Was Jesus a real person?

[Eise]

If these links are indeed true then why does no record of Jesus exist except for the writings about him by his fan club many decades after he supposedly existed...

 

Now you ask me to go into the whole discussion... First I repeat my previous quote:

 

Virtually all scholars of various disciplines who have commented on the subject consider Jesus to have existed.

 

That should be an argument: from authority, of course. But I think that referring to the fact that a majority of classical and new testamentical scholars think Jesus existed is a valid argument.

 

Now I have read several books of Ehrman. Should I now repeat every answer he gives at questions you ask me? I cannot argue myself, as I am not a historian (and I suppose you are not too), I do not have any direct knowledge of the sources.

 

But let's give it a try: Ehrman states that it is just not true that the Romans kept perfect track of everything that happened in their empire. Same for the Jews in those days. The 'missing records' idea is a myth: they just are not there because the Romans did not consistently administrated everything.

 

But interesting enough (of course you read the Wikipedia links...) Jesus' death is mentioned in the Talmud.

 

And then the gospels were written many years after Jesus died, but the Pauline Epistles were written only 20 years after Jesus' death. Most of the facts that can be found in the authentic Pauline Epistles (some of the letters are forgeries) about Jesus' life are in sync with the gospels. Paul lived short enough after Jesus' death that he could have met some of the apostles, and in fact he describes meeting them.

 

Now you could still say, well what proves that? He could have lied about everything. Maybe the 'so called authentic Epistles' are also forgeries? But if you do that, you can throw away a lot of what we think really happened in antiquity. Did Socrates exist? Heraclitus? Did Thales predict a solar eclipse? We honestly don't know for sure. But if we know all the historical backgrounds, then in many cases the hypothesis that such a person existed is the most probable one. Same holds for Jesus' existence.

 

Last but not least, after reading a few texts of Richard Carrier, and 2 books by Acharya S, I noticed how angry they are arguing against the historical existence of Jesus. They just push their atheist agenda too hard. It really is no problem to believe that Jesus really existed, and be an atheist. If real Christians would hear what classical and new testamentical scholars have to say about Jesus' teachings, they would not enjoy... Reality is the best antidote.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

@ Eise, I am not of the view that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was a real person. I have posted links in this thread that speak to the "evidence" of Christ's historicity you have posted well as illustrate the ongoing debate amongst scholars. The link in the OP is a good place to start if you are interested in the debate.

[Eise]

Sorry, no youtubes for me.

And about the fragments (Wikipedia):

Tacitus:

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Josephus:

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.

 

And I think I have read enough about the 'debate' and have drawn my conclusions. There is also a 'debate' about climate change and creationism. I couldn't be interested less.

 

I just gave my 2 cents. I am much more interested in what academic history has to say about the real Jesus, and I can say you: most Christians, especially fundamentalists would not like it. That is the 'fun part' of the historical Jesus...

Edited October 3, 2014 by Eise

[Moontanman]

Sorry, no youtubes for me.

 

And about the fragments (Wikipedia):

 

Tacitus:

 

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Citation please

 

Josephus:

 

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.

No, in fact many think the Josephus is a 4th century add on.

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

 

And I think I have read enough about the 'debate' and have drawn my conclusions. There is also a 'debate' about climate change and creationism. I couldn't be interested less.

 

I just gave my 2 cents. I am much more interested in what academic history has to say about the real Jesus, and I can say you: most Christians, especially fundamentalists would not like it. That is the 'fun part' of the historical Jesus...

Evidently not much...

 

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

 

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

Edited October 3, 2014 by Moontanman

[Eise]

Sorry, Moontanman, I will not start a quote war: 'Citation please'.

 

Just for the info: I said my quotations come from Wikipedia. You will find them.

 

And you missed my remark about Acharya S above? And now you refer to her home page as a reliable source? She is just an anti-religionist missionary, preaching her own religion (The Gospel According to Acharya S'), denying the existence of more or less all religion founders. She is just on a crusade.

 

And you seem to miss the main point I made. I draw my conclusions. I stick to what the majority of the scientists have to say. Now you can deny that it is a majority. A citation of Richard Carrier next time?

[StringJunky]

The problem with this sort of subject is finding sources that have no horse in the race either way and just want to know - in a dispassionate way - for the pure purpose of historical record. It must be rife with confirmation bias on the sides that have an agenda or interest in a particular outcome. I wouldn't trust a declared fervent atheist or their theistic counterpart because they are already prejudiced from the start.

 

I am inclined think there actually was a somewhat rebellious person that came to symbolise the hopes and dreams of those around at that time. Pretty much like Mandela represents racial unity ...his memory will turn into an exaggerated heroic mythical character in the decades and possibly centuries to come. Look at Einstein, he is "the avatar of human intellectual achievement" as Timo put it ...he has achieved near mythical status amongst the general populace.

 

It's what happens as time mists the details and imagination takes over to fill the gaps.

[Ten oz]

@ StringJunky, I agree. As stated in the OP I grew up believing that Jesus had been real and that there was historical evidence to support as much. I think for a long time many historians took for guaranteed that Jesus was real as well. Both as a matter of culture and not being interested in entering a fight where they might be labelled as anti religion during times in history when that may have hurt a career. From what I have been able to read there really is not much in the way of evidence either way.

Sorry, Moontanman, I will not start a quote war: 'Citation please'.

 

Just for the info: I said my quotations come from Wikipedia. You will find them.

 

And you missed my remark about Acharya S above? And now you refer to her home page as a reliable source? She is just an anti-religionist missionary, preaching her own religion (The Gospel According to Acharya S'), denying the existence of more or less all religion founders. She is just on a crusade.

 

And you seem to miss the main point I made. I draw my conclusions. I stick to what the majority of the scientists have to say. Now you can deny that it is a majority. A citation of Richard Carrier next time?

There have been groups such as the "Jesus Seminar" comprised of over a hundred scholars who examine the historicity of Jesus.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Historians and theologians types like Earl Doherty, Robert Price, and Richard Carrier who are have written many books and essays on the issue of Christ's historicity. You seem to be dismissive of there work as anti religious while insisting on a consensous scholarly view that does not exist.

 

The link you provided http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus from Wikipedia does say that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was real. However it's not shared view of all cited and peer reviewed sites;

"The increasingly common view of Jesus among New Testament scholars as of 2007 is that "historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament".[2] Some scholars have gone as far as to say there were several possible "Jesuses" candidates with no indication of which (if any) is "the" historical Jesus.[3][4] Ironically, based on some of the definitions provided, [5][6][7] these could be said to qualify as Christ Myth Theory positions"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

 

I do not know if there was a single real person the story of Jesus is based on. The best argument I have seen for a historical Jesus actually came from Richard Carrier who argued that unless their is a compelling reason not to accept commonly held historical views it should be a matter of best practices to do so. Of course he then went on to say he believed there was compelling evidence against a historical Jesus. His first point remains. The best evidence I have seen is for the Jesus is that so many believe in his historicity. As for the evidence, there is none. Neither Josephus or Tacitus were contemporary and neither of their quotes were actually about Jesus in context. Josephus was writing about James and referenced him as a brother of Jesus while Tacitus was writing Nero blaming fires on Christians and referenced Jesus as the whom Christians believed.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Ten oz

[Eise]

"The increasingly common view of Jesus among New Testament scholars as of 2007 is that "historical research can indeed disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus" but "the Jesus we find at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary view presented in the New Testament".

 

Could be my words (if my English would be good enough).

 

Some scholars have gone as far as to say there were several possible "Jesuses" candidates with no indication of which (if any) is "the" historical Jesus.

 

Oh? Did they identify more than one person, all of them whose existence is perfectly proofed, but it is not clear which of them was Jesus? If that is not what these scholars say, what should this sentence mean?

 

You could apply a kind of Occam's Razor: what is the easiest hypothesis to explain all the stories about Jesus in so many sources, and the fanaticism with which these stories are spread? Is it not the easiest hypothesis that really some person existed that made a strong impression on a group of people?

 

As for the evidence, there is none. Neither Josephus or Tacitus were contemporary and neither of their quotes were actually about Jesus in context.

 

Of course there is no evidence! This is history, not physics. There are hints of his existence, hints that are as strong as for many other historical persons that are also supposed to exist: Socrates, Heraclitus, Thales. Hey, maybe Shakespeare did not exist!

 

The Josephus and Tacitus fragments are just the oldest and only non-Christian mentioning of Jesus. As such they are hints, but of course, not very strong, but still hints.

 

And you notoriously ignore the Pauline epistles, written only 20 years after Jesus' death.

[Moontanman]

Sorry, Moontanman, I will not start a quote war: 'Citation please'.

No this is a science forum, you made a positive assertion you have to back it up, you can't just assert what ever you want as though it's common knowledge. I would suggest you read the rules a bit closer..

Sorry, Moontanman, I will not start a quote war: 'Citation please'.

 

Just for the info: I said my quotations come from Wikipedia. You will find them.

 

And you missed my remark about Acharya S above? And now you refer to her home page as a reliable source? She is just an anti-religionist missionary, preaching her own religion (The Gospel According to Acharya S'), denying the existence of more or less all religion founders. She is just on a crusade.

 

And you seem to miss the main point I made. I draw my conclusions. I stick to what the majority of the scientists have to say. Now you can deny that it is a majority. A citation of Richard Carrier next time?

Again with a positive assertion, citation please, if you claim most scientists say something that is nothing but appeal to popularity and an appeal to authority.. Edited October 4, 2014 by Moontanman

[Ten oz]

Of course there is no evidence! This is history, not physics. There are hints of his existence, hints that are as strong as for many other historical persons that are also supposed to exist: Socrates, Heraclitus, Thales. Hey, maybe Shakespeare did not exist!

 

The Josephus and Tacitus fragments are just the oldest and only non-Christian mentioning of Jesus. As such they are hints, but of course, not very strong, but still hints.

Socrates, Heraclitus, and Shakespeare all had contemporary text written about them and they themselves contributed to works. If the same could be said about Jesus I would most certainly believe Jesus had been a real person.

 

 

And you notoriously ignore the Pauline epistles, written only 20 years after Jesus' death.

Pauline epistle are religious texts in the New Testament written by Paul the Apostle. You say they were written 20yrs after Jesus but they are not contemporary accounts of Jesus' life. In them Paul claims to have had a vision of a "resurrected" Jesus, not knowing or meeting the living man Jesus. So to believe the Pauline epistles are accurate I have to accept resurrection, which I don't. Religious text are normally written that way. Moses was inspired by the voice of god, Muhammad had visions of angels, Joseph Smith was shown text by angels, and Paul the apostle had a vision of Jesus.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Ten oz

[Eise]

You say they were written 20yrs after Jesus but they are not contemporary accounts of Jesus' life. In them Paul claims to have had a vision of a "resurrected" Jesus, not knowing or meeting the living man Jesus. So to believe the Pauline epistles are accurate I have to accept resurrection, which I don't. Religious text are normally written that way. Moses was inspired by the voice of god, Muhammad had visions of angels, Joseph Smith was shown text by angels, and Paul the apostle had a vision of Jesus.

 

Yes. And he talked with the people that really met Jesus, like Peter and James (brother of Jesus). And he refers to facts in Jesus' life that are also written in the gospels. Obviously he was referring to events that people knew in those days.

 

Socrates, Heraclitus, and Shakespeare all had contemporary text written about them and they themselves contributed to works.

 

I also mentioned Thales. Can you present me with the contemporary texts about Heraclitus and Thales? Thank you.

You are right about Socrates: there are contemporary writings of Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes.

[andrewcellini]

 

Yes. And he talked with the people that really met Jesus, like Peter and James (brother of Jesus). And he refers to facts in Jesus' life that are also written in the gospels. Obviously he was referring to events that people knew in those days.

i'm fairly sure you're referring to Acts and not to the epistles of Paul.

[Ten oz]

Yes. And he talked with the people that really met Jesus, like Peter and James (brother of Jesus). And he refers to facts in Jesus' life that are also written in the gospels. Obviously he was referring to events that people knew in those days.

The New Testament is not a creditable source as it is impossible to seperate truth from fiction assuming there is any truth in there at all. How can I pick and choose which parts to believe? I don't believe the first hand account of resurrection but I am suppose to believe the second hand account about people who were said to have known Jesus? I just don't see how that works.

 

As for the two known Religouis text references Josephus and Tacitus they are both inconclusive:

Tacitus quote is not about Jesus. It is about Nero blaming Christians for a fire. Tacitus references Jesus as a description of Christians and not necessarily as an account of Jesus' life. Tacitus was not contemporary to Jesus and lived during a time when Christians already existed as a group.

Josephus similarly uses Jesus to describe a person. Calling James the brother of Jesus. In various contexts brother is often a religious reference as members of faith often refer to each other as brothers and sisters. It is unclear if Josephus was simply calling James a Christian or literally saying that James was blood realitive of Jesus. Plus many debate the authenticity of the Josephus reference. Either way both Josephus and Tacitus make passing reference to Jesus. Neither, in context, actually chronicle Jesus' life.

 

 

I also mentioned Thales. Can you present me with the contemporary texts about Heraclitus and Thales? Thank you.

You are right about Socrates: there are contemporary writings of Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes.

Thales, unlike Jesus, was chronicled in some detail be many. Herodotus, Diognes, Douris, Aristotle, and Xenophanes all wrote about Thales. Also there are mathematical equations that are said to have come from Thales. Tangible and testable equations that clearly are not works of fiction that must have originated somewhere. Walking on water or being resurrected are not a tangible things that clearly happened. As for Heraclitus there are fragments that are credited to him.

 

If you would like to start a topic analyzing the historical record of Geek philosophers feel free. Whether or not Thales or any other person who was not Jesus are considered real is an off topic conversation. Intinially useful as examples but distractions if you proceed to insist on citation. You can google the above references but I am not going to follow you down a rabbit whole of debating historical figure after historical figure. This thread is about one historical figure, Jesus.

[Eise]

That's fine Ten Oz. Just about Thales: these are all contemporaries of Thales? And why should the non-contempary fragments of Heraclitus be more reliable than the different sources of mere existence of Jesus?

 

From philological research it is already clear that there are different sources about Jesus. If we take those things together on which several independent sources agree we get a pretty clear about what he taught. It fits in the time in which he was living.

 

And don't forget: do you have a better theory than that he really existed? Does this theory not need much more assumptions than the standpoint that he just existed, and many stories about him were exaggerated and fantasized afterwards? (There many great examples of these in apocryphical gospels.)

 

I already said we are both not historians. If you want to have stronger hints for Jesus than are used for other persons, then go ahead.

 

Let's agree that we do not agree.

[Ten oz]

That's fine Ten Oz. Just about Thales: these are all contemporaries of Thales? And why should the non-contempary fragments of Heraclitus be more reliable than the different sources of mere existence of Jesus?

The historical figures you have mentioned as examples all have multi-sourced biographies. They also have works that are attributed to them by multiple sources. Some of those sources are contemporary while others are not. Jesus only has one biography, the New Testement. Neither Josephus or Tacitus chronicle Jesus' life. Both just simply say the name while chronicling other events. There is a difference in my opinion between several historians writing detailed biographies about a specific historical figure and two historians simple making mention of Jesus to discribe others as Christians. I am not holding Jesus to a higher standard. If several historians like Josephus and Tacitus wrote purposeful text chronicling the life of Jesus and if there were writings or other works attributed to Jesus I would believe it more or less proved Jesus had been real. Rather, the only thing that actually chronicles Jesus life in the New Testement which describes Jesus as God in human form, capable of walking on water, and rising from the dead.

 

 

 

From philological research it is already clear that there are different sources about Jesus. If we take those things together on which several independent sources agree we get a pretty clear about what he taught. It fits in the time in which he was living.

 

And don't forget: do you have a better theory than that he really existed? Does this theory not need much more assumptions than the standpoint that he just existed, and many stories about him were exaggerated and fantasized afterwards? (There many great examples of these in apocryphical gospels.)

 

I already said we are both not historians. If you want to have stronger hints for Jesus than are used for other persons, then go ahead.

 

Let's agree that we do not agree.

Do I have a theory for where Jesus' story comes from? Where do any religious stories come from. Where did Joseph Smith's golden tablets come from or Moses' burning bush? All religions have a history and most of those histories are pure fiction in my opinion. The story of Jesus does not strike me as any less fallacious. Feel free to disregard my response if I have misunderstood your question.

[Moontanman]

That's fine Ten Oz. Just about Thales: these are all contemporaries of Thales? And why should the non-contempary fragments of Heraclitus be more reliable than the different sources of mere existence of Jesus?

 

From philological research it is already clear that there are different sources about Jesus. If we take those things together on which several independent sources agree we get a pretty clear about what he taught. It fits in the time in which he was living.

 

And don't forget: do you have a better theory than that he really existed? Does this theory not need much more assumptions than the standpoint that he just existed, and many stories about him were exaggerated and fantasized afterwards? (There many great examples of these in apocryphical gospels.)

 

I already said we are both not historians. If you want to have stronger hints for Jesus than are used for other persons, then go ahead.

 

Let's agree that we do not agree.

 

 

Well since we don't have to show any sources I'll just claim he never existed and was completely made up. There are no historical first hand accounts of such a person what so ever..

[Eise]

Jesus only has one biography, the New Testement.

 

You're kidding. The new testament is one source? There are 4 Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and a few documents. OK, Lukas and Matthew did pick a lot of Mark, but they also had other sources, partially shared (some stories are not in Mark, but both in Lukas and Matthew).

 

In differentiating history from invention, some historians interpret the gospel accounts skeptically but generally regard the synoptic gospels as including significant amounts of historically reliable information about Jesus

 

From here.

 

 

Do I have a theory for where Jesus' story comes from? Where do any religious stories come from. Where did Joseph Smith's golden tablets come from or Moses' burning bush? All religions have a history and most of those histories are pure fiction in my opinion. The story of Jesus does not strike me as any less fallacious. Feel free to disregard my response if I have misunderstood your question.

 

That's not a historical theory. That as at most a hypothesis. Where is the evidence? Do you have scripts in which Paul and Peter are discussing how they will make up a whole new religion?

Do you understand: there is no positive evidence for the idea that it was all a setup. There are many sources of the life of Jesus, not very reliable, but taken altogether, they point in the direction that he existed.The mythicist position that it is all a mixup of previous existing legends cannot be proven either. And it is also perfectly possible that this mixup was projected on a real existing person, in order to make him divine afterwards.

i'm fairly sure you're referring to Acts and not to the epistles of Paul.

 

Paul also mentions that he met Peter and James. Acts and the epistle differ however about the question when Paul went to Jerusalem: immediately after his 'insight' or only three years later.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Eise

[ydoaPs]

You're kidding. The new testament is one source? There are 4 Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and a few documents. OK, Lukas and Matthew did pick a lot of Mark, but they also had other sources, partially shared (some stories are not in Mark, but both in Lukas and Matthew).

So, two gospels. Then again, it's starting to look like John actually used the others as sources as well; he just didn't do the "I'm going to copy well over half of this other guy verbatim" approach that you described as "pick a lot of".

 

 

Do you understand: there is no positive evidence for the idea that it was all a setup.

So, the Bible is allowed to be used as a positive historical document for the existence of Jesus, but the bits where it talks about there being a coverup are inadmissable? Why, exactly, is that?

 

 

There are many sources of the life of Jesus, not very reliable, but taken altogether, they point in the direction that he existed.

Individually, they're not very reliable, but, taken together, they're still a bunch of mythology and forged letters along with a mere 7 letters from a guy who says he got his information from a hallucination.

[Ten oz]

You're kidding. The new testament is one source? There are 4 Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and a few documents. OK, Lukas and Matthew did pick a lot of Mark, but they also had other sources, partially shared (some stories are not in Mark, but both in Lukas and Matthew).

 

 

 

From here.

 

 

 

 

That's not a historical theory. That as at most a hypothesis. Where is the evidence? Do you have scripts in which Paul and Peter are discussing how they will make up a whole new religion?

Do you understand: there is no positive evidence for the idea that it was all a setup. There are many sources of the life of Jesus, not very reliable, but taken altogether, they point in the direction that he existed.The mythicist position that it is all a mixup of previous existing legends cannot be proven either. And it is also perfectly possible that this mixup was projected on a real existing person, in order to make him divine afterwards.

 

 

Paul also mentions that he met Peter and James. Acts and the epistle differ however about the question when Paul went to Jerusalem: immediately after his 'insight' or only three years later.

I do not believe in resurrection,walking on water, virgin birth, and etc. In my opinion science can disprove such things. The New Testement is full of fiction. That makes it an unreliable historical source. There is no way to tell fact from fiction. If the Federalist papers included passages about Washington transforming into a Dragon and flying around the countryside breathing fire on the British It too would be considered an unreliable historical source. This is a science forum. I don't think I need citation to affirmatively say a man can not turn water into wine through extra sensory powers.

 

Why do I need a working theory for what motivatived Paul to say he saw a vision us a resurrected man? Simply understanding that resurrection in not a real thing should suffice as proof the story is not real. Being inspired by god to write religious text is not an orginal thing. Muhammad was inspired by angels, Joseph Smith shown tablets, Moses a burning Bush, and Peter a vision of a resurrected man. It is typical for the authors of religious documents to base there work on visions or hallucinations.

 

If Josephus and Tacitus actually wrote about Jesus' life with the intention of documenting him as a real person I would consider that compelling evidence. Rather they only mention Jesus so to describe other people they were writting about as Christian. it is not the samething. As for the New Testement it is not possible to tell which parts are total works of fiction and if any parts are real. Which means there is no reliable source that actually chronicles the life of Jesus. Again, Josephus and Tacitus do not chronicle Jesus' life.

[Eise]

Ten Oz,

 

You did not pick up anything from what I said, you are just repeating yourself, so going on with this discussion is meaningless.

 

Being a science forum, you should take scientists' word for it, in this case historians. See how they reconstruct Jesus' life. And I can promise you, nobody will state that Jesus changed water into wine, walked on water, or resurrected. I don't believe that either.

So, two gospels. Then again, it's starting to look like John actually used the others as sources as well; he just didn't do the "I'm going to copy well over half of this other guy verbatim" approach that you described as "pick a lot of".

 

No. At least 3 sources, possibly 4, for Mark, Luke and Matthew. John is very much different, also written much later than the other ones. It is the gospel with the fewest anecdotes,parables etc, but very much about what Jesus is (Logos into the flesh and so...)

 

So, the Bible is allowed to be used as a positive historical document for the existence of Jesus, but the bits where it talks about there being a coverup are inadmissable? Why, exactly, is that?

 

Did you really read what I wrote? If there are sources that do hint to the idea that the historical Jesus is a coverup, then that would be highly interesting! But until now I only found arguments from mythicists that sources in favour of the existence of Jesus are totally unreliable. That would count for 'negative arguments'; against Jesus' existence, i.e. dismissing the evidence. But obviously the mythicists are harder than most scholars in their criteria what is reliable.

 

Individually, they're not very reliable, but, taken together, they're still a bunch of mythology and forged letters along with a mere 7 letters from a guy who says he got his information from a hallucination.

 

You are making the same error as Ten Oz: I never referred to Paul's hallucinations, but to the few facts in his epistles that match with the gospels. (The chance is not big that the evangelists knew Paul's epistles.) Such matches increase the reliability of the mentioned facts. Which does not mean 'proof the reliability', or 'proof that Jesus existed'. It means 'hints that Jesus probably existed', i.e. an apocalyptic preacher, called Jesus, who was expecting the final day during his lifetime, and that the Jews should prepare for it.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

@ Eisenhower, you are still insisting that historians believe Jesus was real and treating doubt as though it were some fringe theory. You have been provided ith ethe names of scholars who do not believe Jesus was real, whole organizations of scholar who do not believe, yet you continue to state as fact that historians believe. It seems to be the only argument you are using successfully. That we are all not historians and as such should not second guess their conclusions. However it is not the conclusion of all historians and there is a lot of work out there showing that there may not have ever been a Jesus.

Truly the only description of Jesus comes from the New Testment. Josephus and Tacitus do not describe Jesus' life. While you may accept the New Testment as a reliable source I do not. How do you decide which parts are fiction and which parts are fact? You say that you do not believe in resurrection, walking on water, and so on but then proceed to insist that accurate historical information can be found in writings that contain such obvious fictions that are stated as first hand accounts. You say that Paul's hallucination aren't to be believed, please tell me what in the Pauline epistles is to be believed? As for comparing the Pauline existles to Luke, Matthew, Acts, Mark and etc I don't think it is worth doing. The Pauline epistles are the most solid works everthing else is far less clear. Did Luke and Acts have the same author? What was John's association with Peter? What was Jude's association to Peter? Who was James? Without known authorship or if the writings are in there interiority or properly translated before addition the New Testament is not a reliable source hallucinations, magic, and so on aside.

[Eise]

My nick is the first name of Eise Eisinga, my avatar is his picture. My father was born in Franeker, and Eisinga and I are very far relatives. You can guess my nationality now. So no Eisenhower, please.

 

There are hints that Jesus has been a real existing person, but no more than hints. On the basis of these hints, a majority of historians think that the assumption that he existed is the most probable.

 

The mythicists have no positive evidence that it was all a coverup. All the magical stories told about Jesus might just as well be explained by exaggeration and the drive of the authors of Gospels, of Paul and others, to give him a divine status. It seems nearly impossible to me to separate a complete coverup from a lot of projections on a real historical figure.

 

I know there is no strict evidence that Jesus existed. I only say that there are hints that are strong enough that to assume he existed, and therefore the assumption that he existed is the most probable. I could be wrong. Just as you.

 

I suggest you compare how historians decide if some historical or legendary person really existed, and compare the criteria they use with those they use for the question of the historicity of Jesus. But that is nice work for you, not for me. The topic is nearly not as hot as it is obviously for you. I am sorry you get so irritated by this, but for me the question is closed, unless new evidence for another viewpoint is found.

 

We must agree to disagree, Ten Oz.

[Ten oz]

My apologies for the Eisenhower thing. That was my tablet's attempt to spell for me and not intentional. I should review my posts more closely before submitting.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Ten oz

[Eise]

My apologies for the Eisenhower thing. That was my tablet's attempt to spell for me and not intentional. I should review my posts more closing before submitting.

 

Accepted.

[Moontanman]

There are hints that Jesus has been a real existing person, but no more than hints. On the basis of these hints, a majority of historians think that the assumption that he existed is the most probable.

A majority of real historians think Jesus was a myth...

 

The mythicists have no positive evidence that it was all a coverup. All the magical stories told about Jesus might just as well be explained by exaggeration and the drive of the authors of Gospels, of Paul and others, to give him a divine status. It seems nearly impossible to me to separate a complete coverup from a lot of projections on a real historical figure.

Or all the magical stories are made up.

 

I know there is no strict evidence that Jesus existed. I only say that there are hints that are strong enough that to assume he existed, and therefore the assumption that he existed is the most probable. I could be wrong. Just as you.

There are hints that Mars is inhabited according to some people, hints do not evidence make..

 

I suggest you compare how historians decide if some historical or legendary person really existed, and compare the criteria they use with those they use for the question of the historicity of Jesus. But that is nice work for you, not for me. The topic is nearly not as hot as it is obviously for you. I am sorry you get so irritated by this, but for me the question is closed, unless new evidence for another viewpoint is found.

You keep violating the rules of the forum by making assertions that you do not back up with any evidence.

Remember, that which can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence...