Historical Jesus

[Tom Sawyer]

The level of evidence needed for the existence of Socrates is lower than the level needed that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

See there's your problem.

The bible is historical evidence that people sincerely believed they had witnessed miracles.
You don't have to believe in actual miracles - just do what the climate change and holocaust deniers do. You just tell yourself they were deluded or hallucinating or lying. Simple.

But this Jesus Myther conspiracy theory is even more extraordinary than the lesser claim that Gospel writers were honestly mistaken.

No, it's like telling yourself that your grandfather's cousin knew a guy who'd been abducted by aliens and anally probed aboard their spaceship back in the 1960s, so there's a witness account of alien abductions and anyone who disputes this historical fact is pretty much the same as a holocaust denier.

 

[blastula]

Rather, much of history is in the less-than-certain category. But it's still reasonable to believe it, as probable. We don't need certainty or 100% proof in order to believe it as probable.

This is true.

So one must to do better than complain that something in history is in the "not proven" category. I.e., for many of the facts in the historical record there is less evidence than there is for the miracles of Jesus. I.e., even if this is "not proven" it doesn't make it less credible than much of the historical record which is commonly accepted as probable even though it's "not proven."

This is not. Name one mainstream historical fact with less evidence than Jesus miracles.

You are confusing "literary text taken at face value" with "historical evidence." They are not one and the same. All texts are analyzed within some context to determine it's historical value.

 

[none]

Dude, it's not a conspiracy it's a lack of evidence
These people don't even understand the evidence they claim is legitimate,compelling, or credible
Gish gallop, away

 

[Learner]

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.

Jews have always had strong oral traditions ,as still practiced today. By this cultural method long in practice was perfect for news to spread widely and very quickly during Jesus's life time and after his death with later written accounts.

 

[Lion IRC]

Define 'contemporaneous'.

Socrates - 470 BC
Oldest extant text referring to Socrates - 900 AD
That's a 1200 year gap!

The Gospel manuscripts are much closer (in years) to the events they report than that.

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.

Even in the case of a missing (non existent) manuscript, from the time of Socrates there's still no certainty that Plato himself would have been the person writing on the piece of paper we presume contains his original words about Socrates.

So it's even more tenuous when we are talking about a copy of a copy of a copy leading to the one text we have 1,200 years after Socrates.

Contrast that with actual handwriting appearing on a copy of a copy of a copy which dates within 50 years of the events in question. Even eyewitnesses in modern courtrooms don't type their own testimony.

 

[blastula]

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.

Jews have always had strong oral traditions ,as still practiced today. By this cultural method long in practice was perfect for news to spread widely and very quickly during Jesus's life time and after his death with later written accounts.

Oral traditions are not historically reliable sources.

 

[none]

Hey, wait minute these same ancient people's saw Zeus too

 

[Learner]

Contrast that with actual handwriting appearing on a copy of a copy of a copy which dates within 50 years of the events in question. Even eyewitnesses in modern courtrooms don't type their own testimony.

Do you mean that Tutankhamen didn't chisel away on those walls himself? Oh dear, I thought we knew about him and this was history.

 

[blastula]

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.

Even in the case of a missing (non existent) manuscript, from the time of Socrates there's still no certainty that Plato himself would have been the person writing on the piece of paper we presume contains his original words about Socrates.

So it's even more tenuous when we are talking about a copy of a copy of a copy leading to the one text we have 1,200 years after Socrates. Contrast that with actual handwriting appearing on a copy of a copy of a copy which dates within 50 years of the events in question. Even eyewitnesses in modern courtrooms don't type their own testimony.

The NT is comprised of copies of copies. There are no original manuscripts of the NT. There is no complete book earlier than the third century. And the gospels are not transcriptions of dictated testimony.

 

[Learner]

Oral traditions are not historically reliable sources.

Jews also having something similar with Muslims, and that is by oral tradition to learn and recite word for word their individual respected holy teachings by the precise accurate recitation; If one word is altered then this will be noticed and called out by a mass number of people who know it word for word.

Both have acknowledged Jesus's existence and the historic reliability of the method is exampled by this oral tradition.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Jews also having something similar with Muslims, and that is by oral tradition to learn and recite word for word their individual respected holy teachings by the precise accurate recitation; If one word is altered then this will be noticed and called out by a mass number of people who know it word for word.

So, how does a reliable method of producing a copy provide evidence that the original was eyewitness testimony?
Does a reliable copy of a copy of a copy actually establish that the source was not fictional?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.

Even in the case of a missing (non existent) manuscript, from the time of Socrates there's still no certainty that Plato himself would have been the person writing on the piece of paper we presume contains his original words about Socrates.

So it's even more tenuous when we are talking about a copy of a copy of a copy leading to the one text we have 1,200 years after Socrates.

Contrast that with actual handwriting appearing on a copy of a copy of a copy which dates within 50 years of the events in question. Even eyewitnesses in modern courtrooms don't type their own testimony.

People living in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.

And 50 years is a very long time to wait to record the actions of the son of god. Particularly for a faith dependent on the written word.

 

[Learner]

So, how does a reliable method of producing a copy provide evidence that the original was eyewitness testimony?
Does a reliable copy of a copy of a copy actually establish that the source was not fictional?

Regarding Jesus, he was alive at the time his teachings of a new gospel was being taught to masses. Traditional oral methods for teaching of Jesus from those days would be quite difficult to alter when mass followers were around to pass on to others even by the 3rd century and would remain unchanged even today regardless of the enumerable existing denominations.

I wouldn't doubt his enemies unable to stop his gospel or corrupt his teachings would have tried to hide him from existence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, how does a reliable method of producing a copy provide evidence that the original was eyewitness testimony?
Does a reliable copy of a copy of a copy actually establish that the source was not fictional?

Regarding Jesus, he was alive at the time his teachings of a new gospel was being taught to masses.

According to stories that recorded an oral tradition. That doesn't begin to actually answer the question.

Traditional oral methods for teaching of Jesus from those days would be quite difficult to alter when mass followers were around to pass on to others even by the 3rd century and would remain unchanged even today regardless of the enumerable existing denominations.

You're assuming that the oral stories of Jesus were formalized in this manner. Do you have any evidence that they were preserved that way, the same as the teachings of the Jewish holy histories?
And that still doesn't come close to establishing that the origin of the Jesus stories was, in fact, Jesus.

I wouldn't doubt his enemies unable to stop his gospel or corrupt his teachings would have tried to hide him from existence.

You're assuming rather a lot, there.
How about answering the question?

The Navajo also have a tradition of oral stories that were passed down with great care to keep them from being altered.
In your estimation, does the simple fact of these oral stories provide evidence of Thelgeth (hairy, headless monsters), or of the tricks played by Coyote? Or Changing Woman and her son, Monster Slayer?

Seriously, do you think the recording of a story grants plausibility to the tale in and of itself?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.

Jews have always had strong oral traditions ,as still practiced today. By this cultural method long in practice was perfect for news to spread widely and very quickly during Jesus's life time and after his death with later written accounts.

They engaged in Midrash. They invented stories and situations complete with dialogue to teach lessons, just like the gospel stories. Do some research.

 

[DBT]

Correction: The claim = Jesus did perform the miracle acts. The refutation = "Miraculous acts have not been proven to happen despite numerous claims of miracles throughout history."

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty?

Nothing is being thrown around except unfounded claims about miraculous events being real because this is described in the Gospels.

By saying 'prove' I meant 'established'

In other words you have not established a case for the reality of the miraculous events described in the bible.

The reason for this failure has been pointed out numerous times: a lack of corroborating evidence, there are no eyewitness testimonials from various independent sources, just copies of copies of an earlier work based on oral accounts, and probably, based on evidence embellished with each version.

There IS sufficient evidence to "prove" the resurrection and other miracles of Jesus, in a loose sense of "prove" -- like there's sufficient evidence to "prove" much of our accepted history. But MOST of this recorded history can be disputed, especially the part 1000+ years ago. There is EVIDENCE, but not usually "proof" beyond any doubt.

No, there is not. Not in any sense of the word, or if you care to use the world 'established' - the case for the reality of the resurrection and the other miracles has not been established.

 

[DBT]

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty

Exactly !

I want "proof" that Socrates was a real person.

The existence of Socrates is not an extraordinary claim, he was said to be a philosopher and some details of his life are to be found in the works of Plato.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Recorded during the lifetime of. IOW, there are accounts from four people who wrote about Socrates while both they and their subject were alive.

There are no written eyewitness accounts of Jesus, except by anonymous authors and those date from years after he was dead.

Jews have always had strong oral traditions ,as still practiced today. By this cultural method long in practice was perfect for news to spread widely and very quickly during Jesus's life time and after his death with later written accounts.

Jews celebrate Passover. It's a Jewish tradition. They celebrate the Jewish expulsion from Egypt. An event we know is complete bullshit. So much for that theory.

We know how quickly stories are corrupted from written evidence. It's Chinese whispers. The earliest Christian Bibles we have we've managed to identify 300 000 different versions. Every early copy we've managed to find are different in some way or another. And that's the new testament. The Old Testament has had 500 more years to get crazy. And this is the written records. Imagine the oral traditions, and how quickly they get weird.

Nah, your statement is wrong both anecdotally and evidentially. There's just no way that can be true.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Oral traditions are not historically reliable sources.

Jews also having something similar with Muslims, and that is by oral tradition to learn and recite word for word their individual respected holy teachings by the precise accurate recitation; If one word is altered then this will be noticed and called out by a mass number of people who know it word for word.

Both have acknowledged Jesus's existence and the historic reliability of the method is exampled by this oral tradition.

So then explain why all the earliest found Qurans are all different? This idea that formulations can be retained verbatim across the ages is absurd.

I've had similar conversations with Zoroastrians. Their sacred text, the Avesta, was an oral tradition from 2000 BC. The priests repeated it verbatim. Then the language it was said in fell into disuse. In the modern age it was written down and then the language deciphered. So now we can read it. They claim that now we can read the same text as Zoroaster spoke 2000 BC. I'm sorry, but that's absolutely absurd. And the people I spoke to were well educated.

Why these absolutely crazy ideas about how information spreads and is retained? Learner, you really should get a job in a big company or in the government. You'll quickly realise how difficult it is to spread even the most basic concept intact. And that's when we have access to modern technology.

 

[Lion IRC]

But there's evidence in some cases, such as this one.

Insufficient to prove your proposition.

You throw around the word "prove" as if everything from history has been proved as an absolute certainty. Don't you understand that most of our recognized history has NOT been "proved" with certainty

Exactly !

I want "proof" that Socrates was a real person.

The existence of Socrates is not an extraordinary claim....

That's right.
And so claims about his existence were NOT subjected to anywhere near as much scrutiny as the claims about Jesus.

Nobody much cared whether or not Socrates was real. And yet Jesus' historicity (accounts given within the same generation in which Jesus lived) survive intact.
...no thanks to His many POWERFUL enemies who wanted Him expunged from history.