krishna is.

[jerry mcmasters]

And if you ever gave some "evidence" we'd have something to talk about.




And yet, I'm still waiting for you to say something intelligent or point to any actual evidence.  You really ought to try that before calling anyone else a dumb cunt..... fuckhead.

Why can't the NT be considered evidence?  Evidence that there were wandering wonder-workers in that time and place?

Is the Bhagavad Gita evidence?  If not, then the NT isn't either.  If you think it is, that is special pleading.

I don't know much about the Bhagavad Gita, I will look into that.  My initial thought is that the circumstances and evidence is of greatly different quality but I don't know.  Is the Koran evidence of a real man named Mohammed?  If you think so, then you must be guilty of special pleading to then say the NT isn't evidence of real Jesus.

[EvieTheAvocado]

There's a massive difference between a healthy dose of skepticism and holocaust-like denialism.

You're comparing those who have a problem with your special-pleading of "Jesus is different to other gods" with holocaust denial

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again ... you're doing the equivalent of saying that Superman still exists just without the superpowers. It's retarded.

[epronovost]

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again ... you're doing the equivalent of saying that Superman still exists just without the superpowers. It's retarded.

That's called a reporter. We have a lot of those.

[abaris]

Why can't the NT be considered evidence?

They're scientific evidence for Jesus in the same way the Iliad is evidence for Hector and Achill. There are no roman records from the same time of something happening in Jerusalem. The only roman accounts are repetitions of what the authors heard from christians. They only quote christians.

There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence, apart from the fact that scripture standing on it's own is never considered evidence for something really happening. There have to be other stone cold facts confirming what is written.

[epronovost]

Why can't the NT be considered evidence?

They're scientific evidence for Jesus in the same way the Iliad is evidence for Hector and Achill. There are no roman records from the same time of something happening in Jerusalem. The only roman accounts are repetitions of what the authors heard from christians. They only quote christians.

There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence, apart from the fact that scripture standing on it's own is never considered evidence for something really happening. There have to be other stone cold facts confirming what is written.

It's true that the NT cannot be considered as a strong evidence of the exitence of Jesus Christ though, one must alo remember that the current concensus amonst historians about Jesus Christ is that he indeed existed, was a preacher and faith healer, was baptised by John the Baptist and was crucified a few years later by Pontius Pilate. The only elements that are considered disputable, if not simply ridiculous, are his resurrection, his miracles, his birth, some more minor details about his ministry and crucifiction.

[jerry mcmasters]

Why can't the NT be considered evidence?

They're scientific evidence for Jesus in the same way the Iliad is evidence for Hector and Achill. There are no roman records from the same time of something happening in Jerusalem. The only roman accounts are repetitions of what the authors heard from christians. They only quote christians.

It adds to the possibility that there was no historical Jesus.  I concede that.  But if your (scientific?) rule of evidence is "It did not happen if there are no roman records of it" is too dogmatic and clumsy for me to swallow.  They were Roman Centurians, not the KGB, we can't expect them to have recorded the activities of a wandering band of troublemakers around the fishing communities of Gallilee (was that even Roman occupied area?  I forget).  Or even notice that he got himself executed for being a subversive troublemaker, that stuff was dime a dozen.

There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence, apart from the fact that scripture standing on it's own is never considered evidence for something really happening. There have to be other stone cold facts confirming what is written.

As Epronovost reminds, it is indeed something many historians call valid evidence.

[abaris]

They were Roman Centurians, not the KGB, we can't expect them to have recorded the activities of a wandering band of troublemakers around the fishing communities of Gallilee (was that even Roman occupied area?  I forget). 

They recorded judean insurgencies just fine. If there was some guy claiming to be the king of judea and being executed for it, it would have made it into roman records.

[Dancefortwo]

Why can't the NT be considered evidence?

They're scientific evidence for Jesus in the same way the Iliad is evidence for Hector and Achill. There are no roman records from the same time of something happening in Jerusalem. The only roman accounts are repetitions of what the authors heard from christians. They only quote christians.

There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence, apart from the fact that scripture standing on it's own is never considered evidence for something really happening. There have to be other stone cold facts confirming what is written.

It's true that the NT cannot be considered as a strong evidence of the exitence of Jesus Christ though, one must alo remember that the current concensus amonst historians about Jesus Christ is that he indeed existed, was a preacher and faith healer, was baptised by John the Baptist and was crucified a few years later by Pontius Pilate. The only elements that are considered disputable, if not simply ridiculous, are his resurrection, his miracles, his birth, some more minor details about his ministry and crucifiction.

I agree.  I'm not in the mythisist camp.  I think the guy existed but all the superhuman stuff  is made up storytelling.   I certainly don't think that Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would have called him "the Christ".   That was a later addition.  

With all the archaeological digs in and around Jerusalem there has only been one example of someone who was buried in an ossary box  after they were crucified.    The idea that the Romans let the Jews bury someone who was an enemy of the state  before sundown of the same day is silly.  During the slave rebellion 6000 slaves were crucified and their bodies were left up along the Appian Way for a month.  Also if Jesus was out walking around after his crucifixion and 500 people saw him ,  from the Roman  point of view the condemned  Jesus would  have been an escaped prisoner,  and being orgainzed as the Romans  were,  they would have simply gone out and taken him back  into custody.

[jerry mcmasters]

They were Roman Centurians, not the KGB, we can't expect them to have recorded the activities of a wandering band of troublemakers around the fishing communities of Gallilee (was that even Roman occupied area?  I forget). 

They recorded judean insurgencies just fine. If there was some guy claiming to be the king of judea and being executed for it, it would have made it into roman records.

Do you accept that your statement "There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence," was factually wrong?  It's nice to put a bow on one point before running to the next.

[abaris]

Do you accept that your statement "There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence," was factually wrong?  It's nice to put a bow on one point before running to the next.

Nope, I do not accept that. Please point me to the factual evidence.

[Free]

Double post

[Free]

They were Roman Centurians, not the KGB, we can't expect them to have recorded the activities of a wandering band of troublemakers around the fishing communities of Gallilee (was that even Roman occupied area?  I forget). 

They recorded judean insurgencies just fine. If there was some guy claiming to be the king of judea and being executed for it, it would have made it into roman records.

Do you not understand that it did, in fact, make it into Roman records? 1st and second century Roman Historian Tacitus writes:

Tacitus: 15:44

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, 

Now, just for the benefit of those who don't understand, the title of Christ is a latinized version of Messiah. The title of Messiah is absolutely synonymous with a King as per Jewish religious beliefs.

Christ
 noun

\ ˈkrīst [/url] \
Definition of Christ
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1: [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/messiah]MESSIAH


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christ

Definition of messiah


1capitalized

a: the expected king and deliverer of the Jews

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/messiah

[jerry mcmasters]

Do you accept that your statement "There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence," was factually wrong?  It's nice to put a bow on one point before running to the next.

Nope, I do not accept that. Please point me to the factual evidence.

You literally want me to name a historian, a single historian, that is not a mythicist?  Do you understand what you are asking?

[abaris]

Do you not understand that it did, in fact, make it into Roman records? 1st and second century Roman Historian Tacitus writes:

I know that quote very well. What you do not understand is the fact that Tacitus only quotes what christians tell him. He repeats what they are telling him in their own words. Hence, christ. Noone doubts that there have been christians at that time.

[abaris]

You literally want me to name a historian, a single historian, that is not a mythicist?  Do you understand what you are asking?

I want you, since you're insistent that it's a historical fact, to name a single historical fact that proves the existence of a person named Jesus.

Let me be clear. I'm pretty sure the gospels are partly true. Either there has been a preacher making some impression or a number of preachers being boiled down into one mythological figure after the tale made the rounds and got embellished on the caravan routes. But there is no historical evidence, no stone cold fact, for that person or persons really having existed. Nothing.

[jerry mcmasters]

You literally want me to name a historian, a single historian, that is not a mythicist?  Do you understand what you are asking?

I want you, since you're insistent that it's a historical fact, to name a single historical fact that proves the existence of a person named Jesus.

Let me be clear. I'm pretty sure the gospels are partly true. Either there has been a preacher making some impression or a number of preachers being boiled down into one mythological figure after the tale made the rounds and got embellished on the caravan routes. But there is no historical evidence, no stone cold fact, for that person or persons really having existed. Nothing.

Do you or do you not accept that your statement "There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence" was factually wrong?  Many, even most historians accept the evidence of a human Jesus, otherwise they would not accept it and be mythicists like yourself.  If we're going to discuss, let's discuss in good faith.

[abaris]

Do you or do you not accept that your statement "There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence" was factually wrong?  Many, even most historians accept the evidence of a human Jesus, otherwise they would not accept it and be mythicists like yourself.

No, I don't accept that. I wouldn't know about most historians. There's still quite the controversy about it. I also wouldn't know where your certainty of most historians accepting Jesus is coming from. Where are the absolute numbers, the statistics?

[jerry mcmasters]

Do you or do you not accept that your statement "There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence" was factually wrong?  Many, even most historians accept the evidence of a human Jesus, otherwise they would not accept it and be mythicists like yourself.

No, I don't accept that. I wouldn't know about most historians. There's still quite the controversy about it. I also wouldn't know where your certainty of most historians accepting Jesus is coming from. Where are the absolute numbers, the statistics?

Now you've moved the bar from saying NO historians ("There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence") to "uh, I don't know how many, I must have absolute numbers."  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Scholarly reception
In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, which finds virtually no support from scholars,[4][312][5][6][313][q 19] to the point of being irrelevant and almost completely ignored.[314]
Lack of support for mythicsm
According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory.[315][why?] Maurice Casey, theologian and scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".[316]
Writing in 1977, before the contemporary revival of the Christ myth theory, in the aftermath of the second quest for the historical Jesus, classical historian and popular author Michael Grant in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, concluded that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory".[317] In support of this, Grant quoted Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion that the Christ myth theory has "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars".[318] At the same time, he also quoted Otto Betz's 1968 opinion that in recent years "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[319] In the same book, he also wrote:
If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.[320]
Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical Ancient History and Archaeology at Australian National University[321] writing three decades after the start of the third quest for the historical Jesus, stated in 2008: "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming".[322] R. Joseph Hoffmann, who had created the Jesus Project, which included both mythicists and historicists to investigate the historicity of Jesus, wrote that an adherent to the Christ myth theory asked to set up a separate section of the project for those committed to the theory. Hoffmann felt that to be committed to mythicism signaled a lack of necessary skepticism and he noted that most members of the project did not reach the mythicist conclusion.[323]
Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University, has written "What you can’t do, though, without venturing into the far swamps of extreme crankery, is to argue that Jesus never existed. The “Christ-Myth Hypothesis” is not scholarship, and is not taken seriously in respectable academic debate. The grounds advanced for the “hypothesis” are worthless. The authors proposing such opinions might be competent, decent, honest individuals, but the views they present are demonstrably wrong....Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity."[324]

"There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence" was factually wrong.  Correct?

[abaris]

"There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence" was factually wrong.  Correct?

Have you actually looked at the persons in that wiki? Most are theologians, not historians. Also the often mentioned Ehrman. He hasn't got a degree in history. Have you looked at the Institutes they're working for? I only mention the Baylor University. Their motto: Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana. Do I have to translate that? I guess not. Have you looked at their birthdates and when they were active?

Point stands.

[jerry mcmasters]

"There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence" was factually wrong.  Correct?

Have you actually looked at the persons in that wiki? Most are theologians, not historians. Also the often mentioned Ehrman. He hasn't got a degree in history. Have you looked at the Institutes they're working for? I only mention the Baylor University. Their motto: Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana. Do I have to translate that? I guess not. Have you looked at their birthdates and when they were active?

Point stands.

I shouldn't have to be doing anything, you made the ridiculous claim ("There's nothing any historian would call valid evidence") and you provided no evidence of that and you can't back it up and you don't believe it's true and you can't admit you were wrong.

[Free]

Do you not understand that it did, in fact, make it into Roman records? 1st and second century Roman Historian Tacitus writes:

I know that quote very well. What you do not understand is the fact that Tacitus only quotes what christians tell him.

And you know this how? Do you have any examples whatsoever which show that "Tacitus only quotes what Christians tell him?" Can you produce one single shred of evidence to demonstrate that Tacitus had some kind of habit of quoting only what the Christians told him?

Here's the thing. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

Therefore, you are making shit up. You say "the fact that Tacitus only quotes ...," and claim it as FACT that Tacitus only quoted what the Christians told him. But if you have no fucking evidence, then what you claim to be a fact is fucking bullshit.

Your problem is .... I have a bullshit detector and the alerts are going off when I point it in your direction. No, you have no facts at all. You're simply buying into the mythicist bullshit. 

The fact of the matter is there is no evidence that Tacitus used any Christian sources whatsoever for his Annals. All internal evidence gleaned from his works demonstrates he used Roman sources including previous historical records, Senate records, and eyewitnesses accounts. In fact, the part about Christ is part of the larger story about the Great Fires of Rome, and right at the beginning of that story we see ...

 Tacitus 15:38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts,

This is clear evidence that Tacitus was using the records of previous Roman authors who wrote about the fires of Rome during the time of Nero. Obviously he read those previous Roman historical records.

And what's more, the Christians were hated by the Romans. Tacitus considered Christians to be "a class hated for their abominations." And the Christians were fearful of the Romans because, as Tacitus describes, "Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." And you think the Christians would talk to him, or he would talk to them?

No, all internal evidence shows that Tacitus referred to non-Christians sources for his works, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever he used any Christian sources, period.

[Phaedrus]

[epronovost]

No, all internal evidence shows that Tacitus referred to non-Christians sources for his works, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever he used any Christian sources, period.

Even then, being Christian doesn't make you wrong or untrustworthy when it comes to establish the existence of a person. If Jesus is a historical character, those most likely to know him are family, friends and disciples all of which who are most likely to be Christians themselves for obvious reasons. If there were written records of Jesus's life, most of them would either be in the hands of the Christians or would contain information gathered from Christians as Jesus was an individual of interest for them, again for obvious reasons. Of course, you can expect Christian sources to be biased toward claims that Jesus wasn't just a man, but a great man or even a god-like being. The idea that Christians should not and cannot be used as credible evidence for the existence of a Jesus is commiting a genetic fallacy in my opinion. Thus, even if Tacitus had been informed only by Christian, which he probably was not, that wouldn't make him wrong.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again ... you're doing the equivalent of saying that Superman still exists just without the superpowers. It's retarded.

That's called a reporter. We have a lot of those.

Well ... yeah ...

But, just like how a reporter isn't Superman, you know? Er ... Man . . . isn't Jesus. A man without magic powers ... isn't Jesus. And a man without superpowers isn't a superhero.

You know? I mean, a reporter isn't Superman.

Clark Kent is Superman if he also becomes Superman ... but he's not Superman if he doesn't become Superman. And Jesus isn't Jesus if he doesn't have magic Jesus-y powers.

So ... you know ... that's it ... really. That's the whole point of my analogy.