Jesus' Historicity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Polynesian and Micronesian oral traditions have flood/deluge stories.

Not surprising. Seems like everyone has a flood story.

That's because there were a lot of floods and they did a lot of damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all due respect to some wonderful Mormon people I have met, it seems far fetched that outside of Palmyra, NY an angel gave Joseph Smith tablets.

OT: I have a very hard time believing that someone named Jesus did not walk the face the earth and preach. Also have a very hard time believing that everything on earth just came about without any supernatural guidance. Is the one god? Is Jesus the son of God? Nobody can 100% answer that, but some force had to be at work.

Why do you have a hard time accepting that there was no Jesus?

Have you read through the information in this very thread? Lots of explanations already provided.

Also, do you not see the connection = you find Mormonism BS, but you don't see the same parallel to Christianity.

They're all made-up stories, some are older than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all due respect to some wonderful Mormon people I have met, it seems far fetched that outside of Palmyra, NY an angel gave Joseph Smith tablets.

OT: I have a very hard time believing that someone named Jesus did not walk the face the earth and preach. Also have a very hard time believing that everything on earth just came about without any supernatural guidance. Is the one god? Is Jesus the son of God? Nobody can 100% answer that, but some force had to be at work.

Why do you have a hard time accepting that there was no Jesus?

Have you read through the information in this very thread? Lots of explanations already provided.

Also, do you not see the connection = you find Mormonism BS, but you don't see the same parallel to Christianity.

They're all made-up stories, some are older than others.

So billions of people have been bamboozled by a con job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all due respect to some wonderful Mormon people I have met, it seems far fetched that outside of Palmyra, NY an angel gave Joseph Smith tablets.

OT: I have a very hard time believing that someone named Jesus did not walk the face the earth and preach. Also have a very hard time believing that everything on earth just came about without any supernatural guidance. Is the one god? Is Jesus the son of God? Nobody can 100% answer that, but some force had to be at work.

Why do you have a hard time accepting that there was no Jesus?

Have you read through the information in this very thread? Lots of explanations already provided.

Also, do you not see the connection = you find Mormonism BS, but you don't see the same parallel to Christianity.

They're all made-up stories, some are older than others.

So billions of people have been bamboozled by a con job?

Millions of Americans were recently. Not hard to imagine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what you are saying is that you know more than the experts.

Why do you rely so much on those heavily biased "experts"? Are you that desperate for confirmation?

The fact is there is no independent evidence that he existed.

He may have existed - but given the lack of evidence we may never know one way or another.

In the world of professional academia—among both secular and religious historians—this isn't actually a debated topic. The consensus is overwhelming that Jesus was a real person. Even the most skeptical secular scholars agree on the "Historical Jesus." The Big Two: Almost all historians agree on two facts: Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and he was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate.

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Dr. E.P. Sanders (Highly Respected Liberal Scholar)
Sanders is considered one of the giants of 20th-century historical research.

"There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity."

We have almost no "paperwork" for anyone from the 1st century. We have more copies of the New Testament documents than we do for the writings of Plato or Caesar.

While we haven't found "Jesus' house," archaeology has confirmed the existence of nearly every person, location, and political title mentioned in the Gospels (from the Pool of Siloam to the "Pilate Stone" confirming Pilate’s rank).

Really interesting post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what you are saying is that you know more than the experts.

Why do you rely so much on those heavily biased "experts"? Are you that desperate for confirmation?

The fact is there is no independent evidence that he existed.

He may have existed - but given the lack of evidence we may never know one way or another.

In the world of professional academia—among both secular and religious historians—this isn't actually a debated topic. The consensus is overwhelming that Jesus was a real person. Even the most skeptical secular scholars agree on the "Historical Jesus." The Big Two: Almost all historians agree on two facts: Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and he was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate.

Dr. Maurice Casey (Late Secular Scholar of New Testament)

Casey was a well-known non-Christian scholar who specialized in the Aramaic background of the New Testament.

On the "Mythicist" Movement:

"This view [that Jesus didn't exist] is demonstrably false. It is fuelled by a regrettable form of atheist prejudice... Most of its proponents are also extraordinarily incompetent." (From: "Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching")

Dr. E.P. Sanders (Highly Respected Liberal Scholar)
Sanders is considered one of the giants of 20th-century historical research.

"There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity."

We have almost no "paperwork" for anyone from the 1st century. We have more copies of the New Testament documents than we do for the writings of Plato or Caesar.

While we haven't found "Jesus' house," archaeology has confirmed the existence of nearly every person, location, and political title mentioned in the Gospels (from the Pool of Siloam to the "Pilate Stone" confirming Pilate’s rank).

Really interesting post

Whats interesting about it? A lot of it was previously disputed for inaccuracy and misrepresentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all due respect to some wonderful Mormon people I have met, it seems far fetched that outside of Palmyra, NY an angel gave Joseph Smith tablets.

OT: I have a very hard time believing that someone named Jesus did not walk the face the earth and preach. Also have a very hard time believing that everything on earth just came about without any supernatural guidance. Is the one god? Is Jesus the son of God? Nobody can 100% answer that, but some force had to be at work.

Why do you have a hard time accepting that there was no Jesus?

Have you read through the information in this very thread? Lots of explanations already provided.

Also, do you not see the connection = you find Mormonism BS, but you don't see the same parallel to Christianity.

They're all made-up stories, some are older than others.

So billions of people have been bamboozled by a con job?

That's correct. Billions of people like the idea of living forever (I do - but I also know it's not possible scientifically) so they think that if they believe in Jesus, they will. It helps that most of them are led to believe this when they are small children who also believe in fairies and goblins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."

+1

Maurice Casey’s argument represents a defensive attempt to shield the field of New Testament studies from legitimate critical inquiry. Calling the non-existence of Jesus "verifiably false" is a rhetorical overreach that misrepresents the nature of historical inquiry. The evidence for Jesus is entirely post-mortem and literary.

The primary "evidence" for Jesus consists of late, highly mythologized accounts that follow known literary tropes and creative imitation. Casey dismisses related scholarship of peers like Thomas L. Brodie who concluded that the Gospels are literary adaptations of earlier Hebrew scriptures rather than historical reports. By labeling all mythicists as unprofessional, Casey is defining critical scholarship as only that which he accepts, a pre-determined conclusion of Jesus’s existence.

All arguments for a historical Jesus must be evaluated on the evidence provided, such as the silence of Paul on a historical Jesus and the lack of first-century non-Christian references.

There was no historical Jesus. A “celestial” Jesus was invented through Midrash, then later historicized after the fall of the 2nd Temple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."

+1

Maurice Casey’s argument represents a defensive attempt to shield the field of New Testament studies from legitimate critical inquiry. Calling the non-existence of Jesus "verifiably false" is a rhetorical overreach that misrepresents the nature of historical inquiry. The evidence for Jesus is entirely post-mortem and literary.

The primary "evidence" for Jesus consists of late, highly mythologized accounts that follow known literary tropes and creative imitation. Casey dismisses related scholarship of peers like Thomas L. Brodie who concluded that the Gospels are literary adaptations of earlier Hebrew scriptures rather than historical reports. By labeling all mythicists as unprofessional, Casey is defining critical scholarship as only that which he accepts, a pre-determined conclusion of Jesus’s existence.

All arguments for a historical Jesus must be evaluated on the evidence provided, such as the silence of Paul on a historical Jesus and the lack of first-century non-Christian references.

There was no historical Jesus. A “celestial” Jesus was invented through Midrash, then later historicized after the fall of the 2nd Temple.

Casey is also primarily attacking the authority of critical scholarship without addressing their claims. If your only defense is an ad hominem attack, that speaks volumes on the defense of the position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."

+1

Maurice Casey’s argument represents a defensive attempt to shield the field of New Testament studies from legitimate critical inquiry. Calling the non-existence of Jesus "verifiably false" is a rhetorical overreach that misrepresents the nature of historical inquiry. The evidence for Jesus is entirely post-mortem and literary.

The primary "evidence" for Jesus consists of late, highly mythologized accounts that follow known literary tropes and creative imitation. Casey dismisses related scholarship of peers like Thomas L. Brodie who concluded that the Gospels are literary adaptations of earlier Hebrew scriptures rather than historical reports. By labeling all mythicists as unprofessional, Casey is defining critical scholarship as only that which he accepts, a pre-determined conclusion of Jesus’s existence.

All arguments for a historical Jesus must be evaluated on the evidence provided, such as the silence of Paul on a historical Jesus and the lack of first-century non-Christian references.

There was no historical Jesus. A “celestial” Jesus was invented through Midrash, then later historicized after the fall of the 2nd Temple.

There actually might have been a guy named Jesus, who had a lot of followers, but so what? He was not the son of god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all due respect to some wonderful Mormon people I have met, it seems far fetched that outside of Palmyra, NY an angel gave Joseph Smith tablets.

OT: I have a very hard time believing that someone named Jesus did not walk the face the earth and preach. Also have a very hard time believing that everything on earth just came about without any supernatural guidance. Is the one god? Is Jesus the son of God? Nobody can 100% answer that, but some force had to be at work.

Why do you have a hard time accepting that there was no Jesus?

Have you read through the information in this very thread? Lots of explanations already provided.

Also, do you not see the connection = you find Mormonism BS, but you don't see the same parallel to Christianity.

They're all made-up stories, some are older than others.

So billions of people have been bamboozled by a con job?

That's right - and more and more people are changing their minds lately and realizing that scientifically, the supernatural makes no sense at all and living forever, as nice as sounds, doesn't make sense either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In all due respect to some wonderful Mormon people I have met, it seems far fetched that outside of Palmyra, NY an angel gave Joseph Smith tablets.

OT: I have a very hard time believing that someone named Jesus did not walk the face the earth and preach. Also have a very hard time believing that everything on earth just came about without any supernatural guidance. Is the one god? Is Jesus the son of God? Nobody can 100% answer that, but some force had to be at work.

Why do you have a hard time accepting that there was no Jesus?

Have you read through the information in this very thread? Lots of explanations already provided.

Also, do you not see the connection = you find Mormonism BS, but you don't see the same parallel to Christianity.

They're all made-up stories, some are older than others.

So billions of people have been bamboozled by a con job?

That's right - and more and more people are changing their minds lately and realizing that scientifically, the supernatural makes no sense at all and living forever, as nice as sounds, doesn't make sense either.

Also, it's more acceptable now than it was before to not believe in God. Some of the smartest people there are don't believe. They think it's nonsense but they may not say so openly, unless asked. Some will say it openly and these days you have to respect their courage. Yes, unfortunately, it still takes courage to say the obvious. This is it, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."

+1

Maurice Casey’s argument represents a defensive attempt to shield the field of New Testament studies from legitimate critical inquiry. Calling the non-existence of Jesus "verifiably false" is a rhetorical overreach that misrepresents the nature of historical inquiry. The evidence for Jesus is entirely post-mortem and literary.

The primary "evidence" for Jesus consists of late, highly mythologized accounts that follow known literary tropes and creative imitation. Casey dismisses related scholarship of peers like Thomas L. Brodie who concluded that the Gospels are literary adaptations of earlier Hebrew scriptures rather than historical reports. By labeling all mythicists as unprofessional, Casey is defining critical scholarship as only that which he accepts, a pre-determined conclusion of Jesus’s existence.

All arguments for a historical Jesus must be evaluated on the evidence provided, such as the silence of Paul on a historical Jesus and the lack of first-century non-Christian references.

There was no historical Jesus. A “celestial” Jesus was invented through Midrash, then later historicized after the fall of the 2nd Temple.

There actually might have been a guy named Jesus, who had a lot of followers, but so what? He was not the son of god.

FFS. Its a thread disputing "there actually might have been a guy named Jesus." If you're going to add your two cents, at least follow along with the discussion and add something relevant.

The myth did not have a lot of followers at first. The overwhelming majority of the Jewish communuty rejected christian beliefs even though the character was supposed to be a fulfillment of Jewish scripture. It is speculated by many scholars that its followers shrunk to such a small size that it almost died out.