Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[DeistPaladin]

Excellent. Please notify me when the thread is ready to go.

I've put in a request to the other moderators for someone to take up the role of moderating the debate.

I propose the debate title: "Gospels: Based on a true story?" This would fit with your proposed definition of a historical Jesus being one who had a successful ministry (presumably one that was at least the basis for the Gospel stories).

[Fpvpilot]

Excellent. Please notify me when the thread is ready to go.

I've put in a request to the other moderators for someone to take up the role of moderating the debate.

I propose the debate title: "Gospels: Based on a true story?" This would fit with your proposed definition of a historical Jesus being one who had a successful ministry (presumably one that was at least the basis for the Gospel stories).

That sounds good.

[Fpvpilot]

Excellent. Please notify me when the thread is ready to go.

I've put in a request to the other moderators for someone to take up the role of moderating the debate.

I propose the debate title: "Gospels: Based on a true story?" This would fit with your proposed definition of a historical Jesus being one who had a successful ministry (presumably one that was at least the basis for the Gospel stories).

Hi, DeistPaladin,

Again, we can certainly keep the title the same. I know that you want to bring the size of Jesus’s ministry into the debate. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that Jesus’s existence and the size of his following are two different topics. Therefore, I will debate you on the topic that I originally proposed to Minimalist to debate on. You agreed to debate in his place, so in order to step up to the invitation I extended to Minimalist, I cordially request that you remain focused on Jesus’s existence. The resolution being: Jesus was a Jewish man who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’s authority during the reign of Tiberius Caesar and Jesus was a reputed miracle worker. This resolution pertains perfectly to the basic gospel description of Jesus’s career. Observe that I never argued that the Gospels are 100% accurate on every detail that they record.

Please confirm whether or not you still wish to debate on Jesus's existence.

Kind regards,

Fpvpilot

[The Grand Nudger]

"Well, before I embarrass myself I'd like to rule a few things out......"

[DeistPaladin]

Fine, let's iron out this point thoroughly before we start debate:

The bare minimum for the definition of "historical Jesus" I will agree to is that we can be comfortable putting the label "based on a true story" on all four Gospel accounts. While this does not mean that the Gospels must be 100% accurate. It doesn't even have to mean that all the miracles were later added to the story (although I would argue you don't have much left, that it's like arguing for a "historical Superman" but without all the super powers).

The successful ministry, attainable by a charismatic mortal, is a bare minimum to qualify as "based on a true story". (Spoiler alert for my debate points) Jesus, according to the Gospels, was a controversial superstar of his time. People from neighboring provinces flocked to see his miracles. Herod Antipas and other rich and powerful people were amazed by him (Antipas once asked if he was John the Baptist reincarnated). The priests were driven so frothing mad that they met on Passover Eve in a conspiracy to get rid of this guy.

I'll be generous and let you say the miracles were all made up. But if you try to argue that he was just an obscure rabbi known only to his small band of followers, you are effectively saying the Gospel accounts are all lies, both in their description of his ministry and his miracles.

Take away the miracles AND the ministry and you have nothing left except for a few pithy gems of wisdom, most of which is a re-hashing of Greek philosophy and some of the nicer OT values. And even these only come to us from the Gospel accounts, sources which must be dubious if we are to denounce their claims regarding his ministry and miracles as lies and exaggerations.

Just to be clear, I am *NOT* going to get suckered into trying to prove a negative. I'm already making generous concessions by using your holy scriptures as primary source material.

This means no Jesus-of-the-gaps. It's a favorite tactic among some apologists to argue for some guy named Yeshua who was one of countless doom criers and messiah wannabes in 1st century Judea who ended up one of many religious leaders crucified by Pilate and later some wild stories were told about him that might or might not have born any resemblance to the actual story and we can't expect that anyone would have noticed him at the time but ninja fact checking commandos would have cried "false" if anyone had ever lied...

I'm putting the kibosh on that right now. Successful ministry is a bare minimum.

[Fpvpilot]

Fine, let's iron out this point thoroughly before we start debate:

The bare minimum for the definition of "historical Jesus" I will agree to is that we can be comfortable putting the label "based on a true story" on all four Gospel accounts. While this does not mean that the Gospels must be 100% accurate. It doesn't even have to mean that all the miracles were later added to the story (although I would argue you don't have much left, that it's like arguing for a "historical Superman" but without all the super powers).

The successful ministry, attainable by a charismatic mortal, is a bare minimum to qualify as "based on a true story". (Spoiler alert for my debate points) Jesus, according to the Gospels, was a controversial superstar of his time. People from neighboring provinces flocked to see his miracles. Herod Antipas and other rich and powerful people were amazed by him (Antipas once asked if he was John the Baptist reincarnated). The priests were driven so frothing mad that they met on Passover Eve in a conspiracy to get rid of this guy.

I'll be generous and let you say the miracles were all made up. But if you try to argue that he was just an obscure rabbi known only to his small band of followers, you are effectively saying the Gospel accounts are all lies, both in their description of his ministry and his miracles.

Take away the miracles AND the ministry and you have nothing left except for a few pithy gems of wisdom, most of which is a re-hashing of Greek philosophy and some of the nicer OT values. And even these only come to us from the Gospel accounts, sources which must be dubious if we are to denounce their claims regarding his ministry and miracles as lies and exaggerations.

Just to be clear, I am *NOT* going to get suckered into trying to prove a negative. I'm already making generous concessions by using your holy scriptures as primary source material.

This means no Jesus-of-the-gaps. It's a favorite tactic among some apologists to argue for some guy named Yeshua who was one of countless doom criers and messiah wannabes in 1st century Judea who ended up one of many religious leaders crucified by Pilate and later some wild stories were told about him that might or might not have born any resemblance to the actual story and we can't expect that anyone would have noticed him at the time but ninja fact checking commandos would have cried "false" if anyone had ever lied...

I'm putting the kibosh on that right now. Successful ministry is a bare minimum.

Hi, DeistPaladin,

Thank you for your response. Again, the number of his followers is another topic.
I am still a bit unclear regarding whether or not you accept the conditions that I specified.

Please confirm if you would be willing to debate on the following topic or not:

Jesus was a Jewish man who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’s authority during the reign of Tiberius Caesar and Jesus was a reputed miracle worker.

Please let me know if your answer is yes or no.

Thanks,

Fpvpilot

[DeistPaladin]

I am still a bit unclear regarding whether or not you accept the conditions that I specified.

Sorry, was there a part of "you're not going to sucker me" that was unclear?

Please confirm if you would be willing to debate on the following topic or not:

Jesus was a Jewish man who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’s authority during the reign of Tiberius Caesar and Jesus was a reputed miracle worker.

Please let me know if your answer is yes or no.

There was not just one Jewish leader who fit that description but many.

Pilate was notorious as a governor, brutal even by Roman standards, who killed a great many Jews according to both Philo and Josephus. There were also many doom criers, many messiah wannabes and many alleged miracle workers. Since "Yeshua" was a common name, I have little doubt that we could dig up several that fit your vague description.

The answer was and is "no".

My counter offer is to debate you on the existence of a historical Jesus, the bare minimum of which must include a successful ministry similar to the one accounted for in the Gospels.

If you answer "no", I'll take that as an admission that the Gospels are myths, nothing more.

[Fpvpilot]

I am still a bit unclear regarding whether or not you accept the conditions that I specified.

Sorry, was there a part of "you're not going to sucker me" that was unclear?

Please confirm if you would be willing to debate on the following topic or not:

Jesus was a Jewish man who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’s authority during the reign of Tiberius Caesar and Jesus was a reputed miracle worker.

Please let me know if your answer is yes or no.

There was not just one Jewish leader who fit that description but many.

Pilate was notorious as a governor, brutal even by Roman standards, who killed a great many Jews according to both Philo and Josephus. There were also many doom criers, many messiah wannabes and many alleged miracle workers. Since "Yeshua" was a common name, I have little doubt that we could dig up several that fit your vague description.

The answer was and is "no".

My counter offer is to debate you on the existence of a historical Jesus, the bare minimum of which must include a successful ministry similar to the one accounted for in the Gospels.

If you answer "no", I'll take that as an admission that the Gospels are myths, nothing more.

Hi, DeistPaladin,

That is fine. Thank you for the clarification. I have no intention on establishing whether or not the Gospels are historically accurate overall, because that is not the topic of this thread. I, therefore, rescind my offer to engage in formal debate.

Out of curiosity, who were those other miracle workers and people who claimed to be the messiah? I am aware of some Jewish figures who promised to perform miracles, but none that actually purportedly did so. Also, which sources mention them? Please give precise citation details.

Kind regards,

Fpvpilot

---

This is my farewell post. I wish everyone here the very best in 2012. Hopefully, I will be able to visit with you again when more time permits. Thank you for the dialog.

Kind regards,

Fpvpilot

[DeistPaladin]

Out of curiosity, who were those other miracle workers and people who claimed to be the messiah?

The very NT of the Bible details numerous miracles of those who were not even declared to be the Messiah at all. It was a more superstitious time and claims of miracles are hardly distinctive any more than the name "Yeshua".

However, if you insist on a messianic claimant who performed miracles, this is detailed in a 4th century Talmudic entry. Sometimes offered by apologists as evidence for their own Jesus, it says "Yeshua" was condemned for heresy and sorcery and crucified after a trial. At first glance, it does seem like a reference to the Christian Jesus, albeit a very late one. Then we read that he had five named disciples (none of them familiar names), the trial lasted 40 days and he was connected with the government. Not your godboy but another Yeshua with disciples that allegedly worked magic.

Basically, you want to argue Jesus-Of-The-Gaps and try to con me into trying to prove a negative. Uh uh.

[Cyberman]

[Exit, pursued by a bear.]