How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Saint Frankenstein]

...we don't know, but let's try and agree on a time span.... OK?
Most historians place G-Mark as the first to be written, circa 50-70 CE. Let's say 60 CE...? Which means that It was written just after the lifetimes of most of the witnesses.


Well, you know, that's for your own individual investigation.


Cultures that are mostly illiterate become better at oral tradition. For oral tradition to reach across a few decades is a doddle. Some societies have passed down their history over many many generations, I believe. So the only folks who could answer your question to an academic standard would be the anthropologists, is my guess.

I am not proposing certainty, you understand, just plausibility <-> probability.

Is G-Mark a different version of the Mark that's in the Bible? If not, do you have a link?

Anyway, the miracles in Mark would be right out of the window, too. If it came from an oral tradition, it makes sense that they would be embellishing it more and more as time went on.

 

[oldbadger]

.................. if you read mythology, etc., you would have realized that the chance for a religion like Xianity to grow that quickly from a vague 'myth' simply doesn't happen, especially with people in those regions........................

This interests me. Do you feel that Palestinian folks of the time were particularly steady people? I tend to think that they were very superstitious and slightly more hysterical than average. ??

 

[Bunyip]

Is G-Mark a different version of the Mark that's in the Bible? If not, do you have a link?

Anyway, the miracles in Mark would be right out of the window, too. If it came from an oral tradition, it makes sense that they would be embellishing it more and more as time went on.

In that respect oral traditions can be as durable or as changeable as written traditions. The Iliad and Odyssy were preserved for countless generations before being written down, and even books change as they are copied ajd copied whilst the language and culture that originally wrote them also changes.

Words both written and spoken are surprisingly fluid things.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In that respect oral traditions can be as durable or as changeable as written traditions. The Iliad and Odyssy were preserved for countless generations before being written down, and even books change as they are copied ajd copied whilst the language and culture that originally wrote them also changes.

Words both written and spoken are surprisingly fluid things.

Yeah, the Old Testament is a great example of that.

 

[Desert Snake]

The point is that speed of spread and popularity are not evidence for the historicity of the tradition.

I believe that in this instance, it is a factor. It was not making life easier for these new converts to become Xians, it took an effort, and even at the time there were 'rules' they had to follow..I mean, really, if someone was not really convinced of the Jesus narrative or teachings, they could still keep worshipping Venus or something, no hassles from the government etc. Not to mention the Jewish converts to Xianity.

 

[oldbadger]

Is G-Mark a different version of the Mark that's in the Bible? If not, do you have a link?

I'm sorry....... I've got lazy..... I call the Gospel of Mark 'G-Mark'. So you do have it already.....

Anyway, the miracles in Mark would be right out of the window, too.

..... I don't think so. I think that hey could have happened in some way, but that they 'grew' in the telling.

If it came from an oral tradition, it makes sense that they would be embellishing it more and more as time went on.

There we go......... a story based on truth, growing with the telling.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I believe that in this instance, it is a factor. It was not making life easier for these new converts to become Xians, it took an effort, and even at the time there were 'rules' they had to follow..I mean, really, if someone was not really convinced of the Jesus narrative or teachings, they could still keep worshipping Venus or something, no hassles from the goverrment etc. Not to mention the Jewish converts to Xianity.

No one was hassled by the Roman government simply because of their religion. Pre-Christian Rome was very tolerant of religion. There were hundreds or thousands of different religions within the Roman Empire. Even when it came to sacrifices for the Emperor, Rome was willing to accommodate people's religious beliefs. If your religion said you couldn't worship the Genius of the Emperor, they would permit you to make a sacrificial prayer to your deity for the blessing of the Emperor and the Empire. The most important thing wasn't worshiping the Emperor, but showing your goodwill and support towards the Emperor and Empire. The Romans really believed that everyone's deities existed and had the power to bless or to curse the Empire, so it was very important for the Romans to be in the good graces of the people's gods. The only time you would've gotten into trouble was for disturbing civil order, as with the wars with the fanatical Jews that refused to co-exist with the Empire and brought down the wrath of the legions on their heads, for instance.

 

[Desert Snake]

This interests me. Do you feel that Palestinian folks of the time were particularly steady people? I tend to think that they were very superstitious and slightly more hysterical than average. ??

I think that there were parallel 'groups' in the region, with varying traditions and beliefs. I don't think your statement would even apply to the, for instance, non-Jewish converts/followers of Yeshu, this is NOTABLE because remember, Jesus is often referred to as the "Jewish Messiah", yet having gentile followers indicates He was 'more' than that.


Not sure if that answers your question.

 

[Amechania]

No one was hassled by the Roman government simply because of their religion. Pre-Christian Rome was very tolerant of religion. There were hundreds or thousands of different religions within the Roman Empire. Even when it came to sacrifices for the Emperor, Rome was willing to accommodate people's religious beliefs. If your religion said you couldn't worship the Genius of the Emperor, they would permit you to make a sacrificial prayer to your deity for the blessing of the Emperor and the Empire. The only time you would've gotten into trouble was for disturbing civil order, as with the wars with the fanatical Jews that refused to co-exist with the Empire and brought down the wrath of the legions on their heads, for instance.

Were not Christians persecuted for failure to make sacrifice to the emporer cult?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm sorry....... I've got lazy..... I call the Gospel of Mark 'G-Mark'. So you do have it already.....

All this time, I thought you were talking about some ancient manuscript!

..... I don't think so. I think that hey could have happened in some way, but that they 'grew' in the telling.

Mark has Jesus walking on water and calming a storm. No, I don't think that happened. Lol.

There we go......... a story based on truth, growing with the telling.

I'm not denying the possibility of it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Were not Christians persecuted for failure to make sacrifice to the emporer cult?

I think the problem was that they refused to even pray for the blessing of God for the Empire. This caused the Romans to become very suspicious towards the Christians. Even the Jews prayed to God for the welfare of the Emperor and Empire, and of course the Jews were not going to be performing sacrifices to a foreign god, so obviously the Romans were making accommodations for people's beliefs in that regard. That's why they were left alone by the Romans throughout most of their history in the Empire (except for those wars, but those were the fault of Jewish fanatics attacking the Empire).

People tend to forget or not realize that, for its first few centuries, Christianity was largely an apocalyptic end of the world cult with messianic fanaticism. Revelations shows this mindset clearly. They thought the world was going to come to an end at any moment and that the Romans were evil. So it makes sense that were not going to obey Rome's dictates to support the Empire, even with accommodations. Only when they gained political power did Christianity change its attitude towards temporal authority and allow Christians to act as citizens and join the military. (Surprise, surprise.)

 

[Bunyip]

I believe that in this instance, it is a factor. It was not making life easier for these new converts to become Xians, it took an effort, and even at the time there were 'rules' they had to follow..I mean, really, if someone was not really convinced of the Jesus narrative or teachings, they could still keep worshipping Venus or something, no hassles from the government etc. Not to mention the Jewish converts to Xianity.

Well exactly, and most of the people in that region remained Jews didn't they? So few of the locals were convinced.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

For some time I have been wanting to,challenge what I see to be a grossly overstated claim:

That the historicity of Jesus has been established. And that only denialists doubt the historicity of Jesus. It is often claimed that the historicity of Jesus is better evidenced than is the historicity of Julius Caeser and it it these over stated claims that I would like to challenge.

My position is that nothing in history is certain, and that the historicity of Jesus has not been adequately established. There is yet to be any evidence to connect the stories with a specific time, place and person.

I would love to discuss/debate this with any other members, but seem to get responses only from those who tend to stick to ad hominem attaks and false accusations. I can guarantee to be polite, accountable and honest, I can and will follow the argument and try to have a fun exchange if you will do the same.

All I ask is an honest discussion without the endless accusations, insults, deceptions and so on.

Evidence of the defendant be adawi
The respondent bring evidence brought
What is the evidence that Jesus is a myth
Is it physical evidence
Or is it evidence of mental
Do you have evidence to prove your invitation
Books or written statements or any document
Therefore, if you are unable to provide this evidence
Drop your call in its condition I

 

[Bunyip]

Evidence of the defendant be adawi
The respondent bring evidence brought
What is the evidence that Jesus is a myth
Is it physical evidence
Or is it evidence of mental
Do you have evidence to prove your invitation
Books or written statements or any document
Therefore, if you are unable to provide this evidence
Drop your call in its condition I

What do you mean 'evidence that Jesus is a myth'? How could such evidence exist? What you are asking for impossible to provide.

I am not claiming that he was a myth my friend, I am asking about how confident we can be that that he DID exist.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Now look at the evidence of mental
We must know that we are living in 2014
We live in the era of human gold
In terms of the various means of communication
And in terms of documentation
In terms of media
Like modern presses
Machinery photography
And also rapid transport
Like airplanes and cars
It was this means available during the life of Jesus
I think the answer is in the negative
Therefore, it is the mind that people who saw Jesus
They couldn't ask their news via satellite
And also not able to print all the sayings of Jesus
And also not able to photograph all events of his life
He was a man famous
So I think, from a personal perspective
The method of transfer of proceedings of the life of Jesus is by watching live
And write about the whole Secretariat
Through the transfer from one generation to another

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

What do you mean 'evidence that Jesus is a myth'? How could such evidence exist? What you are asking for impossible to provide.

I am not claiming that he was a myth my friend, I am asking about how confident we can be that that he DID exist.

You are denying the existence of Jesus
Ask you evidence do you have any proof of your speech
I follow the latter part of the reply

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

What do you mean 'evidence that Jesus is a myth'? How could such evidence exist? What you are asking for impossible to provide.

I am not claiming that he was a myth my friend, I am asking about how confident we can be that that he DID exist.=========
==========================================
What is your definition to the legend or myth

 

[Bunyip]

You are denying the existence of Jesus
Ask you evidence do you have any proof of your speech
I follow the latter part of the reply

No. I am not denying the existence of Jesus.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Myth or mythology
Is any act not improbable
I'll give you an example
We live in a century, the unique and the twenties
Imagine or visualize
The people in the first century a.d. "
He went from Rome to Babylon in two hours you believe man
This is a myth
This is the meaning of Fable
Because the conditions of the event or action is not possible
But today in our time
If someone told you it was six hours in the city away from about 3000 km will believe him
For that speech already enabled
But after 400 years
If rivers of human progress and we go back to the era before the industrial revolution
What will tell advances
Will they say about fairy tale
Permission every time conditions in the standard fable
My friend I I debate you in mind

 

[Desert Snake]

Well exactly, and most of the people in that region remained Jews didn't they? So few of the locals were convinced.

I'm not sure, could be. These things would be 'noted' only if something was to be gained from mentioning them, even Josephus doesn't go into detail about the early Christians. One thing for sure, they were already 'established' before the NT was compiled, there are a few descriptions, though I don't have links to those sources, I've read some.