Was Jesus a real person?

[Robittybob1]

When do you believe Luke and Acts to have been written?

 

"Most experts date the composition of Luke-Acts to around 80-90 CE, although some suggest 90-110.[20] The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[5] There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[6]"

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

 

 

What writings? I would be interested in reading. Do you have link?

 

 

If by errors you are referencing grammar I admittedly can be sloppy. I apologize if it is distracting.

"It is also worth noting that not only isn't there solid prove Jesus was real but there is solid prove any of his relatives were real."???

 

Do you not use the word "proof"? Is there "solid prove any of his relatives were real"?

Jesus' relatives were sons or grandchildren of Jude (one of Jesus' brothers) from memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_%28brother_of_Jesus%29#Descendantscovers the whole episode.

 

The traditional view, based upon faith, of religious followers is just as powerful as the view of historical scholars?

 

Saying "that's what I've always been told" by people that have an obvious vested interest in you believing their story is just as convincing as historical evidence?

 

It seems so by the amount of rep points you got for saying it.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

It seems so by the amount of rep points you got for saying it.

 

I would assume the points were for so clearly pointing out your fallacy.

[Ten oz]

"It is also worth noting that not only isn't there solid prove Jesus was real but there is solid prove any of his relatives were real."???

 

Do you not use the word "proof"? Is there "solid prove any of his relatives were real"?

Jesus' relatives were sons or grandchildren of Jude (one of Jesus' brothers) from memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_(brother_of_Jesus)#Descendantscovers the whole episode.

 

Again this more of the New Testamnet used to prove history.

"Jude (alternatively Judas or Judah) was one of the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55) according to the New Testament. He is traditionally identified as the author of the Epistle of Jude, a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven general epistles of the New Testament — placed after Paul's epistles and before the Book of Revelation — and considered canonical by Christians.[1][2]"

 

We started this back and forth after I posted that evidence always led back to the bible. You said it wasn't bad as that and all we have done since is debate the New Testament. Where is the non biblical evidence of Jesus? You posted that you had studied this for years. Do you have anything that doesn't come for the New Testament?

[Robittybob1]

Again this more of the New Testamnet used to prove history.

"Jude (alternatively Judas or Judah) was one of the four brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55) according to the New Testament. He is traditionally identified as the author of the Epistle of Jude, a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven general epistles of the New Testament — placed after Paul's epistles and before the Book of Revelation — and considered canonical by Christians.[1][2]"

 

We started this back and forth after I posted that evidence always led back to the bible. You said it wasn't bad as that and all we have done since is debate the New Testament. Where is the non biblical evidence of Jesus? You posted that you had studied this for years. Do you have anything that doesn't come for the New Testament?

It said above:

 

Hegesippus, a 2nd-century Christian writer, mentions descendants of Jude living in the reign of Domitian (81-96). Eusebius relates in his Historia Ecclesiae (Book III, ch. 19-20):

So what do you mean they come from the NT? Those authors aren't in the NT.

 

What do you mean "something that doesn't come from the NT"?

[Ten oz]

It said above:

 

So what do you mean they come from the NT? Those authors aren't in the NT.

 

What do you mean "something that doesn't come from the NT"?

Mathew and Mark are in the New Testamment and that is where Jude is identified as a brother. As for the Epistle of Jude

" The Epistle of Jude, often shortened to Jude, is the penultimate book of the New Testament and is attributed to Jude, the brother of James the Just."

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

 

This is clearly New Testament sourced material.

[Strange]

It said above:

So what do you mean they come from the NT? Those authors aren't in the NT.

 

But they are not contemporary either. So are presumably just using the same source (the NT).

[Robittybob1]

Mathew and Mark are in the New Testamment and that is where Jude is identified as a brother. As for the Epistle of Jude

" The Epistle of Jude, often shortened to Jude, is the penultimate book of the New Testament and is attributed to Jude, the brother of James the Just."

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

 

This is clearly New Testament sourced material.

What is clearly NT sourced material? You are not making sense to me yet.

There is nothing like this in the NT

 

 

"Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.

"Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them;

and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor."

[Skeptic134]

"Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.

 

 

So you need a further citation as this is second hand...

[Robittybob1]

 

 

So you need a further citation as this is second hand...

How can that be done? How can grandchildren certify that their grandfather and their great uncle were fathered by the same person? Even today with DNA testing that would reveal a lot of discrepancies. Some years back it was reported that a proportion (I think it was 25% in the study) of children have a different biological father than the person who thinks he is the father (however that is said).

But the inheritance (the birthright) comes down through the family regardless of the genetic relationship. So the Emperor Domitian was probably checking that none of the offspring (the nephews) had designs on restoring the Jewish kingship back to the lineage of the House of David.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomitianDomitian (/dəˈmɪʃən, -iən/; Latin: Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus Augustus;[2] 24 October 51 – 18 September 96) was Roman emperor from 81 to 96. Domitian was the third and last emperor of the Flavian dynasty.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Skeptic134]

I'm just pointing out the problem with your "evidence".

 

"who is said to have been"...

 

Who said it? Which I believe was Ten Oz's point... is the author of your quote merely referencing a passage of the NT?

 

It is fallacious to use the NT as a source validating the legitimacy of the NT; its merely an authoritarian claim which is weak in comparison to an empiricial claim.

Also, I think it is significant to understand that the more spectacular the claim the more and stronger the evidence should be to validate the claims.

 

Hitchens put it much more eloquently, but the idea is that if you are claiming Socrates was a real person and have only circumstantial evidence to support the claim none of the ideas associated with him are diminished or become less valid or useful tools for rationalization. On the other hand, if Jesus wasn't a real historical figure than the entire religion becomes invalidated.

 

With the stakes so high, you should be expected and should want yourself to have more than just a handful of questionable and unreliable sources.

[Acme]

...Also, I think it is significant to understand that the more spectacular the claim the more and stronger the evidence should be to validate the claims.

...

With the stakes so high, you should be expected and should want yourself to have more than just a handful of questionable and unreliable sources.

Ay and there's the rub.

 

True believer syndrome @ Wiki

...

Psychology

 

In an article published in Skeptical Inquirer, psychologist Matthew J. Sharps and his colleagues analyze and dissect the psychology of True Believers and their behavior after the predicted apocalypse fails to happen. Using the 2012 Mayan apocalypse prophecy as example, and cited several other similar cases, Sharps contributes four psychological factors that compel these people to continue the belief (or even stronger belief) despite the conflicted reality.[8]

 

▪Subclinical dissociative tendencies: While not suffered from mental illness, people with subclinical dissociative tendencies have a higher inclination to experience disconnection with immediate physical reality and propensity to see highly improbable things with enhanced credulity. Such subclinical dissociation is usually associated with paranormal thinking.[8]

 

▪Cognitive dissonance: The more one invests in a belief, the more value one will place on this belief and in consequence, be more resistance to facts, evidence or reality that contradict with this belief. Some of the True Believers in the Keech case in example above had left their spouses, jobs and gave up their possessions to prepare to board the alien spacecraft. When the world did not end, cognitive dissonance provided an enhancement of their beliefs and outlet for their heavy investment and discomfort in front of reality.[7][8]

 

▪Gestalt processing: In the continuum in human information processing, people with Gestalt processing will consider a concept without detailed analysis (as opposed to feature-intensive thinking) and accept the idea as a whole relatively uncritically. Sharps suggests a relationship between dissociative tendencies and gestalt processing. People who incline to believe paranormal activities will be more likely to credulously entertain the ancient Mayan prophecies whose details most people know little about.[8]

 

▪Availability heuristic: Under the mental shortcut of availability heuristic, people place more importance and give more weight to a belief when examples related to the idea are more readily recalled, most often because they are recent information and latest news. [9] The information of Mayan prophecies has been abundantly available, especially in the media, before the expected apocalyptic date. People's judgments tend to bias toward this latest news, particularly those with dissociative tendency toward supernatural and favor gestalt processing.[8]

...

[Robittybob1]

I'm just pointing out the problem with your "evidence".

 

"who is said to have been"...

 

Who said it? .....

 

With the stakes so high, you should be expected and should want yourself to have more than just a handful of questionable and unreliable sources.

2000 years have past. Take what they have recorded as it is. If it isn't good enough well tough luck. You wanted it, not me.

Give me negative rep points if you like, but there was a poster who asked if there were any records of Jesus' descendants and I gave him one of them. It was that person who asked for the reference not me.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Skeptic134]

Ay and there's the rub.

 

True believer syndrome @ Wiki

 

Good information.

 

2000 years have past. Take what they have recorded as it is. If it isn't good enough well tough luck. You wanted it, not me.

 

That argument just doesn't work despite that it is used often.

 

It hasn't always been 2000 years since "Jesus did x, y and z". At one point it should have been only a few months since he turned water to wine, only a year since he cured a leper, only a decade since he was curing the blind.

 

And yet there are no contemporary accounts from historians regarding him going around performing these miracles?

 

And that is why the objective answer to "Was Jesus a real person?" is, there is no credible evidence to support the premise.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Skeptic134

[Robittybob1]

 

Good information.

 

 

That argument just doesn't work despite that it is used often.

 

It hasn't always been 2000 years since "Jesus did x, y and z". ....

If it isn't 2000 years it is getting pretty close. 1985 years is close enough.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Skeptic134]

If it isn't 2000 years it is getting pretty close 1985 years is close enough.

 

I think you misunderstood.

 

If Jesus actually did exist than it hasn't always been 2000 years (a long time) since he existed. At some point he should have still been going around performing these miracles and drawing attention and thus there should be plenty of contemporary accounts validating his existence.

[Robittybob1]

 

I think you misunderstood.

 

If Jesus actually did exist than it hasn't always been 2000 years (a long time) since he existed. At some point he should have still been going around performing these miracles and drawing attention and thus there should be plenty of contemporary accounts validating his existence.

What was the technology like for making recordings in those days. OK the people would have talked about it, and that might be all they could do. There were no cameras, or newspapers or TV, and no films. It definitely would be different if it happened today.

[Ten oz]

What was the technology like for making recordings in those days. OK the people would have talked about it, and that might be all they could do. There were no cameras, or newspapers or TV, and no films. It definitely would be different if it happened today.

How do we know Julius Ceasar was real? You post as if first person contemporary works are unheard of from 2,000yrs ago.

[Robittybob1]

How do we know Julius Ceasar was real? You post as if first person contemporary works are unheard of from 2,000yrs ago.

Ask yourself, there would have been a vastly different infrastructure around the Emperors as opposed to a simple carpenter's son.

[John Cuthber]

Ask yourself, there would have been a vastly different infrastructure around the Emperors as opposed to a simple carpenter's son.

The point is that if he's a "simple carpenter's son" then he's not the Son of God and there won't be much written about him at the time.

And there wasn't, because he wasn't.

On the other hand, if he had been pulling miracles out of a hat then there would be rather a lot of attention focussed on him, and we would have plenty of records of that

[Phi for All]

Ask yourself, there would have been a vastly different infrastructure around the Emperors as opposed to a simple carpenter's son.

 

This argument seems to question the very worth of historical documentation with regard to Jesus, which is what most people here are trying to provide as evidence for or against his being a real person. It now seems clear, twenty-six pages of discussion later, that this type of evidence is never going to be considered. Jesus is simultaneously so powerful and so innocuous as to defy any argument.

[Acme]

 

Ask yourself, there would have been a vastly different infrastructure around the Emperors as opposed to a simple carpenter's son.

This argument seems to question the very worth of historical documentation with regard to Jesus, which is what most people here are trying to provide as evidence for or against his being a real person. It now seems clear, twenty-six pages of discussion later, that this type of evidence is never going to be considered. ...

 

Annnd... whose fault is that? How many logical fallacies have been pointed out here and to what end? Where's the integrity in promoting such 'discussion', let alone letting it run on like this?

[Strange]

Ask yourself, there would have been a vastly different infrastructure around the Emperors as opposed to a simple carpenter's son.

 

As it was (supposedly) an Emperor who had him crucified, why are there no records of that?

[Robittybob1]

 

As it was (supposedly) an Emperor who had him crucified, why are there no records of that?

Well there are plenty of tales about it.

[Strange]

Well there are plenty of tales about it.

 

All from one source.

 

(See what I mean about herding cats?)

[Skeptic134]

What was the technology like for making recordings in those days. OK the people would have talked about it, and that might be all they could do. There were no cameras, or newspapers or TV, and no films. It definitely would be different if it happened today.

 

Jesus selfie on instagram or it didn't happen...

 

How do we know Julius Ceasar was real? You post as if first person contemporary works are unheard of from 2,000yrs ago.

+1

The point is that if he's a "simple carpenter's son" then he's not the Son of God and there won't be much written about him at the time.

And there wasn't, because he wasn't.

On the other hand, if he had been pulling miracles out of a hat then there would be rather a lot of attention focussed on him, and we would have plenty of records of that

+1

Jesus is simultaneously so powerful and so innocuous as to defy any argument.

 

For those of faith that desperately want or need it to be true, that is the case.