The Myth of an Historical Jesus?

[dthmstr254]

1)We can't know that he was wise, only that he was viewed to be such by his followers, and that is contingent on 2 sources being uncorrupted by hands that were believers hands, as we have no original copies of the works of these two sources. So we can not "know" either of these things.

2)Same problem as above.

3) This is not even clear from the Gospels. Maybe 2 or 3 years, maybe not. But, in the grand scheme of things, a rather minor point. The legnth of the ministry not withstanding, it's impact is undeniable.

4)See #1. Not proven, not known.

5) Not executed by the Jews, but onPpilates orders. A case can be made that he was reluctant because a very powerful patron would have prefered to deny the Jews any "power or say" in their governance, but his hand was forced because of the "King of the Jews" thing (clear treason, as only Caesar had right to that claim) but, according to Josephus, he was a bastard who would have executed any "rable rouser" at the drop of a hat. In either case, Pilate ordered the execution.

6)My knowledge base is inadiquate here. I will check it out.

7)See #1

8)See #1

So, you suppose the Bible gets these correct, but you do not know this.

BTW, the issue should be how Abraham and Job relate to this, the topic of the thread, and not the other way around. I assumed I was only following the tangental thread of your arguement. The "Our religion is right because it is oldest" stuff you had going, you know.

you know, in history, arguing lack of evidence is a rather pathetic response. it is the only evidence as to the situation, and thus is submittable.
the trial records include the fact that Pilate "released him to the public." washed his hands, symbolizing that it was NOT on his orders. Caesar had no right to the claim of King of the Jews. he was mocking the Jewish prophecies concerning the Messiah returning to be King of the Jews.

[RickSp]

you know, in history, arguing lack of evidence is a rather pathetic response. it is the only evidence as to the situation, and thus is submittable.
the trial records include the fact that Pilate "released him to the public." washed his hands, symbolizing that it was NOT on his orders. Caesar had no right to the claim of King of the Jews. he was mocking the Jewish prophecies concerning the Messiah returning to be King of the Jews.

This is too funny. The trial records? What trial records? You are, of course, referring to the heresay account recorded for the first time 50-75 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Even you know that there are no records of "Jesus" during his lifetime including his execution.

[dthmstr254]

This is too funny. The trial records? What trial records? You are, of course, referring to the heresay account recorded for the first time 50-75 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Even you know that there are no records of "Jesus" during his lifetime including his execution.

no, I am referring to trial records kept by the Roman scribes and the Talmud.

[RickSp]

no, I am referring to trial records kept by the Roman scribes and the Talmud.

The Roman scribes you refer to were writing about 100 CE and the Talmud was finalized in about 700 CE. There are no "trials records" just third or fourth hand accounts.

[lsbskins1]

you know, in history, arguing lack of evidence is a rather pathetic response. it is the only evidence as to the situation, and thus is submittable.
the trial records include the fact that Pilate "released him to the public." washed his hands, symbolizing that it was NOT on his orders. Caesar had no right to the claim of King of the Jews. he was mocking the Jewish prophecies concerning the Messiah returning to be King of the Jews.

I know that in history you can not claim that you have proved something or that you know something that there is an inadequate record for. You can theorize all you want. You can believe whatever you want. You seem to be cherry picking. You are ignoring the fact that, as I and others have stated, none of your evidence is from primary sources. You are choosing to discount the clear possibility that most of your evidence is tainted. Remember, most of the documents you base your assumptions on are not originals, but rather, copies of copies of copies and that these were all transcribed by people who had a dog in the fight. Let me back up. There are certain Roman records that say Pilate was, in fact, assigned to a position in Palestine. But there are no Roman official records that support your contentions that anyone in power believed Jesus to be the divine being that is the basis of your faith. Nor that he was anything. Josephus is corrupted. From him, at best, we can glean that Jesus existed, but in what "state" and what status he held, we just can not know.

[RickSp]

Josephus is corrupted. From him, at best, we can glean that Jesus existed, but in what "state" and what status he held, we just can not know.

It is hard to know what to make of Josephus. He was a Jew born some time after the alleged death of Jesus. His reference to Jesus in his writings is in two short passages in his Antiquities of the Jews completed in 93-94 CE. The problem with the Antiquities is that the only copies that exist appear to have been rewritten.

The Greek versions of Josephus' Antiquities all date from the 11th century and are generally considered to be corrupted at best. Some scholars consider the entire "Testimonium Flavianum" to have been inserted by Christians after the fact. An Arabic version of Antiquities dating from the 10th century has a much pared down "Testimonium Flavianum" which some scholars think maybe closer to the original. No one can really be sure.

So, whatever Josephus may have written some 60 years after the alleged death of Jesus, we have only altered documents from a thousand years later from which to judge.

[lsbskins1]

It is hard to know what to make of Josephus. He was a Jew born some time after the alleged death of Jesus. His reference to Jesus in his writings is in two short passages in his Antiquities of the Jews completed in 93-94 CE. The problem with the Antiquities is that the only copies that exist appear to have been rewritten.

The Greek versions of Josephus' Antiquities all date from the 11th century and are generally considered to be corrupted at best. Some scholars consider the entire "Testimonium Flavianum" to have been inserted by Christians after the fact. An Arabic version of Antiquities dating from the 10th century has a much pared down "Testimonium Flavianum" which some scholars think maybe closer to the original. No one can really be sure.

So, whatever Josephus may have written some 60 years after the alleged death of Jesus, we have only altered documents from a thousand years later from which to judge.

That was why I said "at best". The worst case is that it was all inserted and none is accurate, but the existence of the Arabic version does, at least on some level, support his existence, as much as we can trust that source.

[dthmstr254]

I know that in history you can not claim that you have proved something or that you know something that there is an inadequate record for. You can theorize all you want. You can believe whatever you want. You seem to be cherry picking. You are ignoring the fact that, as I and others have stated, none of your evidence is from primary sources. You are choosing to discount the clear possibility that most of your evidence is tainted. Remember, most of the documents you base your assumptions on are not originals, but rather, copies of copies of copies and that these were all transcribed by people who had a dog in the fight. Let me back up. There are certain Roman records that say Pilate was, in fact, assigned to a position in Palestine. But there are no Roman official records that support your contentions that anyone in power believed Jesus to be the divine being that is the basis of your faith. Nor that he was anything. Josephus is corrupted. From him, at best, we can glean that Jesus existed, but in what "state" and what status he held, we just can not know.

you could make the same argument for any of Homer's works. maybe Homer wrote something totally different, and his followers rewrote it. considering that there is a thousand year long gap between his life and the first catologued copy of his works, we can't be too sure.

[lsbskins1]

you could make the same argument for any of Homer's works. maybe Homer wrote something totally different, and his followers rewrote it. considering that there is a thousand year long gap between his life and the first catologued copy of his works, we can't be too sure.

True. There is even debate over Homer as multiple authors v. Homer as a single author. That does not detract from the beauty and impotance of the works that are printed under the name Homer. These are things that are not known. That does not frighten me. I do not need to pretend there are definitive answers to these factual questions to see the value in the works.

[dthmstr254]

True. There is even debate over Homer as multiple authors v. Homer as a single author. That does not detract from the beauty and impotance of the works that are printed under the name Homer. These are things that are not known. That does not frighten me. I do not need to pretend there are definitive answers to these factual questions to see the value in the works.

the thingt is, for now, historians generally accept that Homer was a person(s). I don't want to get into the multi-homer vs single homer debate, but the evidence we have right now pointing to Homer's existence is in the same state as the evidence pointing toward Jesus' existence. there is currently no evidence against his existence, so ethically, it is better to accept his existence.

[lsbskins1]

We are now going in circles. I never said Jesus did not exist. As a matter of fact, I said I believe that the evidence supports the fact that he did exist. But existence does not equal divinity. You are not making claims simply of existence, but claims of large levels of support from historians for proof of Jesus' existence as reported in the Gospels, Acts, etc. That is what I challenge. Scholarly evidence for Jesus as JESUS CHRIST, son of God, divine in nature, dead then resurected, simply and plainly DOES NOT EXIST.

[RickSp]

the thingt is, for now, historians generally accept that Homer was a person(s). I don't want to get into the multi-homer vs single homer debate, but the evidence we have right now pointing to Homer's existence is in the same state as the evidence pointing toward Jesus' existence. there is currently no evidence against his existence, so ethically, it is better to accept his existence.

The Illiad and the Odyssey are classic works of art regardless of who may have written them. Authorship is an interesting topic for scholars but does little to add or diminish the experience of reading either epic poem.

That is however quite different from a religion which claims, even requires, a personal relationship with a diety. There simply is no direct evidence for the historical Jesus beyond the second, third and fourth hand accounts.