Jesus: Myth, legend, or historical?

[firedragon]

I think, Jesus is not historical.

Why do you believe that?

 

[syo]

Why do you believe that?

Because ''History'' is the science of keeping records of mortal human beings. Jesus never was a mortal human being that lived at 32AD or 33AD or 2001AD etc.

 

[firedragon]

Because ''History'' is the science of keeping records of mortal human beings. Jesus never was a mortal human being that lived at 32AD or 33AD or 2001AD etc.

Oh you mean he was some kind of spiritual person only? Okay I understand.

I asked because the topic is based on a historical approach.

Thanks.

 

[nPeace]

Rather than taking any theological approach to this question but a completely historical approach, what are your thoughts on the subject?

As evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the man who claimed to be the Messiah we only have Josephus as one of the most recognised historical documents mentioning Jesus when calling out James as "the brother of Jesus the one they called Messiah". Thats it.

If I invite people to challenge me to a gunfight, but they can only use guns from my shop. I load the guns. I load mine with live ammo, and load theirs with blanks. When the fight starts, who is going to win?

Your post is a loaded gun, in you hand.
So I brought along my own gun - a loaded one... with live ammo.

The Gospels are recognized as reliable historical documents by first, second, third, forth, century historians, regardless of who objects.

You say Josephus is one of the most recognised historical documents, but some object to Josephus too. Why accept him, and reject the others?

As there are no great extraneous sources to check up on Josephus, shall we then say that since he himself is untrustworthy we must therefore abandon all hope of successfully re-establishing the centuries of his theme?
The said article making this observation, says No.

Josephus is the ultimate bad boy, traitor, turncoat of Jewish history. An "apologist" who wrote in Latin and Greek, he's untrustworthy as a person and unreliable as a historian, we're told. In the entire span of Jewish and human history, it would seem, one cannot find a historian worse than Josephus Flavius. Without Josephus's writing, however, we'd know nearly nothing about several centuries of Jewish history. Still, when hearing Josephus's name, grown scholars, serious women and men, allow their eyebrows to crease, their lips to purse. It's like, well, if you mention Hillary Clinton without immediately assuring everyone in sight that "of course she was a very flawed candidate." You can discuss Herod, the horrific Roman-appointed king of the Jews, and eyes will roll, or Haman, and well, we know what happens when Haman's name comes up. But refer to Josephus in polite academic company, and you'll see: both the ancient writer and you will be become objects of scorn.
There was a general knowing wave of the arm toward his untrustworthiness.

Why treat the Gospels differently?

Between Josephus, and Tacitus, who is more trustworthy? Tacitus is widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.
The Annals is one of the earliest secular historical records to mention Christ, which Tacitus does in connection with Nero's persecution of the Christians.

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The Historical Jesus is based on historical evidence.

...essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence.

The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds.

Your question has been covered time and again, in a number of threads - One here.
...and you and I have been through this on several occasions. 1, 2...

So now that I am armed with a loaded gun with live ammo, what are you going to do. I suggest you flee in terror. You bow out, right.?

Or have I left you lying prone full of holes...

 

[firedragon]

If I invite people to challenge me to a gunfight, but they can only use guns from my shop. I load the guns. I load mine with live ammo, and load theirs with blanks. When the fight starts, who is going to win?

Your post is a loaded gun, in you hand.
So I brought along my own gun - a loaded one... with live ammo.

The Gospels are recognized as reliable historical documents by first, second, third, forth, century historians, regardless of who objects.

You say Josephus is one of the most recognised historical documents, but some object to Josephus too. Why accept him, and reject the others?

As there are no great extraneous sources to check up on Josephus, shall we then say that since he himself is untrustworthy we must therefore abandon all hope of successfully re-establishing the centuries of his theme?
The said article making this observation, says No.

Josephus is the ultimate bad boy, traitor, turncoat of Jewish history. An "apologist" who wrote in Latin and Greek, he's untrustworthy as a person and unreliable as a historian, we're told. In the entire span of Jewish and human history, it would seem, one cannot find a historian worse than Josephus Flavius. Without Josephus's writing, however, we'd know nearly nothing about several centuries of Jewish history. Still, when hearing Josephus's name, grown scholars, serious women and men, allow their eyebrows to crease, their lips to purse. It's like, well, if you mention Hillary Clinton without immediately assuring everyone in sight that "of course she was a very flawed candidate." You can discuss Herod, the horrific Roman-appointed king of the Jews, and eyes will roll, or Haman, and well, we know what happens when Haman's name comes up. But refer to Josephus in polite academic company, and you'll see: both the ancient writer and you will be become objects of scorn.
There was a general knowing wave of the arm toward his untrustworthiness.

Why treat the Gospels differently?

Between Josephus, and Tacitus, who is more trustworthy? Tacitus is widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.
The Annals is one of the earliest secular historical records to mention Christ, which Tacitus does in connection with Nero's persecution of the Christians.

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The Historical Jesus is based on historical evidence.

...essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence.

The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds.

Your question has been covered time and again, in a number of threads - One here.
...and you and I have been through this on several occasions. 1, 2...

So now that I am armed with a loaded gun with live ammo, what are you going to do. I suggest you flee in terror. You bow out, right.?

Or have I left you lying prone full of holes...

I shall ignore all your rhetoric and cut to the chase.

If you wish to discuss the topic of "the 4 canonical gospels-are they reliable historical documents" go ahead in a new thread.

 

[firedragon]

Your question has been covered time and again, in a number of threads - One here.
...and you and I have been through this on several occasions. 1, 2...

I am sorry. But I dont know who you are and what you are referring to. This is only an Internet forum. But of course this topic has been covered a million times, and even the topic you newly brought up in your post has been covered a million times (maybe plus or minus a million for both). So, err, I can't understand your point. Does that prove anything? But if you and I have engaged in this topic earlier, I cannot remember and it still does not make a point.

Have a good day.

 

[nPeace]

I shall ignore all your rhetoric and cut to the chase.

If you wish to discuss the topic of "the 4 canonical gospels-are they reliable historical documents" go ahead in a new thread.

No need.

 

[nPeace]

I am sorry. But I dont know who you are and what you are referring to. This is only an Internet forum. But of course this topic has been covered a million times, and even the topic you newly brought up in your post has been covered a million times (maybe plus or minus a million for both). So, err, I can't understand your point. Does that prove anything? But if you and I have engaged in this topic earlier, I cannot remember and it still does not make a point.

Have a good day.

My point is this...
Your statement,

As evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the man who claimed to be the Messiah we only have Josephus as one of the most recognised historical documents mentioning Jesus when calling out James as "the brother of Jesus the one they called Messiah". Thats it.

... is false.
Demonstrably so.
Have a wonderful day.

 

[firedragon]

No need.

Your prerogative.

 

[firedragon]

My point is this...
Your statement,

... is false.
Demonstrably so.
Have a wonderful day.

Why dont you open a new thread to discuss that?

Cheers.

 

[nPeace]

Why dont you open a new thread to discuss that?

Cheers.

Discuss what? That you are wrong? Well, This certainly is a marvel. You want to play with your loaded gun, and ask people to empty theirs. Go ahead. it's typically what you do.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Discuss what? That you are wrong? Well, This certainly is a marvel. You want to play with your loaded gun, and ask people to empty theirs. Go ahead. it's typically what you do.

Cheers.

Alright. So you wish to discuss the 4 gospels as historic documents. No problem. I will open a new thread, but you already said no need. So what could one do? To discuss or not to discuss, that's the question.

Cheers.

 

[nPeace]

Alright. So you wish to discuss the 4 gospels as historic documents. No problem. I will open a new thread, but you already said no need. So what could one do? To discuss or not to discuss, that's the question.

Cheers.

No need to go through that again Dragon.
I showed you the historical evidence in this thread you opened on "Jesus: Myth, legend, or historical", and you ignored all of it.
Why do you need to open another thread, if you are going to ignore what you don't want to consider?
Why not deal with what you asked posters to deal with?

 

[firedragon]

No need to go through that again Dragon.
I showed you the historical evidence in this thread you opened on "Jesus: Myth, legend, or historical", and you ignored all of it.
Why do you need to open another thread, if you are going to ignore what you don't want to consider?
Why not deal with what you asked posters to deal with?

What historical evidence have you shown? You mean that Pdf saying the Gospels are historical? That is a separate topic. And unrelated to the OP. If you dont like the OP, that's your problem.

You want some opportunity to insult someone go ahead if it makes your day. Ciao.

 

[nPeace]

What historical evidence have you shown? You mean that Pdf saying the Gospels are historical? That is a separate topic. And unrelated to the OP. If you dont like the OP, that's your problem.

Perhaps you did not read the post.

You want some opportunity to insult someone go ahead if it makes your day. Ciao.

Perhaps I should not have said anything contrary to you.
Peace out.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps you did not read the post.


Perhaps I should not have said anything contrary to you.
Peace out.

Contrary? Lol.

Have a good day.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@firedragon
A historical Jesus certainly existed. Although we have little direct evidence of him, we certainly have plenty of direct evidence of his brother James, who was the bishop of the central church in Jerusalem (and some would argue the head of the Christian movement).

The real question is not whether a historical Jesus existed, but who that historical Jesus was. It is not the Jesus of the gospels, the Jesus that Christians believe in, the Jesus that did miracles and claimed to be God. He was a very Jewish Jesus, who taught after the teachings of the school of Hillel, and argued with the school of Shammai (with the exception of the teaching on divorce) and entertained lively discussion in areas where halakhah was not yet set. He did aspire to being the messiah, but failed, at least in the way that Jews define the term.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon
A historical Jesus certainly existed. Although we have little direct evidence of him, we certainly have plenty of direct evidence of his brother James, who was the bishop of the central church in Jerusalem (and some would argue the head of the Christian movement).

The real question is not whether a historical Jesus existed, but who that historical Jesus was. It is not the Jesus of the gospels, the Jesus that Christians believe in, the Jesus that did miracles and claimed to be God. He was a very Jewish Jesus, who taught after the teachings of the school of Hillel, and argued with the school of Shammai (with the exception of the teaching on divorce) and entertained lively discussion in areas where halakhah was not yet set. He did aspire to being the messiah, but failed, at least in the way that Jews define the term.

I dont doubt about James by possibility. But what evidence do we have James was a Bishop of a church?

You are right. The real question is who was the historical Jesus. But this topic was opened due to very recent conversations leading up to this in this very forum. Who can be discussed in another thread.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I dont doubt about James by possibility. But what evidence do we have James was a Bishop of a church?

You are right. The real question is who was the historical Jesus. But this topic was opened due to very recent conversations leading up to this in this very forum. Who can be discussed in another thread.

Bishop simply means overseer. There are many records of James being the overseer of the church in Jerusalem. The English word bishop comes from the Greek word episokopos.

 

[firedragon]

Bishop simply means overseer. There are many records of James being the overseer of the church in Jerusalem. The English word bishop comes from the Greek word episokopos.

What history says that if you don’t mind?