Further note: the gospel authors could fully intend to base the story on what they thought was a real person, without it actually being a real person. They had no way to verify all the hearsay stories against actual events, except by comparing to more hearsay. And even if it did correlate with someone, it most likely correlated with loads of people and they couldn't consciously have been picking any individual one, especially since the stories were very likely to contain elements of more than one person. (Where's your evidence for this outrageous statement!!??! I know how hearsay works, that's what.)

I'm not saying this did happen, I'm saying it's a possibility. I don't understand the confidence some people have in decades of hearsay. Even incredibly recent hearsay is thrown out of court.

For the billionth time, I'm not denying there could have been a single historical figure underneath it all. I'm just considering other plausible scenarios. I don't actually care either way, it's just an interesting thing to study. I'm not trying to take anyone's historical Jesus away, you can keep the fucker

No that's not what "you're saying" this is verbatim what you're saying:

"1) Is Jesus of Nazareth, as written in the bible, a real person? No."

The possibility you just mentioned (or rather the scenario) is absolutely ludicrous. You show a poor understanding of literacy records, as they exist, for the ancient world. Take for example the Gospel of Thomas that contains no narrative and only sayings of Jesus. It supports the hypothesis that other sayings documents existed that predate any of the New Testament texts, some of which would likely have been written down at the time Jesus lived.

Take for example the earliest Christian creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 which contains a statement of faith taught to Paul, and one that dates right back to the few years following the crucifixion of Jesus. Paul doesn't say who taught him the creed, nor does he say who it came from. For example suppose there was a Christian named Zac and that he came up with the creed - if Paul had attributed it to Zac it would likely have indicated that Zac came up with it just recently and it needs clarification for its authority - however what Paul doesn't say is just as interesting as what he does say - by not attributing it to anyone in particular, but simply saying "for I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received" clearly implies his readers are familiar with the creed already. This establishes the creed as not just an accepted one in the early Christian church, but also one that is already well known and appears to be an essential statement of faith. One that Paul needn't have even included for his readers of the time - but he does so anyway to remind them of their faith. Since we also know the date of Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus (c. 31-36 AD) we know this creed must be extremely early to predate Paul's conversion.

This fact alone disproves the possibility - even a slim one - that the entire gospel of Salvation was intentionally fabricated. Being that, as I've just demonstrated, you can date the 1Cor15 creed to before 36AD, the possibility - even a slim one - that it was based on a mythical figure is also dismissed. Finally, to claim that Jesus of Nazareth is a composite of a number of historical figures is also clearly refuted by the evidence.

(August 19, 2015 at 2:17 am)robvalue Wrote: Further note: the gospel authors could fully intend to base the story on what they thought was a real person, without it actually being a real person. They had no way to verify all the hearsay stories against actual events, except by comparing to more hearsay. And even if it did correlate with someone, it most likely correlated with loads of people and they couldn't consciously have been picking any individual one, especially since the stories were very likely to contain elements of more than one person. (Where's your evidence for this outrageous statement!!??! I know how hearsay works, that's what.)

How do you know the scenario you propose is as likely as you make it out to be? Please show us through the texts how you've arrived at this conclusion. If you say you have nothing to go by, then you are just guessing just for the sake of it, and that's terrible scholarship.

Also, when dealing with multiple possible explanations, the simplest one in line with the evidence is often the most plausible. We could have multiple things wrong about our understanding of various historical events that have occurred in the history of mankind, but we stick to whatever we've got until/unless we come up with new evidence or a more effective explanation that brings forth a more plausible scenario.

In the case of Jesus, based on what we've got, his historical existence seems to be the more plausible case thus far because his existence explains our current understanding of the history of the early Christians and their beliefs, and what we have gleaned out of the texts in terms of motivation and reasoning, better than him being a myth.

So to be clear, it's not that scholars (or us normal posters arguing for Jesus' historical existence) rely on hearsay here, it's about plausibility based on the evidence we have.

Quote:For the billionth time, I'm not denying there could have been a single historical figure underneath it all. I'm just considering other plausible scenarios. I don't actually care either way, it's just an interesting thing to study. I'm not trying to take anyone's historical Jesus away, you can keep the fucker

Why did you answer no then to the question of Jesus' existence?

Because he wasn't called Jesus. That was not his name, if he was real; it was invented later.

What else are you actually contesting in my list?

Sure, feel free to ignore everything I've said if you want. The premise "hearsay is unreliable" isn't something I feel I need to prove, nor do I need to prove the narrative didn't happen exactly as written, that's the argument from ignorance. I don't much care if historians generally just believe everything they read, I do not; especially when the authors talk about resurrections, angels and miracles and such. How many other testimonies would you believe that included such details?

I'm considering all options, including the one you seem to be suggesting I should accept, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

I'm also discussing and hoping to learn. You seem to want me to just accept what the majority say and leave it at that.

(August 19, 2015 at 5:11 am)robvalue Wrote: Because he wasn't called Jesus. That was not his name, it was invented later.

What else are you actually contesting in my list?

Sure, feel free to ignore everything I've said if you want. The premise "hearsay is unreliable" isn't something I feel I need to prove, nor do I need to prove the narrative didn't happen exactly as written. I don't much care if historians generally just believe everything they read, I do not. I'm considering all options, including the one you seem to be suggesting I should accept, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Yet you ignored pretty much everything I said in the last post. Didn't I just say it isn't about the reliability of hearsay? And yet you go on to argue about it regardless.

You want me to dispute your answers to the checklist? We're disputing one answer right now, right?

But if you want me to comment on another one, sure, ok. What about this?

Quote:Unclear, but somewhat likely. The similarity between Jesus and many previous mythical figures is striking also.

I would like you to elaborate on what you mean here. What striking similarities? And to whom exactly? I get the feeling you yourself are believing everything you read from a certain source.

Err... I don't even know what you're asking me really anymore, sorry. I'm trying my best. We appear to be talking past each other. I think I'll leave it. You keep accusing me of things I don't think I have actually done, so this isn't going anywhere.

EDIT: as a parting gift, here's a website about the name Jesus not being around back then. I'm sure there are better ones out there, this was just a quick search. It's common knowledge as far as I'm aware.

http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm

You're just further showing your ignorance Robv. The Hebrew alphabet didn't contain any vowels - so how exactly do you suppose that Jot/Yod represented I and not J?

(August 19, 2015 at 5:26 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm also discussing and hoping to learn. You seem to want me to just accept what the majority say and leave it at that.

No, I wanted you to focus on what I was saying exactly. Your strategy, it seems, in this exchange with me in this thread was to ignore my actual argument and move on to other tangential points that I don't care much to address (such as hearsay unreliability or your checklist). I told you it isn't about accepting hearsay or just believing whatever you read, it's plausibility, but you didn't consider that at all. So yes, I'm accusing you of ignoring what I said and strawmanning as well.

Historians aren't so stupid that they believe everything they read. If that's what you got from what has been said in this thread, then you didn't get much. So, sorry, but I don't feel bad that we're not furthering this conversation.

Well from my point of view, you've been completely misunderstanding me the whole time, and I don't seem to be making myself any clearer. I didn't mean to strawman you, and you didn't mean to strawman me, we just had communication issues. I hoped to end it on a civil note.

Also Robv, as you can clearly see Iesus spelled with I:



Published 73 years before the first published use of the letter J in the English language. Also what do you care whether his name is spoken as "Iesus", "Yesus", "Jesus", "Ieoshua", "Yeoshua", "Jeoshua", "Ieshua", "Yeshua", "Jeshua", "Ieshu", "Yeshu", or "Jeshu"? Have I covered all possibilities (probably not)?

Here you are Robv, explain this one smartass:

That's page 7 of P66 and contains John 1:48-2:3. Iesus's name appears THREE times (by my count) and it's spelled in Greek ἸΗΣΟῦΣ see if you can find it.

Can't find it?



I iust wanted to point out to you that the page you linked to is iunk with no obiectivity to it, no iustification, no value whatsoever.