Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[Minimalist]

With regard to historical-critical research, what is the point of distinguishing canonical and non-canonical writings?

Canonical writings have a point of view they are pushing in regards to their subject matter, best expressed above as propagandistic.

Tell me, when Homer writes:

[43] So he spoke in prayer, and Phoebus Apollo heard him. Down from the peaks of Olympus he strode, angered at heart, bearing on his shoulders his bow and covered quiver. The arrows rattled on the shoulders of the angry god as he moved, and his coming was like the night. Then he sat down apart from the ships and let fly an arrow: terrible was the twang of the silver bow. The mules he assailed first and the swift dogs, but then on the men themselves he let fly his stinging shafts, and struck; and constantly the pyres of the dead burned thick.

do you apply the same standard or is it only for judeo-xtian nonsense?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19 where a certain James is distinguished from John and Peter by being the adelphos of the Lord.

Evidence? Certainly,but neither strong nor credible. 'Tenous at best' if I was being polite or conciliatory. But I'm not so I'll be blunt;bullshit.


I have never yet seen any proof that the New Testament is anything more than the mythology of Christianity, which may or may not be very loosely based on an historical person or persons.

It is also worth pointing out that NONE of the evidence cited by apologists meets the standards of proof demanded by modern historians. (real ones,not apologists masquerading as objective scholars) Perhaps begin with one of the most basic of the criteria: contemporary accounts;there aren't any. Absence of evidence does not actually prove anything,but it DOES strongly imply actual absence is the most likely explanation.

[Barre]

Couple concerns I have over the topic of the "historical Jesus":

1. What do you mean by "historical Jesus"?

An actual individual.

Jesus without the miracles and divinity?

Yes.

You don't have much of anything left.

Right.

It's kind of like saying "historical Superman but without all the super powers".

Yes, sort of like that. A Jesus that was deified by his followers.

2. The Gospels themselves have never offered a coherent story that can be reconciled internally, with each of the four accounts or with history. There's no need to look for any evidence to confirm the story if the story itself is incoherent.

What do you mean by "the story?" As we would expect, there are several "stories" of Jesus within early Christianity. For example, the Letter of James reflects a tradition that differs from Paul. Jame's audience were Messianic believing Jews while Paul preached a cosmic Christ of Hellenistic Judaism. Also, we know that the gospels contain different literary layers with their own story, such as we find in Q or gMark.

3. Christian apologists will say there's no 1st century extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus because he was an obscure rabbi that only preached to the poor.

The inside/outside the Canon distinction is methodologically irrelevant.

Yet the Gospel accounts say that his ministry was both successful and controversial.

Yes, the final form of all four gospels hold that view. But in gMark, we have Jesus presented as a tragic hero (There is no resurrection episode in gMark).

Like with many other aspects of apologetics, they tie themselves into knots trying to have things both ways.

I am no apologist for the Gospel's propaganda.

4. If you're going to debate the historical Jesus, be prepared for what I call "scholars say shuffle". You will waste an incredible amount of time and energy trying to nail them down while they try to portray you as some kind of conspiracy crackpot. Looking back at my own debates on the subject, it's not worth it. Stick with a critical review of the Bible. That's time better spent.

I have come to the same conclusion. No one is answering some simple questions I posed. I wish I had some dust on my sandals.

[Happy UnBeliever]

With regard to historical-critical research, what is the point of distinguishing canonical and non-canonical writings? Works that fall into both categories remain historical documents. From a historical-critical point of view, the religiously based inside/outside distinction is methodologically irrelevant.

I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19 where a certain James is distinguished from John and Peter by being the adelphos of the Lord. I have cited this text before and have not yet received a paraphrase that is superior to the traditional understanding that an actual sibling of the Lord is what is meant. So if someone can clearly state how they are interpreting the phrase in question, we could compare it with the traditional, literal interpretation of the word as found in this context.

I would say that we have strong evidence for a historical Jesus in Gal 1:19

Really. Gal 1:19 was about myth jesus being resurrected from the dead. Secondly no NT or church writer ever used Galatians 1.19 to claim James had a HUMAN brother. Paul writes of this resurrected myth:

1 Cor 15.3-8
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul was not even a contemporary of this jesus. And the author of Acts did not write that Paul saw the resurrected jesus. Paul's testimony is a lie as written cannot be trusted, why? jesus was not even alive at the time!

[Minimalist]

"Paul" may be as concocted as "jesus."

As has been noted there are few historical "markers" in these writings and one that does exist places 2 Corinthians into the 1st century BC.

[Happy UnBeliever]

"Paul" may be as concocted as "jesus."

As has been noted there are few historical "markers" in these writings and one that does exist places 2 Corinthians into the 1st century BC.

Your right. But its written in 55-60AD long after the fact and to be of any use in confirming an historical jesus. Paul never laid eyes on a physical jesus.

[Minimalist]

But its written in 55-60AD

That's the story but where is the evidence that this is the case?

2 Corinthians 11:32-33

New International Version (NIV)

32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

I've been through this before and not a single xtian has dared to refute it.

Aretas III, King of Nabatea, conquered Damascus c 84 BC and held it for a generation until the Roman army of Pompey the Great came along.

Aretas III had been a player in the dynastic battles of the Hasmonean kingdom of Judaea in the early first century backing one claimant or another.

Xtians assert, without a shred of evidence ( as is their custom), that the Aretas in "Paul" is Aretas IV who died in 40 AD, a few short years after attacking Herod Antipas and being chased away by the army of Lucius Vitellius, governor of Syria. There is no indication from any Roman or Jewish source that the Romans ever gave up control of Damascus which was, as the western terminus of the Silk Road, a very valuable piece of real estate.

Unlike a lot of xtian bullshit we can point to an actual historical circumstance where Aretas III did rule Damascus. That it happens to be in the first century BC is discomforting to xtians but who cares!

[Happy UnBeliever]

Most everything that goes against what they think they believe is discomforting to them.

[helmespc]

So we're pretty much at the conclusion that there is no proof here... the same conclusion I have reached many times in the past. So why is it considered undisputed fact that he DID exist? My partner is a master's student in history... she and her (highly intelligent) colleagues have repeatedly rejected the notion that Jesus is not real, with no real argument as to why we shouldn't question the existence of a historical Jesus? I've pretty much taken for granted that none of the events in the bible are historical in the least, and I don't understand why anyone else would come to the same conclusion.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So we're pretty much at the conclusion that there is no evidence here...

NO, 'we ' are not.

I tried to explain that evidence is not the same as proof. There are shit loads of evidence for an historical Jesus. However, none of it is CREDIBLE and none of it constitutes PROOF. IE there is evidence but no proof